Table Of Content

AMERICAN INDIES Series Editors: Gary Needham and Yannis Tzioumakis AMERICAN INDIES This series of books discusses contemporary American films that have found L commercial success but which have not been constrained by the formal and O ideological parameters of mainstream Hollywood cinema. Each volume S explores a specific film and combines original research with clearly defined T classroom-orientated frameworks of film analysis. I LOST IN TRANSLATION N GEOFF KING T R Elusive, subtle and atmospheric, Lost in Translation was one of the indie A hits of 2004, earning widespread critical praise, awards and success at the N box office. But what was the basis of its appeal and how exactly is the film S marked as a distinctly independent work? L This book, by a leading authority on contemporary American indie A cinema, provides an in-depth analysis of the balance of more and less T mainstream qualities offered by the film at all levels, from industrial I O factors such as funding, marketing and release strategy to formal qualities such as its low-key narrative structure and the impressionistic N use of imagery and music. Other issues examined in detail include the role of stardom, particularly the role of Bill Murray, the distinctive ‘auteur’ contribution made by writer-director Sofia Coppola and the film’s ambiguous relationship with the romantic comedy genre. Textual and industrial analysis is also supplemented by consideration of online responses to the film that offer insights into the various ways in which it was either appreciated or rejected by viewers. G Key Features E O • The first book on this film F F • A major contribution to our understanding of the contemporary K American indie film landscape I N • Written by a leading authority on American indie film G Geoff King is Professor of Film and TV Studies at Brunel University. LOST IN TRANSLATION isbn: 978 0 7486 3746 1 Edinburgh University Press E 22 George Square, Edinburgh eh8 9lf d in GEOFF KING www.euppublishing.com b u r g Cover: Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray, Lost in Translation. 2003. Directed by Sofia Coppola. © h Focus Features/The Kobal Collection Lost in Translation MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd ii 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 American Indies Series Editors: Gary Needham and Yannis Tzioumakis Titles in the series include: Lost in Translation Geoff King 978 0 7486 3745 4 (hbk) 978 0 7486 3746 1 (pbk) The Spanish Prisoner Yannis Tzioumakis 978 0 7486 3368 5 (hbk) 978 0 7486 3369 2 (pbk) Brokeback Mountain Gary Needham 978 0 7486 3382 1 (hbk) 978 0 7486 3383 8 (pbk) Forthcoming titles include: Far From Heaven Glyn Davis 978 0 7486 3778 2 (hbk) 978 0 7486 3779 9 (pbk) Memento Claire Molloy 978 0 7486 3771 3 (hbk) 978 0 7486 3772 0 (pbk) MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd iiii 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 Lost in Translation Geoff King Edinburgh University Press MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd iiiiii 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 © Geoff King, 2010 All fi gures © 2003 Universal Studios Edinburgh University Press Ltd 22 George Square, Edinburgh www.euppublishing.com Typeset in 11/13pt Monotype Baskerville by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 3745 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 3746 1 (paperback) The right of Geoff King to be identifi ed as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd iivv 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 Contents Series Preface vi Introduction 1 1 Industrial Contexts: From Indie to Indiewood 6 2 Frameworks: Stardom, Authorship, Genre 31 3 Form: Narrative, Visual Style, Music 76 4 Themes: Alienation, Disconnection and Representation 126 Afterword 140 Notes 141 Bibliography 150 Index 156 MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd vv 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 Series Preface In recent years American independent cinema has not only become the focus of signifi cant scholarly attention but as a category of fi lm it has shifted from a marginal to a central position within American cinema – a shift that can be also detected in the emergence of the label ‘indie’ cinema as opposed to independent cinema. The popularisation of this ‘indie’ brand of fi lmmaking began in the 1990s with the commercial success of the Sundance Film Festival and of specialty distributor Miramax Films, as well as the introduction of DVD, which made independent fi lms more readily available as well as profi table for the fi rst time. At the same time, fi lm studies started developing courses that distinguished American independent cinema from mainstream Hollywood, treating it as a separate object of study and a distinct discursive category. Despite the surge in interest in independent cinema, a surge that involved the publication of at least twenty books and edited collections alongside a much larger number of articles on various aspects of independent cinema, especially about the post-1 980 era, the fi eld – as it has developed – still remains greatly under- researched in relation to the changes of the past twenty years that defi ne the shift from independent to ‘indie’ cinema. This is partly because a multifaceted phenomenon such as American independent cinema, the history of which is as long and complex as the history of mainstream Hollywood, has yet to be adequately and satisfactorily documented. In this respect, academic fi lm criticism is still in great need to account for the plethora of shapes, forms and guises that American independent cinema has manifested itself in. This is certainly not an easy task given that independent fi lm has, indeed, taken a wide variety of forms at different historical trajectories and has been infl uenced by a hugely diverse range of factors. It is with this problem in mind that ‘American Indies’ was conceived by its editors. While the history of American independent cinema is still MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd vvii 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 Series Preface vii being written with more studies already set to be published in the forthcoming years, and while journal articles are enhancing our understanding of more focused aspects of independent fi lmmaking, the ‘American Indies’ series has been created to provide the necessary space to explore and engage with specifi c examples of American ‘indie’ fi lms in a great depth. Through this format, ‘American Indies’ aims to encourage an examination of both the ‘indie’ text and its contexts, of understanding how ‘indie’ fi lms operate within a particular fi lmmaking practice but also how ‘indies’ have been shaping a new formation of American cinema. In this respect, ‘American Indies’ provides the space for a detailed examination of industrial, economic and institutional concerns alongside the more usual formal and aesthetic considerations that have historically charac- terised critical approaches of independent fi lms. ‘American Indies’ is a series of comprehensive studies of carefully selected examples of recent fi lms that reveal in great detail the many sides of the phenomenon of the recently emerged American ‘indie’ cinema. As the fi rst book series to explore and defi ne this aspect of American cinema, ‘American Indies’ has had the extremely diffi cult task of pro- ducing a comprehensive set of criteria that informs its selection of titles. Given the vastness of the fi eld, we have made several editorial decisions in order to produce a coherent defi nition of this new phase of American independent cinema. The fi rst such choice was to concentrate on recent examples of independent cinema. Although the word ‘recent’ has often been used to include fi lms made in the post-1 980 period, as editors we decided that the cut off point for fi lms to be included in this series would be the year 1996. This was an extremely signifi cant year in the independent fi lm sector, ‘the year of the independents’ as was triumphantly proclaimed by the Los Angeles Business Journal in February 1997, for a number of reasons. Arguably, the most signifi cant of these reasons was the dynamic entrance in the fi lm market of Fox Searchlight, a new type of a specialty fi lm division created by 20th Century Fox in 1995 with the explicit intention of claiming a piece of the increasingly large independent fi lm market pie. Fox Searchlight would achieve this objective through the production and distribution of fi lms that followed many of the conventions of independent fi lm as those were established after the success of sex, lies and videotape in 1989. These conventions had since then started being popularised by a number of fi lms produced and distributed by Miramax Films, an independent company that was taken over by Disney after the phenomenal box-o ffi ce success of several of its fi lms at MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd vviiii 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0088 viii Series Preface approximately the same time as 20th Century Fox was establishing its specialty division. The now direct involvement of entertainment conglomerates like Disney and Fox in the independent fi lm sector had far- reaching effects. Arguably, the most important of these was that the label ‘independent’, which for critics and the cinema going public (wrongly) signifi ed economic independence from major fi lm companies like Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal, etc., obviously ceased to convey this meaning. Instead, critics and public alike started using increasingly the label ‘indie’ which suggested a particular type of fi lm that adhered to a set of conventions as well as a transformed independent cinema sector that was now driven by specialty companies, most of which subsidiaries of major entertainment conglomerates. It is this form of ‘independent’ cinema that has produced some of the most interesting fi lms to come out from American cinema in recent years that ‘American Indies’ has set out to explore in great depth and which explains our selection of the label ‘indies’ instead of ‘independents’. We hope readers will enjoy the series Gary Needham and Yannis Tzioumakis American Indies Series Editors MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG PPRREELLIIMMSS..iinndddd vviiiiii 22//22//1100 0099::2222::0099 Introduction Lost in Translation opens with a fade-u p from black to a medium close-u p shot of Scarlet Johansson’s rear, clad in transparent pastel pink under- wear, as her character lies down on her side. The image, framing her fi gure from lower back to just below the knee, is held for a lengthy thirty- four seconds and largely abstracted from the narrative at the time; still at fi rst, then moving slightly as the legs adjust position. Company credits fade in and out above the upper edge of the fi gure, followed by music and the appearance of the main title across the lower half of her body, before the image fades again to black and the fi lm proper seems to begin. The opening sets the tone of the piece, particularly in its languorous and softly glowing qualities, but also grated for some viewers, the overt nature of its display of the female body seeming out of keeping with the more general tenor of the fi lm, even if the character does remain scantily clad in a number of scenes that follow. The location of the image, detached and at the privileged opening moment, gives it what appears to be an emblematic quality; but emblematic of what, exactly? The impression is marked as one that seems designed to be ‘seductive’, in a manner that mixes more and less subtle qualities (more so in the image texture and the leisurely way in which it is presented; less in the close- to- nude status of the lower regions of a body that seems all the more objectifi ed in being removed from its head or its location at this stage in relation to an identifi able character). If the opening is emblematic of anything, it might be of the status of Lost in Translation more generally, in its particular location in the wider cinematic spectrum. It offers, on the one hand, an ‘obvious’ point of appeal, in its potentially erotic dimension and the proximity of the bodily spectacle to the camera, although this is combined with what might be considered to be more ‘subtle’ aesthetic qualities and an ‘artistic’ point of reference (I am putting such terms within quotation marks to suggest that these are marked positionings or MM22008811 -- KKIINNGG TTEEXXTT..iinndddd 11 22//22//1100 0099::2222::3311