The Films of Sofia Coppola

[wild roses]

Well I think Jim has an affinity for Japanese culture, so it's not surprising he's present Japanese people (and by extension Japanese culture) in a fond way.


Though to reiterate what I've said before, I don't fully understand the viewpoint that Sofia is xenophobic. Several of her films have portrayed an outsider encountering a culture/lifestyle different from their own. Marie coming to Versailles in Marie Antoinette, Cleo staying with her dad in Somewhere, and Bob and Charlotte in Tokyo. I'd say in all three there's a sense of initial judgement on the part of the characters and it gives way to understanding. And ultimately in all three films they characters have to leave that environment in the end are are sad about it. My own takeaway of Japanese culture based purely on LiT (when I first saw it, at 12 years old, I had little to no knowledge of Japan or Japanese culture, I'm sad to say) was very positive. Different doesn't mean bad. Cultures are different. Highlighting that isn't bad. And many of the scenes/characters in LiT that highlight that are not at all fabricated. What specific portrayal in LiT was xenophobic/racist/bigoted?

It's taken me a few days to figure out how to explain this. It's going to be long and somewhat rambling, but I'll do my best to be clear-cut.

When racism is discussed/thought about, it only focuses on the really bad things: racist profiling, the KKK, etc. However, anti-racist and anti-imperialist scholars have long looked at how "positive" or "othering" also contribute to negative viewing of a culture or people.

Firstly, nobody is saying "different doesn't mean bad." But is how the difference is portrayed that contributes to whether the culture is portrayed in a full-rounded light vs an othered/exoticized way.

I need to preface this by saying anti-racist scholars tend to look at pop culture both in general and in specific ways. (All people of colour suffer from racist stereotypes but the sterotypes are different for each group. However, one can also see how the stereotypes intersect to keep people down.)

For example, when the film "American Gangster" came out, it was highly praised for featuring a portrayal of a strong, powerful, complicated black man. That black man was a drug dealer, but it was highly lauded because far too often cinema portrays POC as the sidekick to the white person(s), or equally bad, as unable to free themselves until the enlightened white person comes along (see 'The Blind Side' and 'The Help' for examples of this). So to say you need to be "fond of" a culture to portray it in a well-rounded way would be shot down by anti-racist scholars. It's not whether you portray a person(s) or culture in a good or bad way, it's HOW you portray it.

Another example: the "magical negro" concept. Where the POC only exists to motivate the white people to enlightenment. For example, the film "I Heart Huckabees." All the white people are given backstories and motivations. The black person? Nothing at all. He just provides advices and pushes the white characters onto their next life stage.

Sofia really doesn't use the "magical negro" concept so much. (Although the white person seeking spiritual enlightenment does fall under that, which is why Charlotte's moaning over not feeling anything at the temple is highly questionable.) But she does otherize the culture. (Well, in the bit where Charlotte and Bob get invited to join the youngsters at singing karaoke and playing games could constitute 'magical negroism' cuz they only exist to bring C&B closer together. We never see fully realized characters. No do we see C&B finally getting Japanese cultured: it's still othered.) (BTW: another filmmaker who comes under scrutiny for stereotyping is Quentin Tarantino. The whole controvery surrounding DU is fascinating because it shows how pop culture has and hasn't progressed as far as showing racism, as well as round rounded portraits of people of colour, in cinema is.)

For example, she presents two basic stereotypes of Asian women: the overly sexualized tiger who keeps attacking the male even when he repeatedly rejects her, and the maternal type. For as long as antiracist scholars have been around, both of these stereotypes have been analysed for what negative messages they send about Asian women.

Another big no-no she does is how she presents the food. Anti-racist and anti-imperalist scholars have long studied how food is otherized/exoticized by westerners. When at the restaurant, C&B take a look at the menu, and are like "what is this? I don't recognize any of this" and randomly order one thing off the menu and then are like "oh, we have to cook it ourselves???" Which is basically an upgrade of "I'm not eating your bugs."

Bell Hooks is actually a good place to start when it comes pop culture and anti-racism studies. Although she's an African-American, she tends to look at the history in general. She also uses/recs tons of resources so she could lead you elsewhere.

Also, having watched tons of Japanese cinema, I would highly recommend you watch some. You get the good, the bad, the indifferent, but you don't get the exoticism Coppola presents.

Lastly, please remember racism doesn't begin and end with negative stereotyping. (Asian-American scholars are currently critiquing the "super-smart model ethnicity" genre and how it reducing people into being pods rather than people.)

 

[KoV]

I like and agree with the thought that you can stereotype a group of people not just with negative things, but also with positive things.

That said, I still don't agree that LiT is racist. Is it a well-rounded portrayal of Japanese culture? Certainly not. The very set-up and point of the film requires tht it not be. However, I do believe that Japan and Japanese people are portrayed as interesting, varied, and worth emulating. And I don't agree with some of your examples. The scene where Charlotte calls her friend and is crying about how she didn't feel anything while witnessing the chanting isn't an example of what you're talking about. I don't think Charlotte is actually crying because of the chanting. It's just an example of something that brought out her pre-existing inner struggles. And that fact that she DIDN'T feel anything, to me, is exactly why it's not exoticism. As for how Japanese women are portrayed, the prostitute in Bob's room is seemingly trying to do some kind of role play that Bob doesn't understand. It's her job to be overtly sexual. I don't know how you can say this is meant to portray Japanese women in general. Just like how in American films prostitutes aren't supposed to be seen as representing any sort of societal norms. I assume the mother figure is the women we see for a few seconds helping Charlotte with the flowers? But the room is full of Japanese women, surely they're not all being portrayed as motherly. What about the women who works as a sort of aid to Bob? She seems very "normal" and professional. What about the girls Bob and Charlotte hang out with during the Karaoke night? They certainly don't fit into either of the stereotyped molds for Japanese women that you described. As regards the food, Charlotte not reading the menu had more to do with her being in a bad mood after finding out that Bob slept with the singer and wanting to assert that than it had anything to do with the menu or food itself. And Bob appeared to know what he was choosing, I thought. Also, the "what kind of a restaurant makes you cook your own food" thing was clearly a joke! In addition to that, in an earlier scene Bob was saying he liked the Japanese food he'd been eating on the trip.

We could probably go on about this forever. I'm sure you know more about the intricacies of racial portrayals in pop-culture than I do and I do respect and (I think) understand your opinion. We see the same movie and just have completely different take-aways from certain scenes. I think that's really all there is to it.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Isn't Lost in Translation a film about displacement? A metaphor for the fact they are both drifting through life? The fact that they do not understand Japanese culture, that they see it as the other and reduce it to familiar stereotypes, even cling to them, reflects badly not on Japanese culture but on themselves, or we can even go further, on Americans. They are clearly unable to connect, self centred and ultimately "lost".
A certain balance will be achieved, even cultural balance, but never fully.

 

[pixiedust1603]

The Bling Ring is heading to Cannes but not as part of the main competition. It will be open the Un Certain Regard section. I'm very surprised that it was selected for Un Certain Regard instead of the main competition.

The Bling Ring, latest movie by Sofia Coppola with Emma Waston will open Un Certain Regard 2013.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I tend to agree with you King of Versailles. Les_Sucettes, you make an interesting point. The emptiness of how Charlotte and Bob feel is largely due to their displacement in a culture that seems to have time honoured traditions and a pop culture of great variety and excitement, unlike their own more secular and homogenous country of America. Charlotte's crying after visiting the temple always suggested to me that something is missing in her life, that she's longing for more (hence the philosophy degree). I think some of the depictions of women aren't wrong either; it's not like Japan doesn't have its sexism, much like the West, so what's wrong with showing it?

I don't see Sofia as xenophobic. She said herself she loved living in Japan (would a person with a fear of foreigners really live there? hmmm...) And now this Hollywood elite child lives in France not in Hollywood. She makes relatively small indie films too not Hollywood blockbusters.

I did post here before that I've taught this picture (LiT) a couple of times at a college where there are a number of international students (specifically a large population from the Pacific rim) and none of them found the film racist. Not the Japanese students nor the native Canadians. Only one top film critic stands out to me as having said its racist (Kiku Day); maybe there are others though. Many of whom have disliked Sofia's other films (so it's not nepotism or whatever) have tended to see the film positively though. But there is a lot of commentary, noticeably online, against Sofia and/or her film-making abilities or lack thereof. So she definitely tends to polarize audiences and critics alike, as this thread seems to suggest. It's interesting to read both sides.

 

[wild roses]

I don't see Sofia as xenophobic. She said herself she loved living in Japan (would a person with a fear of foreigners really live there? hmmm...) And now this Hollywood elite child lives in France not in Hollywood. She makes relatively small indie films too not Hollywood blockbusters.

Xenophobic was probably the wrong word to use, but I don't know if one exists for "positive racism." The best example I can come up to explain it is non-film, but it sort of gets as what Sofia does. Those into New Age/paganism/mythology tend to take a very postive view of Native American cultures. However, if you read First Nations responses to this positivism, it's mixed-to-negativism. They appreciate that they aren't treated as ignorant savages, but they also point out that the their cultures has been genericized, their religions mishmashed all together, and their ideas and contributions simplified or overlooked. So they are just as highly critical of these "postive" white people appreciating them as they are of the outright racists.

I think some of the depictions of women aren't wrong either; it's not like Japan doesn't have its sexism, much like the West, so what's wrong with showing it?

Now, see, I've studied and read tons on third world feminism/anti-colonialism/non-western and third world perspectives and theories on this, but it's soooooo tough to explain. You have to read it to understand why it's considered problematic. (I don't dare attempt cuz I already fumble at explaining the 'positive racism'). All I can tell you is, it is considered problematic for a western person (of either gender) to assume western sexism is the same as eastern sexism and that the history of colonialism and globalization doesn't play into it how the western person is capturing eastern 'sexism' or sterotypes or culture on screen.

BTW: I finally watched 'The Virgin Suicides' last night. I held off cuz I didn't want my dislike of LIT and my (constantly changing but mostly) meh reactions to MA to affect it. I didn't dislike it but I was indifferent to it. Although I stil had to visit the IMDB boards to make sense of some of film. The film felt ...flat and monotone... to me, and although it was about siblings, it seemed like Lux was the one given the main focus (as well the first sister who died). I haven't read the book (yet but now my interest is perked to do so) but I wish Sofia hadn't been afraid to show the house become an unlivable unclean stench place, the girls actually starving, their lifestyle being different (we keep being TOLD their mom is strict about their clothes and who they hang out with, but their clothes were fairly ...standard and not conservative... the majority of the film and their lack of social life isn't given that much attention). (I actually think Sofia was far better with LIT in capturing depression and 'blankness' for lack of a better term. Here... I had to constantly infer it.) (Should I be judging her without having all her filmography? Probably not, but I also haven't seen everything Hitchcock, Godard, and Ozu have done either and I can tell you what I like or dislike about each one.)

All I have left now are 'Somewhere' and her shorts (if I can find her shorts online).

 

[Deleted member 116957]

^I'd recommend reading the book, even if you didn't care for the film that much. I found the book to me much more haunting and fascinating. I haven't seen the film in years, but I've read the book twice. (I remember forcing my crush in the 9th grade to watch this with me, it probably wasn't the smartest move in retrospect. )

Here's Lick the Star, if you're interested:

 

[Not Plain Jane]

^ I really loved the book Virgin Suicides!

wild rose: I've read some of that theory as well (positive racism is kind of like "fetishization" to me), but I don't know if theory always applies in practice. You know? Sometimes I find it's a stretch to apply academic criticism to reality: to fiction it can work, but even then sometimes it seems forced.

But definitely read Virgin Suicides, if your interest is peaked, and then perhaps read Middlesex, too, if you like Eugenides writing, which I do, very much.

 

[LoveMyBoots]

wild rose: I've read some of that theory as well (positive racism is kind of like "fetishization" to me), but I don't know if theory always applies in practice. You know? Sometimes I find it's a stretch to apply academic criticism to reality: to fiction it can work, but even then sometimes it seems forced.

Have to agree with notplainjane here, as much as sofia coppola is shrouded if not defined by her privilege and wealth, her films don't have to be and aren't.

As much as my university studies have focused on the intersection of politics and literature, (as a matter of coincidence, i've just fished out a copy of visual politics by bell hooks [who you mentioned previously!] from one of my book bags.. though i can't cop to reading it cover to cover), I'm nowhere near as inclined to call coppola's work xenophobic.

I thought I gotten over "intellectualizing" things but considering how far along this (really interesting!) discussion has gone then I have to further clarify notplainjane's hitting the nail on the head and calling it fetishism by going as far to argue that coppola's films are a more accurate depiction of marx's theory on alienation i.e. social alienation as a result of (capitalist) means of production and social class/stratification. This is where coppola's profound wealth and background comes into play. But, even then...... since we're talking about LiT, I don't think I can even argue that certain scenes really exploit/commodify another culture. There might be something to be said for the illicting of sexual services but I haven't seen this movie in years and can't remember it quite well beyond the scene serving as another humorous moment between two people, not really of one above another. There might be a somewhat palatable argument about post-colonial inequality vis a vis foreigners in a strange land— that serves as the set up for the movie— but I don't think I can take it beyond that..

Academic theory esp cultural/political and art theory can tends to highlight such underlying inequalities inherent in a piece of work but here it seems to be confusing us between coppola herself and her films

A part of me has always questioned myself for being so drawn to her films and having to argue that they're about "something" which I have found myself doing half-heartedly amongst friends more than once or twice but, I think I ultimately do, or rather, the reason they are about something is because the work, though yes, a result of tremendous wealth and privilege, serve as accurate depictions of the entrapments and misgivings of privileged [ha!] society.

The questions that beg me relate to whether or not her films are accessible beyond such demographics.

 

[LoveMyBoots]

But definitely read Virgin Suicides, if your interest is peaked, and then perhaps read Middlesex, too, if you like Eugenides writing, which I do, very much.

Ah this is where we differ. I've read suicides and gotten through half of both middlesex and the marriage plot. I think my favorite is actually the marriage plot even though I haven't finished it? I think he's one of the few writers who I've noticed has such different writing sensibilities in each new novel.

BTW: I finally watched 'The Virgin Suicides' last night. I held off cuz I didn't want my dislike of LIT and my (constantly changing but mostly) meh reactions to MA to affect it. I didn't dislike it but I was indifferent to it. Although I stil had to visit the IMDB boards to make sense of some of film. The film felt ...flat and monotone... to me, and although it was about siblings, it seemed like Lux was the one given the main focus (as well the first sister who died). I haven't read the book (yet but now my interest is perked to do so) but I wish Sofia hadn't been afraid to show the house become an unlivable unclean stench place, the girls actually starving, their lifestyle being different (we keep being TOLD their mom is strict about their clothes and who they hang out with, but their clothes were fairly ...standard and not conservative... the majority of the film and their lack of social life isn't given that much attention). (I actually think Sofia was far better with LIT in capturing depression and 'blankness' for lack of a better term. Here... I had to constantly infer it.) (Should I be judging her without having all her filmography? Probably not, but I also haven't seen everything Hitchcock, Godard, and Ozu have done either and I can tell you what I like or dislike about each one.)

All I have left now are 'Somewhere' and her shorts (if I can find her shorts online).

I actually still haven't seen coppola's adaptation of the virgin suicides either. i'm afraid since i disliked the book but compelled to because i'm curious about coppola's approach. i was really surprised by the lack of depth/mystery to the characters in the book so your "flat and monotone" comment already rings true to me.

I really liked Somewhere so can't wait to hear your thoughts!

 

[KoV]

I suppose it's just my ignorance having not studied these academic theories, but I just do not see it. I would bet my life savings that a persuasive person could come up with at least marginally feasible arguments for why any film in the history of film is racist or xenophobic or sexist or homophobic or such-and-such. It's an interesting discussion but I feel like I've said everything I want to on the subject.

 

[chickadee]

Excuse me if I'm reiterating what's already been covered. But I think most critics of Coppola's films have noticed a particular pattern with her. She seems primarily, if not entirely interested in telling the story of the "poor little rich girl," incredibly privileged white girls suffering from ennui and dissatisfaction. This is just an extreme example of the criticisms, btw. I personally find all of her pictures visually stunning, but hard to relate to on any deeper level. She never seems to dig very far beneath the surface of things. But that's just my opinion of her. To be fair, you have to write what you know. This is what she knows. And her experience, while certainly not the norm, is one that many girls share. And obviously, people can enjoy a film without having to see their life story up on screen. I respect and to some degree understand why people like her films. They're just not my cup of tea. I'll probably see Bling Ring as an Emma Watson and Leslie Mann fan (and also I hear Israel Broussard is pretty good), but that's my take on it.

 

[saann]

Having just watched Great Gatsby, I couldn't help but wonder how Sofia's take on it would be.. I think she would be a better fit than Luhrmann and would convey the book's lyricism in a less obvious way

 

[La bordélique]

Did anyone have the chance to see The Bling Ring at Cannes or anywhere else it's already released? I'm curious to know your thoughts... the acting doesn't look so great from what little there is in the trailer, but I'm still intrigued.

 

[KoV]

Watch some clips from the show "Pretty Wild" and then watch the trailer again.... Emma and Leslie's acting will most likely be more impressive

 

[La bordélique]

^ I'm already familiar with the show (I caught an episode by mistake when it aired on E!)... it's just my first impression from the trailer. Emma's acting looks really forced to me, like she's too aware that her lines make her sound like an airhead, whereas Alexis Neiers seems clueless about just anything. I'm seeing this in two weeks so I'll be able to form a real opinion by then.

 

[5 8 6]

So, has anyone seen The Bling Ring? How is it?

 

[wild roses]

I havent seen it yet. It's getting mixed reviews per this Wrap article.

This made me laugh because it's me everytime I watch something of hers. The underlined bit basically. I don't need everything spelled out--gestures are fine--but examine something please:

She neither explains nor excuses nor extols nor excoriates these kids, which would be fine, but she doesn’t really examine them either.

All the reviewers seem to agree TBR is outside her comfort zone, so it makes for a different viewing experience. But they also all seem to agree that it's total fluff, and contributes nothing to our understanding of how celebrity intrusion via all forms of social media and reality TV is harming both ordinary people and celebrities themselves. (Although even Sofia seems to negate the examination even in interviews. Like she mentioned that Paris Hilton is more self-aware than people give Paris credit for, but refused to address or even admit that Paris is one of the reasons celebrities market themselves via social media as a product/lifestyle people should want to attain.)

I'm dying to see Emma Watson as white trash though. (It's not a theatre in my hometown yet so I have to wait.)

 

[5 8 6]

^^I'm glad you pointed it out because this is also my biggest problem with her movies. I think that most of her films are visually stunning,(especially Marie Antoinette), but the character's actions are not really explained, and for that reason I never fully appreciate her stories, which often leave me kinda indefferent and cold.

 

[wild roses]

TAVI: I’ve read some reviews of The Bling Ring that are like IT’S A CRITICISM OF OUR LIVES, but when I interviewed Emma Watson she said she felt it was filmed in a nonjudgmental way, and I kind of felt that way when I saw it, so I would just like to ask you: How did you want your audience to feel?

SOFIA COPPOLA: I saw this culture growing and growing, so I wanted the audience to experience it for themselves, and by the end of [the movie] to think about what’s important to them and how they feel about it—not to tell them what to think.

Right. Did you find it hard to do that without glamorizing that culture?

Yeah, I wanted to see it through their point of view, to understand how they got so into it. I wanted, in the beginning, to shoot all of this stuff in a really seductive way and make it look fun—you want to be able to be part of it so you understand where they’re coming from. But then by the end of it, you kind of have a shift and take a step back and, you know, kind of look at it.

I pulled this from the Sofia Coppola style topic. I don't think Sofia gets that many of us have already been able to see through the fakeness of reality TV. It's been around for a decade (and longer in some parts of Europe) and by now, the secrets are out. I visit TWOP, I visit ONTD, and I see commentary pointing out the staginess, the product placements, the manipulation of scenes to infuse drama/comedy/whatever to make us feel one way or the other. This commentary has been going on for years now. We have already been "experiencing it for ourselves" and "tak[ing] a step back and ...look[ing] at it" for a long time now. She's actually late to the party, and it's rather presumptuous of her to assume her audience is coming in to the subject matter uncritically.

Also, she should consider her subject matter: teens! Teens do have aspirations, some of which reveal themselves in who they emulate or admire or outright copy at that age. Some become studious bookworms or cinemaphiles. Others show it through material goods/clothing like the examples in her film do. Still yet others embrace videos or cosplaying. Granted, adults are capable of hero worship as well, but adults most adults--when they gain maturity (assuming they do, assuming they gain critical thinking) are able to keep in check. (Also, not all teens aspire in this manner.

So for all her talk about being non-judgmental, I do think she manages to over-generalize nevertheless (and I'm still side-eyeing her for giving Paris Hilton a pass for being famous for being famous).

I read an interview with Emma where she was like, there’s a difference between people who are celebrated for actually doing things and making art, and [the ones who do it to] be trendy.

To me that’s a more recent phenomenon. We didn’t have that when I was growing up.

Why do you think that is?

It seems like it’s from reality TV and social media—this idea that kind of anyone and everyone can be famous. It’s just such a big part of our life now.

I call bull on this. I can not take Sofia seriously after reading this. Social media and reality TV certainly turned being famous for being famous into something more mainstream and acceptable, but it's always been a part of culture. The Cushing sisters (particularly Babe Paley), Gloria Guinness, Lee Radziwill, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, the Miller sisters, Consuelo Vanderbilt, basically any wife who is a member of high society from the Belle Epoque to the Gilded Age to the 1960s. Most of the Kennedy family. The Duchess of Windsor.

Hell, even Sofia fell into the category of being famous for being famous for a few years. (Prior to becoming a filmmaker, when she was known as Francis's indecisive once-dabbled-in-acting daughter who kept changing high profile careers every few years.) Yes, she has a respectable career now, but to this day, there are discussions about whether she actually earned it or not due to what she was famous for prior to becoming a director: nothing significant. (Note: I do think she did cuz Hollywood is a cutthroat place and if you're not liked, you'll know. But I do think her haters have a point: her father has produced all her films. Would her films be half as successful or critically acclaimed if Mary Sue Next Door had made them? I think not.)