Lost in Translation

Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation tells the story of two Americans who meet and understand each other in Tokyo, Japan. The main character, played by Bill Murray, is a businessman who does not speak Japanese. Most of the film's humor plays upon the classic "fish-out-of-water" trope. For example, one of the film's opening shots shows Murray in an elevator with many Japanese men. Murray, a tall man, even by American standards, dwarfs the somewhat diminutive stature of the locals. The viewer is meant to laugh at the juxtaposition of their heights, and by extension, the differences between cultures implied by this height discrepancy.

Another crucial aspect to the film's premise is the general perception that "the Japanese are weird." Murray and Scarlett Johansson are presented as "normal" because of their American-ness. They speak a language that the audience can understand, and behave in a manner typical of what a Hollywood audience would expect. All of the Japanese locals are "strange" and "exotic," acting flamboyantly, or outrageously, at least through the lens of an American observer.

Essentially, the film depicts two people who are alienated from their social situations. It accentuates this alienation through setting--that is, it emphasizes their difference from their surroundings by extremely exaggerate methods. There is likely no culture on the planet so diametrically opposed to America as Japan, and in particular, the Tokyo metropolis. Stereotypes and weird differences are played up to galvanize the "American-ness" and "Japanese-ness" of all the central characters.

Funny Games

So for this post, I decided to use the film Funny Games, originally made in Austria in 1997 and re-done in America in 2008. The original was directed by Michael Haneke and starred Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, and others. The American version was also directed by Michael Haneke featured Naomi Watts and Tim Roth (two big stars) in the same roles.

The interesting thing about this remake is that, like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, it is recreated shot-for-shot. Honestly, I don't understand why filmmakers choose to do their re-makes in this way, although it kind of makes sense since the director is the same. Perhaps he is simply "translating" the film for a new audience and market, with recognizable Hollywood stars and in a language that American audiences can understand.

The plots appear to be identical according to IMDb and Wikipedia. I cannot find any information that compares the two versions, which one wouldn't expect from a shot-for-shot remake. An interesting note is the financial failure of the re-made version. Its budget was $15 million but only brought in $7.7 million in revenue, meaning it lost a little less than half of its budget. Not a very strong showing.

Determining the financial success of the original is a bit trickier. Wikipedia lists a budget of $5 million, but no revenue figures. IMDb lists several numbers from various countries, but all in different currencies and no "total revenue" at all. It's hard to tell whether or not this version made or lost money, either.

Essentially, this film seems like a money-losing venture for all parties involved. It makes me wonder why a remake was made if the original wasn't even financially viable. Why would you go into a project based on something that had a poor showing to begin with? It's funny that the remake was also not successful. Perhaps the remake served only to satisfy the director and production companies who backed it, as they determined early on that they wouldn't even make back their budget.