Roman Holiday and Lost in Translation Films Comparison

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Lost in Translation: Overview
Roman Holiday: Overview
Economic Comparison
Gender, Feminism, and Story as Seen in Roman Holiday and Lost in Translation
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Roman Holiday (1953) and Lost in Translation (2003) are notable romantic comedies that became a huge success and gained wide critical acclaim in their respective eras. Released half a century apart, the films substantially differ in their economic and business environment. Nonetheless, both films have striking similarities in their approach to portraying women’s sexuality and role in society as well as building narrative and plot structures. By contrasting Roman Holiday and Lost in Translation, one could identify the changes in business practices, narration tendencies, and societal norms and taboos.

Lost in Translation: Overview

Lost in Translation is a 2003 romantic comedy-drama directed by Sofia Coppola. The film explores the unlikely friendship of two lonely individuals stuck in Tokyo: a burnt-out movie star Bob Harris (portrayed by Bill Murray), and a neglected young woman Charlotte (portrayed by Scarlett Johansson). Murray’s character deals with becoming a fading movie star, now making a living doing commercials and talk shows instead of actual movies. He has a tense relationship with his wife and children. Charlotte also struggles with her young marriage because her husband, as put by Roger Ebert, is “simply a moth fluttering around fame.” Both Charlotte and Bob feel lost, lonely, and stuck in their life situations.

Bob and Charlotte first meet in the lounge of a hotel, quickly finding solace in each other’s company. The characters are trying to deal with loneliness, complicated personal relationships, and, frankly, boredom. Through the course of the film, both characters realize that they are stuck in their lives (Ebert). They do not immediately realize the impact they will have had on each other, being kept apart for a pretty long time on screen (Ebert). It is hard to articulate the purpose of their meeting and brief friendship because it is up to the viewer to draw conclusions they want to see. They share loneliness and longing for emotional sympathy in vast Tokyo.

Roman Holiday: Overview

Roman Holiday is a 1953 romantic comedy (also known as rom-com) directed by William Wyler that follows the encounter of a crown princess of an unnamed European country Ann (portrayed by Audrey Hepburn), and an American reporter Joe Bradley (portrayed by Gregory Peck). Hepburn’s character feels frustrated with how little control she has over her life and escapes her country’s embassy. Due to the sedative, she took earlier, Ann falls asleep on a bench in Rome. She is then found by Joe Bradley, who brings her safely to his apartment without recognizing who she is.

The story then explores Ann and Joe’s day off in Rome. Away from her bodyguards and social responsibilities, Princess Ann enjoys the simple pleasures of a big city: a shopping spree, beautiful sights, and a visit to the saloon. Once Bradley realizes who Ann is, he sees a journalistic opportunity but ultimately decides against writing an expose. Although Roman Holiday may officially fall into romantic comedy on the genre spectrum, it is not a typical ‘chick flick.’ Rather than focusing on Ann and Joe’s relationship, the plot highlights Ann’s escape and personal growth through a day of independence (Bogarin). Essentially, it is a story of liberation rather than that of love and affair.

Economic Comparison

The economic and social changes are connected to a considerable difference in grossing of both films. Lost in Translation grossed 118.7 million USD in 2003, while the box office of Roman Holiday was 12 million USD, which, according to a cumulative price increase of 589.14%, is equivalent to about 82.7 million USD in 2003 (“Lost in Translation”; “Roman Holiday”; Webster). Even after taking inflation rates into account, Roman Holiday earned far less than Lost in Translation, despite its considerable success in the ‘50s.

The difference in profit could be attributed to several factors. First, a new market emerged following the development of the domestic economy—a middle-class audience—contributing to the growth of accessibility and demand, and, as a result, increased profits (Neale and Smith). Second, one can also argue that the relative importance of narration and profitability shifted more towards the latter (Neale and Smith).

However, the economic factor is not simply determined in contemporary cinema but is influenced by the ideological aspect, i.e., plot and narration (Neale and Smith). Third, a change in business practices and technology also affected the monetary side by decreasing production and post-production costs (Neale and Smith). Overall, the shift in the economic model in the society contributed to the increased demand for and profit from cinema, yielding one explanation for the difference in total grossing between Roman Holiday and Lost in Translation.

Gender, Feminism, and Story as Seen in Roman Holiday and Lost in Translation

The differences in sexual explicitness in the films could be attributed to the shift in perception of female sexuality in the post-war context and changes in censorship legislation. For example, Lost in Translation presents a more open approach to portraying sex and women’s sexuality, as evidenced by the scene of a one-night stand between Bill Murray’s character and the lounge singer. Additionally, when Charlotte and Bob Harris accidentally visit a strip club, they witness an erotic performance of a half-naked dancer. In contrast, Roman Holiday does not feature anything more explicit than Princess Ann and Joe’s kiss.

Because women’s films in the ’40s and ’50s often followed the trajectory of female emancipation (or redefining of self) from the constraints of her social or familial context, female desire had to be held back (Pravadelli and Meadows). The Production Code, which was abandoned and replaced by a rating system in 1968, could be a reason for such a drastic difference (Neale and Smith). Overall, these differences are evidence of a shift in the societal perception of ‘the acceptable’ in women’s behavior.

The films have some similarities and differences in the representation of women’s role in society and family. After World War II, the economy of the US was booming, and following traditions was the most socially acceptable way of life (Bogarin). Therefore, Princess Ann could be seen not only as a portrayal of royalty but the symbol of a white woman of that decade living a seemingly perfect and stable life in the suburbs (Bogarin). Yet, her life lacked depth and, arguably, meaning, despite her money and status. Similarly, from luxurious hotel facilities to her husband’s attitude, Johansson’s character is surrounded by the excess created by capitalism (McGowan 55). The similarity lies in that both female protagonists gain some freedom from their respective limitations: royal responsibilities and marriage (Murphy 40). Both of them seem to feel excess of the excess. Charlotte, however, is more privileged and free in her choices because fewer gender stereotypes are imposed on her.

Released half a century apart, the films have striking similarities in their portrayal of female-male relationships. Although both films follow the predominant representation of gendered heterosexual and heteronormative romantic relationships, each of them defies them in a similar way (Beasley and Brook 123). As noted by the late film critic Roger Ebert, the viewer naturally expects the characters of Lost in Translation to fall in love or have sex. However, the relationship of the protagonists is not sexual but rather romantic. Even when Charlotte realizes that the lounge singer is in Bob’s room, she seems surprised rather than jealous (Ebert). Similarly, the characters of Roman Holiday do not follow the classical trope of romantic movies because they do not end up together – they part ways at the end of the film. Yet, both gain something from their encounter (Bogarin). Essentially, by refusing the typical ‘boy meets girl or ‘Cinderella’ paradigm, both films defy the genre’s standards.

Conclusion

The analysis and comparison of Roman Holiday (1953) and Lost in Translation (2003) leads to the conclusion that both films are generally representative of their respective eras but are unique in some aspects. The films have both similarities and differences in the approach to the plot and portrayal of women and their sexuality. Due to a fifty-year gap in their release, the cinematic pieces differ in economic, social, and business backgrounds. This directly affects the content of the individual stories, namely explicit scenes, and character development. The box office of both films was also affected by the economic and socio-political change. Overall, both movies are excellent examples of romantic comedies of their respective cinematic eras.

Works Cited

Beasley, Chris, and Heather Brook. The Cultural Politics of Contemporary Hollywood Film: Power, Culture, and Society. Manchester University Press, 2019.

Bogarin, Thais. “Roman Holiday (1953): Not a Tale of Romance but of Women’s Liberation.” Medium. Web.

Ebert, Roger. “Fugue in D Lonely.” RogerEbert. 2010. Web.

“Lost in Translation.” IMBd. Web.

McGowan, Todd. “There Is Nothing Lost in Translation.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video, vol. 24 no. 1, 2007, pp. 53–63.

Murphy, Amy. “Traces of the Flâneuse: From Roman Holiday to Lost in Translation.” Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 60, no. 1, 2006, pp. 33–42. Web.

Neale, Steve, and Murray Smith, editors. Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Taylor and Francis, 2013. Perlego. Web.

“Roman Holiday.” IMBd. Web.

Pravadelli, Veronica, and Michael Meadows. Classic Hollywood: Lifestyles and Film Styles of American Cinema, 1930-1960. University of Illinois Press, 2015. Perlego. Web.

Webster, Ian. “Inflation from 1953 to 2003.” In2013dollars. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!