I have to disagree with Jon Johanning on the subject of subtitles for
movies and supertitles for opera. For the former, the appeal is surely
more than just for intellectuals -- a snide put down, sir, and I know who
I am. The subtitles allow you to hear the original soundtrack and dialogue
with the voices of the actors on the screen and still follow the action.
Dubbing is an abomination, for eye and ear are constantly jolted out of
sync. Lost are all of the subtle inflections which, though you don't
understand them literally, you do pick up emotionally. A film reflects
a particular culture and milieu (another intellectual word??) and to hear
American accents using American slang is just inappropriate in a completely
different context. Perhaps this is one the reasons why "remakes" into a
Hollywood version almost invariably fail. "La Chevre," a deliciously funny
French film that plays off Pierre Richard and Gerard Depardieu was a
miserable failure translated into Hollywood hyperaction. All the original
sensibilities are lost in the translation. As a long time devotee of
"foreign filums" I have clearly felt the little extra effort involved (if
you can read) to be well worthwhile and incredibly enriching. And with
computer generated subtitles that assure legibility no matter what the
background, the horrors of white on white, which plagued so many early
masterpieces, are easily avoided. Reading subtitles means you have to put
something of yourself into the experience. I guess that must be too much
for the average American. Passivity above all. My final case in point:
I recently saw (on video - so don't miss) "The White Balloon," an Iranian
film that has received many awards. A charming story of a little girl
trying to recover a banknote that's fallen into a grate. The little girl
is a stunning screen presence -- so natural, so vulnerable, you want to
adopt her. Imagine this charming simple tale of another culture yet
totally comprehensible by us even in our U.S. ueber alles society dubbed
with a bratty American accent. Try this experiment, if you can, before
venting your spleen on this posting!
And now to opera supertitles, which is probably more in the interests
of the list. I think they are one of the great improvements in opera
presentations in recent years and I would not be surprised if they account
for a good part of the tremendous renewed interest in opera by a wide
section of the general public, and especially among young(er) age groups,
who are not flocking to symphony concerts or recitals in nearly the same
way. You are combining stage action, drama and/or comedy, with music, so
there is lots for eye and ear, as well as mind. It's an amalgam, and for
that to work, you have to understand what's going on. For musical sense,
it is generally acknowledged that the original language works best. But
how to enjoy the rest when you don't understnad that language? Reading up
ahead of time can give you a general idea of what the plot is, but so much
is missed -- musically and dramatically -- if you can't follow line by
line. And supertitles now enable you to do that. If you're an aural
purist, don't look at them, but don't deny that pleasure to most of us.
And I think they're great, even if I do understand the language, for the
words aren't always clear when sung anyway.
A case in point: last night the Cleveland Orchestra under the direction
of Pierre Boulez did a whole evening of Ravel's music (absolutely exquisite
- don't miss if they plan to record this, which I think is the case).
The second half of the concert was "L'Heure Espagnol" a delicious concert
rendition of this comic one-act opera about an amorous clockmaker's wife
and her suitors. With supertitles, the audience was able to follow all
the jokes and twists of the plot and reacted accordingly in all the
right places. Without the titles, it would have been another serious
incomprehensible foreign work that you wonder why it was programmed. I'm
all for making it as easy as possible for an audience to get the message --
without diluting the message in the process. I don't think that
supertitles do. Indeed, they made this afternoon's performance of Gounod's
"Romeo and Juliet" -- an excellent production for the most part by the
Cleveland Opera -- comprehensible and bearable, and I was particularly
pleased to see so many young people attend. Does anyone know of any
audience research about supertitles?
Can I add one final comment. During the opera, I had the distinct
impression that Gounod was the 19th century Andrew Lloyd Webber: bland
melodies, little musical characterization, no harmonic inventiveness and
every Hollywood cliche to heighten emotion. Am I alone in this?
Thanks for getting this far in my diatribe!
Eric Kisch
|