Would you prefer movies such as THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and APOCALYPTO to be made in English or in their native languages? Also, would you have preferred movies like SCHINDLER'S LIST to have been in German & Hebrew rather than English?

Subtitles single choice
	I'm for subtitles
	I'm against subtitles
	Sometimes yes, sometimes no
	I'm not really sure
	Other (see below)
Votes accepted starting: 07/11/07 08:42 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Lets just say there are subtitles and then there are subtitles. If they are GOOD subtitles then they are great, bad subtitles are always horrible.

Anyone that supports dubbing can kiss my ass.

Really, has anyone seen a GOOD dubbing job?

Fact is, you have entire performances ruined because of that dubbing nonsense. Trust me, its not a pretty sight. (Irish, what the hell? You seen all those Japanese movies and still doubtful about subtitles? Why don't you go back to watching GODZILLA pictures then?)

I am not sure as I haven't seen any of those movies to comment. However, as a general question, I think that unless some special circumstances arise, any movie should be in the language that is appropriate to the context and environment of the characters rather than that of the audience. I have seen a lot of chinese martial arts movies made in english. For example, the story would be set in 17th century china and would be about chinese. But characters would speak english with a chinese accent. That makes no sense at all. It makes them look bad. What would have been appropriate is making the movie in chinese and have subtitles for the audience. But it does not make commercial sense because that would cut down the potential audience in a big way as most people would not want to see a foreign language movie. I personally like to see foreign movies in the foreign language with subtitles in english. But I hate it too, because I miss a lot of things on the screen because I am busy reading the text

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Kung Fu Hustle were two movies that I really enjoyed, and because of the people I watched them with I saw the dubbed versions rather than the subtitled ones. Watching the movie with subtitles may be better, but I did enjoy the dubbed versions.

I do think that if I'm watching a Japanese(or wherever) movie I want to hear the original actors voices and read the subtitles. I enjoy hearing the original language.

I think what Irish is getting at (Correct me if I'm wrong Irish.) is should American made movies be made in the common language where the movie takes place? Apocalypto is an American movie, and if it were made with the actors speaking English then it's not technically dubbed. So dubbing vs. subtitles isn't really the issue. Should movies made in one country be made in the language of where the movie takes place rather than where the movie is produced?

I run into that same dilemma. As much as I enjoy listening to the foreign language, I'm constantly reading the text and missing the action onscreen I feel ya man

Yes Blibble, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. I'm sorry I should have been more specific with American movies. All the films I suggested were American and I'm glad someone picked up on that

Mate, the way our eyes work, unless you need glasses (or the American distributors made piss-poor small English text), you end up watching/reading the film simultaneously.

Then again, I once watched STAR WARS on its Spanish audio track, but in English subtitles.....no problem at all.

All for it. The more authenticity the better.

The problem I have with subtitles is when I rent a movie that I'm dying to see, such as Pan's Labyrinth, which is subtitled, and I don't get time to watch it because nobody in my family wants to watch it with me because of the subtitles. So I end up having to watch it when everyone else falls asleep. Of course I'm so exhausted from working all day that I can only stay awake for 10-20 minutes myself, so I end up watching the movies in small segments

I don't like doing that because I feel a movie should be watched in it's entirety the way the makers intended us to see it. I'm still all for subtitles though as long as, like Don Andrew said, it adds to the authenticity.

I don't know what "authenticity" comprises or amounts to, but for whatever reason, I respect Mel Gibson for filming in those languages.

One of my favourite films is Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God; it's in German (played by German actors, produced in West Germany), but takes place in Peru, with the Spanish Conquistadors. It's obviously subtitled for English audiences, but would I enjoy it anymore if everyone had spoken Spanish?

On the flip side, I abhor Spielberg's Munich for several reasons, one of them being the irritating casting of Eric Bana, an Australian actor, speaking English for the audience in an Israeli or Palestinian (I forget which) accent. It annoys the hell out of me: why the fuck go to the trouble with an accent when you're speaking English anyway? The same, perhaps, can be said for Schindler's List, but I suppose that would be a small point of contention when the film itself is miles better than Munich ever turned out to be.

It amused me when people complained about Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette having American accents, but the same people wouldn't have had a problem had Kirsten Dunst pronounced everything as if she was an English-speaking Frenchwoman. And those same people wouldn't have gone to see it at all if it had been in French with subtitles.

People want films to adapt to their values; they rarely wish to adapt to the film's.

I think that's part of the problem though, we're too lazy to read the subtitles. We're not accustomed to it and as such don't want to be bothered. I had to get used to reading subtitles same as getting use to widescreen (thank goodness I am now). But as you said Blibble, I couldn't tell you how many people returned PAN'S LABYRINTH while I worked at Blockbuster simply because it was in Spanish. Guess what movie they wanted to switch it out for? APOCALYPTO. And here's the funny thing. I never heard 1 complaint about THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST or APOCALYPTO being subtitled, but you wouldn't believe the amount I heard for PAN'S. What's up with that? Are we more accustomed as a society to listening to Aramaic or Miyan rather than Spanish? I think not!

As for your second comment, I always try to watch a movie in one sitting. Even if I have the time but I think I might fall asleep, I'll wait until the next day just because I hate starting and stopping it. The movie seems longer than it is that way.

To be honest, I think the use of a foreign language in American films can be something of an artistic choice. Or, more so, the lack of use of a foreign language when it would make sense to use it can be an artistic choice. Of course, I love when films do use the proper language to tell the story, as it only adds to "authenticity" as stated by others. But a film can be just as interesting by defying this logic. Now, prepare yourself, because I'm about to hijack both of Mick's examples, as they really just seem to work well with this theory.

Let's take Spielberg. He's directed both Munich and Schindler's List, both of which are in accented English. I don't think this is an artistic choice. Not in the least. Spielberg is a boring, boring hack, and I don't think the man takes many risks in his film-making. He's much too concerned with making epic blockbusters with big budgets that reel in casual movie-goers and make them empty their wallets. He knows shooting in a foreign language is a risk. So, why would he do it?

But, on the other hand, Marie-Antoinette, I feel, was very artistic in using English with American accents when the film takes place in France. It's just like the film used modern music and rock and roll for the soundtrack. It's an unconventional approach to a time-piece, and the music and American-English just seem to go hand in hand.

I remember dating an airheaded young lady like 20 years ago. I wanted to see an English film at the 8th Street Playhouse in the West Village.

She told me, "I don't want to. I hate subtitles."

I AM NOT making this up.

PB I think I met that woman one time myself.

With subtitles, the first thing is that they do not lend themselves to home videos unless you have a huge screen. You should see movies with subtitles in the theatres.

Pan's Labyrinth was one of the great movies of last year, and I saw it twice in the theatre.

As one who tries to catch a lot of films not in English, I have becume used to reading the subtitles and also watching the action. Often the subtitles are abbreviations of what the characters are saying, and often once your ears tune into the movie you can understand bits of the conversations and use the subtitles a little less.

In any case its far better than dubbing whree you lose the voices of the people who played the roles.

Hell yes. That movie is just a great theatre movie in general. It'd be a shame to pass up a film with visuals like that on the big screen.

I think it can also work for and against you. During John Woo's action films (particularly A BETTER TOMORROW 1 & 2, THE KILLER, and HARD BOILED). You can see most of the action because there aren't any subtitles. However, when I saw THE LONGEST DAY yesterday, it can work against you as well. It seemed much of the dialogue wasn't subtitled, and they just put up the "important" parts of the conversation. It's kind of frustrating when they speak in another language and you have no idea what they're talking about.

i prefer subtitles with classics im seeing for the first time, bcuz reading the subtitles i have less chance to lose focus of whats going on. in foreign or american films where they speak the language to be real to the storyline i prefer subtitles to a shitty dubbing job

I wished I got that sort of action my way. I hate you pizzaboy.

I'm sorry, but I rather have the misconvenience of having to "read" than having to deal with piss-poor lip-synching from a (usually) bad dub job.

Seriously, you know what would make the case for Irish?

Have him watch SCARFACE in its crappy French or Spanish dub. THEN tell me dubbing is tolerable sometimes.

Sometimes yes sometimes no

Pan's Labrynth was good with subtitles.

I wear hearing aids and a lot of times I like subtitles on anyways, so I guess I am just used to reading them.

Oooooooh. I was in no way inferring Spielberg was a "hack". I'd count him as much an artist as Sofia Coppola. It's a filmmaking convention for Hollywood to use accented English, but he's still had to choose to do that. I think Spielberg was well aware that if Eric Bana had talked in Munich with an Australian accent like he had in Chopper, the audience would have taken it less seriously. When I say audience, I mean the majority of the people who go to the cinema; the guys who buy popcorn and nachos on the way in and spend more money on large Cokes than they do on the film ticket.

If you really think about it, the notion of Liam Neeson talking with a German accent but in English, to the similar-speaking Ralph Fiennes, is absolutely absurd. (It's an excellent film, though.)

I think nothing of subtitles now; I put a film in and don't think anything of it - it's natural, I suppose. When we watch films, we've got to deconstruct the image and sounds first anyway before anything else - those are the two primary elements of the medium, the two primary markers of meaning. Think of subtitles as an extra mode of meaning, it's like dialogue but it's visual instead of aural. And if somebody says, "Yeah, but reading is more difficult, or contains more effort, than listening", then I disagree. But perhaps I've honed my senses to be "Cinema-friendly".

I welcome the medium in open arms.

Subtitles are not intended or accounted for by the director when (s)he makes it. We use our eyes to share time between the subtitles and the action on the screen. If the subtitles are small (in length) and only translate the important pieces of dialogue, then I don't find any problem. But for example with a movie like Stalker that I was watching yesterday, the experience is not satisfactory as there is too much and too long and also too verbose subtitles. Especially poetry with complicated words and some philosophical debate. On the other hand if it was audio, we get the illusion of seeing and hearing at the same time (though I think brain processes signals sequentially).

I've been meaning to ask you this Capo, but do you think that's because English (or Europeans in general) are more open to foreign films? You guys are a hellova lot closer to Spain, France, Italy and might have more of a personal stake in viewing foreign films. I don't really know how to explain it but a trip to Spain or France isn't as long of a journey for you as it would be for someone from American. You guys can experience the culture firsthand and might enjoy a movie more as such. Also I think a vast majority of American viewers are wrapped in their "American bubble"?(i.e. give me anything without subtitles!)

I know you weren't, but it was my own personal opinion. I just thought you used two very excellent examples that pertained to my own theory on the use of language. But as far a Spielberg is concerned, personally, I feel he's one of the least exciting directors out there.

I don't think that "bubble" is a specifically American thing. The majority of English people are like that too, I think. Here are a few disparate thoughts on the matter, which I can't be bothered to bring together into a coherent argument...

On the accessibility to culture you speak of, I've only been on two "cultural" tours of European towns/cities, one to France to visit WWI trenches, one to Rome to sight-see, and both were because of school trips (ie. I haven't made a trip myself). I've been to Spain, Greece and Turkey, but every time it was to holiday resorts catered to Western tastes. Sure, you get served by a Greek waiter or a Spanish sinorita, but it's hardly a true look at the culture; you're surrounded by English people who I would say are ignorant of the culture they're visiting. Most people you'd meet at a beach at one of those resorts would scoff at the idea of watching a Spanish film, or a Greek film.

I meet a lot of North American students who are at my university for a year, and when they're here they make every effort to visit Europe while they're here (cheap flights, etc.); they've seen places that I never have, and I'm much nearer to those places than they are. They'd be more open to watching subtitled films, because they seek the culture and go sight-seeing and whatnot (whatever "sight-seeing" amounts to, and whatever "culture" comprises).

Also, I don't think being against subtitles is always an illiterate or lazy thing (though it may well be an ignorant one). I think "subtitled" as a phrase is often synonymous with "artsy fartsy". In other words, if a film was made in France, it must deal with "high brow culture" or something. In other words, if a film was made in Sweden, it must be melancholic, psychological, brooding and erotic. The notion of "Art cinema" was coined and deconstructed by David Thompson decades ago, and I think it has become somewhat outdated, whether because of the films themselves or because of my personal, more omnivorous tastes, I don't know. "Art cinema" came to prominence I suppose in the sixties and seventies, when the French New Wave, Italian Neo-realism and the German New Wave came to the foray, and when American films became more progressive and more open as regards borrowing from these European cultures (the eradication of the Hays Code in 1966 helped to open things up, too).

A lot of American films during the sixties and seventies were made by people influenced heavily by those New Waves I talked about above - Scorsese, Coppola, Mike Nichols, Dennis Hopper even (not to mention emigres such as Roman Polanski and the English directors such as John Schlesinger) and so as a result, fans of films such as Taxi Driver, The Godfather, The Graduate, The Conversation and Easy Rider seem to me, for me at least, more willing to watch "World Cinema". (Just look at this board for that trend.)

I think there's been a hip revival of Latin Cinema recently, and films such as Maria Full of Grace get HBO funding and are well marketed; City of God was described in trailers and posters as "The new GoodFellas", which I thought was ridiculous, but if it got more people to see it, fair enough.

Speaking of City of God, one of my friends told me t'other day that they'd watched it, and I was very surprised, because this lad is far from a film buff, and would have, I suspected, turned his nose up at the word "subtitled".

But City of God is a fashionably rapid, violent and colourful film with a young cast, and so I can understand why someone like my friend liked it. Also, upon watching it, I might also understand why he felt the need to tell me, not because it was a good film, but because he may have felt impressed that he'd watched and enjoyed a "foreign" film, or an "artsy fartsy" film.

This brings me onto the point of subject matter putting people off. Is it reall subtitles that put people off films, or is it because the word "subtitles" is mistaken to mean "a slow film without a story" (or, as I've said, "artsy fartsy"). I've said it before, and someone on the FCM whose thoughts I admire greatly says the same, but I don't think many people actually like the medium itself. They like certain films, of course, but the reasons for liking them are because of characters or storylines, and they overlook the aspects of the film which make it a film, the things which are specific or unique to the medium, such as imagery, sounds, shot-to-shot transitions or camera movements. As soon as a film's style becomes prominent or excessive, as soon as it becomes "visible" (Hollywood's conventions strive to be invisible, so as to further embed the audience into the reality of the film, ie. "escapism"), people switch off, because they're not really into style - the medium doesn't appeal to them, and so they'll say it's "boring" or "pretentious" or "empty" or "shallow". I think the majority of people treat Cinema as a somehow more passive or shorthand way of killing time. And people are under the illusion, too, that Time is somehow in relation to "depth" or "academic worth". In other words, if you spend five days reading a book, you're doing something academically worthwhile, but watching a film for two hours requires less time, and is thus an inferior medium artistically. Whatever.

Finally, I think that this problem with subject matter (I don't want to get into Bordwell's "Art Cinema" too much, but if you're interested read up on it, it's very worthwhile in seeing why we hold reservations for a certain type of film) arises from the unfamiliarity of it. French people will grow up watching French films, and take them more easily or more naturally than an American kid. Why? Because the American will have to go out of his way to view those French films; and arthouses are dwarfed in numbers by multiplexes these days. Of course, the French kid will also have ready access to the Hollywood films, because Hollywood controls a large amount of distribution the world over, so it might be likely too that the French kid, once he's hit puberty, is more in line with the Hollywood film than the French film. (This was the case with my German flatmate, who loved Bad Boys but refused to watch Aguirre, the Wrath of God, and hadn't even heard of Heimat, one of the most epic and well-known of German films.) I've made a conscious effort to get away from the multiplexes and see what's playing at my arthouse as well. I'm not a film snob, though (which I think a lot of people are, when they say stuff like, "you won't find any good films at the multiplexes, the only good films are the ones with subtitles!" I come across that kind of person a fucking lot).

Anyway, I'm rambling somewhat here. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. I hope I made sense at times if not throughout this post.

That is so very true. From my experience, that's why places like Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video and Netflix are in business. If it's a weekend day, or bad weather or a holiday coming up, those places will be swamped, not to mention movie theaters.



I don't feel that way at all. I can see how people would look down on it because reading is becoming a lost art amongst the younger generations (myself included) and when one partakes in the event, it's seen as positive because he/she is "expanding their mind." But I feel the same when watching a movie I wouldn't normally watch by expanding my range of cinema. I don't solely watch Martin Scorsese, Quentin Taratino or even Michael Bay movies. I mix it up with Japanese films, teenie bopper films, horrid sequels/remakes of classic franchises, etc. I feel just as proud having a diverse and wide range of cinema as I do when I finish reading a book.



That's a real shame. I know one who's like that. A real narrow-minded person who can't enjoy anything the majority enjoys. It has to be a classic or arthouse film or else its trash. I try to stay away from people like that myself. It's been noted on here several times, from svsg and yourself Capo, complimenting me on my diverse taste in movies and that's probably one of the best comments I can receive as a self-professed film buff

For those who voted "Sometimes yes, sometimes no," I'm just curious but what determines which way you vote? Does it depend on the picture, whether or not you're in the mood, etc?

It would be nicer for movies to be in their true language most of the time.

When I watch 90s kung fu movies with Jet Li or Jackie Chan I like the dubbing a lot more.

When there are subtitles there is a greater feeling of the culture because you can hear the language.