The Business of Subtitles

[domino harvey]

Why is it that AE's new found practice of non-removable subtitles has elicited a storm of negative reaction

Because people need something to complain about. I agree, non-fixed subs are always preferable, but the concept of removable subs for a non-english film's home media release is a new one and not always going to happen thanks to rights, availability of print, &c. If you hate it so much that you don't want to buy the product, fine, that's your right as a consumer, but don't act like this is the same thing as the wrong aspect ratio or whatever. The sheer volume of A/V-related bitching and moaning that's filled the internet in the last five years or so is enough to make one give up reading these sorts of topics all together

[TMDaines]

I imagine that the reason why Olive and AE have received a different level of reaction is because AE deal with more foreign titles. In addition it seems to be an issue that affects more of the Brits and Europeans here.The only foreign language Olive I own is 1900, where the subtitles are optional, and they don't really release too much non-English language stuff that I want. Unlike Domino seems to think, like most people, I'll tend to shout loudest about something that I'm strongly against, when it impacts me directly, as I did when Olive announced 1900 and I commented several times that they needed to provide optional subtitles.

Why is it that AE's new found practice of non-removable subtitles has elicited a storm of negative reaction

Because people need something to complain about. I agree, non-fixed subs are always preferable, but the concept of removable subs for a non-english film's home media release is a new one and not always going to happen thanks to rights, availability of print, &c. If you hate it so much that you don't want to buy the product, fine, that's your right as a consumer, but don't act like this is the same thing as the wrong aspect ratio or whatever. The sheer volume of A/V-related bitching and moaning that's filled the internet in the last five years or so is enough to make one give up reading these sorts of topics all together

What on earth are you talking about? It's a concept that has been around since the advent of DVD pretty much. Quite clearly, it's not important to you, but don't act like a selfish prat and not acknowledge the very valid reasons that it is a practice that can completely ruin a film watching experience for a great deal of people. Subtitles, to help render a film intelligible for a foreign audience, are not usually part of the original image; they are simply an aid to help interpret foreign-language dialogue for a viewer. In that regard, they can blemish a film in the same way that a non-OAR projection can, in the sense their presence can spoil the artist(s)'s vision. I'm pretty sure you would get up in arms if people started adding forced English language subtitles to English language films to combat importing and exporting - that's exactly the frustration many of us polyglots experience. I don't know about in America, but in Europe, the majority of people speak more than one language. Britain is actually an exception in this regard. The idea that the people in every nation speak one language and one language only is more than little out of date.

If you're going to make posts like this, then please, don't worry about no longer reading threads like these. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[vsski]

Domino, I don't disagree with you about more complaints on the web surrounding A/V and aspect ratio issues, yet my point was not astonishment over the negative reaction to non-removable subs per se - although I'm clearly one of the people who complains about it - but the difference in attitude to Olive who has the same practice. I simply can't understand why AE gets so much hatemail and Olive doesn't on this issue even though both have the same practice - and TMDaines may be correct geography may have something to do with it, however, on this thread I don't think we have the average representative of either continent.

And yes, TMDaines, you are correct 1900 does have removable subs, I realized after writing my post that I forgot about that one, although here the reason I believe is that it is offered in multiple languages including an English dub, and that is the reason subs are removable, so I see this as the exception to the Olive rule.

[domino harvey]

Quite clearly, it's not important to you, but don't act like a selfish prat

If you're going to make posts like this, then please, don't worry about no longer reading threads like these. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I wasn't addressing you, so I don't know why you took this so personal, but clearly you already have a problem with me and have resorted to more name-calling. But that's cool

[RobertB]

Why is it that AE's new found practice of non-removable subtitles has elicited a storm of negative reaction (and imo rightly so), that even led to a separate thread on this forum, yet Olive who does the same thing for all of their non-English titles (at least as far I'm aware of) receives a lot of praise (granted for some of their Republic catalogue titles) and other than mentioning the subtitle issue hasn't caused the same kind of adverse reaction. At least to AE's credit they do publish some decent supplements in many cases while Olive's discs are mostly bare bones.
And for the record, I despise this tactic of non-removable subtitles (unless specifically desired by the filmmaker) and because of it have not bought any AE or Olive titles that have them.
I'm just curious about the difference in reaction - unless I have read the Olive responses incorrectly, but the emotional reaction seems different.

I don't know if Olive's four Bo Widerberg releases will be on DVD or BR, but if its blu ray and they don't make the subs optional I'm willing to complain a lot! Svensk Filmindustri have been bad at releasing Swedish films on blu ray, so Criterion-imports have been the way to get Bergman and Sjöström on blu. I am hoping that Olive will give me a way of getting some Widerberg films in a better quality than the national releases.

Film is international. Forced subs are an awful let-down to many film fans around the world.

[TMDaines]

Quite clearly, it's not important to you, but don't act like a selfish prat

If you're going to make posts like this, then please, don't worry about no longer reading threads like these. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I wasn't addressing you, so I don't know why you took this so personal, but clearly you already have a problem with me and have resorted to more name-calling. But that's cool

I don't have a problem with you personally, as I would hardly know you from Adam. I have had a problem with a number of things that you have said and I would have commented against whoever said those things. What's the point in trolling people who are debating issues you simply don't care about, whether here or previously in the TT thread? You say you're not interested, you say you're not going to post, and yet you still do, mocking those who do at least have something to say. Please don't if you have nothing to add. What was the point shitting on Lubitsch the other week and being incredibly insulting to him, simply because you disagreed with him, when clearly he's passionate and deeply cares about film preservation, even attempting to contribute in his own way? Let's not start getting all defensive now and attempt to draw sympathy to yourself, after attempting to pour scorn on people who perhaps care about a certain aspect of DVD publishing that doesn't particularly concern you.

In the past I've had crossed words with a couple of people on the forum, yet have had constructive conversations and relationships with him afterwards, so you're mistaken if you think I go around scowling at your avatar.

[domino harvey]

When have I ever resorted to name calling with you? Answer: Never. When have you? Answer: Enough times to be warned about it by a Mod-- not that stopped you today. Don't claim I am being uncivil in my discourse by ignoring the fact that between the two of us, you're the one lobbing childish insults. I am asking you to please stop it.

Believe it or not, I am allowed to hold an opinion you don't share, and so long as I don't single anyone out for personal attacks or behave in a sexist, racist, or similarly discriminatory manner, I can post about it. If you'll look at the post that set you off, I stated that I'm all in favor of non-fixed subs. I also alluded to the fact that VHS releases rarely had such luxury, so this is something that's only come into play post-DVDs. It's an entitlement issue as far as I'm concerned. You disagree? Very well. See how easy that is?

People are complaining about Artificial Eye and not Olive because that's where the gang-up is happening right now, seeing as how the Olive issue has already come and gone and most have accepted that's how it is and will be. I am allowed to be frustrated that all the posts about Artificial Eye lately seem to be about fixed subs, an issue which affects a very small portion of the viewing audience, even here. I never said everyone had to agree with me and I never threatened to burn any bridges behind me. Am I frustrated that seemingly every thread devolves into A/V issues? Of course. Am I allowed to express my frustration in a way which does not hinder another's ability to voice their opposition to my position? Yes. Now for God's sake leave me alone

[TMDaines]

When have I ever resorted to name calling with you? Answer: Never. When have you? Answer: Enough times to be warned about it by a Mod-- not that stopped you today. Don't claim I am being uncivil in my discourse by ignoring the fact that between the two of us, you're the one lobbing childish insults. I am asking you to please stop it.

Yes. Now for God's sake leave me alone

Oh, come on. If you're big enough to dish it out to others, you're big enough to take it. Let's not have crocodile tears. Don't start pretending that you're holier than me: we both know there's plenty of name calling from you to be drudged up, i.e. re: Lubitsch.

There's one instance where I've called you a name. Don't be surprised if after posting:

WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES
Besides you?

when a few people are having a conversation, that someone calls you a "whiny bitch". Really, do you think I was unprovoked and you were stunned at that? Would you do that in real life in a discussion? And then be flummoxed if or when the person you were irritating said something?

Today I simply suggested that you put your point across without implictly suggesting that people who demand optional subtitles have an entitlement complex, thus ignoring all the logical and sound arguments that we have made in the past, and thus acting in the manner of a selfish idiot, who'll neither take the time to appreciate why it impacts others and simply downplay it, for it is something that doesn't concern him.

You can do the whole entitlement spiel about anything. I can make that just as well for OAR, which you suggested bore no comparison, as VHS and DVD until very recently was littered with the American market being subjected to "fullscreen" releases. Were people rallying against them being "entitled"? Are the deaf and HOH community "entitled" for requesting subtitles to aid their ability to digest a film? Probably, after all the glorious VHS didn't have them all too frequently! Let's not bother with extras either. It would be nice to think that in 2013 things have moved on a bit from the 1970s, and that those people who expect that aren't labelled, insultingly, as entitled.

[manicsounds]

I'm watching the bonus features of "The Raid 2", the US Sony disc, and there is a subtitle issue that I don't understand.

On the making-of featurette, there are optional English subtitles available. The featurette is a mix of English, Indonesian, and Japanese. When you turn on the subtitles, it subtitles everything, including the English interviews. There is no other subtitle option.

I've seen this on a few other titles (Miles Davis Live At Montreaux from Eagle Rock also had this), I don't understand why they decide to do this, just give 2 subtitle streams, one for subtitles for all the dialogue, and one for just the non-English.

[Raymond Marble]

I just got Borgman on blu-ray from Netflix, and unless I'm completely crazy, the subtitles that automatically came up, which were not optional and could not be switched to anything else, were English subtitles for the hearing impaired (i.e. complete with [footsteps] [dog barking] etc. descriptions of foley sounds). I tried both the pop-up and main menus, the subtitle button on my remote, and everything else I could think of, but nothing changed them. It was a bummer.

[MichaelB]

I've no idea why it happened, because all the other features and shorts in Arrow's Borowczyk box were fine, but I was initially sent hard-of-hearing subtitles for Blanche and had to painstakingly go through them subtitle by subtitle either removing or editing them. I hadn't seen the film in at least a decade, and I'd have quite liked my rediscovery to be in slightly less stop-start circumstances!

[TMDaines]

There's open source software that can remove all hard-of-hearing aspects from subtitles in seconds.

[MichaelB]

There's open source software that can remove all hard-of-hearing aspects from subtitles in seconds.

There may well be, but I wasn't about to resort to automated solutions for a project like this, any more than I use the "replace all" option of a find & replace search when professionally copy-editing.

[manicsounds]

I just got Borgman on blu-ray from Netflix, and unless I'm completely crazy, the subtitles that automatically came up, which were not optional and could not be switched to anything else, were English subtitles for the hearing impaired (i.e. complete with [footsteps] [dog barking] etc. descriptions of foley sounds). I tried both the pop-up and main menus, the subtitle button on my remote, and everything else I could think of, but nothing changed them. It was a bummer.

From a poster on Blu-ray.com:

They know about it, are upset about it, and are working on fixing it as soon as tomorrow. No word yet obviously about replacement discs or anything like that but an announcement should be coming soon.

[hearthesilence]

Stumbled across this Chicago Tribune article from May 15, 1989 online - unfortunately, it strips out the author's name, but I'm guessing it's Dave Kehr. (EDIT: It is indeed Dave Kehr.) It ultimately deals with the business of subtitles, but a very different aspect of it:

The two sides of the Cannes Film Festival-its extravagant showmanship and its underlying seriousness-came together Saturday in the context of ”Cinema and Liberty,” a daylong event that was the festival`s contribution to France`s bicentennial year.

More than 100 filmmakers from around the world, ranging from such international celebrities as Bernardo Bertolucci (an Academy Award winner for ”The Last Emperor”) to representatives of struggling Third World cinemas (Souleymanne Cisse of Mali, Lino Brocka of the Philippines), gathered in the echoing reception hall of Cannes` Palais des Festivals to discuss ”what role their cinema has played in defending freedom”-a freedom defined by the French Revolution`s definition of ”The Rights of Man” 200 years ago.

The freedoms under scrutiny were sometimes political, sometimes personal and often economic. For Fernando Solanas, a leftist director in Argentina, a country that has only recently recovered a freedom of expression, the most powerful repressive force remained the international dominance of Hollywood-” a new colonialism,” Solanas said, ”that destroys the identity of all other cultures by imposing a uniform vision of the world.”

American director Jerry Schatzberg (”Scarecrow”), present in Cannes with his new film ”Reunion,” pointed out that Hollywood`s power was ”a cultural problem in the States as well. As long as people are going to make a lot of money selling certain films, those are the films that are going to be made.”

English, particularly with an American accent, has indeed imposed itself as the international language of commercial filmmaking: In South America, one director noted, European films are often dubbed into English and then subtitled in Spanish to give the impression that they are American-made. John Berry, an American director who has lived in France since he was blacklisted during the ”Red scare” of the 1950s, noted that when he first came to Europe his producers insisted that he film in French, ”but now they want me to shoot everything in English.” (Two other American blacklist victims, Jules Dassin and Ring Lardner Jr., were also present.)

The liveliest moment of the 6-hour debate came when Greek director Theo Angelopoulos demanded to know why Bertolucci had shot ”The Last Emperor” in the ”imperialist language of English.”

”I have a financial obligation to film in the language with the widest possibility of exploitation,” Bertolucci shot back, ”and I refuse to be lectured here like a schoolboy.” (Needless to say, the discussion was held in the imperialist language of French.)

Significantly few voices were heard from those countries where language is the least of a filmmaker`s problems. Czechoslovakian filmmaker Jiri Menzel spoke bravely but sadly:

”You have asked a person from the East to say something. It`s not easy for us to speak of freedom, because we are all more or less employees of the state. We Eastern filmmakers are like domesticated animals-they feed us, they take care of us, while you in the West are like wild animals who live and hunt in the forest. We have learned to be pets.”

[The Curious Sofa]

The global dominance of Hollywood cinema in Europe and how to handle and package foreign language films in the US/U.K. has long been an issue for the industry. At the time, it was more common for the more commercial foreign language films to be dubbed for English-speaking audiences but that limited their exposure as much as subtitling,

The European countries where dubbing is most common, Germany, Italy and Spain, were in the habit of not even recording sound for their local productions, so even the native version was dubbed. Also, the countries where dubbing is most common all had fascist regimes in the 20th century, and dubbing became popular during those regimes and was seen as a way of bringing foreign films into the mother tongue as a nationalist act.

Growing up in Germany, where they still dub all non-German language films and TV series, had at least one advantage. Non-English language films were much more mainstream. I grew up watching Eastern European fairy tales and fantasy films on TV, Karel Zeman was equal to Disney to me. Many of the more commercial European films that never or barely made it to the English-speaking world were given similar releases to Hollywood films, for example making Louis de Funes, Belmondo and Bud Spencer huge stars here (we have a museum devoted to Bud Spencer in Berlin). There are films that are considered classics in Germany, like Robert Enrico's Les Adventuriers, which was always on TV when I was a kid, that are barely known in English-speaking territories.

With streaming and especially Netflix, things seem to be changing, with something like The Squid Games becoming its most successful series, and dubbing must be contributing to that. (BTW, this is no defence of dubbing, I can't bear it now.)

[MichaelB]

The liveliest moment of the 6-hour debate came when Greek director Theo Angelopoulos demanded to know why Bertolucci had shot ”The Last Emperor” in the ”imperialist language of English.”

”I have a financial obligation to film in the language with the widest possibility of exploitation,” Bertolucci shot back, ”and I refuse to be lectured here like a schoolboy.” (Needless to say, the discussion was held in the imperialist language of French.)

This reminds me of a situation that Costa-Gavras encountered over Missing, where quite a few people whose ideological position overrode plain common sense insisted that he should have made the film about Chileans rather than Americans and in Spanish rather than English, and by making it in English for a Hollywood studio he'd clearly abandoned all his principles in favour of the basest commerce.

Costa-Gavras was personally not unsympathetic to their position, but politely pointed out that if he'd done as they were recommending, the resulting film would have played in a few arthouses, pretty much exclusively to audiences who already knew about the situation in Chile and who had already taken a position on it. By contrast, by making the film about Americans and casting major stars like Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon, the film could get a far wider release in mainstream American cinemas and reach precisely the kind of audiences that Costa-Gavras wouldn't have had a hope of reaching with his earlier work - i.e. people who knew nothing about Chile and US involvement in the Pinochet regime, but who bought a ticket because Jack Lemmon was in it.

And that's what he was trying to do with Missing first and foremost, and he triumphantly succeeded on all counts as the film performed very well commercially while also being remarkably uncompromising in its criticism of American imperialism – to a really remarkable extent, in fact, given Universal Studios backing. Language aside, it's clearly the work of the man who made Z and State of Siege.

[colinr0380]

I assume that is something that helped to trigger off the run of 'journalist-activist in a foreign land' films in the 1980s: The Killing Fields, Under Fire, Salvador, The Year of Living Dangerously etc? (Which I guess was itself a trend that Alex Cox was reacting back at with a film like Walker)

Arguably even Gorillas In The Mist fits in with that trend!

[The Curious Sofa]

The Year of Living Dangerously came out the same year as Missing and Under Fire had to have been at least green lit or in pre-production by the time Missing was released. Financially Missing was at best a moderate success, not the type of film that gets studios to jump on a band wagon.

[hearthesilence]

It's kind of a long tradition in Western entertainment. FWIW I recently I found out that Lawrence of Arabia was nearly written that way too, with Kirk Douglas playing the reporter (actually based on Lowell Thomas), but he dropped out when he couldn't get star-billing and a bigger salary. The role was subsequently reduced to what was eventually played by Arthur Kennedy. (Kennedy wasn't even supposed to be in the picture. Edmond O'Brien was cast, but he had a heart attack while shooting on location, so Kennedy was hired as a replacement.) To be fair, even with a less prominent role for the journalist, it still revolves around a Western perspective and how outsiders changed the Middle East.

[colinr0380]

Amusingly Ghandi has the same kind of figure packed off back to England on a train at the beginning of the film!