Withholding Subtitles - West Side Story

Many American movies since the advent of sound have had no subtitles, whether war, western, adventure, etc. In WW2 movies made during the war, most all Germans and Japanese spoke their own language unsubtitled. Later examples include The Search, Decision Before Dawn, The French Connection, French Connection II.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I think the relevance relates to what I said: specifically, that it's not too hard to imagine a version of this that's pretty mild and doesn't really require subtitles.

Example: if a character says "agua" instead of "water" one time, you don't really lose anything by not using subtitles. If, on the other hand, they speak entire paragraphs of plot-crucial information in Spanish, you lose a lot. I imagine the reality in this case is somewhere inbetween, and exactly where inbetween will determine whether this move is absurd or reasonable. So seeing the film would be highly relevant to that.

It would not be relevant, however, to the question of whether Spielberg's reasoning for the choice (that it would be "disrespectful" to use subtitles) makes much sense.

Leaving Spielberg's reasoning aside, I like what @Swan said about it not detracting from his viewing. That seems plausible. I mean, in one sense, you could make it "for" English-speaking people in the sense that, duh, the Jets aren't Spanish-speaking, either! So if you don't understand some of it, you're just choregraphing a mile in their dancing shoes.

There's also the whole meta thing of "look, we all know this is a remake and you all know the basic story already."

Again, none of this speaks to Spielberg's stated rationale, but it's easy enough to imagine that his stated rationale is a maybe cynical bit of pandering, whereas his actual instincts as a filmmaker are sound and have their own real reasons.

Of course. I'm only commenting on his stated reasoning that you mentioned, otherwise I have no concern, care, comment, criticism or complaint whatsoever. It's all about context.

At face value, the reasoning by Spielberg seems silly (and of course, that was just a blurb and may not reveal his entire rationale). But ultimately...who cares? As already stated, there are lots of movies that don't sub all languages and the vast majority I've seen that do this, are not the worse for it. If we have actually had someone watch the movie that had a problem with it than maybe there is a discussion here. But otherwise, whatever. Seems like another case of knee jerk aggrievement.

The aesthetic question (of impact on viewing experience) is separate from the avowed moral/political question (why the subtitles were withheld). Spielberg's talents are undeniable, so I am not surprised that you enjoyed the film. On the other hand, if this moral/political warrant is iterated as a "reason" to make similar choices in future artworks, we shall have a curious principle of exclusion at work (i.e., let's make some feel welcome by leaving others on the outside) which is a dubious mechanism of "inclusion." To be frank, most artistic "talents" today are hacks, so in the hands of other artists, the effect could be much more blunt.

As the demography of the United States shifts, we will be getting more and more Encantos and Cocos and filmmakers will have to make strategic decisions about spoken languages and subtitles. The day is not far off when a wide release in North America might very well be a Spanish language movie. Will it have subs? Should it have subs? So long as you know what is being offered up front, give it all a shot. If it sells, that's what people want, right? The weird thing, however, is the prospect of largely white filmmakers making films for largely white audiences that exclude the intended audience as a sort of performative penance or correction for the many sins of the past (e.g., Rita Moreno in brown face in the original West Side Story). I am much more comfortable with Spanish-speaking filmmakers making films for Spanish-speaking audience who don't really care about me either way (although it would be nice to have subtitles).

I wouldn't be surprised if we get hybrid productions in the future. Version A of the film being shot with 80% English and 20% Spanish and the same film shot as a version B with the same actors, but with 80% Spanish and 20% English for mixed-market releases, some people watching the mostly English version and some watching the mostly Spanish version.

That and quality voice work for dubbing movies is going to become more acute as more nations challenge the hegemony of Hollywood.

And it isn't just a Spanish/English deal. See below.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...ebate-rcna2568

Steven wants to put you in the position of the US army in WWII

Unless you are Czech or Steven Spielberg.

Why not just use Jibberish, why single out a particular people.

I would of been more interested in hearing the line than his reason for not letting us hear it. Great I love it, I mean I didn’t love it, I found out 20 years later.

The Germans are speaking German the whole movie.. Would this one line subtitled in English have taken away that effect. No it would’ve I think highlighted it and better made his point

I can’t go on, it’s literally so stupid

This reminded me a bit of the case of the two Dracula films in 1931.

The well known American version (directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi) was shot in the daytime, but at night an entirely different cast would come in and film the exact same movie on the exact same sets (even following Browning's same scene staging), but all in Spanish using actors fluent in the language. This was part of a short-lived attempt by Universal to develop films for foreign markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracul...-language_film)

And it should be noted, for the record, the Spanish version was way better.

I prefer the American version, but the Spanish version isn’t bad.

I wonder why it didn't work out. Sounds like a slick way to cut down on production costs.

And for the record, I don't buy Carlos Villarías as Dracula until I hear him call Boris Karloff a **** sucker in Spanish.

I always wondered why they didn't use Lugosi for the Spanish version since I'd always heard a rumor that he didn't speak English either (at the time of the filming of Dracula, anyway) but that he memorized his lines phonetically - pronouncing them while not really knowing what he was saying.

If he could do that with English, why not Spanish as well? He'd still retain his Hungarian accent in both languages, wouldn't he... (giving Dracula a "foreign" feel for the target audiences no matter if they spoke English or Spanish)?

Sounds like they were parallel, but separate productions. If Lugosi didn't speak Spanish, that might've added too much to the drag coefficient (i.e., directing him would require a translator?) and the other Dracula may have had more star appeal relative so Spanish language audiences?



Personally, I would look for talented bilingual actors and stage hands to streamline production. Do the scene once in language A and then do the same scene in language B.

I don't really like Browning's 'Dracula'. Rock and Jinnistan have made good points about its charms over the years, but it just isn't up to snuff for me. Lugosi is it's bright spot. Especially considering how crappy the Dracula is in the Spanish one (but still, it somehow, remains the better movie regardless of this handicap)

I think the overall atmosphere of Brownings version also works to its advantage.

That would have been quite the workload, considering the two versions were filmed simultaneously. Dude had to sleep sometime.

I think Browning's Dracula is best approached in the context of a Lugosi marathon, so you focus more on his performance instead of the less successful narrative elements. That's what did the trick for me.

__________________

While it depends on the specifics of the film involved (as always), I still can't remember any time I've watched a movie with un-subtitled dialogue in a foreign language that I felt should've been subbed. That's probably for two reasons; one, it's fairly rare, and when it is done, it's usually done for a good reason, either as some sort of nice but inessential "Easter Egg" for those who do understand the language being spoken, or because what was being said wasn't essential to the film, and subbing it would break immersion, like the restaurant scene in The Godfather, which gains little (and loses more) when subtitled:

What do you think it loses?

Well, immersion, particularly in the moment when the camera is tracking in towards Michael's face (and the tension visible upon it) just before he does the hit; it loses so much of its intensity when you're trying to split your attention between the subtitles and the images above it, you know?

That being said though, you could say it would've made more sense if all the dialogue in the first half of that scene had been in English (since they switch back to it anyway at a certain point), and then Sollozzo would switch to Italian only after Michael returned from the bathroom, since he senses that he needs to make a more personal appeal since they've reached an impasse. And, leaving that particular moment unsubtitled would have a dual effect, since it would have us tuning out Sollozzo's words at the same time that Michael's also tuning them out, even though he can understand everything (as opposed to before, since he was obviously listening and responding to every word, even though it was still unsubtitled to us). As it is, I have to wonder if Coppola's decision to have so much un-subbed dialogue in the scene was born out of an over-eagerness to "challenge" the audience, the kind that you saw sometimes in Hollywood during that era, rather than what would've been the more effective decision for the scene.