Sandy Camargo wrote:
> I came across an article recently ... that argued that, while most
> of us prefer subtitles for reasons of textual authenticity, they create a
> distanciation that may actually make it more difficult for us to appreciate
> a film's full power and meaning. The author suggests that watching a dubbed
> film, on the other hand, gives us a clearer insight into the experience of
> watching the film and that therefore dubbing can bring us closer to the
> filmmaker's original intention.
> Does this seem like a reasonable idea?
Yes, I think so (though I'm not sure that I've fully grasped 'a clearer insight
into the experience of watching the film'). The most astute and most succinct
comment on this matter may be Alfred Hitchcock's at the end of the Truffaut
interview book (1967): 'A novel may lose a lot of its interest in the
translated version, and a play that's beautifully acted out on opening night
may become shapeless during the rest of the run, but a film travels all over
the world. Assuming that it loses fifteen per cent of its impact when it's
subtitled and ten per cent when it's well dubbed, the image remains intact,
even when the projection is faulty.'
That does sound about right, to me.
- Ken Mogg (author of the uncut UK edition of 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story' - I
disown the cut and 'simplified' US edition).
> Are there films that we might use in
> teaching undergraduates that some of you might prefer to use in a dubbed
> Sandy Camargo
> Department of English
> University of Missouri
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu