Accusations of racism
Critics have argued that Lost in Translation is racist and perpetuates Orientalism, and that its tropes and visual framing rely on ethnic humor, stereotypes of East Asians, Orientalist imagery, and the dehumanization of Japanese characters.
On January 31, 2004, the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) organization Asia Media Watch sponsored and launched a nationwide campaign to petition motion picture industry groups, including the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Directors Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild, and Writers Guild of America, to vote against the film Lost In Translation in all awards categories at the 76th Academy Awards. The group, along with its campaign volunteers and supporters, distributed flyers and lobbied voters at film screenings in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco, while also conducting email campaigns and contacting the press. The initiative ultimately had little impact on the Academy Awards due to the dominant sweep of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which won eleven awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. However, spokesperson Tom Roman suggested that because some voters who were lobbied agreed to return their promotional screening DVDs for refunds, the campaign may have influenced voting at the 10th Screen Actors Guild Awards, where Lost in Translation star Bill Murray, who was previously considered the favorite for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role, was defeated by Johnny Depp for his role in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.
The organization insisted that the film "dehumanizes the Japanese people by portraying them as a collection of shallow stereotypes who are treated with disregard and disdain," claiming that such portrayals and lack of cultural sensitivity led to discrimination against Asian Americans in the United States, where a significant minority of the population already holds anti-Asian sentiment. The group further criticized the film for perpetuating perpetual foreigner stereotypes, claiming that they also reinforce discrimination and stating: "This film is indicative of a level of mainstream tolerance and acceptance of Asian American discrimination that would otherwise be unacceptable if directed towards African and Hispanic Americans." In a released statement, the group asserted: The humor and lampooning of the Japanese in the film has a distinctly racial element … The main characters prey on the Japanese and their inability to understand English. Particularly offensive are the hackneyed stereotypical jokes such as the overdone juxtaposition of L's and R's, mocking them because they bow and are short, and references to their disgusting food. The main characters visibly express disdain, and make insulting remarks and jokes in the direct presence of Japanese characters. There are no redeeming Japanese roles in the film, nor is there any significant dialogue between the main characters and the Japanese characters. They merely serve as buffoons for the main characters to ridicule.
Another Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) organization at the time, the Asian American Movement Ezine, criticized the film, comparing its tropes to the history of Asian American representation in Hollywood and racism in early American film: "To show the culture clash between American and Japanese culture, the film relies on stale stereotypes of the Japanese for laughs: They’re short! They’re wacky! They can’t pronounce their r’s! The film is replete with racial gags that draw from the same old Hollywood stereotypes, from Mickey Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, to the Japanese car makers in 1986’s Gung Ho, or even Sixteen Candles infamous Long Duk Dong."
Filmmaker E. Koohan Paik argued: "The Japanese are presented not as people, but as clowns ... the hilarity is rooted entirely in the 'otherness' of the Japanese people. We laugh at them, not with them. This is why the film is accused of being racist." Paik wrote that it is "the shirking of responsibility to depict them as full human beings, either negative or positive, which constitutes discrimination, or racism." Paik also criticized the film's racial undertones within its cinematography:Even verité-style footage of authentic locals focuses on the Japanese as a sorry lot, preoccupied with cheesifying all things Western ... These scenes are occasionally 'balanced' by appropriately reverent, but equally inscrutable, shrine-and-temple sequences. Moreover, the film is simultaneously scornful and smug in the knowledge that imitation, no matter how tacky, is the sincerest form of flattery. This sentiment is actually articulated in the dialogue, by Charlotte's husband, galled by a rock-band photo shoot: "Let them be who they are! They're trying to make them Keith Richards when they're just skinny and nerdy." The subtext here is, when Westerners ape the Rolling Stones, it's normal; but when Asian kids fall prey to the same media hype, they're pathetic wannabees. They should be meditating in a dojo somewhere, not playing rock and roll.Critics argued that the film portrays Japanese people through exaggerated stereotypes, particularly in scenes involving language barriers. Several scenes attracted criticism for using Japanese accents and English pronunciation as sources of humor; opponents of the film argued that such scenes encourage audiences to laugh at Japanese speech patterns and mannerisms rather than at the protagonists’ discomfort. In The National Post, Robert Fulford criticized the film: “Lost in Translation expresses a distasteful racism through romantic comedy. It says, as racists often do, that foreigners, in this case Japanese, are inherently comic and stupid... Lost in Translation will appeal to all those who find enduring humour in the inability of Japanese to pronounce "r" and "l." It's a film that prides itself on its own provincialism.” Dallas Observer's Gregory Weinkauf wrote: "[After] it's abundantly clear the movie's going nowhere slowly, [the protagonists] encounter Charlie Brown, or "Chalrie Blown" (the director's friend, Fumihiro Hayashi), who's so thinly developed that he makes Bob and Charlotte look like classic Dickensian creations by comparison." Film critic and Wake Forest University professor Peter Brunette criticized the film's reliance on ethnic humor, writing: "Since all the jokes are at the expense of the Japanese—'these people are, really, just SO weird!!'—the humor grates after a while, especially the ancient jokes about the Japanese tendency to reverse 'r' and 'l' when speaking English. (Needless to say, not one of the Americans ever attempts a single word of Japanese.)" Brunette concluded that "Japan remains little more than one gigantic throwaway line, and the story, and their relationship, could really have happened anywhere." Slate critic David Edelstein argued that there is "something narcissistic and entitled" about the protagonists. He criticized a specific scene, he wrote "Charlotte asks Bob why the Japanese mix up their l’s and r’s and he says, 'for yucks'—which is very funny in a Bill Murray-esque way. But they’re our yucks, at their expense. It’s bad enough to make fun of Japanese for their English in English-speaking countries. But in Japan? The sense of otherness and of cultural superiority merges uncomfortably."
In The Guardian, ethnomusicologist Kiku Day wrote: "There is only one type of humor in the film that I could see: anti-Japanese racism, which is its very spine … There is no scene where the Japanese are afforded a shred of dignity. The viewer is sledgehammered into laughing at these small, yellow people and their funny ways." Day also criticized the film for Orientalism and cultural appropriation, arguing that it relies on mocking caricatures of Japanese people while contrasting a romanticized view of ancient traditions. Day wrote that "Those not conforming to [the image of the mysterious East] never have a voice of their own. They simply don't have a story to tell, or at least not one that interests 'us'", comparing this dynamic to "the way white-dominated Hollywood used to depict African-Americans - as crooks, pimps, or lacking self-control compared with white Americans".
Day wrote:The Japanese are one-dimensional and dehumanized in the movie, serving as an exotic background for Bob and Charlotte's story, like dirty wallpaper in a cheap hotel. How funny is it to put the 6ft-plus Bill Murray in an elevator with a number of overly small Japanese? To manufacture a joke, the film has Murray contorting himself to have a shower because its head isn't high enough for him - although he is supposed to be staying in a five-star hotel. It's made up simply to give western audiences another stereotype to laugh at. And haven't we had enough about the Japanese confusing rs and ls when they speak English? … it is reminiscent of the racist jokes about Asians and black people that comedians told in British clubs in the 1970s.Anthony Quinn of The Independent noted that the film falters slightly when relying on tropes involving "funny foreigners" for humor, citing scenes with a frantic hotel call girl and a communication breakdown at a hospital. Quinn criticized the presence of "a trace of lumpen-tourist condescension—I am speaking perfect English. Why can't these funny little people understand me?" Film director Robert Allan Ackerman accused the film of stereotyping and racism, stating that he "thought that it had nothing to do with Japan; they could have been on the moon, and the only reason to have Japanese people was to make fun of them." Film critic Mike D'Angelo argued that viewers are never encouraged to identify with anyone other than the two white American protagonists, he wrote that he felt "constantly being nudged to find the Japanese hilariously wacky." He cited this persistent "nudging" as a primary reason for his surprise at the film's widespread acclaim.
The New York Times reported that public debate regarding the film's depiction of ethnic stereotypes and its potential reception among Japanese audiences began prior to its May 2004 release in Japan. Off-the-record comments from Japanese film distribution executives reflected uncertainty over how local audiences would respond. Critics contrasted the film with The Last Samurai, in which Tom Cruise's character adapts to Japanese culture despite accusations of a white savior narrative but in Lost in Translation, by contrast, the two protagonists bond primarily over their befuddlement with Japanese behavior. In The Japan Times' analytical coverage of the film's reception in Japan, it was reported that some of the Japanese crew members “thought this whole thing was very insulting.” Co-producer Stephen Nomura Schible, who is bilingual in English and Japanese, also expressed similar discomfort with elements of the script, stating: “It clearly wasn’t a role for the local crew, for the most part, to express about those types of sensitivities — for better or for worse.” The Christian Science Monitor reported that many Japanese critics argued that the film's emphasis on language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, and physical differences reinforced Western stereotypes of Japan. The newspaper also reported that a waiter at the 52nd-floor New York Bar and Grill, who appeared as himself in the film, questioned its use of racial stereotypes, asking, "Do foreigners really have that stereotype about Japanese? ... It will give people in other countries the wrong impression about us." The Australian chef at the Hyatt opined that the film reflected the impressions of first-time visitors, stating, "But now that I've lived here for two years, I think it isn't fair to Japanese." Yoshio Tsuchiya of The Yomiuri Shimbun wrote that Coppola's representation of Japan was "heavily stereotypical and discriminatory." He argued that "the film makes fun of Japanese who cannot pronounce 'l' and 'r' correctly ... all of the Japanese characters are submissive, wearing a 'phony' smile." Tsuchiya concluded that "this film is nothing more than Coppola's personal visual interpretation of [Japan] and is hardly a work of cultural critique." In The Asahi Shimbun, another major Japan’s newspaper, author and film critic Kotaro Sawaki said he “felt unusual revulsion against this movie,” adding: “All the Japanese are consistently portrayed as foolish. But the movie fails to point out that what appears to be foolish mirrors the viewer’s own foolishness.” Sawaki also drew a parallel to geopolitical conflicts, asking, “Isn't the belief that 'the other person is at fault if I can't understand them' a contributing factor to the events in the Middle East?”, in reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Michiko Shiraishi, a New York correspondent for Jiji Press, wrote that "Japanese might feel they were betrayed by ‘their true friends,’ Americans.”Geoff King, a professor of arts and humanities at Brunel University of London, criticized the film's portrayal of Japanese people and culture, arguing that the narrative relies on racist tropes. King argued that the film's humor is derived from the physical appearance, cultural practices, and limited English proficiency of the Japanese characters, writing: A good deal of the comedy offered by Lost in Translation seems to rely on rather cheap and obvious stereotypes, in a manner that is somewhat surprising and out of tune with its broader positioning in the film- cultural landscape. A number of verbal jokes are based around the tendency of Japanese characters to render what should be ‘r’ sounds as ‘l’ sounds ... A similar number of visual jokes relate to the diminutive stature of many Japanese people, some of which do not seem to make much sense other than as arbitrary mocking. Bob bends uncomfortably to get beneath a shower head that is fixed too low and apparently cannot be adjusted sufficiently upwards, for example, although the pole to which it is attached seems to have plenty of further height capacity ... The lack of any other motivation for such examples makes them appear to be egregious cases of crude stereotyping, in search of cheap laughs.King wrote that the film emphasizes the stereotypes of Japanese people as "crazy" or "extreme" in scenes such as the one with the prostitute who visits Bob in his hotel room and the chat-show host with whom Bob appears on television. King noted that Japanese characters exist only as a backdrop to support the main characters rather than as fully realized individuals: "There are some more ‘normal’- seeming Japanese characters, principally some of those with whom Bob and Charlotte socialise on their first night of escape from the hotel, although their nature seems in this context to be shaped by their background function in relationship to the particular experience undergone at the time by the protagonists rather than being given any space to exist in its own right." He concluded that: "most Japanese are presented as objects for the amusement of the viewer."
Homay King, professor of History of Art at Bryn Mawr College accused the film of Orientalism stating that, "Lost in Translation makes but minimal efforts to rewrite the myths of Asia that Hollywood film has been recycling for nearly a century: the Orient as primitive, feminized, and eroticized; Asian citizens as alternately silly or perilous, enigmatic and cloaked in artifice." She also noted that the film fails to establish the perspective from which Japanese representations are made, writing that "the film [does not] sufficiently clarify that its real subject is not Tokyo itself, but Western perceptions of Tokyo ... When Japan appears superficial, inappropriately erotic, or unintelligible, we are never completely sure whether this vision belongs to Coppola, to her characters, or simply to a Hollywood cinematic imaginary." Kendra Marston, a film studies lecturer at Massey University, argues that the narrative primarily centers on whiteness, "the soul searching of the white American characters," contrasting this focus with what she characterizes as a "heavily stereotyped depiction" of local Japanese characters. According to Marston, "the 'unknowability' of the Tokyo environment aids in perpetuating a cinematic mood characterized by sustained periods of white melancholia." Marston further identifies the specific emotional undercurrent within the film as a "painful yet pleasurable neurasthenia, experienced only by the white and privileged, that the protagonists are unable to alleviate," writing: "The allure of the exotic Other occupies a source of transient fantasy that remains in the realm of wishful thinking, never promising a lasting transcendence over the melancholic state and yet also importantly working to preserve the text’s primary interest in the mysterious nature and nostalgic idealization of white feminine identity."
Critic Steve Burgess argued that the film relies entirely on the audience sympathizing with Bob and Charlotte’s point of view, writing, "The movie would exhibit little appeal for the audience if they disliked the central characters. Clearly, Coppola wants us to sympathize with [them]." Burgess criticized the film for using Japan and its people as a cinematic shorthand for "strangeness," rather than depicting the country with genuine nuance. Pointing to specific characterizations, he wrote:Virtually every Japanese person in the film is wacky, creepy, bizarre, or plastic. The worst example is the hooker scene, which even the film’s defenders cannot defend. It’s just over-the-top silly, with the hooker ending up kicking and wailing on the floor of Murray’s hotel room. Those freaky Japs. Who can figure ’em?
In response to accusations of racism, producer Ross Katz defended the film, stating he believed "Sofia's love of Japan and love of the people that she's met there is incredibly evident in the film." Katz added that none of the scenes in the film were "any slight to Japanese people."
Director Sofia Coppola stated: "I can see why people might think that, but I know I'm not racist. I think if everything's based on truth you can make fun, have a little laugh, but also be respectful of a culture. I just love Tokyo and I'm not mean-spirited [...] I think that everything you do, people could be offended by—unless you're just trying to be nice about everyone." Coppola further defended the film's humor by noting that specific gags were drawn from her own observations, adding, "Even on our daily call sheets, they would mix up the 'rs' and the 'ls'—all that was from experience, it's not made up. I guess someone has misunderstood my intentions. It bugs me, because I know I'm not racist."
.jpg?width=400)
