No, you’re friend is crazy. If a filmmaker wishes their film to be seen by people who don’t speak the original version, then there has to be subs (or dubs). I can’t imagine any filmmaker not wanting their film translated, especially someone like Terrence Malick, who does better overseas than he does in the US.
Two recent British films that I would watch with English subs – The Guard and Attack the Block. In fact, there was a recent debate about having Attack the Block shown in theaters with English subs because the accents are so thick (this would be the first time an English language film would get English subs for theaters).
Jazz—Out of curiosity, if you all spoke English, why have the subs on?
@Santino
Well, to be fair, to my friend, he did mention that when the film is in a foreign language to the viewer, the subtitles are an unavoidable necessity, so what he’s saying wouldn’t apply in those circumstances. But when the film is in the viewer’s language, should the subtitles never be used. (I think we could make exceptions for American viewers watching British or Australian films, or vice-versa.)
Moderated
Jazz—That was a troll, so don’t worry. You go on and make as many threads as you want. While you are a thread machine, more of them than not are worthwhile ;)
I agree with Santino as I think most people will but I understand the point your friend made. It’s kind of what I notice when I’m watching Bollywood movies (I watch with them subs because even though I understand Hindi/Urdu as I grew up with it, there are words I don’t know and I also like to keep it as reference). I always wonder if how it’s translated will give someone the same impression of the line that was given to me when I hear it as someone who understands the connotations of the words.
For example, desi people love to rhyme. Stuff like “Roti shoti” (Roti being a bread that we eat). Shoti doesn’t mean anything – it’s just something rhyme to with roti. Most of the time it’s kind of said in this flippant and casual way and only certain personalities say it which kind of suggests who is ever saying it is either comfortable with whoever they’re speaking to or they’re spirited. But that rhyming can also be used in anger.
I also feel like if you’re not used to the language, your mind conceptualizes it as this kind of run-on sentence of sounds but once you get more familiar with it, you can match the acting to the language. And short of knowing the language, subtitles actually help with that. Especially if the person is saying one word and you see the translation for that word. Then that meaning gets internalized.
I think it’s impractical for any filmmaker to be angry over a matter like that or feel like their wishes aren’t being fulfilled.
However, I do think the qualities of subtitles does matter and certain inclusions or exclusions of grammar and phrasing does matter.
With Hindi/Urdu, the translation is not linear. It’s mostly inverted. Like what would you say first in an English sentence is the end of what you say in Hindi/Urdu. But I don’t know if that’s worth a mention because to me, I still get the same message but for anyone trying to learn either language by watching Bollywood, that’s something to keep in mind. And probably the case for watching other movies in other languages like that.
And I also agree with Santino — I love captions on anything I watch even if its English because sometimes I can’t understand actors or they speak low. (That and I don’t want to miss any word from the script) Which is why I’ve always loved Jack Lemmon,. Perfect enunciation every time!!
What about the hearing impaired? They would need subs (or more specifically “closed captions” or SDH), even if they spoke English. Does Terrence Malick hate deaf people?
@HoL
Out of curiosity, if you all spoke English, why have the subs on?
For a variety of reasons:
1. My sound system isn’t that greatest. I’d have to turn up the volume during scenes with dialogue than turn it down when the score or background sounds came on (because it would be too loud).
2. Distractions around the house
3. Maybe I’m losing my hearing. :)
Sometimes, the film might be too blame, too. I’ve noticed in Terrence Malick’s films, there are a few words that are hard to hear—and these words can be crucial to the meaning. Also, I think the VO in Malick’s films are really important to understanding them….Actually, this is what I mentioned to my friend. And he said, “Well, maybe that was Malick’s intention.” To which I replied: “Well, we don’t know if the sound system is to blame or not.”
While you are a thread machine, more of them than not are worthwhile ;)
You mean you didn’t love all the threads I started? ;)
I love you, which should suffice ;)
As an aside, my wife and I have made it a practice to have subs on when our young children are watching a film as it helps them to be better readers.
@Bushra
It’s kind of what I notice when I’m watching Bollywood movies (I watch with them subs because even though I understand Hindi/Urdu as I grew up with it, there are words I don’t know and I also like to keep it as reference).
Well, that’s a slightly different situation. You’re not completely fluent, so you need the subtitles to help you out. But suppose you were really fluent in Hindi/Urdu, would you still use the subtitles?
I also feel like if you’re not used to the language, your mind conceptualizes it as this kind of run-on sentence of sounds but once you get more familiar with it, you can match the acting to the language. And short of knowing the language, subtitles actually help with that. Especially if the person is saying one word and you see the translation for that word. Then that meaning gets internalized.
But you’re only talking about viewers who have some familiarity with the language right? In other words, what you’re saying wouldn’t apply to viewers who didn’t understand a word of the language. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Btw, I don’t know if I’d go so far to say the director would be “angry” at viewers. The context of the discussion I had with my friend is sort of important (and I didn’t mention this in the OP). I said that the voice-overs in Terrence Malick’s films are really important to understand, but sometimes it’s hard to make out all the words. My friend suggested that that might be Malick’s intention, so putting the subtitles on might have subverted his intention.
(Btw, here’s another detail I remember. In Badlands there’s a scene with a Classical music playing in the background, and it sounds like singing in German. Anyway, the subtitles actually translate the meaning of the lyrics. Is that what Malick would have wanted? If he didn’t, wouldn’t have put subtitles that translated the lyrics in the film?)
^ House of Leaves, that is so true. My little brother will sometimes see that I’m watching something with subs (this will be something spoken in another language) and he’ll distractingly read all of the translated dialog. LOL.
And my post was before your clarification, Jazz but I still think it reigns true. But I’m not sure if you mean captions or subtitles in another language. My dad doesn’t like captions which bothers me because I’ll notice they’re turned off and have to turn them back on. I think for him, it’s sensory overload or they cover the screen?
But for me, I like having captions and subtitles. Even though I grew up with the language, I honestly don’t speak it so my fluency isn’t a 100 percent. I probably don’t really need them to understand what’s going in a movie but honestly, not everyone speaks Urdu like my parents. Meaning for every actor in the movie, my ears have to adjust to their pronunciations and emphases. Seeing as I can’t read Urdu or Hindi, the fact that the English subs are there makes me feel better.
For English-movies, I love the Mid-Atlantic accent. So crisp and easy to listen to understand that makes not having it not seem like the worst thing in the world.
We had a discussion similar to this a long time ago (on a thread that I wouldn’t even begin to know how to find) in which someone quoted Bogdonavich saying watching a movie with subtitles is a lesser experience (or something to that effect). It was an interesting discussion although I don’t think we solved anything. lol
Sorry for the double post but I meant to say that I think of captions as more so subtitles for your own language and subtitles for other languages being heard. But that’s my own distinction.
I love you, which should suffice ;)
Not that I have a choice…:)
As an aside, my wife and I have made it a practice to have subs on when our young children are watching a film as it helps them to be better readers.
Oh sure, put the education and literacy of your children ahead of the wishes of the auteur. What the heck kind of cinephile are you, anyway? :)
@ Jazz
I probably would. I don’t think you can ever know every single word in a language. It’s the same reason why I use captions in English. I like to think I’m well-read and have a good vocabulary but then I hear occasionally a word I’ve never heard before and I’m like, “Glad to know I have captions to first SEE what the word is so I can tuck it in my mind and also have an idea how to spell it.” And then of course I know its context too.
Ha ha.
Filmmakers I would appreciate (somewhat) without subs:
Sharunas Bartas
James Benning
Chantal Ackerman
Stan Brakhage
Politically: Welsh being the indigenous British language, all Anglophone English films should only be shown dubbed in Welsh. Similarly for all the colonised countries whose tongues were torn out.
Socially: Subtitles in one’s own language are not only useful for people with hearing disabilities but also a reminder to everyone of their existence. It would be useful to take this empathy a stage further, first by watching films with no sound, secondly- to better feel the world of deaf and blind people- with no vision either. I experienced Sansho the Bailiff in this manner, and it was still sublime. The greatness of the director’s vision was able to transcend such obstacles with ease.
Educationally: yes, useful as a reading aid
Artistically: subs should not be used, since if the director wanted them he would have chosen. Unless, he/she was very unhappy with the sound quality.
Scottish and some other British accents are already given subtitles in the USA, to help grasp the strange convoluted sounds emanating from the screen, aren’t they? Alternatively, only those actors with Oxford English need apply. The USA’s cultural colonisation has been so successful that the reverse is not needed for the British.
@Bushra
OK.
I’m wondering, though. Do you feel like anything is lost from your experience when you have the subtitles on? I mean, in some ways, I marvel at how I can enjoy a film with the subtitles on because I feel like I would be (I am) missing a lot of the action (i.e. facial expressions, etc.). You know what I’m saying?
@HoL
I don’t think I’ve seen any of their films, but their films don’t have much dialogue—or were you being facetious?
Not facetious at all—I just hadn’t considered that I would love their films just as much as I do now if we lived in a world where subs didn’t exist.
To be honest, if we’re talking about a Bollywood film, the fact that it doesn’t have subtitles seem to irk me more? I can understand a lot in context but for me when I’m first watching a movie, I’m very script oriented. I’m like that way with any movie though. I need to understand what the characters saying or else it’s very difficult for me getting into the ambiance of of the whole movie. I’ve also always been more into character-building than direction though (Billy Wilder describes himself like this in contrast to Hitchcock) I do tend to watch Bollywood movies more than once though so once I already know what’s about to be said, I focus more on the atmosphere but I feel like the atmosphere are the words they’re speaking. Besides, these are long movies so they tend to have a lot of dialog.
But for me, I never really lose the facial articulations of characters. I consider that a form of dialog so I always make sure I don’t miss that. But as for everything else, I don’t know if I do. I use the subtitles as a reference so there are times where I don’t read them either. I think I can only answer your question if I did watch movies w/o them (which I haven’t done in the longest time to be able to remember my thought processes behind it)
As for movies in English, I tend to be a quick reader but I don’t always look at the captions. If I’m in a theater, I find I waste more time trying to figure out what they said exactly than paying attention to other things of the movie. So reading subtitles/ caps actually saves me more time to form impressions on other parts of the acting and direction and whatnot.
But this is how I am. I’ve always been very big on dialog and analyzing it. Which is why I’m also more into actors/actresses than I am in to directors. All of it is important but that’s what I focus on.
For me subtitles have become something of great inconvenience. I grew up reading Dutch subtitles on everything from TV to filmtheatres and now it has become impossible for me to ’’not’’ read the subtitles. It doesn’t even matter if they’re in Dutch, German, French or English, I will ALWAYS read them. It’s especially inconvenient if I want to enjoy an English-spoken film (I’ve gone as far as to tape the bottom of my television, but that only works well with scope pictures) and would prefer to enjoy it in the native language, because generally a lot is lost in translation.
To get back to the question of the topic; I’ve noticed some English subtitles actually have something different in the subtitles than what is being said. This especially occurs a lot with dialects, which I’d rather read and may not understand completely than end up with a bad translation. So basically I don’t think it matters much to the director as long as the translation is correct. If it’s not, it would be like reading a translation of a novel you’d also be able to read in its native language.
Similarly for all the colonised countries whose tongues were torn out.
What about regional and local dialects? where does purity end?
One of the benefits of one world, one language is the internet.
re OP:
Thought processes are split visually and analytically with the introduction of dialog.
Subs add another dimension in that the visual processing has to manipulate symbols – I think that reduces the mise en scene somewhat.
I watch every film with captions. I have ever since I was little. I find it adds a great deal and takes away nothing, since the captions are in the letterbox anyway.
You have to see both at once Den – it is almost like squinting, which has the effect of flattening depth perception.
I tend to only look down if I miss something due to sound issues or if a great line is said and I want to make sure I get it right (I tend to be a visual rather than auditory learner)
I generally don’t like subtitles (it removes your attention from the screen) and prefer dubbing. On the other hand, dubbing obliterates the great voice actors. The first time I saw Jean-Pierre Leaud, it was a dubbed version of Stolen Kisses. I missed out on Leaud’s music.
Subtitles really change the visual rhythm of movie-watching for me.
Yeah, my eyes are bugshit after I watch a film with subs, which I always do.
If we are talking a loss of depth perception, that isn’t a big deal though.
1. My sound system isn’t that greatest. I’d have to turn up the volume during scenes with dialogue than turn it down when the score or background sounds came on (because it would be too loud).
2. Distractions around the house
3. Maybe I’m losing my hearing. :)
Forget about subtitles, you are not listening sound design properly! NOW you are make the director unhappy :-O
Throw your friends out and use audiophones in a laptop. That’s what I do lol
…
About the subtitles thing, It’s simply impossible to enjoy Sans Solei in french with subtitles just to name something extreme. There are films that are truly damaged if watched this way but hopefully they are just a minority.
Jazzaloha
Last weekend I watched Badlands with some friends, and we had the subtitles on. My friend later asked if he thought this was such a good idea. I asked him to explain and he explained that the filmmaker may not have intended viewers to see the film in that way—so watching the film with subtitles on would somehow violate the director’s wishes. (He quickly explained that for foreign language films this is more of a necessity. Of course, one might have the dub option, but similar problems exist with that route, too.)
I never considered this possibility, and I think it is a potentially valid point. I’m wondering what other people think about this. Should subtitles never be used for films in your own language? What would be the arguments for and against?