How often are foreign films retranslated? Is it a big deal when they are? Who are the Peavear/Volokhonskys of the film world, and who are its Constance Garnetts? Why is it that though I am picky and opinionated about translations of Rilke, Homer, or the Bible, I simply accept that I'm getting "correct" versions of Bergman, Jeunet, or Godard?
On a parenthetical note, this may be the most pretentious thing I've ever posted here.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
an extension of the scattered musings that took place in College Ave. 213
4 comments:
This from the boy whose ten movie collection includes Benny and Joon and Moulin Rouge...
Only ten percent of communication is what you actually say - the rest is body language and how you say it. Right? (says wikipedia). With film you get the other 90 percent naturally, but in writing you only get the ten percent, making translation a much more important aspect of the art. In Jules and Jim, does it matter so much exactly what he says when the two are reunited after the war if we can see the men's expressions and actions? It matters a lot more if you're reading dialogue to have more precision in the translated language. I don't think it's as crucial when you can see what's happening.
Also, in film, the only thing translated is dialogue, not description or analysis etc. Those things obviously don't need to be translated, so you've got no need to translate most of film, cuz it's in everyone's native language, unless you're blind.
I think you're post applies only to blind people - for them, subtitle translation might be a huge deal...
Actually, I think you bring up a whole new set of issues. Body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice are, like everything else, cultural constructs and will vary from place to place. Perhaps VH1-style pop-up footnotes might be helpful.
Moreover, I think the nuances of dialogue are more important than maybe you give them credit for. A version of Casablanca or Annie Hall for a foreign market would have to work to capture the sparkle and pace of the dialogue, which is so key to understanding those films, especially a pre-Method one like Casablanca. And some crucial moments in films do hinge on dialogue and have been hurt by poor translation (famously, Breathless).
check this out - in countries where the government censors imported media (e.g. many Middle Eastern nations) they will change text in sub-titles to be more ideologically coherent with the leadership's moral standards. For instance in scenes where someone is violently cussing someone else, the text might read, "you are a bad, man", same with saucy talk - massively tamed down.
I'm gonna have to side with Dayna on this one--even though I believe 90% of statistics are made up. Body language is closer to a more universal human expression. A good actor/film can capture that language. The dialogue of a movie is only a small part of the movie--even without method acting. The pacing, camera work, and the 'camera-view-as-observer' all work to tell a story devoid of words. I think that's why many of the famous, moving and memorable scenes often have very few words. (I'm specifically thinking of Cool Hand Luke-every scene;)
The medium of film capitalizes on action which is closer to a universal language. Which is why I was constantly surprised how much I understood and enjoyed after viewing many movies in Thai without any subtitles. A good film can avoid the pilafs of culturally defined, hackneyed, contrived, imprecise use of language.
Ben-Borat in Thailand (where the government edits inappropriate movies)was 25 minutes long...
Post a Comment