Criterion And Other Foreign DVDs

Aside from the ridiculous coding of regions for DVDs, probably the most annoying thing about foreign DVDs is that they are usually so expensive to buy vis-a-vis the films released on DVD by Hollywood. Is it any wonder more people watch Michael Bay films in this nation than those by Theo Angelopoulos or Bela Tarr?

There seems to be almost a cult that has formed to keep high quality foreign films out of the hands of American DVD collectors.

Even worse, is that so few companies go the extra mile to dub the DVDs into English. First, as film is a visual medium, it is incredibly annoying to have to read subtitles. No dubbing job- even at 1960s Godzilla film levels, is anywhere near as distracting as having up to a third of your visual field blinkered by subtitles. Worse is when black and white films are subtitled in white fonts that lack borders. This is one of the great sins of The Criterion Collection. It simply does not cost any more to put subtitles into crisp gold lettering.

In fact, for only a few thousand dollars, qualified stage actors can be hired to read the lines of foreign actors, and avoid the whole mess of subtitles to begin with. Acting has very little to do with mouth synchronization, and the greatest actors act with small parts of their bodies, and the whole. That some actors can actually 'act' when reading dialogue for cartoons proves how silly the arguments against dubbing is-a-vis subtitles is.

Furthermore, if one watches classic foreign films from the 1950s and 1960s, which were routinely dubbed for American audiences (often retained in DVD releases), one can see how superior dubbing is. As example, Ingmar Bergman's Spider Trilogy is dubbed, and the fact that different actors and voices are used for the characters played by Max Von Sydow actually enhances all the characterizations, for we really get that it is not Max Von Sydow in all three films, but characters who merely look like Von Sydow, but sound different, even down to the peculiarities of their emotional vocal choices.

Another flaw that Criterion has, especially since it rebranded itself with the semi-circle C logo a few years back, is that they have really skimped on audio commentaries. Realistically, this is the single greatest advantage DVDs offer over old VHS tapes. That they have cut back on the bread and butter of the industry bodes not well for Criterion, nor for future foreign film novices with a will to want to learn. Simply put, commentaries are very cheaply made and produced, for next to nothing.

So, now that I've gotten that out of mys system, here's hoping that companies, like Criterion, that specialize in foreign films, actually start exploiting the market better, for there is big money to be made by NOT underestimating the viewing public; as strange as that sentiment might seem coming from me.

Subtitles vs. Dubbing

I have had a debate with some people over the years vs. the merits of subtitling vs. dubbing- see here for a representative sample of the way pro-subtitlists feel.

To me, the argument isn't even close, and one has to wonder what reality the pro-subtitlists are living in. Subtitles, to me, are akin to graffiti. There's simply no way that someone can not enjoy a foreign film less because a few lip movements are misaligned vs. a third of the film screen being gobbled up by subtitles. And when poorly done- as in white subtitles for black and white films, or poor translations, or up to 20% of speech going untranslated, or poorly written, misspelled, etc., is there really ANY argument? I don't think so.

Look at this dubbed version of a Bergman clip, from Fanny And Alexander:



Now, is there any way, if one did not know this was a Swedish film, that you can tell me this is inferior?

Many Bergman films were dubbed- especially 1960s classics. Winter Light, one of his greatest films, was dubbed, but here's a subtitled clip:



About 6 1/2 minutes in, Gunnar Bjornstrand berates Ingrid Thulin. Now, if you read the words, you may miss many of Thulin's subtleties. Here, even in a very static moment, you will miss an essential part of the tale- her character's fragility and, frankly, annoyingness being revealed to herself. In the dubbed version you can hear what is said as you peer at Thulin's face, but the subtitles make you choose one or the other.

In fact, a good thing about dubbing is that it often accentuates the uniqueness of the role an actor is playing. As example, different actors were used to dub the voice of Max Von Sydow in Bergman's 1960s films, and this makes his differing characters all the more clearly NOT Sydow than he and his own voice could do.

Here is a clip from Federico Fellini's Nights Of Cabiria:



In this subtitled version, we hear Giulieta Masina's real voice, and, compared to the dubbed version- a different actress, it is softer, which aids in the drama, but also makes the many humorous scenes less effective. I.e.- the dubbing is a wash, and the film (the script, really) rides not on Cabiria's voice, but Cabiria's mannerisms and the tale it tells.

Of course, as I wrote in the other post's argument, 'while a bad dub is worse than good subtitles, your typical dubbing is better than your typical subtitling, and a good dub job- see Bergman and Fellini, is FAR superior to the best subtitles.'

So, while one can certainly LIKE subtitling over dubbing, from an artistic standpoint, there really is no argument for subtitling's superiority.

Case closed.