Lost in Translation

Is the racial grammar that structures this film a result of Coppola intentionally objectifying and stereotyping Asians, or is Coppola attempting to satirically portray and critique Western callousness in the face of racial difference? After my third watch, I think (perhaps a hot take relative to what people on the internet seem to believe) that it is the latter.

I watched the film with the intention of really figuring out if Coppola crossed a line through her depiction of two Westerners using Japan as the backdrop to "figure themselves out". I think that, first, this is subject to interpretation, and one could certainly read the film in a way that illuminates some of the techno-orientalist aesthetics it cashes in on. However, I think that, at least in the context of the film's narrative maneuvers,  this doesn't exhibit many "orientalist tropes" as some corners of the internet make it out to be. Sure, there is the scene where Bill Murray seemingly can't understand the advertisement director and seemingly mocks him and he makes harmful comments about Asian people. But just because a film shows someone racist on screen doesn't necessarily mean that the film endorses those actions -- simply depicting a racist scene does not automatically entail that the director was intentionally racist. If that were the case, then essentially every movie that portrays something like slavery or colonial encounters could be justly interpreted as being racist, which is a bit absurd to me.

Concerning the events in the initial advertisement scene, it doesn't appear to me that his frustration is out of spite for the Asian man or from an unfair assumption about Asian people. Instead, the central pivot of the scene resides in the linguistic barrier between the two in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized. The core purpose of the scene relative to the overarching narrative was to establish that, in the midst of globalized capitalism, the sense of difference we feel with those in other countries participating in the economic system can be confusing and difficult to reconcile, but also presents the opportunity to overcome difference and recognize the humanness of those we seemingly have little in common with. This is not to suggest that the film argues that "globalized capitalism is good", but rather, that as a result of this economic system, certain social relationships can appear tenuous at first, but with an openness and willingness to overcome such barriers such as the linguistic or cultural barriers, we can recognize the opportunity to build camaraderie with those who we assume to be "different". Put more simply, I think those who point to the advertisement scene in order to suggest that the film is "racist" to some capacity neglect to consider the fact that the scene plays a very particular function over the course of the film, and the purpose is to provide a backdrop for what sort of differences one faces in the midst of cultural tension. That function is necessary in order to arrive at one of the film's ultimate theses, which is that, to some extent, some of those differences can be overcome.

I think the more appropriate reading of the film, rather than the claim that the film is "racist", is that the film is not necessarily endorsing Bill Murray's sly comments about the Japanese people around him, but Coppola uses him as a character to illuminate precarity in an increasingly globalized world. I don't think that the film asks us to sympathize with Bill Murray or identify with him or root for him like he is LeBron James. Bill Murray's character is ultimately a study of how alienation and loneliness warp a person's self-perception, and how that self perception intersects with an economic and political backdrop. I think reducing the film down to "this is an orientalist depiction of Asia and Asians" potentially flattens what Coppola is trying to convey here and may misfire on what exactly the film's main point is.