............from the previous post re:notes about Lost in Translation

The previous bit about all this was my attempt to get to a place to say this ............I beleive that film is a litterary art form but what I like about film is what is conveyed without words, whether lines are being spoken or not.I recently did what I had planned and like to do in the cold and crumby whether which is watch movies and watch a select few to study and think about.In the case of " Lost in Translation " I had seen parts of it and the end a few times but saved watching it for a later day and then watched it three or four times recently.It is a film with a lot of dimmensions one of which is human intimacy , on a transpersonal psychological level.This film is very correct regarding itself.It takes place in Japan and it embodies the notion of seeing the miraculous in the mundane that informs far eastern culture and art particularly in japan where there is a rich and old tradition of film making that was informed by this idea.It is also Traditional in Italian film as well, for example the film Umberto D, made in 1953 which is somehow related to Ikyru in my mind as they are both bold with the mundane.I thought the Sophia Coppola film was very daring.The directors ability to make the content and subject work shows in their ability to keep the audience interested.There is no medium gimicks and the medium is played like a musical instrument apart from the message all together.A Multi cultural America would make films in Japan so the film starts to bend in some interesting ways.I found a very life like portrayal of anxiety in intimacy between people as well as an individual and personal portrayal of self doubt was well done.The wardrob looked like it was both a carefully conceived and executed plan and just clothes the actors like to wear.The Cameron Diaz like role and the bill murray character's similarity to his real life reminded me of " The player " to some degree in that there is a connection to reality in the actions and scenes the director has the actors play.In the player people playing themselves pop up throughout the film which creates a very interesting feeling.In some ways the feeling that the actors evoke are a mirror of a domestic sense of doubt.It might be said that this film portrays ambivalence in a daring and realistic way.I have to look up some film criticism about this film. The title of the previous post is one more like what I would like to read than write.I thought of save the tiger after seeing this movie but Save the tigar is not a film story but a filmed one.Still, both captivate with tools at hand in above average ways in portraying at first glance,difficult subject matter.While the main characters seem somewhat uncomfortable in their ideas of what they like and dislike as far as feeling satisfied with their lives, we the audience can relate to the actors not because we like them or are sympathetic to them but that what they seem to feel is familliar to us.I thought this was part of a nuanced tension in the film that seemed voyearistic.Almost like the film and the actors and story were different things that came together but did so by a well crafted coincidence.A lot is left to the viewer which I suppose is evident by the enigmatic ending.I am no lover of paintings by george tucker with some exceptions but I like art that tackles the subject of human intimacy and alienation in life.