The Evolution and Art of film subtitles

Do you feel shut out of some highly acclaimed movies?  Or maybe you would like to know what is really being said during the "dirty" parts?  Maybe you just want to better understand how a movie fits together.  Subtitles open up the world, but there is an art to them that can not only enhance the movie, but also further confuse the issue.


 

 "Sairat" a surprising movie in a language you are probably unaware of--Marathi.

There are really two concerns--clarity and understanding and they are intertwined.

Silent films had the problem of communicating dialogue and explaining some actions.  They chose to use a full screen for a title page with dialogue or description.  This could be to cover foreign films to the extent many Americans did not realize which country the film originated from.  Many silent films were accompanied by a musical band, but one invention cut that expense by allowing programmed music to play with the film.

If it is blurry or with confusing fonts the reader is slowed down.  If the letters blend in with the background color it will force more concentration on just reading.  Advances in chemistry applications, laser and lately digital have made reading much smoother and less distracting.   Bubbles are often used to project thoughts usually for humor.  Norwegians and Hungarians advanced the technology.

By 1903, "Uncle Tom's Cabin utilized inter titles between film scenes.  By 1909 M. N Tropp developed concept of subtitles at bottom of screen.

One of the early pioneers, Herman G Weinberg got involved with foreign films brought to the United States by re arranging German symphony music for string quartets.  When  talking pictures became more common, many foreign films became inaccessible.  In a bit of a learning process Herman subtitled over 300 movies.  With a subtitled German film the non Germans were upset that they were not understanding a joke as the German speakers were all laughing. 

"Sarah's Key" an international classic you can better understand in French and English.

To avoid taking away from other factors--cinematography, acting, scenery, costumes, etc. written dialogue needs to be concise, meaning often words are eliminated to get at the meaning.  Colloquialisms are tricky, but if not dealt with the viewer is confused.  A typo can add to the confusion.

Dubbing became popular at one time as it was thought a better way to make words clear.  Many movies are still available this way, but many of us find dubbing unnatural.  The voice doesn't always match the visual and often comes with an awkward distracting cadence.

Woody Allen is a challenge because his movies tend to be wordy.  He admired a French subtitlist who managed to captured the essence of his dialogues.

Censoring can be disastrous distorting the meaning of the script.  Sometimes the subtitlist uses euphemism for swear words. 

"Leviathan" depicts a Russia you never knew about.


 In some instances subtitles are not needed.  In some films your viewpoint is that of one of the main characters, but sometimes they are confronted with people speaking in a language they don't understand.  Often subtitles are used so you can understand an irony in the dialogue, but other times it is better if you are as confused as the protagonist.  The film credits are often left alone, but admittedly when non Roman fonts are used such as cyrilic or Asian a film buff will not learn to appreciate a particular artist who contributes to their enjoyment.

 

"Corazon de Leon" filmed twice in Spanish,  one of the most popular film languages.  See what you have been missing!








 Americans have been distrustful of Iranians.  "A Separation"  won an Oscar and in the Farsi language presents a view that shows that the people are not that much different.




The idea behind subtitles is to make a film more accessible to a wider audience.  Another neglected audience has been deaf and hard of hearing people and increasingly they have access to descriptive subtitles so they can better understand some of the underlying emotions.  SDH has increased access for more people to movies 

The point of understanding the art of subtitles is to better enjoy subtitled movies which offer a much wider world perspective for many of us:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/09/do-subtitles-scare-you-who-knows-what.html

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CHARLIE HEBOU HORROR

Are we really free to express ourselves?

After the Charlie Hebou terrorism the talk has mostly been about religious fanatics and racial overtones are evident as well.  Fear has reared its ugly head again.  I think back to another posting about "Talking to the Enemy," by author Scott Atran, a Franco-American scholar.  You can read my thoughts on it at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/11/talking-to-enemy-how-else-can-you.html

We are all fearful of "the other."  It might be a race or religion we do not understand.  The key thing is we do not understand them and our ignorance magnifies differences and minimizes similarities.  Scott has gone behind the stereotypes to question what drives terrorists and it is not what he originally thought.

Humans have evolved, a dirty word in some circles, but critical to understanding human behaviour) as groups.  An individual could not have survived the dangers inherent in our beginnings, but learned that teaming together helped us overcome many difficulties.  One of the difficulties proved to be other groups (perhaps separated by language, geography, race, culture).  Other groups would inevitably try to encroach on their territory and they would fight back.  The better organized groups prevailed.  Critically the strength of their group increased by their group identification.  Religion proved to be a key element in that identity.

Scott, an atheist would argue that religions have a lot of elements that might be considered" absurd" by outsiders.  But agreement on what absurdities are special or sacred to the group unites the group.  As a "Christian" nation some of us can identify with people in far lands of different races and even different customs as part of the same important group.  We should not be surprised that other religions such as Islam carry a wide identification including many nations and races.  When any of our religious affiliations feels threatened it can result in intolerant, even irrational behavior.

Scott also learned that many terrorists knew each other playing sports or going to the same schools.  These group activities reinforced other group identities, but he found usually these social activities were instrumental in their identity.  Twisted logic can provide an opportunity to demonstrate group loyalty.

In another post I noted Jared Diamond's observations dealing with "primitive" cultures in New Guinea where strangers were scary and coping mechanisms had to be developed;
(http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/06/jared-diamond-expanding-our.html Just as we needed to learn to tolerate strangers in small settings we need to better learn how to tolerate a much wider range of strangers for the world to survive with its new set of dangers.

We need to respect other people's beliefs (not necessarily agree with them).  We need to tolerate their ignorance and disrespect of our beliefs.  Provocative behaviour needs to be carefully guarded against.  Understanding needs to be a higher priority.  Yes, Charlie Hebou was provocative and no doubt profited by it, but they also made people think, not necessarily agree.  There are other avenues to address being offended than killing such as boycotts, education, self-examination and even ignoring.  Other Charlie Hebou targets included other religions and many politicians and celebrities.

Free speech suffered a terrible setback and many people all around the globe will be fearful of expressing anything considered controversial.  Muslims will pay a big price for the actions of a few--prejudice, hostility and possibly legislative decisions around the globe.  Ironically European legislatures have been voting on Palestinian efforts to gain more recognition.

When you better understand another person you are less likely to disrespect them.  Many things need to be questioned and sometimes the questions can be offensive to others.  At Charlie Hebou they performed a necessary function in the world by questioning things that are considered too "touchy."

None of us deserve to die for our beliefs or expressions that stop short of killing others.  They say words can kill, but really they only provoke.  For mankind to survive such things as climate change, possible nuclear war, resistant diseases, tribal warfare and other known and unknown potential forces we will need to overcome our prejudices and work with others.  Respect at least enough not to kill others or discriminate unfairly against "the others."  I recognize that we need each other and believe we can each contribute to the betterment of mankind.

Not sure if tolerance is needed for understanding or understanding is needed for tolerance.  If you start with the thought that other human beings have something in common with you, you may find that the differences are more interesting than threatening.  In my 60 plus years  it amazes me how my peers looked down on foreign food, but now many of them now seek it out.  Same goes for all sorts of things and as we soak up more knowledge our lives are enriched.

Each of us as individuals have responsibility to accept other cultures, but those with real power also have responsibility to protect the long term interests of everyone.  The more people standing up for reason and understanding, the more momentum will be developed. I am reminded of still another post regarding Globe and Mail reporter Doug Saunders working from Britain became concerned about the myths about his new Muslim neighbours http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/09/the-myth-of-muslim-tide-book-review.html  Really just demonstrates that misinformation is very influential.

When efforts were made to listen for messages from outside earth it was feared the reason we were not able to detect any was that civilizations that could reach the technical ability to send messages were also apt to self-destruct.  In simple forms it often seems that we reached our level of technical expertise in selfish competition and continue to compete when we need to co-operate.  There are many selfish groups (as well as individuals each wanting to take more than they give.

The big question is what can we do as individuals and as society to prevent future occurrences like the one at Charlie Hebou and still enjoy the freedom that prevailed beforehand.  The idea of tolerance and understanding might seem glib or naive to many, but there don't seem to be very many workable alternatives.  Are we up to it?

CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: EXPLAINS INEQUALITY

"Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty was in the news enough to get my attention.  It is not the sort of a book to read when you are tired or sipping wine.  It requires alertness to fully appreciate its value.  I was not able to devote my best attention to it, but feel it is truly monumental.  There has been some criticism, but most of it seemed very self serving by those who thought the status quo was very comfortable for them.  As I finished this book I watched "Inequality for All" that had a brief reference to Thomas Piketty and reinforced the material.

One of this book's advantages over other economic classics is that Piketty had access to much more information.  His focus was on inequality.  Piketty was able to detect patterns and of course exceptions that actually illustrate economic forces.  He believes before statistics were kept that capital income (such as land rents and investments) almost always grew faster than national economic growth.  The only exceptions occurred because of major events such as wars, revolutions and Depressions.  At some point inequality will incite rebellion.  Attitudes change, but history is too often forgotten.

He uses many equations that help you understand his argument.  One key one that any reader should understand simply means the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of national growth.  Very seldom has that rule not been true and by itself helps explain how the rich constantly get richer. at the expense of common workers.

Slavery (i.e. treating some humans as capital) contributed a great deal of wealth to southern plantation owners.  The fact that it was dehumanizing was consciously overlooked.  The role of labour is too often diminished.

Europe before 1914 was more unequal than the United States, but they both reduced inequality as a result of the shocks between 1914-1945 and progressive taxation.  After the World War II equality actually increased, but by 1980 (when Reagan was elected) started to change to a more normal status.

Inheritance is a key factor in concentrating wealth.  Many start as entrepreneurs with smart thinking and hard work, but eventually they or their heirs become rentiers, i.e. using capital to generate the majority of their income.

Some politicians dismiss inequality discussions as just envy.  The people who deserve to enjoy the riches of life got there on merit and those others just weren't smart enough or worked hard enough.  Meritocracy is an ideal, but sadly the reality leaves much to be desired.  Many of us believe that theft, luck, timing all played key roles in many fortunes.  And what merit justifies the next generations living lives of luxury with little contribution to society?  Robert Reich in his film and many columns points out just how rich the rich are, something the masses are unaware of the extent.

One of Piketty's key recommendations is a Global annual progressive tax on capital, to be sure is more an idea.  Most people would not be required  to pay anything and the top rate would be something like 5%.  Requires a lot of global co-operation.  For a few decades nations have been competing to lower their rates and individuals and companies have been taking advantage.

Another contention from the author is that wealthy people should be helping to pay down the deficit by paying more taxes instead of enriching themselves by loaning money in the form of government bonds.




Piketty and Reich are not against capitalism or innovation or entrepreneurship.  We need incentives to encourage innovation, and hard work. Education has traditionally been the key to improving individuals as well as society, yet many rich people resent taxes going to improving schools or want to control what  and how it is taught.  Health care is another area where the rich begrudge the poor getting "free" care.  Much infrastructure seems unnecessary unless profit can be made directly.  Ironically many things that benefit most people also benefit those with more money.

I believe Piketty's work deserves more consideration. Reich makes too much sense for the main stream media.  Their messages are not endorsed by the 1%, but are critical to understand if civilization is to survive.

Stephen R Covey pointed the way

I am not the best example of a Stephen R. Covey student, but he provided a good model.  I have read several of  his books and listened to many of his tapes many times.  I think a lot of people were similar to myself in that we wanted to follow his path, but just somehow didn't quite make it.  Still I know I am better off for the effort and haven't yet given up.   His death this past week has made me want to review what he had taught me.  He left a legacy to benefit anyone who cares to make an effort to understand.


"The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" is one path to being more effective.  Based on studying the characteristics and habits of people who got things done.  Habits are the key.  We all have them, but they aren't necessarily the healthiest of habits.

Running down the seven habits helps focus on how we could all get more out of life.

The first habit is to be pro active.  Most of us react to whatever happens to us.  We blame others if things don't work out.  Covey feels you must make the decisions that affect you as much as possible and take responsibility for your actions.

The second habit is to begin with the end in mind.  What this boils down to is to have a purpose in life with goals that are important to you.  Most of us don't think about whether we have a mission in life or how we would like to be remembered.  Covey highly recommends you give a lot of thought to what you want to have accomplished by the end of your life.  That should be reflected in everything you do.

The third habit is an outgrowth of the second.  As much as possible you should always  be doing something towards what you have identified as important to you.  Instead we spend much of our time dealing with problems that demand immediate attention or on things that really don't matter.   Thinking this out (and I do try to do this each week)  you should work towards your goals and when you are not able to do anything towards the most important one think of your next most important goal or think of some small step towards your highest priorities.  I was surprised to realize that this doesn't require frantic activity 24 hours a day as Covey recognized that rest and regenerating yourself were just as critical as any task.  If a matter is really urgent you cannot ignore it, but if you carve out more and more time for the really important you will need to spend less time on the urgent and the trivial.

Moving to the fourth habit comes a recognition that to get things done we have to deal with other people who have their own set of priorities.  Whenever you feel you need to get something from another person you need to think what they could get out of helping you.  Win-win is the goal.   If one of you loses, even yourself the exchange is not in the long run successful.

The fifth habit is a very key one.  We all want to be understood, feeling that if the other person understood you they would give you what you want and deserve.  We are so wrapped up in this that we make little if any effort to understand their viewpoint.  Stephen urges, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."  Encourage the other person to express their concerns and don't interrupt except to express understanding or encourage them to continue.  When you understand them it makes it much easier to move forward.  It is important to be understood, but much easier for them when they feel they are understood.

The sixth habit is to synergize.  Working as a team we can accomplish a whole lot more than doing it ourselves.  The whole really is greater than the sum of its parts.

The seventh habit is to "sharpen the saw."  Stephen uses this metaphor to point out that we need to have balance in our lives and need to renew our skills.

One basic idea of being more effective is to realize we live in an interdependent world.  I have paraphrased his thought that when we are born we are totally dependent on others to survive.  As we grow we gradually become more and more independent.  Full growth occurs when we realize we have always been inter-dependent.

That idea seems very relevant with the political campaigns ranting about the issue.  There is a strong streak in America (and to a lesser extent elsewhere as well) that the strong self made man is the ideal, the model for the rest of us.  It is a self serving delusion of some successful people.  One candidate talks about unleashing business and that any restrictions are very harmful.

Another candidate seems to feel that we can get more done if we work together.  Many people feel that restrictions (ie. regulations) do more harm than good.  Some people feel that we shouldn't hold back the strong people in any way and that those who aren't strong should not be allowed to mooch off the successful.

I am from the school that believes nobody got to where they are by themselves.  Obviously it helps to have parents that passed on strong genes and healthy nurturing.  It helps that schools (formal learning facilities) allowed you to develop knowledge and skills and perhaps stirred your imagination to see new solutions to old problems.  It helps that many people combine their efforts to provide easy means for you to communicate and get around.  For most of us we live in a relatively safe environment that lets us grow stronger.  Today it can be helpful that we are much more conscious of and can take advantage of global interaction.  At bottom is the need for someone to buy what you are selling.  We are all selling something and many of are paid off with salaries, commissions, rents, etc.  Some of us are selling ideas and they need believers.

There will be many people praising the contributions of Stephen R Covey.  I just wanted to add that even a relatively unsuccessful blogger is better off for having read and listened to Stephen R Covey and  firmly believe the world would be better off if more people followed his teachings.