The German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein philosopher expressed once “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” or was it “the limits of my language are the limits of my world”. Analyzing the English translation one could see how the difference becomes a powerful one whether the verb to mean or to be is used in the sentence. Whether to mean something is different to be something is completely dependent to the judgement of a third observer who judges what it “really is” from what it “means to be”. Yet the third observer is also a subjective being who means to judge objectively but more often than not fails to do so. Is there a difference then in what we mean to be and what we are? The obvious answer is yes, a simple reality check will demonstrate concrete results of this odd disparity which linguistically seems so paradoxical. T.S. Eliot coined well in one “is impossible to say just what I mean!”, one seems to have to “dislocate language into meaning” in an attempt to communicate. Nevertheless it is worth mentioning that, in order to dislocate language into meaning, Eliot did well as he came up with such a meaningful-meaningless piece of work such as the Waste Land. A bunch of beautiful non-sense (and actually one of my favorite poems). Someone who complements these oddities in our failed ways to communicate (and therefore understand ourselves) Edward Morgan Forster foreplays with the the problem that arises in language and cross-cultural barriers. In passage to India Forster contemplates an intercultural exchange between the British and the Indian. Not surprisingly, when the cultural and linguistic degrees of separation between two peoples are so brutally coerced together, the limits of one’s language and “one’s culture” become the limits of one’s world and tragic conflict seems inevitable regardless of the intentions. Further complementing the exploration of language, culture and translation, in his short story The Machine Stops, Forster looks at the future in a way that no new knowledge is created but there are only new interpretations of interpretations of the old written works. Imagine doing a Ph.D. on an interpretation of Foucault’s analysis on Descartes Reflection on Aristotle’s manuscript on Homer’s descriptions of Ancient Greek Mythology. An interpretation on an analysis of a reflection on a manuscript of a description. An absurd paper, which actually… It almost makes sense. We are in many ways that interpretation of history and time, we live somewhat with all those notions accumulated and distorted through the years… we still earn for meaning and look for it in those works of works. Language is indeed powerful but is not solely the written language what is necessary to convey meaning from a simple “to-mean” to just “be”. Drool, I just cant say what i mean.
Here is where the technological revolution and Sofia Coppola come handy. It is sometimes a matter of gender to see things more clearly through the eye of the view finder in order to translate it properly into the screen for the observer. Coppola, born in New York, is one of the three women who have been given the “academy award for directing” for her movie lost in translation. Simply put, the movie is real. It flirts with language barriers, cultural barriers, disclosure and rapport, intimate communication and marriage, the film industry, the price of fame, philosophy and education, family and children, being human, love and Tokyo. Even better, after dealing with all this, the film is not heavy… it is actually quite a beautiful piece of work. What Coppola communicates through the screen was put together by a huge crew under her direction. It is a fictional 102 minute book presenting a non-fictional world through a fictional tale. In my opinion, it does not only mean to present a glimpse into human nature, it actually does. It is rare to see reality through film since fiction is anything but real, and reality is anything but fantasy, and mixing the real and fantasy becomes science fiction… and we do live in science fictional times. It is alarming to find out slowly how bias and “dishonest” many documentaries are. Not to mention mainstream news channels, newspapers, the radio and our politicians. Reality is distorted in everyday and we keep on going with this distorted influx of broken telephone chain information coming to us for no real reason. How to mix then the fictitious with the non-fictitious to find the proper harmony? How to create an audiovisual language strong enough to inspire others to simply live? Film is quite a recent discovery, it brings a new dimension to education and culture which is often ignored. It may be that the books of tomorrow will be films being shown on podcasts we watch as we go down bicycling trains fueled by strong solar energy and happy legs. Until then, i am stock with Coppola’s work in my mind as i cant re-conciliate sleepiness to find the courage to dive into what dreams may come. The feminist eye directing the focus pull of the view finder definitely brings a new spectrum of emotions and sensations to the screen, which for me, I found more real. Time and the third observer will judge if the “limits of this language are the limits of my world”, but my world just got a bit wider thanks to Coppola, amazing actors and a cool crew.
After participating in a Lacanian reading group today, I have revisited the realms of psychoanalysis, Freud, Jung and Lacan. Something sort of came out clearer in my understanding of film. Film requires the imaginary to become symbolic. In other words, the written (the script) is a symbolic translation from the writer’s imagination, then the director reads it, imagines it again, somewhat differently, and gets a crew whom he believes will be able to deliver this imaginary film into reality. Then actors, DOP, make up artists, grips, gaffers, producers, editors and assistants plus many other people, hold the creation of the film is being put together. The language becomes by far more complex in film that it is in a book. A film is sort of a book written directly by a crew of 5 – 100 people or even more. Everyone puts a little piece of their craft into the film so it becomes what the spectator makes of it. But maybe, i am just getting things wrong. I could assume writing a book is nothing more but the compilation of many memories and experiences therefore being the same of a film… it is not really about the writer, it is about 5-100 people who interacted or wrote stuff which became influential in the writers work. However, since film is by far more complex as it involves no only a written story, but also music, acting, scenery, a story… and a budget followed by many constrains (time being primordial)… it is astounding to think how movies how lost in Translation by Sofia Coppola, came to emanate such an amazing experience with many viewers, and yet the film is so simple and light.
Aristotle: On Interpretation
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/interpretation/
Plato: Phaedrus
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/111/0131-01_Bk.pdf
alejandozuluaga48
