35. The debate around [subtitles]
I read this article from The Atlantic called "Why Is Everyone Watching TV With the Subtitles On?" by Devin Gordon.
Here's a quote from that article-
A war is raging in living rooms and bedrooms across America—a Great Subtitle War. On one side: the bombastic visual effects of post–Game of Thrones mega-budget TV. On the other side: hearing the words. On one side: people like me, the purists and refuseniks. On the other: our friends and spouses, people who just want to follow the plot. The widespread use of subtitles felt, to me, like a lurch backward toward the silent-film era. But I didn’t want to be too doctrinaire. Maybe some exceptions could be made.
This article would be fine, but it tries to argue that subtitles lower the degree in which you experience a film. It really has a "film snob" perspective and they say that it is best to not have them if you're watching a film in your language.
Both of these things can be true:
You can enjoy and appreciate films with subtitles
All other things equal, subtitles take attention away from other visuals details of a film
When I go to the cinema, it is a bit difficult for me to make out the dialogue from the actors- it's the mumbling and sound mixing. Without subtitles on an action movie...how do you hear anything the actors say? I still go regardless because it's for the experience and I like movies.
In my opinion, good subtitles are not distracting and I sometimes even forget that they are there. It's a seamless experience for me. My viewing experience has improved so much since committing to subtitles that I just assume people who are "against it" are missing a decent chunk of the dialogue.
Sometimes I watch movies that are missing translated subtitles and have to use English subtitles. These are often closed captions instead of normal subtitles. I think those can actually be distracting.
Unless [DOG BARKING] is an essential part of the story, they should just leave it. It often has no relevance to the story and is just added to fill an otherwise silent scene. A classic example is someone walking in a neighborhood at night, and the director felt they had to add some type of noise to justify their budget.
I don't want to read Christopher Nolan to filth, but his sound mixing is awful in many of his movies- Inception (2010), The Dark Knight (2008), Dunkirk (2017), Memento (2000). This director has faced so many criticisms regarding his sound mixing in his movies. I enjoy all of his films, but I literally could not hear properly. The Christopher Nolan of it all is that he makes the "dynamic range" of his sound mixing that way and it should be preserved like that. I don't really care about that personally. I just want to hear the words properly and not be terrified by the loud explosions and booms :(
My other thoughts and observations:
I don't understand why movies for home viewing don't have independent sliders for music, dialogue, and sound like video games have had for decades.
People in older films had much more theater background. These actors were trained in vocal projection, making their diction clear so that the audience can hear them. Nowadays not as many actors are trained in the same way, film & television acting can be more subtle cause you’re not watching them from the other side of a large theater.
I think that same language subtitles improve literacy and reading. Kids who watch stuff with subtitles on perform significantly better at tests related to comprehension, fluency, reading speed, and word recognition.
Some links:
If you are having a little difficulty trying to figure out where the best sound is in the cinema, here's an article called: "Christopher Nolan breaks down the best ways to watch a movie, ahead of his ‘Oppenheimer’ release"
Here's a Vox video called "Why we all need subtitles now"
~ a kooky crazy cinephile,
<3 K