People are okay with subtitles now.

[Anonymous]

A Historical perspective of subtitles in American filmgoing

I don't know if this is the right place for this discussion but it seemed to be the best fit. Today in my film class, we viewed Godzilla: King of the Monsters (unfortunately we did not have access to the original Japanese version). Afterwards, we had a discussion about the film, talking about the differences b/t the versions, the sociohistorical relevance of the films, etc... Then, we started talking about Raymond Burr's character, and his reason for being. One person viewed his presence as neccessary to provide a way for American audiences to identify with the film in some way. I happen to agree with this interpretation. Then, we started talking about the curiosity of why certain scenes were dubbed into english, but others were left in their original japanese. Upon first glance, I viewed this as having no real significance, certain scenes needed to be dubbed for plot reasons and others didn't, but many in my class prefer to overanalyze, they may have a point, but not one I am seeing right now.

Moving on, the discussion then turned to dubbing versus subtitling, and the intelligence of American moviegoers. Two students in the class then made comments that subtitling foreign films/the popularity of subtitled films amongst audiences, reached a zenith in the 1950's/60's. I have never heard this, and instinctively, I feel there's no way a greater majority of moviegoers in the 1950's versus today, would prefer a subtitled film, just because of politics, way of living, etc... I was wondering if any of you had any light to shine on this issue.

[pzman84]

I was reading in the LA Times a few months ago(so you have to take this with a grain of salt) about how even though the 1950s-60s are considered the Golden Age of International Art Cinema, they only accounted for 7% at their peak.

As for today: In the 1950s-60s, most foreign directors perfered to stay in their native country. Nowadays, they often go to Hollywood. Part of the reason is Hollywoods control over foreign films. In Germany, Hollywood films make up 85% of the box office while only 8% are national cinema. In Italy, they have to shelve 1/3 of the films they make because local theaters play American, not national, films. France is doing okay at 30% of the market is French films, but even they are concerned. In America, art houses show "indepdent" American films, so there is no room for subtitled films.

I like foreign films, as do most people on these boards. Too bad there aren't as many people who share the same interests.

[ben d banana]

Clearly a great many people do like foreign films, they just aren't Americans.

[Anonymous]

I am speaking in terms of audiences, although I don't know if there really is a way to measure now in relation to the 1950's-60's. Would you think that more people would be willing to go to a subtitled film in today's climate, in the US, or back in the 50's/60's? I just have a hard time seeing the mythic 1950's nuclear family going out to see a Kurosawa or Bergman film over the American fare of the time, but I could be completely wrong.

[toiletduck!]

I just have a hard time seeing the mythic 1950's nuclear family going out to see a Kurosawa or Bergman film over the American fare of the time, but I could be completely wrong.

I also have a hard time seeing the disjointed 1990's family going out to see the latest Wong Kar-Wai or, hell, even von Trier. And that's providing that they can find a theater showing them.

I see the point you're making, and it might apply better to the home video market (which is WAY more accepting of subtitles than the 1950's home video market), but today's cinema-going public is in no way foreign film friendly -- probably in large part because of home video.

-Toilet Dcuk

[justeleblanc]

I would guess that the demographic for foreign films among American audiences would be college students and those continuing their appreciation for cinema later in life, and middle schoolers who want to see more than just breasts (though with the internet now, that number might have dropped a little). And while I think there might be more people willing to read subtitles today, I can buy that foreign films in the 50s and 60s were "happening" enough to see bigger audiences.

There have also been a lot of Hollywood-like films that were subtitled in the past few years that have seen huge audiences. Gibson's PASSION, Lee's CROUCHING TIGER, and Begigni's LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL are just a few off the top of my head.

[Andre Jurieu]

...which is WAY more accepting of subtitles than the 1950's home video market...

There was a 1950s home video market?

[cdnchris]

...which is WAY more accepting of subtitles than the 1950's home video market...

There was a 1950s home video market?

duh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope

[Andre Jurieu]

duh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope

Aaaah! Totally forgot about those wonderful toys the Greeks invented.

[toiletduck!]

I would guess that the demographic for foreign films among American audiences would be college students and those continuing their appreciation for cinema later in life.

I would even hazard that it's primarily the latter. I was at a screening of L'Intrus last weekend with an audience that was easily 85-90% of 50 years of age or older. The same goes for Cache and damn near everything I saw at the Chicago Int'l Film Festival (Miike excepting).

There was a 1950s home video market?

Alright, maybe that was a little bit dry even for me...

-Toilet Dcuk

[skuhn8]

I understand that Fellini's La Dolce Vita had a tremendous influence on the the American cinema goer, as well as some titillating Swedish fare. I don't know about the 50's nuclear family, but I suspect mom and dad, or at least dad may have had some desire to supplement the banality of that era with something a little more invigorating. But I don't know how much this would have had an influence on the preference for subtitles rather than dubbing. This comes down to audience laziness/passivity, true appreciation of cinema as an art form that should be violated/altered as little as possible.

Here in Hungary I here "oh the dubbed voices are actually better than the original, such great voice actors here" time and time again--matter of fact my father in law made this comment just the other day about Joe Pesci's Hungarian voice. I use these moments to exercise my zen breathing-keeping my mouth shut exercises.

[tryavna]

the banality of that era

As good a description of the 1950s as I've ever come across....

[Antoine Doinel]

I would guess that the demographic for foreign films among American audiences would be college students and those continuing their appreciation for cinema later in life.

I would even hazard that it's primarily the latter. I was at a screening of L'Intrus last weekend with an audience that was easily 85-90% of 50 years of age or older. The same goes for Cache and damn near everything I saw at the Chicago Int'l Film Festival (Miike excepting).

Though using a film fest which is already geared toward cinema lovers as a gauge for mainstream tastes probably isn't the best the way to go.

But yes, when I went to see Cache it was mostly an older audience and I was probably one of the only people under 30. That said, the theatre was packed.

[pzman84]

I am speaking in terms of audiences, although I don't know if there really is a way to measure now in relation to the 1950's-60's. Would you think that more people would be willing to go to a subtitled film in today's climate, in the US, or back in the 50's/60's? I just have a hard time seeing the mythic 1950's nuclear family going out to see a Kurosawa or Bergman film over the American fare of the time, but I could be completely wrong.

I don't think a nuclear family of the 1950s-60s took their kids to see The Seventh Seal or Rashomon but I doubt a present day family will take their kids to see Paradise Now. However, in the 50s-60s, there was a big boom in surbaban art houses that played foreign films. The problem is all lot of those art houses are either shut down or now spend their time playing "independent" films. The average theather in America has 6 screens. Multiplexs don't often (if ever) play foreign films.

One reason why foreign films were so popular in the 50s-60s was the nudity element. With the exception of UA, every Hollywood studio was still following the PCA and did not show nudity in their films. However, foreign films did not have to obey the PCA and did have nudity. With no internet and the stigma of buying Playboy or going to a "nudie," foreign films were an easy way of getting your "fix." However, it is now easier to get pictures of naked women, so foreign films no longer have that appeal.

[Anonymous]

Let me clarify what I meant by "nuclear family." I didn't mean to imply that the entire family, children included would go to the film, but rather was conjuring up the image of the nuclear family, the working father, stay at home mom, etc... I meant to bring attention to the values and way of living that are suggested by the term nuclear family.

Also, while the 50's/60's may have been the "golden age" for international cinema in the US, were these movies playing to audiences around the entire country, including the south and middle portions of America?

[pzman84]

I think you should drop the whole "nuclear family" idea. If you're asking if June and Ward Cleaver attended Fellini and Bergman films, I don't have an answer. However, I do know most families were not like the Cleavers in the 1950s-60s nor where they like the characters of a Sirkian melodrama. However, when it comes to foreign art films of the area, I do know from several accounts (including many of my film teachers) there were many art houses in suburban towns. Admittedly more wealthy and more liberal than "Smallville, USA," but nonetheless there.

As for the south: a lot has changed in the last 40 years of motion picture distribution. Untill about the mid-70s, most "A" Hollywood pictures opened in the major cities (New York, LA). They would play there for a couple of months and then be released to the "B" and "C" theaters (suburban multiplexs), relying on good word of mouth. Exploitation films, on the other hand, would open in multiple venues, so the word of mouth did not hurt the film. The summer was thought as a dead time, because families were on vaction. And, the south was thought of as a dead zone because the target audience was to first get the support of a more urban audience for your major films.

However, with films like The Godfather, Jaws and Star Wars, distribution changed to what it is now. Despite popular belief, it did not begin immediatly begin with Jaws but the success of that film was the most public example of a film in what we call the "Blockbuster Era." (A good book to read on this Open Wide, by Dade Hayes and Jonathan Bing).

So, is the audience more sophisticated nowadays, as you seem to claim? Not really. But for those who contend that the people attending 50s-60s Art Houses were more intelligent would be wrong. The decline in foreign films has been due to many market factors as I have mentioned in my previous posts. Also, despite popular belief, there was never any period in cinematic history when the audience was more sophisticated than another and embraced foreign films over sappy Hollywood entertainment.

One thing when talking about movie people don't like to bring up is market factors. To many, that is a dirty word. I'm not trying to chew you out, ran222, because I make the mistake of treating film aesthetics as the "end all, be all" of film acceptance. However, I think looking at how the market has changed will explain the style and quality of films (and what the future may hold for us).

[ben d banana]

There was a 1950s home video market?

Alright, maybe that was a little bit dry even for me...

Really? The "WAY" was a virtual wink and a slap on the back by your high standards.

Wouldn't you think that however many generations that have passed from yesteryear's relatively recent immigrants with a strong heritage to today's proud Americans may also play into the equation? Easily 50% of the audience at pretty much every foreign/art/rep film I attend is older than I am (watch out 40, I'm coming), and that includes Baise Moi and Irreversible, so by Pzman's logic either no one told Grandpa that rape is free on the internet or the kids today are uncultured slobs.

[pzman84]

I wasn't trying to put kids down. However, while the majority of your audience is over 40, the majority of over-40-year-olds don't attend foreign films. What I am trying to say is there was really no period in Ameircan film goership where the audience was more educated than nowadays. However, there were reasons why people attended foreign films in the 50s-60s than nowadays.

Admittedly, the audience for foreign films is over 40. This could be attributed to the fact many of them did grow up with foreign films. Also (and this is what I am guessing), older people are not targeted by Hollywood (suprise!). The last 30 years have targeted the 12-29 demographic. Therefore, foreign films, which aren't so youth oriented, are more appealing to an older audience.

Also, for the most part, the foreign film audience has been older. While June and Ward may not have attended foreign films, I doubt Richie Cunningham did either. The young audience caught on to foreign films with Godard and the New Wave. Also, like I have stated, people attended foreign films not necessary for the "pure" reasons.

so by Pzman's logic either no one told Grandpa that rape is free on the internet

How many Grandpas can even use the internet?

[ben d banana]

I think we're talking about college students speculating upon whether the 50's/60's was a golden era of enlightenment in America.

However, while the majority of your audience is over 40, the majority of over-40-year-olds don't attend foreign films.

Well, that would explain why the theaters tend to be perhaps 20% full instead of there being massive lines around the block.

[toiletduck!]

Just a bit of clarification guys.

It would appear that the topic has switched from subtitling to the popularity of foreign films (in the U.S.?) in general. Because honestly, it seems to me that the only thing rarer than a subtitled foreign film in an American cineplex is a dubbed foreign film in an American cineplex (with the exception of the occasional Miyazaki).

-Toilet Dcuk

[scotty]

Books to read about the 1950s that will cleanse you of television references:

J. Meyerowitz, Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960
L. May, Recasting America: Culture and Politics in the Age of the Cold War
E. May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era
W. Lhamon, Deliberate Speed: The Origins of a Cultural Style in the American 1950s
S. Saul, Freedom Is, Freedom Ain't: Jazz and the Making of the Sixties (first half)
G. Cotkin, Existential America

The 50s arthouse crowd was as consciously self-selective as today's is. They were more likely to have listened to Horace Silver than Perry Como. In other words, a minority. It's not like Howl was on the bestseller list, folks. Art rarely is. Art is in it for the long haul, distorting our sense of the past through its own persistence and continuing resonance.

Today's older crowd? Could be youthful habits continuing. But when people get older, they sometimes get tired of the same old same old. They tend to get more interested in history, have the money to travel a bit, and want culture (as opposed to Hollywood dreck) to be a part of their lives. They're free of the kids and they don't have to see dumbed-down stuff anymore. They're not squeamish about sexuality because they've been living with sex and nudity for decades in their own lives, have had their affairs or their fling with swinging and they don't have to pretend to be shocked anymore by it for the benefit of the children. They're even willing to read subtitles, because their kids certainly weren't, and they're making up for lost time. And let's face it: it's a class thing. Education has an awful lot to do with it.

(As I get older, I gravitate toward "boring" movies with not much plot. Since it has been determined that there are only about 25 basic plots in all of literature, once you've read a thousand novels and stories and seen a thousand movies, anything plot-driven is in reality the boring stuff.)

As for the 1950s, any decade that gave us Vertigo, Kind of Blue, Invisible Man, and the New York School, to cite only a few American items, could hardly be described as "banal." Often good art is produced in opposition to a dominant culture; this was no less true in the 1950s than in any other era.

[scotty]

Say, does Cowie's book on art cinema of the 50s and 60s get into audience much?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all of the feedback guys. Admittedly, my knowledge of the 50's and 50's culture is not expansive. I had certain preconcieved notions about the decade planted by so much of the stereotypes that we see in the media. I wasn't trying to suggest at all that audiences were more intelligent back then, or are now. Rather, I just felt that maybe the cinema world is more closely knit today, and many films that recieve distribution stateside today, wouldn't have back then. I was really trying to get to the question of, are there more subtitled, foreign films playing across the US today, or back then, and is their earning potential around the same or greater today?

[tryavna]

But when people get older, they sometimes get tired of the same old same old. They tend to get more interested in history, have the money to travel a bit, and want culture (as opposed to Hollywood dreck) to be a part of their lives. They're free of the kids and they don't have to see dumbed-down stuff anymore. They're not squeamish about sexuality because they've been living with sex and nudity for decades in their own lives, have had their affairs or their fling with swinging and they don't have to pretend to be shocked anymore by it for the benefit of the children. They're even willing to read subtitles, because their kids certainly weren't, and they're making up for lost time. And let's face it: it's a class thing. Education has an awful lot to do with it.

(As I get older, I gravitate toward "boring" movies with not much plot. Since it has been determined that there are only about 25 basic plots in all of literature, once you've read a thousand novels and stories and seen a thousand movies, anything plot-driven is in reality the boring stuff.)

As much as I wish the first paragraph above were true, Scotty, I've seen my own parents grow more set in their ways as they grow older. During my last few visits, my father and mother either fall asleep when confronted by a "difficult" film or refuse outright to watch a subtitled film. I guess the subtitle issue could be due to failing eyesight -- as perhaps could the tendency to fall asleep while watching TV. Anyway, neither of them are uneducated or uncultured (though they've always been decidedly middle-brow in their tastes). So I don't think age necessarily engenders greater adventurousness.

BTW, I'm not so sure about the "25 basic plots" thing either. Of course, if you agree with Northrop Frye, you could whittle the number down even further to four!

[scotty]

Well, this has undergone considerable revision over the past few years. The research shows a much more diverse, unpredictable, and nonconformist populace, even in the suburbs, than the popular imagination has portrayed. We've tended to take the handwringing of fifties sociologists at face value; we actually know a lot more now. Average Joe in Levittown, for example, could very well have been an Average Jane heading a household, and their politics tended to be considerably more liberal than either party today. It's true of Eisenhower's policies, too. He's well to the left of the recent Republican presidents on many issues.

I don't know that he was really into subtitles, though.

Another key title in this regard: Stephanie Coontz's The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap.

BTW, I'm not so sure about the "25 basic plots" thing either. Of course, if you agree with Northrop Frye, you could whittle the number down even further to four!

Good old Northrup Frye. There's a fifties guy. Did he ever write on film? I'd be shocked.

I bet he could handle subtitles, though. The Seventh Seal seems to be right up his alley.