Kino

[TMDaines]

Well again your argument primarily hinges on a personal preference and no definitive statement. Meaning that you are not arguing in a way that builds to how translations are bad. At least in Michael's case he was arguing from important aspects that have historical significance and caused me to shift my position slightly (if not in the intended way). You're, again, arguing for open matte when from your argument widescreen is just as acceptable.

OK, I still have absolutely no idea what you're banging on about with open matte versus widescreen.

What about something as simple as the fact that removing the original intertitles is tantamount to censorship and is a travesty of the original artwork? The original work has been tampered with and something has replaced it, whether the intention is just to make the work more accessible to others or not. Why do you need to do this when both can be shown on screen? More often than not a translation will not be able to perfectly render a phrase from one language to another because the simplest words in one language will have different connotations and a different range of meanings that aren't there with the "same" words in other languages. Nearly always something will be lost in translation because thoughts, desires and actions are expressed differently in different languages. This is why intertitles can not be simply changed from one language to another. What's more frustrating is that they don't even have to be. You can have both the original intertitle and a translation intended to aid the audience.

[knives]

But with Strike, the intertitles are part of Eisenstein's visual conception of the entire film. And once this has been pointed out to you in detail, as was the case when I watched the film with Yuri Tsivian's commentary (still one of the benchmark critical commentaries of my DVD-viewing career), you really miss them when they've been replaced - as was the case with the Tartan DVD of Strike.

And given the existence of genuinely seamless branching on Blu-rays, it seems perverse to go to the trouble of replacing intertitles without putting in what probably wouldn't be that much additional effort to include the originals as well.

That's a genuine problem that deserves deep consideration (versus TM's absurd complaints). I agree absolutely the best thing to do is have both set of intertitles, but hopefully you can afford me the same when I say in most cases I probably won't get the jokes in Cyrillic and that a set of intertitles that attempts to duplicate said gags into a language I understand would be more helpful to me. That would take a lot of effort naturally, but if done right these very important things you bring up would become understood by me.

[TMDaines]

But with Strike, the intertitles are part of Eisenstein's visual conception of the entire film. And once this has been pointed out to you in detail, as was the case when I watched the film with Yuri Tsivian's commentary (still one of the benchmark critical commentaries of my DVD-viewing career), you really miss them when they've been replaced - as was the case with the Tartan DVD of Strike.

And given the existence of genuinely seamless branching on Blu-rays, it seems perverse to go to the trouble of replacing intertitles without putting in what probably wouldn't be that much additional effort to include the originals as well.

That's a genuine problem that deserves deep consideration (versus TM's absurd complaints).

So even though I made this very same complaint in one of my first posts, the fact that I'm expressing other issues, which you dont agree with or perhaps don't understand, makes all my complaints absurd? For someone who kept beating the "but but but but that's just your opinion" drum that seems a silly thing to say. Sorry if wanting to see a a film in its original glory and language is an "absurd complaint".

[triodelover]

But with Strike, the intertitles are part of Eisenstein's visual conception of the entire film. And once this has been pointed out to you in detail, as was the case when I watched the film with Yuri Tsivian's commentary (still one of the benchmark critical commentaries of my DVD-viewing career), you really miss them when they've been replaced - as was the case with the Tartan DVD of Strike.

And given the existence of genuinely seamless branching on Blu-rays, it seems perverse to go to the trouble of replacing intertitles without putting in what probably wouldn't be that much additional effort to include the originals as well.

That's a genuine problem that deserves deep consideration (versus TM's absurd complaints).

So even though I made this very same complaint in one of my first posts, the fact that I'm expressing other issues, which you dont agree with or perhaps don't understand, makes all my complaints absurd? For someone who kept beating the "but but but but that's just your opinion" drum that seems a silly thing to say. Sorry if wanting to see a a film in its original glory and language is an "absurd complaint".

Have you ever considered the fact that you are arrogant, condescending, insulting and petulant and that those traits might get in the way of your message? Well, those things and that you apparently refuse to consider that you might actually be wrong about something.

[Brian C]

What's TM wrong about again? He finds value in original intertitles, the same way that the rest of us find value in original language tracks when it comes to audio, even if we don't speak the language. It's less of a priority for some people, naturally, but how does that make him wrong about anything?

I have to say, I find this a strange argument. Of course distributors should provide original intertitles if possible (with alternate English intertitles too, I guess). Why on Earth shouldn't they? No one would ever argue otherwise for any other facet of the production.

[TMDaines]

Have you ever considered the fact that you are arrogant, condescending, insulting and petulant and that those traits might get in the way of your message? Well, those things and that you apparently refuse to consider that you might actually be wrong about something.

Please, if someone is arrogant for merely stating that they're somewhat multilingual from studying languages and for then expressing their views on some of the general pitfalls of translation, then I'll happily take the arrogant tag. Would you prefer it if I just stated that I feel original intertitles are a must and then didn't express, in detail, why? I mean what exactly do you want people to do on an Internet forum if not discuss and debate? It's all pretty pointless if we just go: A expresses his opinion, B expresses his opinion and no-one attempts to illustrate their arguments or addresses each other's.

To be honest I thought it was a complete no brainer that original intertitles and subtitles were the much preferred choice. Those who can read the originals can read them, those who can't have the subs. Both are catered for and nothing is altered or removed. I didn't really expect this to really be picked up on. Remove the original intertitles and the work is travestied, and no-one even has the option of viewing the original piece. Surely the bare minimum should be this combination. You can then seemless branch English intertitles in after that if you feel there's value in having them. I don't care if people want to watch it with English intertitles - that's completely up to them - but I do care about people being denied the original.

[knives]

I have to say, I find this a strange argument. Of course distributors should provide original intertitles if possible (with alternate English intertitles too, I guess). Why on Earth shouldn't they? No one would ever argue otherwise for any other facet of the production.

I want to make it clear that I agree with this and that my initial objection was because he reacted as if new intertitles was murder with no good argument to back that up. Michael on the other hand has provided a very good argument on why replacement intertitles are as he put it 'a bastardization' and 'should never be considered'. That's made me change my argument drastically and if Michael wants to keep this up I'll gladly likewise, but TM hasn't provided an argument worth responding to so I won't any further.

[TMDaines]

That's made me change my argument drastically and if Michael wants to keep this up I'll gladly likewise, but TM hasn't provided an argument worth responding to so I won't any further.

If you sincerely believe that I've said absolutely nothing of value and that none of the arguments I've made have any weight, logic or thought behind them then so be it. I genuinely don't believe that anyone who has read my posts and thought just a little about what I've wrote will come to that conclusion. The only time you even addressed my points was to tell me that foreign language "really adds no flavour to [you] and just looks like gibberish" and to tell me that for large portions of history subtitling was considered "lazy and disrespectful" as opposed to dubbing, before highlighting one particular country where dubbing came to be the norm simply because of cultural defensivism from the Italian government who mandated that foreign films had to be dubbed. Other than that you've merely made snide remarks as if I wasn't present to others , who have argued similar to points to what I have, seemingly to belittle me.

[Flanell]

What TM says is absolutely right, of course. He also has provided valid arguments to prove his point.

[matrixschmatrix]

tell me that for large portions of history subtitling was considered "lazy and disrespectful" as opposed to dubbing, before highlighting one particular country where dubbing came to be the norm simply because of cultural defensivism from the Italian government who mandated that foreign films had to be dubbed.

That's a misrepresentation of history, and the preference for dubbing over subtitles isn't limited to the Italians- it was true here for decades, and it's still true for children's movies and American exports in most of the world. Honestly, the issue here isn't that you are incorrect- of course original language intertitles are preferable, and with rare exceptions subtitles are preferable to dubbing. The issue is that your initial posts made it seem as though due to this one bad choice, the gorgeous Kino blu of Strike! was worthless, and had 'the soul ripped out of it'. That's silly, and fairly childish. The argument got weirdly heated from there because it kept proceeding as a flamewar rather than a discussion.

[ellipsis7]

While I accept that Eisenstein had very specific intentions in the precise design of his intertitles, the reality was that silent films benefitted from the fact that in each territory a new set of intertitles could be easily inserted in the native language, thus movies could travel seemlessly travel across national & linguistic borders making for something close to a pan international film industry. The onset of sound cemented the hegemony of the American/Hollywood industry, established English as the primary cinematic language, militating against non English language producers, who now struggled to export their product. A thriving production centre like Nice found itself in decline; it could match Hollywood quality and the Californian weather, but the French language was now a handicap, confining those 'talkie' films produced mainly to the one market.

Archivally silents can turn up in many places, in different versions. Studio Canal has released a restored version of Renoir's LA FILLE DE L'EAU on DVD, but the materials worked from had original English intertitles inserted, which then had to replaced and translated back into French!

Dubbing versus subtitling of American movies in European territories is probably the preferred practice insofar as a dubbed soundtrack requires less language and reading skills, and is more to conducive the easy enjoyment of primarily entertainment fare; subtitles are simply harder work, and are more suited to intellectual purists. Of course then there is the bizarre phenomenon that certain voicover artists are consistently cast as the dubbed Italian, French or German voice of Tom Cruise, Leonard Nimoy; these stars are known across many films by those audiences with a completely different voice to their own.

Another interesting point worth mentioning was the Japanese silent film practice of having intertitles, which the audience largely ignored, because the live narration by a Benshi dominated with his colourful verbal interpretation of the drama unfolding on screen. This applied to both Japanese and imported/foreign films.

[Jonathan S]

The late silent film specialist Leslie Shepard - who was old enough to have attended the first UK run of Murnau's Faust - told me he definitely preferred English-only intertitles as he felt the dramatic power of silent films was reduced by having the original language and subtitles on screen at the same time. He felt so strongly about this that he was planning to create his own English-only version of Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc not long before he died. I don't think he got around to it, though as many here will know, in VHS days he did produce his own English-only editions of silents from TV broadcasts in Germany and other European countries (before they were commercially available anywhere).

I think the increased preference for subtitles rather than replaced intertitles is a relatively recent movement, even in Europe. German TV was still broadcasting Hollywood silents like the von Sternbergs with new German-only intertitles in the 1990s (maybe they still do?) and, as far as I recall, the Photoplay editions of French silents by Kevin Brownlow et al had English-only intertitles, at least in their video versions. That may, of course, have been a requirement of funding by Channel 4 and other sponsors.

[triodelover]

I mean what exactly do you want people to do on an Internet forum if not discuss and debate?

When are you going to start debating instead of declaiming? The first step might be acknowledging that other POVs exist.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have agreed with you from the beginning that it is always preferable to produce intertitles in the original language (and fonts, etc, if possible). The only point of contention, if there is one, is that I still welcome Kino's Strike because it is visually superior to previous offerings and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their decision given their primary market.

Instead of acknowledging this, you choose to take every post as a craven opportunity to climb on your soapbox and preach your One True Way. For a student of languages, you are remarkably clueless about the impact of words.

[lubitsch]

I think the increased preference for subtitles rather than replaced intertitles is a relatively recent movement, even in Europe. German TV was still broadcasting Hollywood silents like the von Sternbergs with new German-only intertitles in the 1990s (maybe they still do?)

Silents essentially are only shown once a month on arte, that's it. But there are indeed no translated intertitles anymore, this practice has stopped. I have to admit it puzzles me to no end that Kino replaces the original intertitles with new ones which I assume must be a bit more expensive than simply creating subs. Since silent DVDs are a minority affair for an intellectual public which however is rather well informed and buys the items internationally, they lose a lot of customers who want the original intertitles. As a German I got Shadows by Robison because there's no alternative, but I passed e.g. on Secrets of a Soul and others because I have the German TV transmissions and while buying a DVD isn't such a pressing matter in this case, I'd still buy it - but only with original intertitles. On the other hand Kino isn't gaining much of an audience because I can imagine very few silent film lovers who wouldn't buy a DVD just because the original intertitles are there with English subtitles. We aren't talking about the difference between dubbing and subtitling which unfortunately plays a major role for many ordinary audiences, we are merely talking about two different forms of text inserts and that's for specialized viewers who are also more likely to watch subtitled films. To me Kino's practice seems an extraordinary misjudgement of its customers.

[Tommaso]

While I accept that Eisenstein had very specific intentions in the precise design of his intertitles, the reality was that silent films benefitted from the fact that in each territory a new set of intertitles could be easily inserted in the native language, thus movies could travel seemlessly travel across national & linguistic borders making for something close to a pan international film industry.

A pan-international industry perhaps, but not necessarily a pan-international art. Export prints were often made from different negatives with different shots (witness "Sunrise"), sometimes films were re-cut and shortened to fit more closely to the expectations of a different audience or different ideas about how to set up a 'night at the cinema' (especially in the US, it seems, where it didn't seem to be acceptable in all cases to show a German silent in its full excessive length, e.g. "Finanzen des Grossherzogs" or "Metropolis"), and storylines were 'transported' from one country to another by changing the names of characters, so that a Fräulein Müller might become a Mademoiselle Girard or a Miss Smith, thus throwing overboard all the associations with place and culture that the original version might have contained. In other words: the original distribution of silents already often 'murdered' films in ways that seem inconceivable today. So the argument that silent films were shown with replaced intertitles is historically true, but this practice just formed one aspect of treating films as industrial goods that doesn't seem very acceptable today anymore, and cannot be used as an excuse to continue the practice of replacing intertitles today. Especially considering that releases of silents on dvd aren't a mainstream product of our time (different to the films' original distribution), but basically cater to a dedicated audience of informed film fans today.

Studio Canal has released a restored version of Renoir's LA FILLE DE L'EAU on DVD, but the materials worked from had original English intertitles inserted, which then had to replaced and translated back into French!

I don't remember how it was done in the case of this particular film, but general practice - at least for restorations of German silents whose original intertitles are lost - is to go back to the censorship cards which are all stored in an archive in Berlin, and which usually contain all the original text of those lost titles. So there is no need for a re-translation from a foreign language in most cases, but simply for a re-creation of the intertitles from the original text, which I find much preferable to an unaltered foreign language print which may already contain distortions of the original text contentwise.

Silents essentially are only shown once a month on arte, that's it. But there are indeed no translated intertitles anymore, this practice has stopped.

As to arte, yes. Other stations apparently aren't there yet. Just two weeks ago 3sat showed Allan Dwan's "Tide of Empire" and the release version of Stroheim's "Greed" with German intertitles only.

But I can't really understand why one should have to decide between replaced and original intertitles, when you quite simply can have both. This is demonstrated by all the silent releases from divisa. They simply use seamless branching, which seems to work perfectly. So if you want to see the original version, you can select the original titles. If you need the Spanish version (as intertitles, not as subs!), you can select this also. I really wonder why Kino doesn't go this route if they don't like subs. BTW: Pabst's "Secrets of a soul" is available from divisa in this way, with original German and alternative Spanish titles.

[TMDaines]

tell me that for large portions of history subtitling was considered "lazy and disrespectful" as opposed to dubbing, before highlighting one particular country where dubbing came to be the norm simply because of cultural defensivism from the Italian government who mandated that foreign films had to be dubbed.

That's a misrepresentation of history, and the preference for dubbing over subtitles isn't limited to the Italians- it was true here for decades, and it's still true for children's movies and American exports in most of the world.

I know, maybe I didn't make it clear that I was trying to explictly refer to Italy in this case, which was the country he referenced in his point. It seems the dubbing versus subbing preference for the mass market usually just follows the market norm, which was often initially dictated by government policy, as in the case of Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, Ukraine and I'm sure many others. There are strong trends also that suggest the more multilingual one is, the more likely one is to opt for subtitling and in the case of film connoisseurs it seems the preference is nearly always the original language(s) over dubs, regardless of what the standard practise is in your location.

The issue is that your initial posts made it seem as though due to this one bad choice, the gorgeous Kino blu of Strike! was worthless, and had 'the soul ripped out of it'. That's silly, and fairly childish. The argument got weirdly heated from there because it kept proceeding as a flamewar rather than a discussion.

I appreciate that but ultimately I feel that a lesser quality copy of a film with original intertitles is a preferable than a fantastic Blu-ray with replaced intertitles, simply for the reasons I've outlined before and for the ones Tomasso and MichaelB outlined also. By replacing the intertitles and not giving the viewer a choice to see the originals, the film has been compromised and the disk is worthless if I cannot see the original version film like I should be able to. I used emotive language for a reason as I strongly believe what I'm arguing for. I'm not the only one here to have used emotive language when referring to the removal of the original intertitles. As others have said this topic needn't be an issue though as both sets of intertitles can be provided by seemless branching. Any label who are worth their salt should be providing the original intertitles as a minimum though.

While I accept that Eisenstein had very specific intentions in the precise design of his intertitles, the reality was that silent films benefitted from the fact that in each territory a new set of intertitles could be easily inserted in the native language, thus movies could travel seemlessly travel across national & linguistic borders making for something close to a pan international film industry.

A pan-international industry perhaps, but not necessarily a pan-international art. Export prints were often made from different negatives with different shots (witness "Sunrise"), sometimes films were re-cut and shortened to fit more closely to the expectations of a different audience or different ideas about how to set up a 'night at the cinema' (especially in the US, it seems, where it didn't seem to be acceptable in all cases to show a German silent in its full excessive length, e.g. "Finanzen des Grossherzogs" or "Metropolis"), and storylines were 'transported' from one country to another by changing the names of characters, so that a Fräulein Müller might become a Mademoiselle Girard or a Miss Smith, thus throwing overboard all the associations with place and culture that the original version might have contained. In other words: the original distribution of silents already often 'murdered' films in ways that seem inconceivable today. So the argument that silent films were shown with replaced intertitles is historically true, but this practice just formed one aspect of treating films as industrial goods that doesn't seem very acceptable today anymore, and cannot be used as an excuse to continue the practice of replacing intertitles today.

Indeed, indeed. It's simply impossible to carry across all those nuances and subtleties when translating the most unemotive, straight-forward language, let alone art and literature. I honestly don't see the logic for the "back in the day" argument for how silents were shown in foreign countries either. Like you said films often had they're stories tweaked and references heavily changed in order to fit the culture and language, or even the censorship standards, of the country where the film was being shown. By the time this process was complete you often really were left with the original and a bastardised version.

[zedz]

We aren't talking about the difference between dubbing and subtitling which unfortunately plays a major role for many ordinary audiences, we are merely talking about two different forms of text inserts and that's for specialized viewers who are also more likely to watch subtitled films. To me Kino's practice seems an extraordinary misjudgement of its customers.

I believe the reason for the practice of replacing original language intertitles with English ones has been explained on here in the past by somebody involved: namely, that full English intertitles are a strict requirement of TCM and other cable channels. With commercially marginal projects like these, such broadcast fees are likely to be a big part of the projected revenue, so it's obligatory to create full sets of English intertitles. In the best cases, the producers work hard to preserve the flavour and impact of the originals.

Much more perplexing to me, and the only example I know of this is the version of Dreyer's Joan of Arc that Karina watches in Vivre sa vie, is when intertitles are replaced by subtitles. That must really mess with the rhythm of the film. Does anybody know if this was a widespread practice at any point?

[colinr0380]

Much more perplexing to me, and the only example I know of this is the version of Dreyer's Joan of Arc that Karina watches in Vivre sa vie, is when intertitles are replaced by subtitles. That must really mess with the rhythm of the film. Does anybody know if this was a widespread practice at any point?

I know it is kind of an extreme example but Giorgio Moroder's 80s version of Metropolis also used a combination of intertitles and subtitles.

[matrixschmatrix]

I appreciate that but ultimately I feel that a lesser quality copy of a film with original intertitles is a preferable than a fantastic Blu-ray with replaced intertitles, simply for the reasons I've outlined before and for the ones Tomasso and MichaelB outlined also. By replacing the intertitles and not giving the viewer a choice to see the originals, the film has been compromised and the disk is worthless if I cannot see the original version film like I should be able to. I used emotive language for a reason as I strongly believe what I'm arguing for. I'm not the only one here to have used emotive language when referring to the removal of the original intertitles. As others have said this topic needn't be an issue though as both sets of intertitles can be provided by seemless branching. Any label who are worth their salt should be providing the original intertitles as a minimum though.

Branching titles does seem like the ideal solution, obviously. More broadly, if adherence to the original is more important to you than picture quality, that's not an unreasonable preference, but I think the way you put it sort of came off as a demand that everyone share that preference, which is somewhat unreasonable.

Much more perplexing to me, and the only example I know of this is the version of Dreyer's Joan of Arc that Karina watches in Vivre sa vie, is when intertitles are replaced by subtitles. That must really mess with the rhythm of the film. Does anybody know if this was a widespread practice at any point?

This is getting a bit off topic, but this seems as likely a place to ask as any- does anyone know historically why silent movies opted for intertitles over subtitles in the first place? It seems as though subtitles came in as soon as sound film did, so I'd imagine it wasn't entirely technological reasons.

[ellipsis7]

1

[ellipsis7]

ndeed, indeed. It's simply impossible to carry across all those nuances and subtleties when translating the most unemotive, straight-forward language, let alone art and literature. I honestly don't see the logic for the "back in the day" argument for how silents were shown in foreign countries either. Like you said films often had they're stories tweaked and references heavily changed in order to fit the culture and language, or even the censorship standards, of the country where the film was being shown. By the time this process was complete you often really were left with the original and a bastardised version.

Very precious , indeed. Present subtitling is a finessed art, done by specialists, but it it is still imperfect, governed by space and time (and also often by predetermined dialogue lists supplied by sales agent/distributor).

In a kind of anarchic way I am also attracted to how a text and interpretation of a silent film could become polyvalent, all versions layered together making a fluid palimpsest... You have avoided the Benshi Japanese point, where within a culture there was a freeform interpretation of the drama, which as it where, eclipsed the intertitles...

But between your absolutist pursuit of the very latest THE LEOPARD resto on BR/DVD, and the holy grail search for the original allignments of silent films, beyond what is already known, might be found, and exists, seems to me an idealistically driven push for perfection and finality which can only be advanced by the naivity of youth... We all want the best, but also must accept what is the here and now; presently we are spoilt with the CC, BFI, MoC etc... (Today i am coming to terms with the softish image of Pasolini's MEDEA from BFI, dissappointed somewhat, but glad to have the best available)

However, despite your expansive commentary, there are signs of nascent substance and promise... Good luck!

(Have we got this far without Godard's play with captions/titles/intertitles?)

[zedz]

This is getting a bit off topic, but this seems as likely a place to ask as any- does anyone know historically why silent movies opted for intertitles over subtitles in the first place? It seems as though subtitles came in as soon as sound film did, so I'd imagine it wasn't entirely technological reasons.

Don't subtitles require specific equipment developed to physically burn them onto the print (or, I suppose, an optical printer)? It's the kind of invention that would only be mothered by necessity, and splicing in an intertitle, an application of the natural editing process, would be way more straightforward and survive according to the "if it ain't broke" principle. It's only when that became completely untenable with the advent of sound that new translation techniques, with their own complications and dissatisfactions, had to be contrived.

[TMDaines]

But between your absolutist pursuit of the very latest THE LEOPARD resto on BR/DVD, and the holy grail search for the original allignments of silent films, beyond what is already known, might be found, and exists, seems to me an idealistically driven push for perfection and finality which can only be advanced by the naivity of youth... We all want the best, but also must accept what is the here and now; presently we are spoilt with the CC, BFI, MoC etc... (Today i am coming to terms with the softish image of Pasolini's MEDEA from BFI, dissappointed somewhat, but glad to have the best available)

If the French The Leopard never showed up then I'd be very happy with my BFI (/Criterion) still! It's just the level of detail in that version is astonishing in comparison to the earlier Blus. I only really split hairs when the choice is there: I'm not a big AV guy at all, but the difference between the Leopards is pretty drastic (and, yes I'm fully aware the French has other potential pitfalls also).

Don't get me wrong, there's several labels out there from whom I love purchasing, safe in the knowledge that they will have done the best they can to present the film as it should be seen. In that sense we're incredibly lucky compared to a generation ago but that doesn't change the fact there's a couple of labels out there who could also be just as wonderful if they showed just a touch more care and didn't make such boneheaded, alien decisions. Seriously, Kino could comfortably be the best silent film label out there with the odd policy change or two. No-one else is releasing silents at their kind of volume.

[whaleallright]

Much more perplexing to me, and the only example I know of this is the version of Dreyer's Joan of Arc that Karina watches in Vivre sa vie, is when intertitles are replaced by subtitles. That must really mess with the rhythm of the film. Does anybody know if this was a widespread practice at any point?

I suspect that's from the re-edited Lo Duca version, which was the probably the version most in circulation from the 1950s to the 1980s (and was widely considered an atrocity, not least for imposing a kitschy religiosity on the film). Dreyer hated this version and even wrote a letter of protest to Duca. Someone familiar with the pre-1980s prints of Jeanne d'Arc could answer this definitively.

Intertitles aren't subtitles because their original purpose was pointedly not to convey dialogue. They were generally descriptive or expository in nature until the 1920s. Keep in mind that in the silent era what we now call "intertitles" were typically simply called "titles" or "title cards" or even, confusingly, "subtitles." So it wasn't that they chose not to convey dialogue in subtitles; it simply was not an option. It's possible that some avant-garde filmmakers used subtitles in the modern sense, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

It seems to me, intuitively, that using subtitles in a silent film to convey dialogue would be extremely redundant (this is setting aside the obviously awful practice of taking silent films and changing the intertitles to subtitles). Even with dialogue intertitles, in most silent films there's usually not a complete overlap in the semantic value of the image and the dialogue title. The Japanese, in particular, were good at this--by the mid-1930s they could even have a dialogue title without a preceding or following image of the speaker, without sacrificing narrative clarity. You can see this happening on some of the films in the Naruse silents set.

[triodelover]

If the French The Leopard never showed up then I'd be very happy with my BFI (/Criterion) still! It's just the level of detail in that version is astonishing in comparison to the earlier Blus.

Have you actually seen the French (or Italian) disc or are you still blowing smoke out of your ass based on a few screen caps? If it's the latter, does your insufferable ego have any bounds?