Hello friends, and thanks for the interesting discussion.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/26/01 10:29:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Subtitles didn't bother me a bit--so for me emotional and soulful worked.
> >As I said - for me it did not work. Maybe I am predisposed to find subtitles
> distracting? Perhaps this is why.
>
Probably so--I know many people who just won't see a movie if there is a hint of a
subtitle--guess its not a surprise that different folks process information in
different ways. Speaking for myself, I have to say that some of the most intense
reactions I've had to movies were in subtitled films--Margarethe von Trotta's
"Marianne and Julianne" and "Rosa Luxemburg," Bergman's "Persona" all leap to
mind. Haven't found much in my native language to top them.
Artheo also wrote:
> The human mind can actually eliminate an entire 'step', if you will, in the chain
> of interpretation - as compared to reading numbers and text. Studies have been
> done that bear this theory out. Francis Ford Coppola funded such a study in the
> 60's, I believe in conjunction with USC. It was found that the 'read & analyze'
> approach to human emotional response is the longer of the two paths, when
> compared to the aurally supported path of visual imagery, no matter how quickly
> one reads and interprets. That is why a visual image of something gruesome or
> frightening can make you flinch or scream or squirm, much faster, and to a much
> greater degree than can reading a description of the same occurrence or
> situation. Reading will never elicit a scream. Sure, you have to read the
> subtitles, but you're still having a cinematic expereince, getting the visual
> impact of the images on the screen--
Maybe the reason I am not bothered by subtitles in movies is that they're in
movies. You're still in the theatre, still having the cinematic experience, still
being bombarded with the visual--I don't find reading and absorbing the visual
images as mutually exclusive.
Vince Lavieri wrote
> The actor's words, tone of voice, inflection, are a part of the movie whether I
> can understand the language or not. Acting involves
> the voice, and I want to hear that voice.
>
> A dubbed Crouching Tiger would have us looking at the actor's mouths with words
> that didn't match, as with every Godzilla film we saw in the 50s.
Those were my thoughts exactly. Dubbing would add a layer of falseness that just
interferes with the director's vision, or whatever. I once watched "Das Boot" in
German with subtitles, (loved it!) then watched the dubbed version the next day.
Compared to the original German language version, the dubbed simply didn't do it
for me-- I have a hard time suppressing my inner geek, and during the dubbed
version couldn't stop imagining a Nazi sub manned by bare-chested Kung-Fu warriors
whose lips moved but did not necessarily speak. Which is to say, compared to the
original version, dubbing ruined it for me. I think it goes back to the whole
mystery of art -- if there is vision and intensity and honesty and feeling and
whatever other mysterious component exists in a work of art, it will work and
communicate, subtitles or not. And there's the whole issue of the power inherent
in the word, in the original language, as Vince notes:
> No way would I want to see any German or Italian or French or Russian or Czech
> opera in English either; the artist composed with intentionality in a particular
> language. Words cannot be translated exactly and something is always lost when
> we translate from the original.
Garret wrote:
> ang lee really deserved the BAFTA that Kate Winslet gave
> him the other day.
Hooray! Glad to hear he's getting his props. He rocks!
Best to all--
Catherine T. (Seattle)
PS to Jan Gyn: Now I know where all those funny posts come from--you get it from
Jade Fox!
