And so concludes the retelling of the hellish experience I had watching Lost in Translation at the Varsity Theater.

Was it worth sacrificing a week's worth of zippy one-liners and taking pot-shots at The Rock in The Rundown? Maybe. I got to flex a few different narrative muscles than before. I felt this was a story better told than read. I was curious to see if I could trump that notion.

If anything, it spurred from great debate. I received on e-mail suggesting that the inclusion of all the bomb mics was intentional - as if to enhance the surreal environment the two leads found themselves in while wandering around Tokyo.

It's a fascinating thought, but one I reject. Lost in Translation is too quiet and intimate a movie to have the director constantly winking at us, saying, "See? See? It's not told."

Also, the cinematography by Lance Acord is too beautiful to wreck with poor composition.

The answer to my situation, I believe came from Abraham Brezo when he wrote:

"My guess about the boom mics is, that the film was shot open matte, and the projectionist forgot to matte the film. Leaving the film at an open matte will give it a smaller aspect ratio, thus including

everything that was supposed to be hidden behind the matte. This type of filmmaking is supposed to be more cost efficient."

Judging by what I saw and comparing my experience against others who had gone to see the film, I'd say this was right on the head. It helps to aid my righteous indignation. Thanks, Abraham!

I'm doing a final flight-check for all things FallCon related at the moment. I'm leaving straight from my job this afternoon and I want to make sure I'm not forgetting anything. It'd be quite a shame to drive all that way to Minnesota to forget the posters I'm trying to sell.

...or my contact lens solution.