Posts Tagged ‘Lost in Translation’
6 items.
Sep29
The events in today’s strip are 100% true. Cami and I did go to see Lost in Translation on Friday night and the picture was out of frame for nearly 3/4ths of the movie.
Why didn’t I go into the lobby and try to find an employee to fix it? The answer to that question, dear reader, will be revealed on Wednesday. In fact, the rest of the week will be devoted to this grand annoyance.
Maybe it’s a little cheap to take a real life event and stretch it across a full week of content – but frankly, I find this kind of lackluster presentation disgusting. Since I have a forum unto which I can air my grievances, I plan on doing just that.
I apologize if all the strips aren’t “piss-your-pants” funny. But perhaps you can appreciate them on a observational level.
It just that indie theaters are supposed to be the last refuge from this kind of laziness. Art houses are supposed to cater to the kind of people who actually CARE about movies – about content, presentation and quality! Now we’re getting the shaft in our last safe haven? Where else can we turn?
What I managed to watch of Lost in Translation, I immediately liked. I knew half way through that I would probably see the film again (if it ever comes to another theater) and would instantly own it on DVD once it becomes available.
Bill Murray’s performance was heartbreaking. I won’t give away any particular scenes, but in several of them, he does such great emoting with his eyes and his expressions, you know exactly how his character is feeling. If people cried foul when the Academy didn’t nominate him from Rushmore, they’ll riot in the streets if he doesn’t get a nod from Translation.
The movie does a great job of interpreting the experience of travel in a different country – how it can be both exhilarating and terrifying.
Tokyo was a city I’ve wanted to go to all my life. While I was watching the movie, I didn’t want to go there anymore. Through the characters eyes, it’s a very scary place. Very busy. Very loud.
But as things progressed, I grew comfortable in the surroundings just like the characters. Now I want to go there more than ever.
I’m going to cut the blog short for now because there are still things I want to talk about for Wednesday and Friday. Plus, I’m working on a great poster for FallCon in Minnesota this Saturday and Sunday. Did I mention I was going to that? I am.
[ No Comments ]
Today’s comic is the continuation of Monday’s comic – my retelling of one of THE WORST theater experiences I’ve ever had, trying to watch the sublime Bill Murray in Lost in Translation.
Granted, my anger has subsided somewhat since the event that took place last week. But it bears retelling.
Ever since last Friday, I was trying to figure out where all the employees went during the movie? Were they all out back smoking cigarettes like some kind of 50’s “no good kids” cliche?
** THE REST OF THIS POST WAS LOST WHEN THEATER HOPPER MOVED TO WORDPRESS IN 2009 **
[ No Comments ]
Oct03
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.
[ 3 Comments ]
Kind of funny that I’m taking pot-shots at Mel Gibson for The Passion of The Christ, then turn around and pen a comic where my character is attempting futile correspondence with God, eh?
Looks like ol’ Melly-Mel is going to make back that $30 million of his own money he sunk into The Passion. It did something like $26 million in it’s first day of release. Some people have said that tackling this heady material (in conjunction with the increasing bizarre interviews he’s been giving) are enough to bury Mel’s movie career. That’s a load of bull. Hollywood will forgive any amount of weird behavior as long as they’re taking your cash at the box office. Mel will be fine.
I don’t think Cami and I are going to get around to seeing The Passion this weekend. It looks like we’re about to undertake some massive home-improvement projects. We’re going to paint a couple rooms two different colors and install laminate wood flooring into one of them. I must have a hole in my head because we went through this exact same routine about this time last year and Cami and I nearly murdered each other.
Let’s get one thing straight. I am NOT Bob Vila.
The Oscar ceremony is this Sunday and I’m actually looking forward to it this year! I’ve said it before, but I think the nominations were sublime. Positive buzz has been surrounding Bill Murray. for Best Actor since Sean Penn. has been hinting he won’t make an appearance. If Bill won, it would be a victory for Midwestern smart-asses everywhere. Go, Bill, Go!
Other than that, not much to report. I guess if you’re interested you can check out a couple of t-shirt designs I submitted over at Threadless.com. It’s a cool little art/commerce community. You can view my designs here and here.
Take it easy!
[ No Comments ]
Since we’re giving a nod to Garfield today, I thought it would be fun to illustrate what it might look like if a bipedal, walking cat existed in the real word for today’s incentive sketch. Click away to uncover the result.
I’m taking the piss out of Bill Murray a little for collecting a fat paycheck for his voice over work on the forthcoming Garfield movie that comes out Friday. I guess I just find it interesting when critically hailed performers take their momentum and throw the emergency break by following up with a commercial picture.
Halle Berry did it with Die Another Day and the “so-much-negative-buzz-it’s-radioactive” Catwoman after being the first black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar. Bill is doing it with Garfield post Lost in Translation. I can only assume these decision are made while in some kind of drunken stupor.
Ironically, Murray will probably be the only performer to emerge from the bloodbath that will be Garfield at the box office because he is the only “name” actor that doesn’t appear on screen.
To put it another way, say a little prayer for Breckin Meyer and Jennifer Love Hewitt.
To make a Garfield movie this late in the game is ludicrous to me. They should have made this flick 10 years ago when everyone was lugging around those suction cup Garfield dolls in the back of their Toyota Camary’s.
Why the delay? And I swear if anyone tells me it was so they could wait for the technology to catch up with their vision I will murder Jim Davis with mind-bullets.
You can tell no thought went into this movie. Why on Earth would you choose to animate Garfield with computer generate effects, but cast his canine foil Odie with a live action dog? This movie has already broken the rules established for its universe and already I’m angry about it.
Nevertheless, Cami insists we’ll be seeing the film this Friday when it opens. Every time one of those awkwardly paced commercials comes on TV, she blurts out “We’re TOTALLY seeing that!”
I think she’s just saying that to poke fun at me a little. She’s already been on the receiving end of this rant a couple of times…
Quick bit of site news: If you could be so kind to check out our newest sponsor Please Rewind, I would be forever grateful. This is a splendidly written and drawn web comic about a couple of guys who own a video store, so you know already it’s going to be up your alley. Man, if I had a dollar for every time I ran into a character like Hank Burns I’d be a rich man…
That’s it for now. Sign up for the THorum if you haven’t already. We’ve been seeing a lot of activity in there lately. Get in on the ground floor!
Have a great Wednesday!
[ No Comments ]
Oct21
THE WAY TO A MAN’S HEART IS THROUGH HIS TRIVIA
October 21st, 2005 |
(7 votes, average: 6.71 out of 10)
I wanted to do something kind of romantic for today’s incentive sketch. It seemed like this would have been the natural conclusion of today’s strip if it were five panels instead of four…
The punchline for today’s comic was originally going to be something different. Something to the effect that Cami suggests Tom read more books and Tom storming off in a huff.
But after drawing the third panel and the pure look of glee on Tom’s face… I decided to go another way with it. I’m happy with the result. As fun as it is to wring humor out of the foibles of marriage, I also like to promote the fact that Tom and Cami have a very well adjusted relationship.
That goes for INSIDE the comic and OUTSIDE as well!
So, Shopgirl comes out today and it kind of snuck up on me. Back when I read Steve Martin’s original novella back in 2001 or 2002 (got it as a Christmas stocking gift, if I remember correctly) I thought about how great this would be if it were a movie. Martin writes in a very economical style. Things are very precisely described and there is never much superfluous conversation between the characters. It was ready-made for a port to the big screen. Four years later, here it is.
For those that haven’t read the book, it’s essentially about an older man (Martin) with great wealth and fine taste forging a relationship with a very disillusioned (and heavily medicated) young woman (Claire Danes) who sells gloves at Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills. In many ways, both people are looking to have aspects of their lives fulfilled by the other person. It’s kind of a right place, right time scenario. But as things evolve, the two uncover that they are not the perfect fit they built each other up to be in their heads.
On plot alone, Shopgirl is going to get a lot of comparisons to Lost in Translation. The situation likely amplified by Martin and Bill Murray’s Saturday Night Live connection. Still, I have high hopes that the movie will do a good job communicating Martin’s trademark dry wit sprinkled with a dash of melancholy. No one captures the prefabricated detachment born of the utter irreality of Los Angeles better than Martin.
With hope, Cami and I will see Shopgirl sometime this weekend. We both loved the book – one of the few we actually agree on!
Wait, that’s not right. It’s not so much that we don’t agree on literature as we don’t read the same kind of literature. Shopgirl was one of those rare books that had crossover appeal in our household. Ironically, Martin’s follow-up "The Pleasure of my Company" also earned a similar distinction.
Needless to say, we’re fans. Our radar is up for this one.
I’ll be back later with a familiar reminder. Or, you could cut right to the chase and order a t-shirt, hoodie or baby-doll tee before I close off that section of the store October 31. Your choice.
[ No Comments ]
