With the Oscars, the film award season comes to an end and there is one “recognition” that surely must be given here… and perhaps unlike the impossible to understand euphoria that has been generated around "Lost in Translation", the writing here will loose nothing in its translation (or perhaps that’s transcendence) of its real place in the annals of entertainment.

While it was suspected in the lead up to Oscar night, it became obvious that the marketing and PR people had achieved a miracle of bozonic proportions when multiple members of the media began making hay of the fact that Ms. Coppola was the “first American woman” to be nominated for Best Director.

Please!

Yes, it is a true statement, but is it relevant? While recognition for female American Directors is long, long overdue, Ms. Coppola is certainly not the first woman nominated in this category (Jane Campion can claim that status and she also won the award for best Original Screenplay at the same time – but, she’s from New Zealand, not the US). In addition, does her work really compare with that of her peers – whether nominated in this particular race to an award or across the board in the past year?

“Lost in Translation” is a clever and entertaining “movie” to be sure. But is it Oscar material?

The premise is that people who are spending time in a different culture, isolated and further numbed by a totally alien language and set of customs, will eventually find each other and, while they’d never look at one another in their home country, develop unexpected attachments that call into question some of the foundations of their respective lives.

That’s it - basically the entire subtext of the film.

Throw in some witty verbal and sight gags for the extremely talented Bill Murray, add a good looking, talented ingénue to play the “straight guy” and almost love interest opposite him, and you complete the story that actually won Best Original Screenplay against such extremely creative and far deeper works such as “Invasion of the Barbarians” or “Dirty, Pretty Things”.

The even sadder thing is that the premise here is actually true, but it has been sugar coated and “packaged” for the audience (and no doubt academy voters):

Anyone who has spent time in a completely foreign country – Japan, China, Senegal, even India, etc. – knows the isolation only too well. The experienced travelers guard against it and are careful about the attachments they are tempted to make. The inexperienced, or jaded, follow the pattern of Mr. Bill’s character; however, all too often the loneliness of the long distance voyager leads to flings, romantic or lustful, that re-engineer the participants’ lives. Or, they resort to professional services and risk health and threaten their own ethics and morality.

Of course, while sugar coating the reality, “Lost in Translation” needed a glossy, over exaggerated backdrop to keep the audience engaged. As a result, the Japanese portrayed as faddish, aggressive people who alternate between the bizarre to the obsequious. The Japanese are no doubt too polite and respectful to comment directly on the various slurs this production created out of their culture.

Just imagine if the characters had been set against a less glitzy, techno-neutral backdrop, say Jakarta – but wait, that’s been done and that film, “The Year of Living Dangerously” certainly shows how to use a premise with a meaningful backdrop.

Ms. Coppola is, without a doubt, a very talented film maker. She produced a very entertaining film as her first contribution to the medium. However, there are so many entertaining films that deal with a mixture of sugar coated reality, humor and pathos, such as LA Story, Bandits, Wag the Dog, Ground Hog Day, Michael, Gaudi Afternoon, or, on the less humorous side, Point Break, The Limey, Near Dark, The Professional, The Dish, etc.

It is probably a good thing for Peter Jackson and the Lord of Rings team that Ms. Coppola is not from New Zealand herself or she probably would have outdone Ms. Campion at their expense.

Who’s the bozo in all of this? We all are if we believe that “Lost in Translation” is really a cut above simply being what it is: fine, innocent entertainment.

Only bozos believe the hype there has been around this “movie” in the lead up to the Oscars. Obviously there must been a high coefficient of bozosity in the voting – maybe the voters just thought the hype was so entertaining they had to hand over their votes, or maybe their markers were called by the dynasty behind this project.

Who knows, but, in reality, it’s over and there’s always next years circus to look forward to.

In the end, this particular “movie” clearly shows that, like so many things in life, it can be all in how you play the politics – personal and studio.