If I wanted to read a book printed on an extremely distracting paper background, why I'd most likely go to my local private book vendor and request one. That being just prior to be laughed out of the shop.

Now, I fully admit that subtitles and their perceived annoyance are strictly a matter of personal brain wiring, but my brain tends to find yellow typed wording on the screen a bit of a black n white distracting mess. IMO, the basic projected design of a movie director is one intending the viewer's movie experience as that consisting of a combination of the visual and audible combined cinematography of his or here making. Naturally audible dialog (and it effectual emphasis) & soundtrack do go hand in hand, just as do the many combined aspects of the visual presentation. My point is: How am I supposed to appreciate any movie to it's fullest in which I am enable to understand the language in which it's presented?

We all know that crappy dubbing does more so to destroy a good film than if you are trying to watch said film on a TV set in which all the pictured colors amount to a bath in a dark, ugly, red hue.

But a well dubbed film ( I have seen many) beats the heck out of subtitles any day. Anyone else here find subtitles miserably distracting?

Believe me, I am just a little bit grateful for sub titles. Without them I most likely could would never have sat through the amazing works of Ingmar Bergman. But for the sake of St. Elmo (what!?), those films would have been SOOO EASY to dub.

what say yee?

I absolutely agree that inflection, tone, modulation etc. of actors' voices enhances the enjoyment and understanding of film. I only get that, what the director/actor intends, when hearing the original actors' voices in their native language even if I don't understand the words. I still have a better shot at getting the emotion. I want the raw feed.

I will not watch a dubbed movie if I can possibly avoid it and have never experienced what I would consider a well dubbed movie. The voice never synchs with the expression, emotion, intent for me and it ends up being utterly distracting. I always find myself daydreaming about the first time I watched Gojira. If I knew Swedish, Spanish, French, German and Japanese I'm sure I could better enjoy movies produced in those languages, subtitles are second best and more than adequate for me. It's probably fortunate for me because I think there are many more good movies available subtitled than there are dubbed.

In watching the Bergman films, I actually learned to love the musicality and "lilt" of the Swedish, without understanding a single word. Also, so many I've watched so often that the subtitles are already familiar to me.

I don't like dubbing for the reasons Kwoods cited above.

It's actually funny but I've seen movies in my native language that have been subtitled in English and, to me, the differences between the subtitles and the actual dialogue are glaring. The gist of the dialogue may be captured by the subtitles but the nuances are rarely, if ever, captured.

I sometimes find that, for badly dubbed movies, the bad dubbing is more of a distraction than subtitles. One merely has to see some of the badly dubbed Chinese kung fu movies to see how much of a distraction bad dubbing can be.

I have seen SOME movies that have been dubbed half-decently. One movie whose dubbing was quite good was Katsuhiro Otomo's anime classic, Akira. The dubbing actually synched (seemingly) with the action on the screen. It's weird but if you listen to the dubbed version with the subtitles on, there are quite a few instances where the English subtitles don't match up with the English dialogue!

Subtitles. Yes, they do distract. If there are words, I have to read them, so even if I watched an English film with Hungarian subtitles, I'd have to scan the words in spite of the complete lack of benefit.

Nevertheless, I'd much rather be distracted by subtitles than have to endure one more dubbed movie. I grew up with nothing but synchronised films, and only discovered a whole lot of subtleties in my twenties & onward, when I finally got to see all my favourites in the original. Differences between working class/posh had got lost, as had distinctions between American and British, hillbilly vs New Yoik and so on.

Admittedly, I probably don't get those distinctions when watching 'Hero' or 'House of Flying Daggers' in the original, but most European languages (Finnish and Hungarian excepted) have something in common with one of the languages I know, enough that I can follow by reading and listening simultaneously.

I will say this though, that I am a little suspicious about how many newer dubs you two have seen. The stuff done on a decent budget (and done right) over the last 5-10 years is VERY good. It's no longer done with voice overs where you try and fit a different language to the old one's lip sync. It's done on computers with pre programed sync markers via a sample loaded sequencer. It is truly tough to tell when done properly. None of that good old Martial Arts theater stuff these days, although...

The film Hard Boiled was close! But that is NOT quality dubbing but it was admittedly a darn good laugh.

For the record, I am a very fast reader, which may be why I'm not bothered at all. I also love listening to other languages, and trying to pick out recurring words. It may be a European thing, having grown up with a multitude of languages around and nearby.

Sorry, I'm not French Canadian. ;-) Heck, I only came to Canada in 1988! I'm originally from Southeast Asia. Suffice it to say that being on the losing side of a political contest, um, sucks. ;-)

As for dubbing, I do miss those badly dubbed kung fu movies. One simply can't say enough about those eternal lines "My kung fu is stronger than your kung fu"! ;-)

I think it may not really be the synch issue that I find distracting about dubbing. I think it's the seeming inauthenticity of dubbing -- if the director had wanted the movie to be experienced in English (or whatever language), he or she would have shot it in English. Yes, the nuances of the language may be lost in both the subtitles and the dubbing but at least with the subtitles, you get the tone, the inflection, the lilt, and the SOUND of what it is supposed to be.

Acting, to me, is a larger thing than just, well, acting. It encompasses voice, inflection, the delivery of lines, as well as facial expressions when the lines are delivered. So much can be communicated to the audience by the volume, tone, inflection, and lilt of the delivery of the lines. As an example, if an actor says "Yeah, right" on-screen, do we know if that actor was merely confirming something or if that actor was being ironic? We need to HEAR what the actor said AND how he said it to get the full impact of his lines.

The ORIGINAL tone, volume, even timbre of the voice is what, I think, is lost when movies are dubbed. Don't get me wrong -- some voice actors out there (and I'm sure those who do dubbing as well) are very good but .... ok, what if YOU made a movie as an actor. And the movie was dubbed, even dubbed well. Can you say that what results is really YOUR performance? The body acting, the facial expressions, etc. are yours but what about the voice? The line delivery? The emotion that would have been in YOUR voice when you delivered the lines would, conceivably, get lost.

Something just occurred to me -- would you want a movie like "Apocalypto" or "The Passion of the Christ" to be dubbed? Personally, I would find it even MORE distracting than words at the bottom of the screen if Toshiro Mifune's character in "Yojimbo" or "Sanjuro" started spouting English! ;-)

Anyway, to each his own. Like Anyanka, I think I read fast so the subtitles don't bother me as much.

By the way, has anyone seen "Days of Glory"? I mean the French movie also known as "Indigenes" about North African soldiers serving in France in World War II? I think hearing them speak English would have diminished the impact of the movie.

(As for brain dominance ........ I don't know which side is dominant for me. Some people would say neither or that they're surprised I actually HAVE a brain! I'm left handed if that helps. ;-) )

"As for dubbing, I do miss those badly dubbed kung fu movies. One simply can't say enough about those eternal lines "My kung fu is stronger than your kung fu"! ;-)"

Yes, I remember that! The guy from Police Academy did it so well.

"I think it may not really be the synch issue that I find distracting about dubbing. I think it's the seeming inauthenticity of dubbing -- if the director had wanted the movie to be experienced in English (or whatever language), he or she would have shot it in English. Yes, the nuances of the language may be lost in both the subtitles and the dubbing but at least with the subtitles, you get the tone, the inflection, the lilt, and the SOUND of what it is supposed to be."

I kind of completely disagree with this notion and here's why. When you write "if the director had wanted the movie to be experienced in English (or whatever language), he or she would have shot it in English." Isn't that a bit like saying that a play or even a book is meant to only be comprehensively digested and appreciated within it's native language? I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that a director only wants his/her film to be experienced it's native or original tongue. If the liberal arts were to follow this trend with any degree of uniformity, think of the precious knowledge and experience that would have been lost before it ever were discovered or studied?

Then you write "Yes, the nuances of the language may be lost in both the subtitles and the dubbing but at least with the subtitles, you get the tone, the inflection, the lilt, and the SOUND of what it is supposed to be."

I reply: What does that SOUND do for a person that does not understand the language to begin with? In many countries, words that are pronounced with the slightest of variance translate to entirely different meanings. What does this "inflection, the lilt, and the SOUND" do for a person other than entertain them via the NOTION of authenticity? I would imagine it's appreciation to be abstract at best when not directly linked to a positive knowledge of the language spoken.

"Acting, to me, is a larger thing than just, well, acting. It encompasses voice, inflection, the delivery of lines, as well as facial expressions when the lines are delivered. So much can be communicated to the audience by the volume, tone, inflection, and lilt of the delivery of the lines. As an example, if an actor says "Yeah, right" on-screen, do we know if that actor was merely confirming something or if that actor was being ironic? We need to HEAR what the actor said AND how he said it to get the full impact of his lines."

PRECISELY!!!! That is why subtitles don't work! You don't get ANY of that by reading, only through the actor 's expressions. A HUGE part of those expressions are accomplished verbally. I would much rather weed out the verbal translation than attempt the same via that which is written. After all, isn't the movie shot with a verbal dialog? Which is indeed more respectful of original intent, written or verbal translation?

"The ORIGINAL tone, volume, even timbre of the voice is what, I think, is lost when movies are dubbed. Don't get me wrong -- some voice actors out there (and I'm sure those who do dubbing as well) are very good but .... ok, what if YOU made a movie as an actor. And the movie was dubbed, even dubbed well. Can you say that what results is really YOUR performance? The body acting, the facial expressions, etc. are yours but what about the voice? The line delivery? The emotion that would have been in YOUR voice when you delivered the lines would, conceivably, get lost."

I agree with you here up to a point. First off my friend, please do not miss the point. This question here is not which is superior original/dubbed/subtitled. The point in question is strictly subtitled vs. dub. The original language is ALWAYS best, but if you as a film appreciator do not have mastery over 10 different languages, there can be no real consideration as to whether the original language is best or not with respect to said film's comprehensive appreciation. The issue here is "best form of interpretation".

I know what the member (anyanka?) meant by "I have trained myself" What they are in fact saying is that "I have overcome through habit that which is not natural" I agree with this stance because it makes 100% working sense. The statement affirms a rational acknowledgment that without some sort of translation, the message is lost. But I tell you this: It is no harder to train oneself NOT to study the mouth of each speaking actor than it is to train oneself to overcome the distraction of things on the screen that were NOT meant to be there beyond question. dig? Another words, both dubbing and subtitling are not natural and neither is but a facilitation of the translation process. For me, I find the audible trained learning process a superior facilitation of the absolute need for translation. As you said, often the subtitles do not even begin to align themselves with the reality or the true expressions that the actors themselves convey. If you have no mastery of whatever native tongue is being spoken in the film, as you read less than accurate subtitles via this translation process, how can the monitoring of these actor's inflection, lilt or gum chewing for that matter, matter?
:-)

"Something just occurred to me -- would you want a movie like "Apocalypto" or "The Passion of the Christ" to be dubbed?"

I certainly would if I were Polish or French and did not understand English. NATURALLY if you already fully understand the English language, what does it matter?

"Personally, I would find it even MORE distracting than words at the bottom of the screen if Toshiro Mifune's character in "Yojimbo" or "Sanjuro" started spouting English! ;-)"

why? (I know you're joking here, but think about it:) Is not that which divides that which serves the master of all separatism, namely confusion?

"Anyway, to each his own. Like Anyanka, I think I read fast so the subtitles don't bother me as much.

By the way, has anyone seen "Days of Glory"? I mean the French movie also known as "Indigenes" about North African soldiers serving in France in World War II? I think hearing them speak English would have diminished the impact of the movie.

(As for brain dominance ........ I don't know which side is dominant for me. Some people would say neither or that they're surprised I actually HAVE a brain! I'm left handed if that helps. ;-) )"

There are MANY quick and easy tests online. They can even be a little fun to take.

Peace Out,
O

That said, an example of what works really well is tv's The Simpsons (which I do not watch) which here is dubbed in French-Canadian (Quebecois) French. It's very well done and realistic. Who could imagine Homer screaming Parisian insiders?

I too would rather the subtitles (I can brush up on my Spanish lol)than the awful dubbing in which certain words just do not render the sentiment, emotion, or meaning.

Ohmster, "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of the Christ" are in the language of the native culture, not English.

I've popped that DVD right out of the machine at the first instance of lousy dubbing and tend to avoid dubbing altogether. I don't mind subtitles. On the balance, my watching time is limited so I prefer to go with what I know I'll be satisfied with rather than possibly bad dubbing.

I remember Neil Gaiman wrote a new script for the English version of Princess Mononoke. Of course we don't expect lip syncing in animation anyway.

Ohmster, you said What does that SOUND do for a person that does not understand the language to begin with? For me this only applies in really extreme cases of foreign [to me]language, such as Chinese. But even then I enjoy encountering that foreignness and learning about the sound of speech.

Two films just came to mind: Ari Kaurismaki's Man Without a Past and Downfall about the final days of Hitler's regime. The former is in Finnish, which is not at all related to other European languages. I do not understand one word of it. However, the sound of it has something clipped and flat and hard which illustrates the mentality behind the language, which is the mentality at the heart of the film. A dubbed version would have taken away a large chunk of the Finnishness of the characters, and therefore changed the meaning.

The latter is in my native tongue, German. I watched it with my teenage daughter, who needed the subtitles as her German vocabulary was not sufficient. Again, the Germanness which made Hitler possible is carried in the language, in the words, in a way which no other language could possibly render. The superb performance of Bruno Ganz lies largely in his chilling impersonation of Hitler's speech patterns. It would quite simply be impossible for the movie to feel authentic in a dubbed version.

By the way, on another thread I mentioned how much I enjoyed the authentic feel of the European settings in the Bourne Identity & Supremacy. Again, this is due to the fact that dialogue is in the local language, with no dubbing OR subtitles.

You misunderstood me Chris, I didn't state they were in English. rather I stated that if I were Polish or French I would prefer them to be dubbed in my native language rather than it be subtitled in English which the movie was when I saw it.

More on point, did you see the film Pathfinder? That movie (which is EXCELLENT BTW) would have been trashed had it been done in a native tongue format & then subtitled. That's all just so art school for the sake of art school to me. Oh, for the sake of all that is indecent! ;0)

In fact, Apocalypto would have done MUCH better at the box office had ol' money bags shot it with more emphasis on story development & dialog in lieu of the sensationalism it carried via it's "historically authentic" savagery & violence. I really enjoyed that film having saw it at the theater, but I walked away knowing that my wife would have had to get up and leave had she attended when a friend & I saw it.

I guess most of us will just have to agree to disagree. For me, I am very happy with my line of reasoning in that I would much rather *(deficiently hear) what was meant to be heard via translation, rather than *(deficiently read) what was meant to be heard via translation. Make sense?

Reading was not intended within non silent films accept in terms of that which the directors intended to be read. (signs, headlines & such) That is certainly not a matter of being presumptuous because the films themselves would be of a silent nature to begin with if not. Think about this: When you talk to someone, do you look them in the eye, or in the mouth? In the end, it's all just a respectable preference on each member's part I guess. I will continue to engage movies with subtitles (when there is no other means) as I have for many years, but I will say this.

When I am around a a number of people that are speaking in a language that I don't understand, I am not attracted to the scenario or inclined to listen more carefully, but rather I am repelled if not a bit perturbed. I cannot see or perceive it as socially natural behavior to feel otherwise.

*(this is undeniable in any & all people's cases via application because neither form of translation is anymore accurate than the other as several posters have already pointed out).

Thank you all for putting up with me on this issue. I do honestly appreciate the thoughts and consideration no matter your preference.

Ohmster, are you American? It's such a very different culture in a big country with only one language. I grew up in Germany, where half the songs on the radio where in other languages; we spent our family holidays in Denmark or France; we had large numbers of Turkish immigrant workers; even within Germany there were dialects which were unintelligible to people from other regions. I think this explains our difference in attitudes to a large extent. For me, it is very natural and normal to be around people speaking in other languages.

There's another problem with dubbing which Clairabelle already touched on with her dislike of French French vs Canadian French. I would find it very distracting to watch Chinese or Italian actors with an American accent, but no doubt you would be alienated by synchronisation featuring British pronunciation. Which one is right?

Maybe I am trying to say what Anyanka is saying, in a different way. Anyhow, I agree with her post above. America is increasingly multi-cultural; we hear Spanish spoken all around us in my city, as well as various Oriental languages. I enjoy listening to the different sounds.

Having traveled and lived in Europe, I got used to hearing a huge number of foreign languages spoken all around me. I never felt left out, but rather intrigued, and learned to make a sort of guessing game as to which nation the speaker was from. Maybe it all comes down to the fact that I adore foreign languages, in general, and their sounds.....

Please. Let me explain to you in as quick & non self important a manner as is possible for me. I have no problem with PEOPLE being different than me. I just like films a good deal and am a bit lazy (or whatever). I CAN'T STAND poorly dubbed films, any more than I like reading when I should be watching. I really can't. I watched a few of these lame dubs over the last few months that I just popped them out of the DVD player because it just rendered the whole thing too pathetic. I don't know if anyone in the group has "caught" the latest low budget trend in poopy foreign film making or not, but they use multiple angles when they shoot the film so they can position the actor's heads in such a way as to "hide" the poorly dubbed dialog. Steven Seagal did a bunch of these ultra lame Bulgarian/Chech/Hungarian/Romanian flicks in the last two years that are examples of this horrendous process. What a sad mess Seagal has been these last few films, but that's another story.

Woodnymph, I don't mean to bum you out or make you nauseous but Run Lola Run was dubbed in English. That's how I watched it.

I know it all gets crazy, but, , thanks for being "here" because we all like films and thank you all for helping me to reinforce important perspectives concerning the movies we enjoy.

Watched a couple today. Went and saw the Bourne Ultimatum (yes, what a rush!) watched a slow and somewhat feeble movie with Burt Lancaster called Atlantic City. I am watching one now called Inside Out.

I'll tell you one thing I am hung up on in a good way these days. I am so into film soundtracks! Back, about a million years ago, I was no stranger to psychedelics and music. I can honestly say that to me, a good film soundtrack is 10,000 times more imagination facilitation with a clear head than any other type of music I have played or listened to over the last 30-40 years.

night,
Ohmmmmmmmmmmm

I attended a European seminar on screen translation a few years ago, and one of the discussions we had was about dubbing vs. subtitling (we also got to try both, which was fun). The people from subtitling cultures like Iceland and Finland preferred subtitling, while people from dubbing cultures (Spain, for example) preferred dubbing. What it came down to was that the choices of the people in charge of these affairs back when the movies first got sound have influenced the preferences of generations of viewers to the extent that some were quite antagonistic to the idea of doing things differently. I happen to have grown up with subtitling, and I think my English would certainly not be as good as it is if I had grown up with dubbed TV and film.

The situation in Iceland now is that we mix the two together. Almost all television material for young children is dubbed these days, and so are animated movies and some live action children's movies, but you can always choose to see the movies with subtitling instead, because many adults prefer the original language. Documentaries are half-dubbed, half-subtitled. Anyone talking on screen gets subtitled, but the invisible narrator/commentator gets replaced with a voice speaking in Icelandic. Having grown up with this, I can't imagine liking it any other way. I certainly feel that dubbing, for example, films like Wo hu cang long (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon), or The Searchers, that are culturally very far removed from Iceland, would have turned them into comedies.

Netla, your Icelandic ways of doing things sound very sensible.

Ohmster, 'Atlantic City' has one of my favourite ever lines in it - when an old lady worries about the pregnant hippie girl going on an airplane journey, the girl assures her with something along the lines of 'it's okay, I don't believe in gravity'.

Had to paraphrase, 'cause, guess what, I saw the movie many many years ago - dubbed into German...