"What was the point?"

Those were the exact words I heard today when discussing movies with someone. He brought up some films that he felt there was no point to, such as: "Lost in Translation," "The Life Aquatic," and "The Royal Tennenbaums." I was going to explain the "points," but he was reluctant on listening.

What's the point of any movie or work of art? To entertain, to bring out emotions, to provoke thought, open minds, bring out laughter and tears, to teach, to inspire, to let one escape, to provide a cathartic release, I could go on and on.

Now, after viewing a film so awful that it made your parents' home movies look like Oscar-contenders, is it logical to then ask the question, "What was the point in the making of that film?" Yes. But, is it logical to ask, "What was the point?" As in, what message is the movie trying to relay onto its viewers? No. Because, sadly enough, even the worst of films probably have some "point" to them.

But, the films he mentioned aren't the worst in cinema, not even close. Some people seem to need everything lined up for them and for the message to be s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t in a very clear, concise manner to comprehend the "point." Some people are like that and hey, that's allright, but just because they don't see a "point" to a film doesn't mean there isn't any.

"The Life Aquatic" and "The Royal Tennenbaums" are very dark comedies, so, like any comedy, perhaps the point is to entertain the audience and bring out laughter. "The Royal Tennenbaums" has more of a "point" than just that, but I won't even go there right now. I've provided "points" for both films, so I'll leave it at that. The one film he brought up that has a clear and important "point" is "Lost in Translation," starring Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. The title of the film and the setting in which the film takes place says it all. Murray and Johansson both find themselves in Japan, Murray shooting a commercial and Johansson accompanying her husband on a business trip. Both being from the U.S., Murray and Johansson are "Lost in Translation" in that they are the outsiders and minority, unable to communicate efficiently with the majority of people around them. At the same time, the film displays the difficulties both Murray and Johansson have in communicating with spouses (or ex-spouses). The film draws this parallel for the viewers. It compares the difficulty in efficiently conversing with a person from a foreign nation to that of someone very close to you. No matter what one's primary language is, how close they are in proximity to another, or how often they see another, the communication can seem like that between one who only speaks Italian and another who only speaks English. This is what makes Murray and Johansson's bond even more special. They both are "Lost in Translation" in where they are (Japan) and who they're with. The "point" is that communication is important and essential for any relationship, whether it's romantic or business. If a couple is "Lost in Translation," they will have some very troubling times ahead.

Parallels, symbolism, and motifs are three ways that directors and scriptwriters can get "points" across without s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g things out word by word. This may be frustrating for some, but it is rewarding for others. There are films out there for everyone. The "point" is knowing how to pick them out just by watching previews and reading reviews. That can be easier said than done, but if one is right about their movie picks 75% of the time, then that's pretty satisfactory.