Lost In Translation

The first time I watched Lost In Translation I didn’t like it. I thought it was pretty boring, did not have much of a plot, and I hated the ending. I think my movie tastes have matured a bit because this time I really enjoyed it. There was a lot of subtle humor, which I liked, and I was fully equipped with theories of non-places to apply to the movie!

One thing that I found interesting that I don’t think we really touched on in discussion was the whole issue of identity in a non-place. Auge claimed that people using non-places do not really have an identity, especially if they are traveling alone. For Bob, since he was a celebrity, everyone seemed to recognize him and his Japanese entourage was always doting on him, giving him gifts, and making sure he felt at home. Despite the fact that they were in a hotel, Bob already had an identity there, and once he and Charlotte established a meaningful relationship, the hotel became even more of a place than his actual home.

I also thought it was interesting that Tokyo didn’t become a place for Charlotte until she became friends with Bob. Although she was living there for a certain amount of time with her husband, she still felt alone and didn’t have an identity. I think that she attempted to make it a place at first by going to the Buddhist (I think?) place and making the flower centerpieces, but, as she said on the phone, she felt nothing. Once she became friends with Bob, she revisited the Buddhist place and she appeared to find the meaning she was originally looking for.

After watching the movie, I think that above all others, relationships are the defining part of a place. Bob and Charlotte were both lacking meaningful relationships in their lives, and once they formed one, Tokyo became a place to them. Relationships are what give people identity and history in a certain space.