How is this movie compared to Lost In Translation? - Hiroshima mon amour (1960) Discussion

[–] cinephile_12 19 years ago

I love Lost in Translation, I really do. But Hiroshima Mon Amour is quite incomparable to any recent cinema and Lost in Translation seems bland next to this movie, maybe overly-so...

they are very different films, especially with the methods of direction

...just my opinion, but it might not match any other's

AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mofo in the room, accept no substitutes.

reply

[–] Simpspeare26 19 years ago

The question is ridiculous.

reply

[–] tasuketeasuka 19 years ago

The queston isn't ridiculous, you're a fool.

I personally didn't like this movie. There I said it, let the film critic gods crucify me. It wasnt honest. People never talk like they do in this movie. It was like one and a half hours of psycho-analysis. I am sure I will watch it again, maybe then I will like it more, that isnt uncommon, but for now anyway...

Getting back to your questions, as a Lost in Translation fan there is something the two movies share in common. Both of them deal with a rather chance meeting of two strangers, who are haunted by a similar problem, in this case their past. Both characters in the movie have lost their loved ones in world war II, and the movie deals with how this continues to affect the way, and even force them, to lead their lives. Through their similarities they find comfort in eachother. For this reason, it is like Lost in Translation, but the themes, characters, and tones are much different.

reply

[–] Kayqee 19 years ago

Thank you!
There is finally an REAL answer to my question.

I will miss you.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cinephile_12 19 years ago

First of all, the question IS ridiculous... second, your take on the film makes it seem like you didn't even watch the same movie, or didn't understand it: The Japanese man never stated or even hinted he had lost someone in the war, and the film doesn't even want to get into his character, really. It is purily about the French woman and what she represents (and perhaps the city itself, but that's another argument), the film as a whole is practically presented in way where the French woman is talking through the Japanese man to get to her lost lover and yet, she could be an exemplification of love's forgetfulness as she is doing this. It is set in Hiroshima because the world is forgetting (or forgotten) what the city represents.

Lost in Translation is about a friendship. The two people placed in a world not to their liking. I may have seen this movie maybe more than ten times, as I own it, and still don't recall the main characters having a large issue with their past, but having a problem with the present, neither do I recall a majot motif or theme of love (beside the love from a frienship) between the two main characters, and I'm pretty sure I don't recall the style of the two films being similar in any respect...

As I see it, there isn't much comparison between Lost in Translation and Hiroshima Mon Amour except for the fact that both of the movies are primarily concerned with two individuals and those two people are in Japan. You might as well compare the sky with the oceans because you can see them both in Japan...

phuckabees!

reply

[–] danielle_b3 18 years ago

"The Japanese man never stated or even hinted he had lost someone in the war,"

I quoted you because I beg to differ on your (above) statement. While the couple are in bed, the woman asks a really stupid question: "were you here?" (meaning in Hiroshima when the A-bomb was dropped). It was a stupid question because of course he wasn't there. Didn't we just see actual footage of the implications of what happened? However, he did say his family had been there, while he was away fighting a war. Therefore, your statement is innacurate, in that he did lose someone (his family) at Hiroshima.

I have only seen the first 20 minutes of this film, and will see the film in it's entirety in a couple of days. From what I saw, I loved it. Looking forward to the rest. It looked amazingly beautiful.

reply

[–] anonymous124 18 years ago

In the scene where the french woman confesses in the resteraunt the Japanese man seems to understand everything she says and even fill in the blanks for her. With this it is subtly and cleverly implied he had been through a similar experience.

There's cyanide in the bathroom.

reply

[–] richard-III 18 years ago

"People never talk like they do in this movie."

Why should they? It's a dream-movie, at least that's the way I see it. It's not a documentary or a docudrama.
Not all movies should be realistic or naturalistic.

"The Beamer Xperience: 9 feet wide home cinema bliss."

reply

[–] Phil_man1010 16 years ago

The difference is that this is a timeless masterpiece and LIT is a piece of pseudo-arthouse rubbish for bored housewives and emo teens.

reply

[–] dhoyer 19 years ago

I am sorry, I really don't mean to insult you, but:
compared to Hiroshima mon Amour Lost in Translation is a very superficial piece of film. Sophie Coppola is a very mediocre director. The film is shallow and made for some pop culture audiences. Hiroshima mon Amour is a masterpiece that demands a real confrontation. And not a simple consommation.

reply

[–] imfunky3 18 years ago

Lost in Translation is a nice film but, as almost everybody already said, doesn't compare to Hiroshima - neither in tone, depth, or overall goodness.

A better comparison would be between "Hiroshima..." and Wong Kar Wai's films "In the Mood for Love" and "2046." Both have jazzy, highly visual styles, deal with characters stuck in their pasts, deal with married characters who connect with people outside of their marriages, use time and place to compliment the story and the psychology of the characters, etc. These films also don't worry about traditional narrative structure, or attempting to accurately portray reality and focus more on presenting the world as their characters see and feel it. "Lost in Translation" is rather traditional and more or less presents the same outsider/stranger-in-a-strange-land idea that's been done many times before (though not always as well).

reply

[–] fireballems 18 years ago

i think the only film that really is like this one is Before Sunrise

reply

[–] sklore 18 years ago

i too agree that the two films should not be compared in any great length. yes there are some similarities, but they aren't anything (i feel) as being significant to either film. each film has it's own feel with all the characters having different obstacles to overcome. plus the time periods and the intended audiences are extremely different. i personally found lost in translation to be an ignorant and bias view of japanese culture which often times (in my opinion) just poked fun. however, i loved the french film sans soleil and think that it would be liked by fans of both lost in translation and hiroshima mon amour. it has a wonderful view of japanese culture that encompasses the emotion within hiroshima mon amour as well as the detail and cultural aspects of lost in translation.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yellowmagicorchestra 18 years ago

Hiroshima Mon Amour is directed by the underrated French filmmaker.

Lost in Ejacuation is directed by the overrated Italian American filmmaker who doesn't know sh#t about the filmmaking according to some Japanese crew.

reply

[–] kefu 18 years ago

Even if you hate Lost in Translation, nobody could but fail to see how heavily influential Hiroshima, Mon Amour was on Sofia Coppola.
Aside from the fact of two married strangers meeting in Japan for a brief liaison (hardly a regular occurence in Western films) - there is also an incredibly similar scene where the two main characters whisper to each other and the viewer is left to guess the content/context.
Also, the sequences where Emmanuelle Riva wanders the neon-lit streets of Hiroshima are just like some scenes in Lost in Translation where Bill Murray is walking around.
In short, the question is anything but ridiculous but the best answer would be to watch Hiroshima, Mon Amour and make up your own mind.

reply

[–] hoofo87 18 years ago

Hiroshima Mon Amour is a self-indulgent piece of crap with nothing to "get." But I can see how the pretentious masses on here feel that this film is deep and powerful and that it speaks to them. And I can also see that they're full of it

reply

[–] letsbelopez 18 years ago

Auteur directors such as Renais, Truffaut, Godard (and several Italian directors: Antonioni, Fellini, etc.), changed the face of cinema dramatically. European films had incredible limitations (sets, money, etc.), but taking the cameras out into REAL streets (not studios) and moving the camera (precursor to the renaissance of the verite look we see on television so much nowadays) were among many clever techniques later copied worldwide. People like you cant appreciate true art, or are jealous of people who do. No one put you down for the movies you like why do you feel you have to?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nosnojsirhc 18 years ago

My response: How is Who Framed Roger Rabbit compared to Chinatown?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lachrymologist 16 years ago

I think people who don't understand HMA could easily confuse themselves and think that LIT is nearly as philosophical or even interesting. I didn't hate Lost in Translation, but the concepts were extremely superficial and mundane. I can appreciate lowbrow and (hopefully) highbrow motifs fairly well, I'd like to think, and if you want to understand culture shock in the United States, take an introductory course in cultural anthropology or linguistics at your local CC, JC, or UNI. Sofia could use the same. The movie wasn't terrible, but that it was heralded as genius by many of my countrymen (USA) is a sad commentary on how Bush may actually reflect our populace.
Again, the film isn't bad, but to tout it is to tout her acting skills in Godfather three and to suggest anything other than THEY RUINED THE FILM.
That being said, Resnais isn't really an auteur, per se, as has been suggested on this board previously, as he was more of a co-author of this, with Marguerite Duras.
The comparison between this film and Lost in Translation is more like comparing something that has a blaring social undertone - which LIT did not - to something, like LIT, that does not. So, in other words, to compare them, in any non-superficial way, is to fall pray to the issue at the core of HMA.
Lets summarize it with a quote from Milan Kundera, shall we?

"Memory's struggle against forgetting is history's struggle against power."

reply

[–] nosnojsirhc 16 years ago

nice post, good quotation, and probably lost in translation... unfortunately...

reply

[–] Replicant-88 13 years ago

as a comedy film lost in translation are superior .

reply

[–] CoyotePeyote 13 years ago

Anyone that calls this a "self-indulgent piece of crap" fails to understand the importance of this masterpiece in the context of its time and how it revolutionized modern cinematography.

This film is very important (LIT is not).

reply

[–] TheCineSinge 12 years ago

A man and a woman find each other in Japan. The similarities end there.

Hma is indescribably better than that pretentious piece of nonsense.

reply

[–] binyguo 12 years ago

I totally agree with two of the posts below:

"The question is ridiculous."

"The difference is that this is a timeless masterpiece and LIT is a piece of pseudo-arthouse rubbish for bored housewives and emo teens."

reply