I was discussing this elsewhere, and I'd be interested to see what you guys think. Does acting matter in subtitled films? To be clear: in a film presented to you in a language in which you do not understand or have a SEVERELY limited understanding of, do you think you have any basis to judge the acting skill of the actors and actresses in the film?
My argument is that no, we do not. I am of the belief that in order for a subtitled film to be enjoyable, the actors need only be able to emote convincingly. If they can laugh and cry without seeming forced, then they do not distract us from the story playing out in subtitles along the bottom of the screen. And that is all we can reasonably expect of them. But if we find a line in a subtitled film to have a certain gravitas, isn't it because the script was well-written, well-translated, or both? Has anyone among you ever quoted a subtitled line in a film because that you liked the way some actor delivered a line you didn't understand that was translated for you into text that may not even be fully accurate?
When I watch a foreign film such as Black Book, Let The Right One In, or Oldboy, I enjoy them because they tell good stories. As I do not understand those languages (aside from the small parts of Black Book that are in English), I find that my enjoyment comes mostly from the visual experience (the direction, the cinematography, the subtitles) as opposed to the aural experience. The aural experience is frustrating. I don't understand Swedish, and I'm certainly not going to learn it from watching Let The Right One In. Is Lina Leandersson a good actress? I can't really say. The fact that she hasn't acted since Let The Right One In, despite stating on record multiple times that she would like to continue acting, would suggest that she might not be especially great. Do I notice either way if she's a good actress when watching the film? I do not. Do I enjoy the film anyway? I do. A lot.
I would like to point out the an inability to identify actors as speaking in a foreign language as bad actors does not prevent us from identifying a foreign language film as bad. Bad foreign films are often the same as their American counterparts: poorly scripted and poorly budgeted. They are often derivative of more popular films and feature nonsensical plots. They are also filled with awful special effects, abrupt scene changes, cheap costumes, limited and recycled extras (i.e. actors, not DVD features), and awkward cuts.
I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on this matter.
You bring up a point early on about actors merely needing to be able to emote convincingly, which I think is really the heart of it. My questions are:
To what extent is "emoting convincingly" the same thing as acting?
To what extent are the other filmic elements (the cinematography, music, etc.) pulling a Kuleshov on you, and
to what extent is that exactly the same thing that happens in a movie in a language you speak?
I don't have good answers to any of those questions. But I think it comes down to what your criteria are for acting -- which are probably hard to measure. An actor's facial expression, body posture -- all the way to the music, cinematography, and editing (hence the Kuleshov citation) can make up a performance.
Dr. Jeebus
Moderator
Title: SLF Harbinger of Death
Joined: Sep 03 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 5228
Posted:
Dec 01 2011 01:41 pm
Isn't "emoting convincingly" the definition of acting?
The three greatest heels in history...Andy Kaufman, Triple H, and Dr. Jeebus
Sehkmaenzo
Joined: Jun 29 2010
Posts: 1818
Posted:
Dec 01 2011 02:08 pm
It's definitely hard to measure how bad an actor is if he's from a foreign country, but I think their culture plays a factor too. Like, in some Japanese movies/shows, people react in completely silly and forced ways, but it's /supposed/ to be silly and forced. Same thing with some French movies I've seen (Okay, the only French movies I've ever seen the Taxi movies and the Pink Panther movies, but that still counts, sort of ). Also, in Chinese movies, it's much harder to measure that, because they speak in a much more complex way, because the tone of their voice plays a part in what each word means.
But, more on topic on the matter, I can actually offer commentary from both sides of this situation. I remember watching Friday the 13th (Part 3 I think ) when I was 10, subtitled, and I didn't notice how bad some of those actors were till I saw it again 10 years later. Then again, I was 10, so I don't believe I even knew what bad acting was. :/
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24882
Posted:
Dec 01 2011 04:53 pm
DarkMaze wrote:
A really interesting question, Syd!
You bring up a point early on about actors merely needing to be able to emote convincingly, which I think is really the heart of it. My questions are:
To what extent is "emoting convincingly" the same thing as acting?
To what extent are the other filmic elements (the cinematography, music, etc.) pulling a Kuleshov on you, and
to what extent is that exactly the same thing that happens in a movie in a language you speak?
I don't have good answers to any of those questions. But I think it comes down to what your criteria are for acting -- which are probably hard to measure. An actor's facial expression, body posture -- all the way to the music, cinematography, and editing (hence the Kuleshov citation) can make up a performance.
I think maybe the easiest way to answer these questions, is with another question: What can I notice an English language actor's performance that is much harder for me to notice in a foreign language actor's language actor's performance?
Let's take Keanu Reeves, for example. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, his English accent is generally considered awful by English-speaking audiences and even disappears a couple of times. Would I notice that in a foreign film? Would I notice someone accidentally slipping from a Sicilian accent into a more standard Italian one? Probably not.
Then there's delivery. I can tell when Keanu Reeves gives a wooden performance, when Al Pacino is hamming it up, or when Jack Nicholson is barely even trying. But if I didn't understand English, I probably couldn't. A wooden performance can be interpreted as aloof, a hammy performance can be interpreted as impassioned, and a lazy performance can be interpreted as sardonic. Which ties into what you were asking when you cited the Kuleshov Effect. It is definitely easier to see intent in actor's performance - or invent it - when you don't have all the pieces.
Isn't "emoting convincingly" the definition of acting?
I was under this impression as well. I generally judge the acting competency in foreign films on whether or not the actors & actresses are convincingly acting the emotions and feelings appropriate to the dialogue and scenes.
aika
Title: Narcissist
Joined: Apr 25 2008
Location: On the table.
Posts: 2041
Posted:
Dec 01 2011 05:26 pm
Cameron wrote:
Dr. Jeebus wrote:
Isn't "emoting convincingly" the definition of acting?
I was under this impression as well. I generally judge the acting competency in foreign films on whether or not the actors & actresses are convincingly acting the emotions and feelings appropriate to the dialogue and scenes.
I'm with you two. I can tell when a Japanese actor in a Japanese movie is a crappy actor, and it has nothing to do with his accent. The way he fake-laughs or the way he overreacts when everyone around him is being a bit more subtle in their roles tells me he's a hammy actor or he sucks. I think being able to portray emotion that is understood and read across language barriers is what fantastic acting is about.
But not fluently. I only used Japanese movies because that's the most common foreign film I watch. I could just have easily said Korean films (I know maybe 10 words in Korean) and everything else I said would still stand.
天上天下唯我独尊
Optimist With Doubts
Title: Titlating
Joined: Dec 17 2007
Posts: 5042
Posted:
Dec 02 2011 02:20 am
I think at it's most simple yes acting is reading lines properly and preforming the scene with the proper emotions. So I think at the very least someone without the language should be able to tell if someone is an adequate actor. I think the big issue is being able to tell if someone is a great actor.
Exceptional preforming requires a nuance that I think is lost in a language barrier.
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3112
Posted:
Dec 02 2011 04:41 am
For the "emote convincingly," I get what Syd says. Consider a Lifetime movie or something where the actors don't ham it up, and don't believe they are going to become famous if they put everything they have in it. Is the acting good? Almost never, but it's hardly bad most of the time. Each emotion passes with a C+ at the very least. I can especially let this go with non-English movies, because I don't know proper grammar, inflection, emphasis, etc. for these languages, and as long as Julio don Diego or whoever puts on a frowny face when the evil count kills his brother, I can live with it.
So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
Dr. Jeebus
Moderator
Title: SLF Harbinger of Death
Joined: Sep 03 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 5228
Posted:
Dec 02 2011 05:37 am
I'm gonna say that acting is extremely important. One of the reasons I like the foreign films that I've seen is that the actors have all been universally better actors than most American ones. Granted this is biased because the only foreign films I've seen are things that are considered to be amazing movies, but you can still tell. The only difference between watching a movie in your native language or enough is stuff like Syd mentioned with Keanu Reeves. I have no idea what dialect their speaking or how good their pronunciation is.Beyond that, I think very little is different.
The three greatest heels in history...Andy Kaufman, Triple H, and Dr. Jeebus
ProtoScott
Title: New Robot Prototype
Joined: Jul 19 2010
Location: Ft. Wayne, IN
Posts: 213
Posted:
Dec 02 2011 03:57 pm
Saying that acting doesn't matter at all is basically the same as saying that acting doesn't matter in silent movies either. Acting is definitely about a lot more than just the words you are saying. Body language and your facial expressions are a huge part of it. If it didn't matter at all than watching a foreign film with great actors would be no different than having like 5 people foreign people with no acting experience act out the movie in monotonous voices for you.
Where's Doctor Wiley... Oh no, too late.
My band's music can be heard here ---->http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/FELD/365363305503
Acting is important. Without decent acting, foreign films become more hilarious or just plain terrible. However, in rare cases acting can be overlooked if the story is compelling(or entertaining) enough, whether it is a foreign film of not. Also, subbed is almost always better than dubbed. They get some terrible voice actors to dub a lot of non-English movies.
Cameron
Title: :O � O:
Joined: Feb 01 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 4637
Posted:
Dec 02 2011 09:17 pm
atomjacked wrote:
Acting is important. Without decent acting, foreign films become more hilarious or just plain terrible. However, in rare cases acting can be overlooked if the story is compelling(or entertaining) enough, whether it is a foreign film of not. Also, subbed is almost always better than dubbed. They get some terrible voice actors to dub a lot of non-English movies.
Alowishus
Joined: Aug 04 2009
Posts: 2515
Posted:
Dec 02 2011 11:37 pm
Hmmm what an interesting question.
The question i think could be extended to "does acting even matter at all?" There are a lot of films which are popular and the acting is of a questionable quality. Obviously films like Troll 2 fit into the "it's so bad it's good territory" were the acting is hilariously bad. It probably depends on your view but i think that there are a lot of mainstream films which gross a lot of money with bad acting e.g. i don't find Stallone to be a good actor at all. Does it really matter to people the quality of acting even within their own language? This may say no based on the grosses but critics usually disagree.
This is just a side point but taking into what has actually been asked regarding subtitling.
I'm sort of on the wall...if an actor or actress is good enough it shouldn't matter if there is a language difference. It depends on their body language and the tone of their voice, you should be able to work out the emotions they are conveying. I guess it also depends on what emotion it is and how different people react. Some emotions may get "lost in translation" or may be more difficult to pick up upon.
You mention solely subtitling, so films made in different countries were the main language isn't English (in our case) and then when we watch it back it has English subtitling. I guess what i said above applies. You will be able to hear the words they say and emotion will be conveyed within those words which for the most case is probably conveyed the same way universally.
HOWEVER dubbing is totally different. If a film is say made in (the most common example) Japan and then the original audio track is removed and English is put over it, then the acting doesn't matter so much. You can't hear their original tone of voice, you still have body language but the overall "mood" is lost. Most dubbing is pretty bland and monotone over the recordings so in that all emotion is lost.
Though the acting doesn't have to be good anyway for a good film. Acting is just one aspect of a film. If you watch a film in your native language, i'll say English in my case, if one actor has a poor performance does it effect the overall quality of the film?...in most cases no unless the role is hyped or it's an important role.
At least this is what i think.
EDIT: What i notice in the thread is that it's a discussion of: to be a good actor you have to be emotionally convincing. That's fair enough but why does good acting matter at all?
Is a film deemed unwatchable if the acting is less than good? Does average acting ruin a film?
I find it extremely rare to come across a film were the acting across the board is overall good or above. Most films that come out have distinctly average acting or enough to just about pull it off.
It may just depend on the person and their tastes but bad acting at times doesn't bother me at all. It also i guess depends on things like the story.
If the story is ludicrous does it matter how the actor acts within it?
). Also, in Chinese movies, it's much harder to measure that, because they speak in a much more complex way, because the tone of their voice plays a part in what each word means.
