Buzz is a truly interesting concept to think about. To begin with, there are only two kinds of buzz: buzz that a big studio movie is going to be really bad (think Gigli, The Human Stain or Town & Country), or buzz that a small indie film is going to be really good (think Far From Heaven, Memento or Monster). Buzz for runaway studio hits like Pirates of the Caribbean isn't buzz; it's word-of-mouth. While a lot of people are inclined to believe that buzz and word-of-mouth are interchangeable terms, the truth is quite different. Buzz is, in fact, word-of-mouth, but it's word-of-mouth from industry insiders (namely film critics) as opposed to from the general public.

Buzz for Lost in Translation has been circling throughout the film world since writer/director Sofia Coppola's second film premiered at the Telluride Film Festival back in August of 2003. However, as is always the case, this buzz is created by a nearly uniform group of individuals: well-educated, well-read, financially stable, middle-aged, white film critics. And this can be problematic for all persons (including myself) who aren't a member of at least four of five demographic breakdowns.

Lost in Translation is a good film. It is an original film that features solid acting performances by both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson and an interesting and unorthodox focus courtesy of Coppola's script. Contrary to this all-encompassing buzz that is permeating the mainstream media, Lost in Translation is not the best film of the year, it is not the best performance of Murray's career and it is not the best breakout by a female performer ever.

Murray stars in Lost in Translation as Bob Harris, a major Hollywood star in Japan for a week to shoot photos for a Japanese whiskey company. For this week of work, Harris is earning two million dollars. Harris is extremely out of his element in Japan though. He doesn't understand the language or the culture. Harris spends the majority of his time in his hotel's bar, resigned to his week's stay in Japan, sipping whiskey, doing his best to numb his senses for the length of his visit. Over the course of his first few days in Japan, Harris comes to meet Charlotte (Johansson), a 22-year old, who finds herself in a similar position as Harris; her husband is away working and she is alone in the sterile hotel room, just waiting to leave. Together, the two strike up an unusual (and platonic) friendship that makes up the core of Lost in Translation.

Coppola's first film, The Virgin Suicides, received numerous critical accolades and possessed the same type of interesting, human story that was told in an surprisingly slow fashion. Lost in Translation is no different (Murray and Johansson's characters don't even speak until minute 40 of the film).

Absent any kind of traditional plot and plot structure, Lost in Translation is at times nothing more than a compilation of scenes featuring Harris attempting to interact with the Japanese locals. These succeed for one reason: Murray brings a warmth, charm and humor to these scenes without ever coming off as being intimidating or demeaning.

Johansson and Murray have a very subtle, soft relationship on-screen. Carrying with them a familiarity that even some husbands and wives are missing, the two exemplify the kind of comfortable silence that Uma Thurman and John Travolta discussed at length in Pulp Fiction. Where this came from is another matter, but its displa.html>spla.html>spla.html>spla.html>splay on the screen is unique to see… if occasionally slow (I don't necessarily have to watch a movie to see people not talking to each other).

Coppola is fast creating her own distinct brand of filmmaking: heady and original, if uniquely paced. I commend her for these accomplishments and the good work she got out of both Murray and Johansson in Lost in Translation. And my buzz stops here.