boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN) (09/06/85)
> From: amdahl!dwl10 (Dave Lowrey) > The Movie Channel las month showed the German movie Das Boot. > I watched it twice. The first time I watched it, the dialog and > credits were dubbed in english. The second time, there were > subtitles. > > The dubbed version had more dialog than was "shown" in the sub > titled version. I don't know German, so I don't know if the > subtitles were indeed missing things, of if the dubbed version > added new dialog. It seems to me from watching a number of foreign films that subtitles are usually imcomplete, pretty much only giving the gist of what's being said. This is because there's not room enough nor time enough to include everything. > Is it common for a film to be both dubbed and sub titled? It didn't used to be, but I have noticed it happening with increasing frequency. I think the first movie I noticed it with was COUSIN, COUSINE. > I do prefer the sub-titled version, as you get the "real" actors > voices and emotions, along with his acting, insted of someone > elses idea of how the scene should "sound". I certainly understand that point of view, and the purist side of me tends agrees with it, but still my preference is for dubbing. I find that trying to read the subtitles distracts me from what is happening in the scene. And again, you don't get the complete dialogue in most cases with subtitled films. I suspect that the general public prefers dubbing for much the same reason, and that the purists prefer subtitling for the same reasons as yours. The increasing frequency of releasing both dubbed and subtitled prints of a film is probably a result of trying to please both groups. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (09/08/85)
Any true cinema fan prefers the subtitled version of a film to the dubbed version and cannot abide the forcing of another speaker's voice over an actor's lips. You lose all the nuances of the pronunciation. At least that is what I keep telling myself to convince myself that I like movies but am not stodgy enough to be a fan of cinema. My preference is for dubbing because the increased bandwidth allows more story to be transmitted and story is what I watch a film for, not nuances of voice. I liked the subtitled version of Z but completely missed important points that I was able to get out of the dubbed version. I will soon be trying the dubbed version of DAS BOOT to see if I like it better or as much as the subtitled. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (09/10/85)
I used to abhor dubbed films, generally because the dubbing was so absolutely
awful. Within the last few years, I have noticed that dubbing has developed
into an art form of its own. "Das Boot" is a case in point. The English
dubbed version is a much more faithful rendition of the original than the
subtitled version. The lip-synch is wonderful and in places the pitch and
rhythm of the language are actually *better* than the German, depending
upon what is being discussed.
This isn't always the case. My wife and I happened to catch "The Wizard
of Oz" dubbed in Italian when we were in Rome this summer. The dubbing
over Margaret Hamilton was wonderful, and the person who dubbed Judy
Garland managed to actually capture the nuance of the voice, as did the
individual who dubbed Bert Lahr. Most of the jokes actually made it
intact and the substitute puns were inspired. "There's no place like
Home" however, was translated to something on the order of "There is no
place to go like the place where you originally came from" and had to
be stretched over two iterations of the original. Sorta destroyed the
final mood.
We also saw an episode of Star Trek dubbed in Italian which got me rolling
on the floor hysterically. Italian is definitely not the language of
technicians ("pushbutton" translates literally to "little thing that you
hit".) Somehow "Signor Spock" loses a certain flavor.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/12/85)
In article <1138@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > >I liked the subtitled version of Z but completely >missed important points that I was able to get out of the dubbed >version. It depends on the film whether subtitles lose anything. The only foreign language I know enough of to even approach understanding is Spanish. (This turned out to be a poor choice for me, since very few films worth seeing are made in Spanish, and the ones that are are almost never shown in the US outside of Spanish language theaters, which tend to advertise outside of the places I look.) I recently did see a Spanish film worth seeing, though, "The Holy Innocents", which was subtitled. Listening as best I could to the Spanish, I detected no more than two times in the entire film that the subtitles either left something important out or missed an important nuance. I will trade the actor's original expressiveness for extra, usually unimportant words any day. Having seen, for instance, "Fanny and Alexander" both subtitled and dubbed (the latter was a longer version, some two hours longer), I know that I preferred the subtitled version, even though the dubbed version had substantial extra material which enriched the story. It was well dubbed, unlike most dubbed films, but the actors doing the dubbing were not nearly as good as the best Swedish actors Ingmar Bergman could find. (Not terribly surprising.) The only situation in which I consider dubbing appropriate is when the actor doing the dubbing is the same actor who did the original sound. In some multinational film productions, dubbing is a necessity, since the is no single language spoken by all the actors (for example, "1900" with DeNiro, Depardieu, Donald Sutherland, Burt Lancaster, etc.), but even then it is an unfortunate necessity. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
danz@labdjz.UUCP (danz) (09/17/85)
I, too, do not consider myself a "fan of cinema", however, I must speak out for subtittling. In my experience I've must agree that the a subtittled version gives you only enough dialogue to know what is happening, but also gives you the *feel* of the actor's voices. I cannot understand German, but the intensity of the dialogue in _Das_Boot_ came through clearly in German speech in the background, which I suspect (perhaps "assumed" would be more truthful) would be lost in dubbing. However . . . I must confess that I avoid dubbed films like the plague, owing to previous encounters. You're description of _Das_Boot_ intrigues me -- I'll have to rent or attend a dubbed version so I can make a comparison. Perhaps they have truly improved dubbing . . . Dan (a real dubbing fan watches Kung-Fu Theatre every night) Zimmerle
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/18/85)
-- > ...My wife and I happened to catch "The Wizard > of Oz" dubbed in Italian when we were in Rome this summer. The dubbing > over Margaret Hamilton was wonderful, and the person who dubbed Judy > Garland managed to actually capture the nuance of the voice, as did the > individual who dubbed Bert Lahr. Most of the jokes actually made it > intact and the substitute puns were inspired. "There's no place like > Home" however, was translated to something on the order of "There is no > place to go like the place where you originally came from" and had to > be stretched over two iterations of the original. Sorta destroyed the > final mood. > > Byron C. Howes I saw "The French Connection" subtitled in Danish. *That* was funny, since there was no Scandinavian counterpart for much of the New York drug culture patois. They often went with a literal translation, which made hilarious mincemeat of such items as, "Do you still pick your feet?" -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 18 Sep 85 [2ieme Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (09/21/85)
>I, too, do not consider myself a "fan of cinema", however, I >must speak out for subtittling. In my experience I've must >agree that the a subtittled version gives you only enough >dialogue to know what is happening, but also gives you the >*feel* of the actor's voices. I am referring to the best subtitling vs. the best dubbing. We have all seen bad foreign films dubbed even worse. Dubbing is an art and if the only qualification for the dubbing part is being almost able to read English you will get a lousy job of dubbing. I certainly would prefer subtitling. But a really well dubbed film can give you everything you want in the subtitled version and give it over more plot because their is a greater band-width for the words to come on. If in the original film you have two people talking over each other with people in the background talking, there is no way you can render the scene with subtitling. You can with dubbing. If the actor is making an impassioned plea with pain in his voice, subtitling may be better. If the dubber is a really good actor, however, he can get much the same pain in his voice and the dubbed version can be very nearly as good, and conceivably better, though that would in some senses be a betrayal of the original film. A really good job of dubbing will sacrifice far less than it adds by letting the viewer know a lot more of what is going on. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper