Why do people get upset about dubbing?.. (1 Viewer)

[GuruAskew]

The desire by those producing the dubbed tracks to get the dubbing to "fit" within the time alotted by the original foreign dialogue is a more constrictive limitation than the reading speed of the audience.

 

[Cees Alons]

You present this as a fact. Why? Because one or two posters in this thread said they prefer a good dub over a bad subtitle?
While, BTW, most of the posters appeared to be in favour of subtitles (given the usual current results)?


Cees

 

[Yee-Ming]

Personally, the disconnect comes because the audio won't sync with the lip-movement. Just this morning, I saw a clip of something on Discovery Travel where the presenter's voice was re-recorded, since she was filmed standing somewhere very windy and on-site audio must've been bad, they didn't sync it properly and it just seemed really weird to me.

Perhaps that's why I find a Mandarin dub of a Cantonese movie acceptable, I understand Mandarin (though the English subs help) but not Cantonese, whilst the two are similar enough in structure that lip-sync is usually not a problem. Although I have been told that there are lots of crude jokes in Cantonese which simply do not translate at all into Mandarin (or presumably into English) and therefore get "lost in translation".

I will say, though, that the first time I watched Nikita, with an English dub, I didn't think it was that great a movie, but some years later I saw it again with the original French (and English subs, natch) it was much better. Not sure if this applies across the board, though.

As for why movies are subbed not dubbed in Holland and Scandinavia, I would've thought it's simply because most people in those countries speak excellent English. Although the relatively small markets those countries represent also probably makes it uneconomical to record an entire dubbed dialog track in Dutch (or Norwegian/Swedish/Danish). Whereas France and Germany are much bigger markets. Although IIRC, they sometimes dub different French tracks for France and Quebec? For that matter, Spanish in the Americas as compared to Spain?

As an aside, years ago the local TV station would always dub the efforts of the local actors, since most simply didn't speak Mandarin well enough (most probably having been raised with a dialect as their first language; those whose Mandarin was acceptable would ADR their own dialogue). The "Queen of Caldecott Hill" (CH being where the studio is located) is a model turned actress, and her voice is probably a bit too gruff to fit with what you'd expect of her beautiful face, so one voice actress would always dub her lines (as well as those of some other actresses). As the station developed, it moved towards "real-time" shooting and actors had to record their own lines, so said Queen was in effect forced to get her act together. Which admittedly she has, as have the other acting talents.

 

[Kenneth]

Although I don't approve of Pan and Scan I think the issue of director's intentions can be debated. Directors have often offered alternate versions of their films to make them accessible to the widest possible audience. Airlines and TV often get different cuts of the movies (generally made by the director) so that they can satisfy their audience without the same rating restrictions. If a director wanted to be really hardcore about this he could contract with a studio to restrict how his movie is distributed internationally. However, there would be financial repurcussions that the director is generally unwilling to incur. Finally, if one wants to nitpick on director's intentions it could be argued that some movies should only be seen in theaters or perfectly set up home theaters. Since that is not feasible there will always be some accomodations made.

One last point that several people have made is that dubs increase the accessibility of a foreign film (both inside the US and outside the US). In a perfect world everyone would read subtitles, have the same levels of literacy and comprehension, and have a perfect understanding of all the world's cultures. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. Since we do not, I do not see a problem if BOTH subtitled and dubbed versions are available. Then the person can choose the version that is most in alignment with their needs. I think it is the "either" "or" delima that becomes troubling since that always leaves someone out in the cold.

A very interesting debate.

Kenneth

 

[Juan C]

Spain is a "dubbing country" because of Franco's regime. It's much easier to censor an offending line on a dub than on an original-language subtitled movie (where a viewer with understanding of English would catch the trick).

An example is the original dub of Casablanca, where all mention of Rick's fighting for the loyalist side in the Spanish civil war was eliminated (the current DVD has a new, more faithful dub.)


No, not even Das Boot. The English dub has additional lines to make the movie easier to understand. For example, when the sub is approaching the Straits of Gibraltar, the captain is on deck. Cut to his POV with binoculars. We see the British boats' navigation lights. In the original German track, there is no dialog on that shot. In the English language track, the captain says something like "How nice of them to have their navigation lights on". Talk about spooon-feeding.

 

[George See]

Personally I prefer subtitles to dubbing, the thought of watching something like Amelie and hearing Drew Barrymore delivering the dialog is not a pleasant thought. I understand that often the lines are redone in the studio and your not hearing the dialog as it was spoken on set, but i'd still prefer to hear the performance of the people that were picked by the director for a given role. I don't get angry at people who watched dubbed movies to each their own, I do get angry at DVD's that don't offer a choice between dubbed/subtitled.

 

[David Rogers]

A good example of why anti-dub folks get up in arms is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The film went to theaters with original-audio and a director-approved subtitle track. When it was released to DVD, it also included an English-audio track.

Play CTHD with subtitles on and the English Audio. You'll notice continual differences in the dialog. Some to most of the differences are changes so minor they do little, if anything at all, to actually alter the communication content of the dialog. Some of the changes, however, completely alter what's said and how it's emoted or articulated.

Subtitles aren't good though; trying to read while trying to lose yourself in a movie may be an acquired taste ... but I'd rather not acquire it. I want to watch and experience my movies, not get good at juggling them.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think of it more as reading while trying to lose yourself in a story. Ever read a novel?

M.

 

[David Rogers]

A movie is a reactive experience, I'm watching for visual clues and for the performance of the actor. None of that works when I'm busy reading. All that happens with Subtitles is I miss what's happening in the movie. While I agree that crappy and inaccurate/unfaithful dubs suck, I'd rather have a bad dub with subs than sub-only; I'm more likely to actually watch and possibly even engage with the movie.

I read novels as an interactive experience; I'm evaluating what I'm reading, reflecting and building upon it, picturing and imaging it ... the two art forms work entirely differently for me. Movies I experience, novels I interpret.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Interesting. That's not I distinction I could draw. For me, all forms of storytelling -- movies, plays, the written word -- are interactive. Can't imagine it any other way.

M.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Cees,


No, this issue has cropped up many many times, in threads going back several years. Over in the Advanced Anime thread, there are a few members who only watch dubs and seldom, if ever, watch subtitles. I'm not criticizing these folks -- they are entitled to their opinions, and they are free to watch their discs any way they wish, but I think it is inconsistent with the forum charter and with the concept of preserving the filmmakers' intentions.

The issue crops up more frequently in terms of re-mixing a mono film into 5.1 surround. There are folks on this forum who prefer watching THE TERMINATOR (a mono film) in 5.1, despite the fact that James Cameron did not oversee that mix. There are members of this forum who refuse to buy CONAN THE BARBARIAN (another mono film) until it is released in 5.1. I know of no one on this forum who prefers the pan & scan version of either film.

Ron himself gave the remastered HARD DAY'S NIGHT (yet another mono film) a glowing review, despite the fact that it only contained a (horrible, to my ears) 5.1 remix. I'm not criticizing Ron -- he is entitled to his opinion, and he can run his forum however he chooses, but I am confused by the thought process behind that opinion.

Back to the issue of dubbing/subbing, I think that adding a translation aid (subtitles) to a film that is otherwise left intact, is much less of a violation of the director's intent than removing the voices on the soundtrack (which is an important part of any film) and replacing them with new performances delivered by different actors.

Does anyone disagree with this?

 

[Kenneth]

So a small violation is okay but a big violation is bad

Ideally I think the director should be given the option of supervising both, if he so desires, so that both meet his intent within their limitations. If he/she doesn't feel a dub is appropriate (Mel Gibson's Passion comes to mind) he can release his movie with only subtitles (or vice versa). The modern reality is that directors are forced to make lots of decisions affecting their intent that they didn't used to (DVD level editing also comes to mind). I think the director should always be given the choice of his presentation, but if he waves that right, who are we to say what is right or wrong.

Cheers,

Kenneth

 

[Don Solosan]

From a technical standpoint, this may not be the best example for your argument. Star Wars is available in a P&S version that is approved by the director. I don't know if Lucas has released dubbed versions, so that part might still stand.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I'm assuming the wink is there because Michael understands that reading a novel is not at all the same as reading subtitles while trying to watch a film. Subtitles offer dialogue while novels offer the entire story. In fact, to compare the two you would have to suggest that four novels would have to be read all at the same time. One with just the dialogue (subtitles) which you would read, another with descriptions of the emotional intent of the dialogue read by someone else, a third with just descriptions of the visuals read by yet another person, and a forth book would be necessary to describe the sound effects. Now with all four books being read at the same time, and of course a record playing the soundtrack in the background might come close to comparing reading subtitles while trying to watch a film.

Something that has not really been brought up is how a well done dub can translate the cultural tones (not just cultural phrases) from one language to another, which written words/subtitles simply cannot do. Unless the viewer is aware of how different cultures use various tones and inflections in their language the effect is lost.

As I said before, I prefer subtitles, but I would never suggest that reading subtitles does not distract from the visuals and sounds, which for film are far more important than the dialogue. Thus, the reason why I try to watch foreign films twice. Once with subtitles on, and a second time without the subtitles. The effect is quite amazing, and doing so you will see just how much of the film you miss by reading subtitles. On rare occasions, I'll prefer a dub for the simple reason that it made for a better film – like Spirited Away.

On a side note, but related to this thread’s topic, so often people, including myself talk about "director's intentions", "director approved", etc, but to be fair - very few films have ever been made or released on video exactly the way the director wanted. Filmmaking is an endless compromise that is subjected to budgets, casting choices (or lack there of), shooting locations, set designs, special effects, technology, film length, editing, marketing, etc. For most films, the director does not even have 'final cut'.

At the end of the day, deciding what is good and what is bad or more importantly, appropriate (like subtitles, dubs, sound mixes, deleted scenes, alternate endings, P&S transfers, etc) should not be based on a director's intent. Instead, it should be based on each individual's tastes or even more importantly their needs, and of course for each individual title. Judge each release on its own merits, not by some preconceived idea or guess of what the director wanted you to see, because chances are that version was never even made in the first place.

After all, not only do directors rarely have total control over their films, but just like everyone else, they often make poor choices. Some directors have even said openly that they do not like to watch their films as they often see several flaws which had they had the chance they would have done it differently. Some directors, like Lucas even go so far as to try to change their films.

I guess what I am saying is blanket statements like "dubs are wrong" does more harm than good as it does not take in account that not all dubs or subtitles are created equal. Nor does it take in account that for many films a dub may in fact capture more of the intent of the filmmakers and perhaps make for a more enjoyable film - which I suspect is the only true intention of most filmmakers.

Yes, there are plenty of directors who purposefully make films that only appeal to a very small audience, but there is little doubt that most want to make films that the majority of their target audience would find appealing.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Great point. For example, in "The Dinner Game" a non-French speaker does not understand the Belgium accent being used at one point, nor do they recognize the cultural bias being displayed (that Belgium's aren't as smart). It's critical to the gag just as we might laugh at an over-the-top southern accent being used (or consider Hanks' flamboyant character in the Ladykillers remake).

A dub could bring that across, at least the eccentric accent part. Written words don't tell us this and being a non-speaker it is nearly impossible to comprehend dialects.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Nils,


My reasoning is that when watching subtitles, a translation is added to the film, while the original film (including soundtrack) remains intact. When watching a dub, the original vocal performances (as performend by the original cast, under the close supervision of the director) are removed and replaced by an alternate version, usually made with NO input from the original artists involved.

 

[Lew Crippen]

For sure I cannot read I am the very model of a modern Major Gereral as fast as the G&S guys can sing it--for sure I could scan it faster, but to read, giving each syllable its proper weight is a difficult task.

As an aside, one thing that is possible in dubs, not possible (nor even understood) in subs, is the recreation of regional accents.

If you think of the types of (just) American English accents available as choices for writers, directors and actors it is hard to believe that the distinctions can be made in subtitles.

In dubs (true this is not often done) different regional accents can be used as substitutes.

Imagine something as simple as My Cousin Vinnie with the very deliberate mixture of accents in the American Southeast and Brooklyn. No way do you get that in subtitles.

Even so, I perfer subtitles, and agree with Michael and others as to the ease of reading them after some practice.

And I agree with everyone who has written that all solutions are imperfect.

 

[george kaplan]

I've said my piece, and wasn't going to add anything else, but I'm just now watching Alexander Nevsky. Now, it's the Image version, as it's no longer available from Criterion (except in a box with films I don't want), so I can only talk about that version, but gawd, it's hard to imagine that the dubbing could be any worse than the subtitling. Who knew that "troublous" was a word? I have no idea how accurate the subtitles are, but if they are accurate, they make George Lucas look like Shakespeare.

 

[DaveGTP]

Your experiment is just familiarity. I feel the same way about a lot of anime I watched dubbed the first time - trying to watch the subs doesn't work too well. You tend to attach to the first thing you've heard, I think.


In closing,
Both subtitles and dubs are compomises of a sort - the director intended you to hear the language and sound of the movie as intelligable acting, not as a string of gibberish which you can't comprehend - with text below translating it. Neither did he intend you to hear different voices - but then again, the movie script was written, mostly, in most cases, before the actors are in the position - so how much does it matter which particular actor is there? It is not so clear cut here - the only truly uncompomised way of watching would be to become fluent in the language of the film.


I will note, though - I won't buy a DVD, even anime, without the original language track too. I want the choice in case the dub is subpar, and like I said above, I prefer the subs 99% of the time for non-anime foreign films.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Now this I can agree with. If the dub casting is bad, or the dub acting is poor, then you have a problem. But let's say you have a Pauly Shore effort in Spanish and a Charlton Heston effort on the dub (think Wayne's World ), I think you'll find the dub an improvement on the original.

Also I should add that I almost always watch a sub version because so many dubs are done cheaply and poorly, but I still like to make sure because I think hearing the dialog can put me into a closer state of mind to the original audience.