Yet another in a sadly elitist train of "If-you-don't-like-this-it's-because-you're-inferior" bit of intellectual masterbation.

The degree of ego-stroking in this thread is truly jaw-dropping.

Now we wait for the self-proclaimed "intellectually superior" elite to tell us that Orson Scott Card lacks the intelligence and creativity to appreciate Lost in Translation.

That ought to be amusing.

For what it's worth, I didn't grow up in the states. From the perspective of someone who grew up overseas, I didn't find it racist in any sense.

I watched the movie with my mom, and she didn't find it "racist" either.

Actually it's not - here let me make it easier for you and add "but if you didn't like this movie that's ok too" - my comments were mainly directed at people who just bash the hell out of it for no reason.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Roger Ebert's latest "Movie Answer Man" column where he answers a writer with the very same question as this thread, mainly... "Why did critics heap such praise on this film when it is obvious to everyone who watches the DVD that it is a sophomoric piece of racist claptrap?" and Ebert defended it with the following lame excuse: "Well, uh, maybe it looks better on the big screen since Murray is emoting with his wrinkles and the girl is not emoting at all, it come off better on a giant wall of light and colour where all that emotion is visible than on a tiny screen..." You have to read it to believe it.

It's heartfelt opinion pieces like that that make me call Ebert the big CACA - short for "Chicago authority on cinematic art".

baracine: Ebert wrote no such thing. If you're going to bash someone, at least quote them correctly.

Judge for yourself:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-...y-ebert04.html

Have you read that yourself? Ebert didn't say anything close to what you said he did. A reader suggested it could be a big screen/small screen issue, and his response was: "I wonder if that's it. The movie drew me in and enveloped me, and the big screen had something to do with that. . . . We must have seen a different movie -- and maybe we did, since we saw it on the big screen. Theater audiences generally liked the movie; video audiences hate it. Strange."

That is nowhere near what you paraphrased as a direct quotation.

I thought the movie was a pretty decent character study. Maybe a little overrated IMO, as it didn't quite live up to my expectations after all the hype.

I didn't find it racist at all, though I'm not the most PC sensitive person in the world.

I haven't read through all of this thread, but can someone please explain how it was racist? It was a movie about people out of place in a confusing culture. I don't think the film was unfairly mean to Japan or the japanese. It seems indisputable that there are elements of japanese culture that are inexplicable to most americans. That's what this movie was about.

Although I can surely understand why some people--smart, artsy, intelligent people--didn't like the film (but I loved it).

It's either a paraphrase or a direct quotation. It can't be both. I paraphrased, obviously.

I did, and the racism issue wasn't raised at all. Ever. Yet your post would indicate racism was the entire point of the reader's question.

I used to think I would give your opinions more merit in instances where you've actually bothered to see the film in question, but now I'm not so sure.

You've obviously got an agenda and you're not going to let facts get in your way.

I know the difference between paraphrasing and directly quoting. I made my comment that way because you obviously were not directly quoting yet you put it in quotations, indicating a direct quote (hence, what I meant when I said "paraphrased as a direct quotation").

And, really, you didn't come close to paraphrasing at all. A paraphrase is "A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning." (that, BTW, is a direct quotation, not a paraphrase, from dictionary.com)

I'd venture to say that you embellished and fabricated, not paraphrased. A cursory look at the direct quote (which I posted previously) shows that you were nowhere close and were attributing things to Ebert that he didn't even remotely say or imply.

Oh, pish-posh! I was wrong in assuming the writer found it racist because the racist elements of this film are so evident to me I assume every critic worth his salt (except Ebert, obviously) can't fail to see them. So sue me.

The main point here is that Ebert is stating that if you blow up a dull, juvenile, self-indulgent student film on a big enough screen, it magically becomes a good movie. And that is not only counterintuitive, it's a downright dangerous opinion to hold.

Because the film focuses on two caucasians who are visiting Japan it's racist?

The film could have taken place *anywhere* - but the extreme foreignness (to Americans) of Japanese culture was a perfect setting for the film.

Have you ever travelled to a place where you didn't speak the language, and the customs and behaviour of the average citizen were different than those of your neighbours back home?

A film can't be racist - a filmmaker can be, or a film viewer, but the film itself is just images and sound at 24 frames per second.

The characters never say anything to denigrate the Japanese - so it sounds like it is YOU who are racist. You see a few Japanese people in the film doing certain things.

Because you think that those things are negative, you assign your racism to the screen. Films are artifacts - they can't be racist, generous, happy, or sad.

The main point here is that you ascribe racism because you see those Japanese people as being somehow sub-par.

He said nothing of the sort. He gave the film four stars - that's hardly calling it a bad movie.

My sinister agenda, as you know, is to systematically downgrade American movies that promote or glorify xenophobia, hatred, racism, sexism, homophobia, sadistic violence and the criminal lifestyle. I've been actively doing this ever since Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather made this kind of entertainment acceptable for the mainstream public some 30 years ago.

As you can appreciate, eliminating all movies about guns, cars and violence doesn't leave me much to like. But once you take out the few remaining comedies - which are mostly about the spillage of teenage body fluids - there are still a few precious morally worthwhile films out there. I just don't thing LIT is one of them.

I'm happy to say no. When I travel anywhere I either learn the language and customs or make allowances for the fact that I shouldn't expect the locals to conform to my particular take on the world.

This movie isn't even remotely racist. The worst character in the whole movie is the dumb blonde AMERICAN actress. They make more fun of Giovanni Ribisi for being interested in her than they do of any Japanese people.

The movie shows a pretty accurate depiction of Tokyo nightlife for a handful of people that it follows. I hardly see how that is racist.

But for a point of reference, perhaps baracine can enlighten us as to what he considers a morally worthwhile film.

Or maybe he just has a vendetta against the Coppola family because they made the Godfather.

A good friend of mine hated this movie as well. I remember her saying, "nothing happened between the guy and the girl." IMO, that is why this movie is so good...because nothing (as what one might expect) happened between the two in that way.

Well, it pretty much eliminates anything by Mel Gibson, Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone and - you guessed it - the Coppola family.

Hey, baracine are you still dismissing this film without having seen it? If you are than that is just disgusting ignorance. If you have, and still keep your opinion, than so be it.

And beefjerky, of course the characters are arrogant. They both have privaliged lives. Bob is a rich actor, and Charlotte is a wife of a famous photographer. I have a feeling that they act this way even in America. There is nothing in this film that would suggest they are doing this purely because they think that are better than Japanese people.

I don't even understand how people can see any racism in this film without having some sort of agenda. If you are looking for racism you will find it. Racism is, in part, ingrained in society. It's something that is apart of everyones life. However, I think some people take it too far, and in turn become racist out of trying not to be racist, which is worse than just regular racism if you ask me.

What this comes down to, is that Bob and Charlotte are in a strange society (to them), and being who they are, they don't like it. Neither of them wants to be there, and so they search for people like themselves. They find eachother. This is their story, not the story of foreigners being rude to the hosts, and how we should not be disricriminatory of people different than us. Also, keep in mind this is fiction. To get Bob and Charlotte's story across in 2 hours, things have to be exageratted. We do not get as much time with these two as they get with eachother, the situation has to be condensed and still show the development of, and the feelings that these two have for eachother. Stereotypes will happen, as they happen in any story. Stories are meant to entertain (and sometimes educate) in the end.

With that said, any may have criticism with this move based on how well it entertained them, and how well they thought it was made. I think this talk of racism is getting silly and out of hand, can we go back to criticizing this film for what can be seen by everyone, and not for the possible subtext it may or may not have?

I don't think they dislike Japan as much as they feel isolated and lonely because they don't feel that they fit in there - and that isolation causes them to realise that they don't really fit in at home, either. They're isolated regardless of their location.

Bob's marriage is comfortable but not exciting. Charlotte's a secondary character in her husband's life. He's more interested in the hot starlets who treat him like he's someone important than he is in his boring wife.

And baracine - shame on you. You're commenting vehemently on a film you haven't even SEEN?

Yes you are very clear about what is NOT morally worthwhile in your opinion.

All I am looking for is 1 or 2 examples of something that is worthwhile.

Why are you unwilling to mention anything? Is it fear of being ridiculed?

Do you suffer from low self esteem?

I didn't perceive any racism in the movie, myself. I think that situations were exaggerated (stereotyped) to highlight how isolated they were from their normal surroundings.

In regards to them not trying to speaking the language it is important to understand that they are both in town for a short period of time and both have access to english speaking residents; his translator and her friends. To my english and spanish speaking ears, the Japanese language seems particularly daunting, which may be the reason they didn't appear to make much of an attempt.

What about movies from countries other than America that do the same? Are those OK?

Two points here:

One, you obviously missed the entire point of "The Godfather."

Two, here's a newsflash: Violent films (and theater and literature), even gangster movies, have been a significant part of popular culture forever. It didn't start with America, and it didn't start with "The Godfather."

Hatred, sexism, racism, homophobia, violence and crime have been around as long as there have been human beings walking the Earth. Only a fool would think that it's popular American culture that has brought these plagues down upon us.

It's good to have popular art that deals with these subjects head-on. It's in the very least cathartic. And the best artists, such as the Coppolas, go deeper than that.