[CONTINUATION OF MY ESSAY ON DUBBING] Few would disagree that an actor's
speech is part of his or her creation of a role--including the timbre,
inflection, pauses, and accent, as well as the words themselves.  Yet
all or some of these aspects of the performance are lost in the looping
or dubbing process, which is more extensive than is supposed [in the
U.S. it ranges from 10 to nearly 100% depending on the circumstances of
filming.  While most directors prefer direct sound, action films can't
get good quality dialogue in many situations].
To the recordist who teaches sound at the Berline Film Academy, a dubbed
performance is lifeless:  "It's not like a body, it's like the bones."
The arguments for and against dubbing and looping usually reflect an
artist's aesthetic priorities.  Fellini, for instance, thought that the
voice was 60% of the performance.  Yet he did not see why a voice and a
face should be provided by the same actor. Thus, in casting, he chose
separately the most interesting voice AND the most interesting face for
each part.  Zeffirelli, like Fellini, usually changes the script after a
film is photographed.  Altho the majority of Italian filmmakers at a
conference in the 80s came out against post-synchronization, the
directors I spoke to all preferred to get the best possible image and
forget about sound while shooting.  This choice effectively means
sacrificing the quality of the dialogue; for, as one director told me,
with the exception of Fellini, the Taviani Bros. and perhaps one or two
others, by the time they are ready to add sound they have nearly
exhausted their budgets.
In the States there is similarly a spectrum of opinion among actors and
directors about the value of looping.  John Huston preferred to capture
the actor's original voice during production because body movement
affects the actor's speech.  It was for Huston that Brando did his first
looping.  Originally Brando resisted, but he eventually came to prefer
it; with looping a performance isn't frozen and he can reinterpret his
lines in the context of the edited version of the film.  Not all actors
loop as well as they think they do, however.  Not every good screen
actor can recreate the emotion three months after shooting and in a
dubbing room.  The director who depends highly on looping has usually
made concomitant aesthetic choices.   Looped dialogue does not usually
have quite the verisimilitude of the original track; it is cleaner but
less "placed."  On the other hand it can be selected for the quality of
the performance.  Whereas non-loopers must choose a take that is
visually as well as aurally pleasing, loopers needn't privilege line
readings during editing and can deal with those separately.
At any rate, the scholar who would try to assess screen performance
should keep in mind that the words "coming out of an actor's mouth" may
be determined neither by the writer the actor nor even the director.  At
a looping session I attended recently, it was an assistant editor who
was choosing the takes.  Similarly, we should remember that historically
scholars, researchers and archivists have tended to authenticate a print
by its images rather than its soundtrack.  Caveat auditor.  liz weis
cuny
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]