Subtitle difference

[Agnes&Elin Forever!]

I do prefer subtitled films most of the time, but it's just dogmatic to deny that subtitling has got its problems too. For one, it keeps your attention from where it belongs: with the picture. The pacing of films is aimed at viewers with an undivided attention, not ones who have to read the dialogue at the same time. Dubbing allows you to concentrate on the pictures 100%.

Actually when you have grown up watching subtitled films on TV and in the cinema you get so used to it, you watch and read at the same time, you don't think about it.

But of course I can imagine for someone who is not used to it it's not as easy, you are used to dubbing instead.

For me it would seem very strange to watch for example a French film where they spoke in Swedish, frankly it would be absurd

But many countries in Europe use dubbing, not only Germany, this is the tradition you have, you don't seem to care about authenticity. For you dubbing is more convenient.

[Ian]

I really don't like dubbing, myself. Used to hate subtitles but, well, I've grown up a bit since then . Certainly, with SML, I can't help but think that if you're watching a dubbed version, you're missing out on half of Alexandra and Rebecka's performances. I may not understand the language, but their delivery and the emotions they express come through any language barrier. When you've got completely different actors overdubbing them... I'm sorry, but.. EWW.

[mathieu]

Just to say that the dubbing problem about inaccuracy is not so present in France : a good job is done and I noticed only once that they changed the meaning. I won't quote here all the examples but on the Friends serie, the subtitles are 100% accurate but when they dubbed, they changed a lot of jokes It was very frustrating to see that... I completely agreed with you on this point :

the general principle in translating is that you need a special reason if you want to deviate from the original. it is just the meaning of the word "translating". Most people would agree that to translate means: Replace a sentence from one language with a sentence from a different language that has (as closely as possible) the same content. It does not mean: Replace a sentence from one language with a sentence from a different language that has a completely different content which the translator for some reason or other liked better.

Translation should never deviate from the original meaning (except of course for idioms, etc.). It is called "respect" and "free-mind" : it is ok to change the meaning if it is a idiom question but by changing the "story", you don't let the viewer make its own idea. When a political speech is translated, they don't change some sentences and try to be as close as possible than the source text ! Why should it be different for a movie when a director try to show ideas and emotions ? I know it is a bit excessive but the idea of changing the original script sounds to me like "mind control"...

On the hand, I would like to add something about that point of view :

I do prefer subtitled films most of the time, but it's just dogmatic to deny that subtitling has got its problems too. For one, it keeps your attention from where it belongs: with the picture. The pacing of films is aimed at viewers with an undivided attention, not ones who have to read the dialogue at the same time. Dubbing allows you to concentrate on the pictures 100%.

Focus is not only an eyes job : when we read something, we understand it faster than we think (subconscious, etc.). I think our brain assimilates better the original voices + subtiles that dubbed voices because of lips synchronizing and coherence. When I watched FA on french TV, it was dubbed in french and I knew that the plot was in Sweden so it was not logic. Sometime I can't get into a movie because of that (hopefuly it wasn't the case for FA). This argument about "logic" works both ways however : when I saw "gladiator" for the first time, it was dubbed in french and it sounds very plausible but when I got the DVD and saw it in english, it was very weird to see roman people speaking english... I watch it everytime in english thought.
It's a only my very own personnal point of view so I won't defend it to the death to convince others

---------

On the general question of dubbing, France dubbs everything because it brings a lot of jobs. Sometime they argue that it is useful for people that can't read but this argument is not receivable. It has been shown that contry using subtitles were :
- quite good in english comprehension (first positive aspect)
- and that in this country they were few people that can't read because when a child sees subtitles everywhere, he understands that he could never do anything if he can't read so he learns to read.
The shortcut is quite hard because sometime children don't have access to school but we see in France that 9-10 years old children have a lot of problem in reading so consequently in learning, etc. Because they watch TV, if we were using subtitles, this would not happen.

-----------

About FA french DVD : both dubbing and subtitles are accurate compared to german's one (based on what has been quoted before : I compared the french and the english translation).

[Agnes&Elin Forever!]

Certainly, with SML, I can't help but think that if you're watching a dubbed version, you're missing out on half of Alexandra and Rebecka's performances. I may not understand the language, but their delivery and the emotions they express come through any language barrier.

This is so true, language and talking isn't just "words", especially for a tender film like this.

[Agnes&Elin Forever!]

This argument about "logic" works both ways however : when I saw "gladiator" for the first time, it was dubbed in french and it sounds very plausible but when I got the DVD and saw it in english, it was very weird to see roman people speaking english... I watch it everytime in english thought.

I understand your point, but this is a little different though, ok it may not seem logical to have Romans speak English, but the film was shot in English, the actors spoke English on the set.

So in this case it's absolutely logical to watch the film in that language!

[hcd]

I said that the general principle in translating is that you need a special reason if you want to deviate from the original.

In my submission a special reason is given when the original term sucks or the term needs an adjustment because of the mentality of the target country.

Most people would agree that to translate means: Replace a sentence from one language with a sentence from a different language that has (as closely as possible) the same content.

Oho... well, for me a translation means: Replace a sentence from one language with a sentence from a different language that has (as closely as possible) the same meaning. That's why I haven't any problems with the "Horizont einer knieenden Ameise". Also I don't see this phrase as a joke. It just points unmistakable out that he's an total idiot.

Once you encourage Rainer-Brandt-style rewriting of original scripts...

I didn't encourage anyone to do this. I just gave some exemples to show that there're some dubbed films out there that are better than the original. If you want to do Rainer-Brandt-sytle it has to fit to the movie in general and particularly to the scenes. FA in this style wouldn't work, I guess.

Who are these people to judge whether a script needs improvement, and where, and how?

Talented artists with gut instincts for what's good and what's not?

When people translate novels by an accomplished writer and think that the end is weak (which it may be), are they expected (or even allowed) to write a new one for the German book market?

If they have the rights for the German market, why not?

And why should a film script deserve any less respect?

Do I show less respect when I change a copy of an existing script? In my opinion this is an act of artistic freedom. I would show no respect if I would force the author to change his/her original script.

I am fully and fiercely opposing your opinion, but there's no arguing about it!

But I guess you agree when I say that Alexandra's performance is marvelous. (Much better than Rebecka's. I know, you don't agree with that.)

(just a typo I guess).

Oops... yes, sorry.

And I hold a PhD in philosophy...

Wow... a Doctor of Philosophy. Cool.

But of course I can imagine for someone who is not used to it it's not as easy, you are used to dubbing instead.

I watch subtitled movies too. (Especially when there's no dubbing available.) Generally it depends on what's better.

You don't seem to care about authenticity. For you dubbing is more convenient.

As for me I don't care about authenticity when the dubbing is better than the original.

I can't help but think that if you're watching a dubbed version, you're missing out on half of Alexandra and Rebecka's performances.

You just miss the voice. And as I said it already, in comparison with the original voices I prefer the German ones (especially Elin's soundwords). There're only two points where the original voices are better:

1. When Elin moves the computer mouse accidental with the wine glass she says something like "Oi". They forgot to dub this in the German version, so it's silent there.
2. I really like how Elin says "negative".

When you've got completely different actors overdubbing them... I'm sorry, but.. EWW.

Why? Bad experiences?

Translation should never deviate from the original meaning (except of course for idioms, etc.). It is called "respect" and "free-mind"

I don't agree. See some answers above.

It's a only my very own personnal point of view so I won't defend it to the death to convince others

I guess everyone here shows his/her point of view. And trying to convince them would be pretty senseless. So you can go ahead to "defend it to the death" if you like. It keeps the discussion running. And it's interesting to read the different opinions.

if we were using subtitles, this would not happen.

Interesting theory. But I guess that the main problem is that the children are watching to much tv and not that they're watching to much dubbed tv. However, I want to decide if I want to watch subtitled films or not and not the Ministry of Education.

[mpox]

Who are these people to judge whether a script needs improvement, and where, and how?

Talented artists with gut instincts for what's good and what's not?

Obviously we'd all prefer that the film is shown in our native language, it's just a trade-off in what the alternative is when that option isn't available. Neither is perfect, subtitles distance you from the film in that you have to read instead of just experience, and dubbing distances you from the film because what you're getting is filtered through someone else's interpretation. It could be great, you might like it better even, but it's like listening to a cover band instead of the original.

Back to the original post a bit, having read through a bunch of threads and articles online I think it'd be interesting to do a definitive version of subtitles that remove some of the localization they did. For example in the English one they translate jävla (which translates more properly to bloody?) as fucking or just ignore it. Looking around a bit online I see other examples of people doing the same translation: jävla -> fucking, but the film goes out of their way to also just use fucking. Of course almost nobody in the U.S. uses bloody like that, and everyone does use fucking, so it's a good localization but you miss some of the flavor of the country that the film originated in. It's like one more filter. I also have a problem in that the subtitles on the film I watched (a torrent so I don't know how the official ones hold up but generally they're ripped from the DVD) didn't translate all of the Swedish text. They didn't do the poem at all and they didn't do part of what Agnes wrote after she tore her room apart so I had to bust out the Swedish - English translation website (this was back before I knew about the fan community). Of course it's tricky to get all the text up in that short an amount of time because you have much less room to do it. On the other hand I do like some of the localizations, Elin's declaration at the end that they're "going to go fuck now" sounds so brash and, well, Elin, that I'd miss it if it was "make love" or "shag" or something lesser.

[Agnes&Elin Forever!]

I watch subtitled movies too. (Especially when there's no dubbing available.) Generally it depends on what's better.

As for me I don't care about authenticity when the dubbing is better than the original.

Yes you keep repeating "better voices" but I don't quite believe you, I think it's just more comfortable for you to have dubbing instead of subtitles, because that's what you are used to.

It seems really stupid that a lot of actors original voices should sound so bad or unfitting that the dubbed voices are "better" ?

And as far as I know, don't the people doing the dubbing try to find similar voices to match the original?

I think you just prefer hearing your own language, otherwise it feels too strange for you.

And these dubbing-actors, don't you finally recognise their voices for different foreign actors? Because there can't be new ones all the time?

"Hmm, I've heard that voice before." Does this ever happen?

[kant1781]

"Hmm, I've heard that voice before." Does this ever happen?

Yep. Sure. E.g., in Germany, Kevin Kline, Jeff Goldblum and Tom Hanks all have the same voice.

[kant1781]

Most people would agree that to translate means: Replace a sentence from one language with a sentence from a different language that has (as closely as possible) the same content.

Oho... well, for me a translation means: Replace a sentence from one language with a sentence from a different language that has (as closely as possible) the same meaning. That's why I haven't any problems with the "Horizont einer knieenden Ameise". Also I don't see this phrase as a joke. It just points unmistakable out that he's an total idiot.

I don't see any difference between the terms "content" and "meaning" for our purposes. I'd just donwright deny that "you are so bloody stupid" and "du hast den Horizont einer kniienden Ameise" have the same meaning. Meaning is not only a matter of what is said, but also of the way it is expressed. There are hundreds of possible expressions of the simple fact that somebody is stupid, all very different, but each and every one has a special nuance and a special hue, and each and every one tells something about the person who uses it - about his or her cultural and social background, emotions, and so on. Choice of words is crucial for meaning. Therefore, as I see it, exchanging a sentence which expresses "you are stupid" in very straightforward, everyday words, for a sentence which expresses "you are stupid" with a more or less funny, unusual and elaborated one-liner, changes the meaning. That is bad translation, when done without need. In the scene we're talking about, there's no need to do it. Neither of the reasons you cite applies.

When people translate novels by an accomplished writer and think that the end is weak (which it may be), are they expected (or even allowed) to write a new one for the German book market?

If they have the rights for the German market, why not?

And why should a film script deserve any less respect?

Do I show less respect when I change a copy of an existing script? In my opinion this is an act of artistic freedom. I would show no respect if I would force the author to change his/her original script.

You can't be serious about this. Translators are not authors. The right of artistic freedom doesn't apply to them - not as long as they call themselves "translators" and the work they do is sold under the name of the original author. When I read a German book with "Dostojewski" printed on the cover (as I must, because I don't speak Russian), I want to rely on the general assumption that the translator did his or her best to be true to the original text. It's Dostojewski I want to read, not "Dostojewski as putatively improved by the artistic standards of Mr. X, his so-called translator", and possibly with a different ending, as you suggest. The same goes for films: Even though I have to rely on subtitles, when it says "written by Lukas Moodysson", it's a Moodysson script I want to see, not something that used to be a Moodysson script until some anonymous people put their hands on it because of they think "what works". Following this logic, you could just go on into the Louvre and "improve" on some of the Picassos there, 'cause, you know, they really don't work, that guy couldn't even paint decent faces...

But I guess you agree when I say that Alexandra's performance is marvelous. (Much better than Rebecka's. I know, you don't agree with that.)

Yes I do (well, without the "much"). In fact I was threatened in a different thread of this board for saying exactly that. Seems to be one thing we do agree on!

[hcd]

Yes you keep repeating "better voices" but I don't quite believe you, I think it's just more comfortable for you to have dubbing instead of subtitles, because that's what you are used to.

Believe it or not, but the German voices are better (in my opinion). Agnes' voice is more softer and Elin's voice more "rusty".

It seems really stupid that a lot of actors original voices should sound so bad or unfitting that the dubbed voices are "better"?

I didn't say that the original voices are bad or unfitting. I just said, in comparison to the original, that the dubbed voices are better.
There are some movies/series where this happens, f.e. Angela Anaconda or Spencer/Hill films. On the other hand there are also films where the original voice is better than the dubbing, f.e. the voice of Jean Reno in "Leon the Professional".

And as far as I know, don't the people doing the dubbing try to find similar voices to match the original?

True. Nevertheless the dubbing voice might be better.

I think you just prefer hearing your own language, otherwise it feels too strange for you.

Not really. It's more how the voice sounds. How the dubbing actors pronounce/emphase the words. An excellent dubbing can push a movie a lot.

And these dubbing-actors, don't you finally recognise their voices for different foreign actors? Because there can't be new ones all the time?

These are professional artist. They can do a lot of different dialects/parts with their voices. And Germany has many of them.

"Hmm, I've heard that voice before." Does this ever happen?

Yes, sometimes this happens. F.e. I thought the speaker of Agnes is the same as Mathilda in "Leon the Professional". But I've checked it and both characters were spoken by different speakers.

I don't see any difference between the terms "content" and "meaning" for our purposes.

Well, "same content" means that the translation is nearly 1:1. "same meaning" means that translation is more free, but keeps the general statement. That's my interpretation.

I'd just donwright deny that "you are so bloody stupid" and "du hast den Horizont einer kniienden Ameise" have the same meaning.

I don't agree. For me it has the same meaning.

Meaning is not only a matter of what is said, but also of the way it is expressed. There are hundreds of possible expressions of the simple fact that somebody is stupid, all very different, but each and every one has a special nuance and a special hue, and each and every one tells something about the person who uses it - about his or her cultural and social background, emotions, and so on. Choice of words is crucial for meaning. Therefore, as I see it, exchanging a sentence which expresses "you are stupid" in very straightforward, everyday words, for a sentence which expresses "you are stupid" with a more or less funny, unusual and elaborated one-liner, changes the meaning. That is bad translation, when done without need. In the scene we're talking about, there's no need to do it. Neither of the reasons you cite applies.

I guess it's pretty clear that we have a different points of view about that. Maybe it is, because I'm not a friend of straigthforward expressions.

You can't be serious about this. Translators are not authors. The right of artistic freedom doesn't apply to them - not as long as they call themselves "translators" and the work they do is sold under the name of the original author.

Are you kidding? Of course artistic freedom apply to them. Even if they are "only" translators. Just think of Dr. Erika Fuchs (she translated nearly all Disney comics to German from 1951 on) or Dana Lewis and Toren Smith (they did the excellent translation of Gunsmith Cats from Japanese to English). I don't want to know how the translations would have been without their use of artistic freedom.

When I read a German book with "Dostojewski" printed on the cover (as I must, because I don't speak Russian), I want to rely on the general assumption that the translator did his or her best to be true to the original text. It's Dostojewski I want to read, not "Dostojewski as putatively improved by the artistic standards of Mr. X, his so-called translator", and possibly with a different ending, as you suggest. The same goes for films: Even though I have to rely on subtitles, when it says "written by Lukas Moodysson", it's a Moodysson script I want to see, not something that used to be a Moodysson script until some anonymous people put their hands on it because of they think "what works". Following this logic, you could just go on into the Louvre and "improve" on some of the Picassos there, 'cause, you know, they really don't work, that guy couldn't even paint decent faces...

Well, again, if the result is better. See "The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe". A book/film/whatever has to entertain me. So I don't care if it's close to the original or not a s long as it's good. But that's my opinion. I know that most of the people here don't agree to that. Such is life.

Seems to be one thing we do agree on!

Looks like that.

[kant1781]

First: You keep talking about "better" voices and "better" films and "better" translations, while the only standard of judgment you offer is "good" = "what I (hcd) like", and "better" = "what I (hcd) like more". It should come as no surprise to you that this standard fails to impress me. At least for the case of translations (which is all I want to argue about here, since it is the topic of this thread), I'm desperately trying to point out that there is a standard for the quality of a translation that is quite independent of what you, or I, or anybody else, like. (And that standard is, to repeat myself, the capacity of the translation to capture the meaning and the tone and the feeling of the original.) A good translation of a difficult, dark text will again result in a difficult, dark text. It will not make it any easier or lighter. So it may very well be that the horrible Spencer/Hill movies were even more atrocious in Italian, it may be that the German "Donald Duck" makes a more pleasant read than the American original. You and I, we both would like the translated versions better than the originals. But that implies exactly nothing for the question of the quality of the translation. A perfect translation may result in a boring text (if the original itself already was boring), and something that is lousy as a translation may result in an enjoyable text. You keep mixing this up because you equate "well translated" with "pleases me".
Perhaps one should rather say that Erika Fuchs hasn't translated "Donald Duck" at all but rather recreated or rewritten it (which is why she gets so much credit for it). If I rewrite Dostojewski, cool happy endings included, so that everyone likes my books better than the original, I may have produced a work of genius, but what I have done is not translating.
If we can maybe settle on this, then the real question is: Should one treat a foreign film in my sense, i.e. preserve the authenticity of its text as much as possible, or should one treat it in your sense, that is, try to improve on the original where it is weak in order to make the result more enjoyable. You have clearly opted for the latter option, because you want to be entertained (your words). Fair enough. I'm for the former option because I see films (as novels, and poetry, and paintings) as artistic statements of their respective authors. I want to get to know these statements as they made it (or at least as close as possible to that). Whether they entertain me is not too important. (I like being entertained, but I can keep this apart from the question of artistic quality.) There are films that I find brilliant even though I don't enjoy them at all. That's the real difference.

Second: Your reaction to my argument why the choice of words used in a sentence matters for its meaning reminds me of that goold old Monthy Python argument sketch: It's just contradiction! I have tried my best to explain why I think my view is right; it doesn't bring us any further just to say that you see it differently (I knew that), unless you can defend your view with reasons that show why it is at least as plausible as mine.
Again: You can express the conviction that someone is stupid with words that would fit a 19th century British Lord and with words that would fit a 21st century South LA street gang member. If you replace the one set of words for the other, it doesn't fit the speaker any more. Doing this in a translation leads to nonsense. Granted, Elin's sentence in Fucking Åmål is a more moderate case, but still it exchanges a line that fits a certain kind of character in a certain situation and a certain mood, for another line that fits a different character in a different situation and mood. Now the question is, does the German "Ameisen"-sentence fit Elin? You say yes, I say no, you say stop and I say gogogo, but again, that doesn't matter: It's the author of the film who chose a certain way of expression for the character of Elin in this scene, and I believe that here as everywhere he chose his words with care. That's how he wanted the character to speak in this scene, and I want his intention unhampered with unless absolutely necessary (for reasons, go back to my first point).

[hcd]

You and maybe others see translating as something that has to be very close to the original. ("A good translation of a difficult, dark text will again result in a difficult, dark text.") I don't see this border. For me a translation is something that gives someone the meaning of the the original, so that this someone gets the idea of what the original wants to say. See also next answer.

You keep talking about "better" voices and "better" films and "better" translations, while the only standard of judgment you offer is "good" = "what I (hcd) like", and "better" = "what I (hcd) like more".

That's so correct. The effect of Books/films/translations/etc. on people is always subjective. It's so stupid to read in computer games magazines about an objective score of a game.
It's the same with your point of view of a translation. You are giving a translation an objective score. That doesn't work for me. F.e. you give a translation a high score, because it's very close to the original. Now I read this translation and in my opinion it's lame. So your score just gives a statement whether the translation is 100% close to the original or not. It doesn't (and it can't) say anything about if I would like it or not. So the real quality of a translation to me is not if it's close to the original but if I like it. That's the main difference between you and me, I guess.

[kant1781]

So the real quality of a translation to me is not if it's close to the original but if I like it. That's the main difference between you and me, I guess.

Agreed. Thanks God we've sorted that out! The point of discussing mainly is to agree upon what exactly it is that you can't agree on, not to reach a consensus.

[hcd]

---deleted--- (Originally here was a question to the script, but I've recognized that there are different scripts around, so my question had no basis anymore.)