The Hierarchy of Preferred Languages for Art House Releases

[TMDaines]

Unfortunately I have been having to fight off this issue of French vs Spanish tracks (as though both are not "valid") elsewhere and once again the opposition to my historical memory of things like this, and things like the original prints of Weekend are passed off as the ravings as a drunken old queen with a dodgy memory. So I have not been happy about having to argue about what is an extremely important issue, notably the ubiquity of dubbing in virtually every European territory and especially in Italy and the resolution, if any of what is the primarry audio track. The most egregious errors in this regard have been the constant misapproriating of the Rossellini/Bergman films the first three of which - Stromboli, Eruope 51 and Journey into Italy are all primarily intended to be in English, with most of the actors reading their own lines whether llive or dubbed. But still people insist on calling these films by their Italian titles, and this seems to propose the falsity that the correct language for release was Italian simply because they were made in Italy. So this whole vexing issue feels to me very much like all those years ago and the endless arguments people had about Aspect Ratios. And are still having. Some of the areas are gray but it's imperative to at least cite histories of distribution if we're going to get correct results. And correct video releases.

Another case, the first release prints of Berto's Conformist in both Oz and the USA were in French. (They also had two small cuts made by Berto after the premier screenings.) Now everyone is accepting the Italian version which once again requires dubbing for everyon including the Italian actors. Simply because virtually every movie made in Italy has a dubbed soundtrack whatever the intended language for release. Mercifully Pararount at least did a dual language release.

Though, David, just because the protagonist's mother tongue may have been a specific language and just because there exists a version of the film with that actor's voice in that tongue, doesn't necessarily mean it's the original version. It seems that, as much of European cinema was post-synchronised, the actors' ability to speak to a certain language was not necessarily of the same primary importance as it is in English language cinema. People could be cast for their acting ability, faces and star quality, with their voices being of secondary or no importance, as they'd be dubbed anyway. I think that the assumption that you're hearing the actual voice of the actor on screen is very much an expectation of the English-speaking world. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the Rossellini films cited above or anything).

Also I've never understood the assumed correlation between the language of a film's title and the primary language of the original version of a film, nor the assumption that when a film is referred to by its title in a specific language, that the version of the film dubbed in that language is being referred to. There's plenty of films, and indeed books, whose title is one language, but whose content is principally in another. Viaggio in Italia is what most non-English and non-Italian speakers refer to the original title of the film as, even when explictly stating that the original version is English.

[zedz]

French has always dwarfed all other foreign languages in terms of popularity in English-language markets, as far as I'm aware. It's actually kind of depressing when you have to deal with it in terms of programming, with hordes of ladies who lunch professing their undying adoration for French films (as if that were a genre), and you just know they're not talking about Bresson and Pialat.

So anyway, micro-rant aside, it would seem to me to have made good commercial sense to release the French version of a film when one had the option, regardless of the merits of the different versions. I think that even pertains to the US where, as you note, there is a huge audience advantage for Spanish language cinema, simply because of that annoying association of French film with bourgeois prestige and crossover potential.

[MichaelB]

Your comments here and Michael Brooke's last page have prompted me to think about something hitherto not discussed - as far as I know - here or elsewhere. That is: is there a "heirarchy" of preferred languages for art house releases that operates at some semi conscious level of the production phase? For example, why were Tristana and The Conformist released initally in French (which was clearly one of their primary tracks) but re-released ten/twenty/thirty years later in Spanish and Italian respectively to the English language markets ? Was French regarded as having more cache? Or was it simply thought French would attract a bigger audience than Spanish or even Italian? Were these purely commercial decisions?

We'd have to know whether the UK/US/Australian distributors had a choice - they may not even have realised that they had a choice, and simply took what they were given. After all, if a new Buñuel turned up in French, the language in which he'd primarily worked for the last seven years, would you turn a hair?

But as for your more general point, I suspect it's because French is indeed seen as the language of bourgeoisie-pleasing arthouse cinema, and Spanish-language cinema was much rarer in the UK, certainly in 1970. And Catherine Deneuve was a much bigger star and a much bigger draw than Fernando Rey (understatement), so it might have felt more appropriate to release a version with her speaking with her own voice, as people who were familiar with her might have found a Spanish dub jarring.

Conversely, by 1992 Spanish-language cinema was very much in the ascendent in the UK, so it may have made sense to opt for that version - again, assuming that it was a conscious choice on the part of the distributor. I worked for them at the time, but I honestly don't remember any discussions about the language - I only became aware of it myself when I booked the film for a rep screening expecting it to be in Spanish and it turned up in French. (It wasn't a major revival - we'd bought the entire package of Silberman Buñuels, but only Belle de Jour and Discreet Charm were given proper relaunches with press shows, etc.: the others simply had new prints struck and were made available to repertory cinemas.)

Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure that The Conformist played in Italian in the UK from the start. I've just looked up the original Monthly Film Bulletin review, which doesn't mention the language, but I suspect it probably would have mentioned it had it been something counterintuitive like French. Also, I first saw it in the mid-1980s in what I assume was an original release print (I'm pretty sure it didn't get a new-print revival in the UK between 1971 and the mid-1990s) and it was definitely in Italian - the first chance I got to see it in French was via Paramount's DVD twenty years later.

But one thing that the MFB review does reveal is that Paramount had nothing to do with the UK release, which may well have been a factor - they'd certainly have been behind the US one (not sure about the Australian one). And since the film has subsequently been distributed on video by the BFI and Arrow, that suggests that Paramount never did have the UK rights.

[MichaelB]

I was thinking about this only the other day when watching Arrow's Lisa and the Devil.

Although it's admirably purist of them to have included the Italian track (something denied to Kino Lorber's customers), the film was conceived by an American producer under that English-language title, and it was clearly shot in English. Which is obvious from even the most casual comparison of the two tracks - they're both post-synched, obviously, but the English track generally features the voices of the original actors with far better lip-sync, whereas the Italian track is equally clearly dubbed by others - that might be Alida Valli's own voice, but she has a pretty minor part in comparison with, say, Telly Savalas.

But I bet there's more than one person out there who refers to the film as Lisa e il diavolo (which it wasn't called until its belated Italian release in 2004, thirty years after its world premiere) and insists on watching it in Italian out of wholly misguided purism!

On the other hand, this isn't the same situation as Tristana, which is clearly far more Spanish than Lisa and the Devil is Italian, regardless of the language that accompanied its first international release.

[TMDaines]

Also I've never understood the assumed correlation between the language of a film's title and the primary language of the original version of a film, nor the assumption that when a film is referred to by its title in a specific language, that the version of the film dubbed in that language is being referred to. There's plenty of films, and indeed books, whose title is one language, but whose content is principally in another. Viaggio in Italia is what most non-English and non-Italian speakers refer to the original title of the film as, even when explictly stating that the original version is English.

The problem with this is the perpetuation of the idea that the movie should be therefore be spoken in Italian bu virtue of the title. There's a history of calling Rosso's films by Italian names - Europe 51 becomes Europa 51, Journey becomes Viaggio, Deutschland Jahre Nulle becomes Germania Anno Zero etc... It's plain wrong and misleading and I have spent many pleasant hours with my friend Mr Gallagher talking about this. I can't be sure but I remember the first video I bought of Journey on VHS was the Bfi through the ancient Connoiseur label which rendered it in the English language title. But calling it Viaggio in Italia is like calling Welle's debut Cittadino Kane. It's ridiculous.

I absolutely agree that a film's title being in one language shouldn't lead to an expectation that the film itself is principally in the same language.

As I said previously, there is nothing stopping films (or other works of art) having their title in one language and their text principally in another. The author(s) can title their work in one language and then feature a host of others in the text. Looking at the slim selection of tilms on the shelf above me I have Partner. by Bertolucci and La battaglia di Algeri by Pontecorvo that conform to this rule. The Citizen Kane example is a complete straw man. Of course picking out a random translation of the title of a film where there's no doubt and then claiming it is the original is ludicrous.

[tenia]

Yeah, there's undoubtedly some snob aspect to the whole French thing. I once went to one of those incredibly uneven Alliance Francaise French Festival seasons a thousand years ago (I've studied with them over the years to keep the skills up) and if you're lucky two titles might be of interest, the rest dreck to dross - generic teen boy sex comedies, domestic violence police procedurals, quirky bittersweet romances. Hideous.) And the audiences were compeltely appalling, compared to this crowd even Sydney FF audiences (upon whom I would happily open fire on with a Kalishnikov) look good.

I see it's the same everywhere : most of French people thinks only of American cinema with Die Hard 5 and Transformers and UK is James Bond and Ken Loach, just like overseas, French movies are Polisse, L'arnacoeur and LOL. But the Lastest French movies which have been big in France are quite varied in genre : Le Marsupilami, La vérité si je mens 3, Le prénom, Astérix 4, Les infidèles, De rouille et d'os, Cloclo, Zarafa, Dans la maison, Kirikou et les hommes et les femmes, just for 2012

Of course, what's really working in the USA are Taken, The Artist, The Transporter 2, The Kiss of the Dragon, Colombiana and all.

But please, remember that there is a gap there (though I guess that you know this already and I just misunderstood part of your comment) and that it seems that all the not very good movies working in the USA exports well too, just as all the not very good French movies working well here seems to export well also.

[Drucker]

Proofreading.

[knives]

Of course, what's really working in the USA are Taken, The Artist, The Transporter 2, The Kiss of the Dragon, Colombiana and all.

But please, remember that there is a gap there (though I guess that you know this already and I just misunderstood part of your comment) and that it seems that all the not very good movies working in the USA exports well too, just as all the not very good French movies working well here seems to export well also.

Irrelevant to the conversation at large (which I feel Mr.s Hare and Brooke have covered nicely) but I highly doubt most Americans think of those films as French even if they undoubtedly are due to this whole language mess. The image in America of French cinema still seems to be Godard and Truffaut.

[triodelover]

The image in America of French cinema still seems to be Godard and Truffaut.

Too refined. It's more like that French girl that was in that movie that they couldn't ever figure out if they were married or not (something Copy, wasn't it?) and the guy that looks kinda like Dustin Hoffman.

[swo17]

Nah, it's more like Jeunet, Chomet, Paronnaud, and stuff like The Intouchables, The Class, The Chorus, La Vie en rose, etc.

[triodelover]

...and stuff like The Intouchables...

That's the movie that guy who looks kinda like Dustin Hoffman was in, isn't it?

[knives]

Yes.

[TMDaines]

I happened to read the Pasolini interview in MoC's booklet of Accattone today and it's very pertinent to our conversation:

You changed Citti's voice [in Accattone], didn't you?

Yes, I had him dubbed but it was a mistake. At the time I was a bit unsure of myself. Later I had him dub himself and he was excellent - and I even got him to dub other Roman characters. Anyway it was, let's say, a theoretical error. Paolo Derraro who dubbed him in Accattone was extremely good and I think he added something to the character because dubbing, while altering a character, also makes it more mysterious; it enlarges and enriches it. I'm against filming in sync. [...] I'm against it because I think that dubbing enriches a character; it is part of my taste for pastiche; it raises a character out of the zone of naturalism. I believe deeply in reality, in realsim, but I can't stand naturalism.

So you're not only for dubbing later, you also like having an actor dubbed by another person's voice?

Unfortunately, it's rather difficult in Italy because of the dubbers. They're not quite as awful as they are in France, where they really are excrable, but all the same they are extremely conformist. What I often do is to "cross" two non-professionals. I believe in polyvalence in a character. I like elaborating a character. The main point is that my love for reality is philosophical and reverential, but it is not naturalistic.

But actors depend for their identity on a number of factors, among which their voice can be crucial - Robert Mitchum or John Wayne could not exist without their voices.

That is true, but I'm not interested in actors. The only time I'm interested in an actor is when I use an actor to act an actor. [...] The fact that an actor may depend on his voice is something that interests me very little.

Do you mind what happens to your films when they go abroad? [...]

[Discussion of dubbing in Spain]

In civilised countries like England and American it came out with subtitles, which I prefer.

I think, ultimately, that my argument in regards to my wanting to see the original soundtrack of a film is in the spirit of Pasolini's comments. I want to hear what the director and filmmakers intended me to hear. While three years ago I may have been naive enough to have said that my reason was to hear the actors' original voices, my actual desire is to hear the original sound as imagined by the filmmakers: whether that be post-synchronised or filmed synchronised, and whether the voices are those of the actors on screen or not.

[knives]

Though Rossellini and his hatred of working post makes even that (where I agree with you to an extent)a tough issue at times.

[TMDaines]

Yes, undoubtedly, there may be filmmakers who couldn't give a shit but there's many others who cared deeply.

The crux of my point, however, was that many (European) filmmakers did not see post-synchronisation, or the non-use of the actual actors's voices, as a blemish. In fact, as these comments prove, it was a stylistic intention at times. It's only an issue to us from a background of non-dubbing in Britain and Hollywood.

[tojoed]

Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure that The Conformist played in Italian in the UK from the start

It did. I saw it in, I think, 1971 and it was definitely in Italian. When it was re-released in the 1990s it was also in Italian. In fact, I didn't know it had any other soundtrack until the Paramount DVD.

[Saimo]

There's a history of calling Rosso's films by Italian names - Europe 51 becomes Europa 51, Journey becomes Viaggio

Just a trivia: when "Cahiers du Cinéma" published their 1958 best film list, Viaggio in Italia was referred by its original (English) title, Journey to Italy. That doubled the shock for Italian critics.

By the way...

But calling it Viaggio in Italia is like calling Welle's debut Cittadino Kane.

In Italy Welles' film was retitled Quarto potere (Fourth Power).

[Tommaso]

In the case of a lot of Italian cinema, it seems to be obvious that one cannot speak of any original language. But the question of titles aside (which I personally think is not too important), for me there is still a way to decide which of the various language tracks I'd choose when watching a particular film if there isn't an 'original' language, and that is simply the language of the country in which the film is set. In other words: I simply can't imagine watching "Stromboli" in any other language than Italian, but on the other hand I would always want to watch Visconti's "La caduta degli dei" and "Ludwig" in German.

"Journey to Italy", being set mostly among English-speaking foreigners, is a different case, though.

[MichaelB]

That doesn't work for 'Lisa and the Devil', as it's set in Spain and the only language options are English and Italian.

But in this case there's no doubt that English is the more sensible option.

On the other hand, it's why I'd probably favour Spanish if I had to choose just one language option for Tristana - I'm assuming that's Fernando Rey's own voice, and he has a lot more to say than Catherine Deneuve - and I imagine what he says is much closer to what the source novelist wrote as well.

[Saimo]

In the case of a lot of Italian cinema, it seems to be obvious that one cannot speak of any original language.

When I was doing my research about Vittorio Cottafavi's peplums, I found the original production papers for Le legioni di Cleopatra (Legions of the Nile, 1959), and contractual obligations always referred to an English language version. That said, on the set each actor spoke in his native language, but since we have an Italian director working on ancient Rome, I would say the Italian version is the more sensible choice.

Recently, we had painful troubles with Once Upon a Time in America. It was clearly shot in English, but Leone also supervised an Italian dubbing track, so I would say the Italian version is at least a very interesting variant. When Warner released the Italian DVD (and, later, BD) they entirely redubbed the film with new voices, in order to have a 5.1 Dolby mix. A really bad choice, since Leone's dubbing disappered from home video, and also Italian TVs started broadcasting this new audiotrack. Luckily, in 2012 Cineteca di Bologna has restored Leone's dubbing, and now we have a new disc containing both the English track and the Italian 1984 dubbing.

[manicsounds]

I am against watching a dubbed version of a movie or a TV series, but Herzog's "Fitzcaraldo" and "Aguirre" were both shot with the actors primarily speaking English, but Herzog prefers the German dubbed versions, since he originally wrote the scripts in German, so he had everything in German in mind. But since he also translated the script to English for shooting for convenience sake of the multilanguage cast, both are valid audio tracks. Those are 2 instances of example that I don't mind watching an alternate dubbed version.

[tenia]

Irrelevant to the conversation at large (which I feel Mr.s Hare and Brooke have covered nicely) but I highly doubt most Americans think of those films as French even if they undoubtedly are due to this whole language mess. The image in America of French cinema still seems to be Godard and Truffaut.

I'm not sure the current average American person knows either Godard or Truffaut, just as the average French person knows Spielberg and Cameron but doesn't know John Ford or Howard Hawks.
But indeed it's not the subject of this discussion.

[Tommaso]

I am against watching a dubbed version of a movie or a TV series, but Herzog's "Fitzcaraldo" and "Aguirre" were both shot with the actors primarily speaking English, but Herzog prefers the German dubbed versions, since he originally wrote the scripts in German, so he had everything in German in mind. But since he also translated the script to English for shooting for convenience sake of the multilanguage cast, both are valid audio tracks. Those are 2 instances of example that I don't mind watching an alternate dubbed version.

Were you really able to watch "Fitzcarraldo" in English without breaking into laughter about Kinski's hilarious German accent? Especially as he plays an Irishman in this movie.

[tag gallagher]

I absolutely agree that a film's title being in one language shouldn't lead to an expectation that the film itself is principally in the same language.

As I said previously, there is nothing stopping films (or other works of art) having their title in one language and their text principally in another.

When one is dealing, as often, with considerable differences in editing, running time, etc between one version and another, it is clarity to use the appropriate title. Rossellini's FEAR was shot twice, also in German, ANGST, in direct sound. A key scene occurs in a concert hall where in FEAR a solo pianist is playing and in ANGST La Bohême is going on. And editing is different and shots in FEAR are missing from ANGST. To insist on referring to LA PAURA just adds to the confusion -- in fact it's an Italian dubbing of FEAR and Rossellini hated that work and let others do it, just as he left it to others to make Spanish or Portuguese or who-knows-what dubbings. Point being that any of them is just as legitimate as LA PAURA, but we give priority to LA PAURA on the assumption that Rossellini=Italian, which is false.

In the case of "Germany Year Zero," it was shot in direct sound in German, again Rossellini handed over the Italian dubbing to someone else to do. There is no excuse for a GERMANIA ANNO ZERO except for Italian-speaking audiences, for whom Rossellini would have preferred it. He always wanted things in the language of the audience.

In the case of VIAGGIO IN ITALIA, the Italian-dubbing lacks a sequence in the JOURNEY edition, and it is difficult to believe that a lot of it wasn't shot in direct sound. It is curious that in Italian the word for "acting" is usually recitazione, and me certainly Ingrid Bergman's own voice intoning her extremely melodramatic roles is as important as if she were an opera singer -- replacing her voice with someone else's is a travesty, but Italian audiences clearly feel that, given the choice between dubbing and subtitles, there's no contest. And the same occurs even among American audiences, where dubbed versions spectacularly outperform subtitled ones. One wants that direct contact with the eyes of the character.

In Italy from some point in the 70s till just recently, almost every film was shot with people speaking English, in hopes of the export market, then post-synched in English and in Italian. LA MASQUERA (Infascelli, 1988) was shot this way, and dubbed by the same actors in English. But when it was selected by the New York Film Festival, the Festival insisted on the Italian dubbing with English subtitles, which then had to be produced just for the Festival.

Curiously, Italians have been shooting in direct sound these last few years, and it is symptomatic that no one can tell me why this reformation has come. I've never met an Italian, no matter how sophisticated in cinema, who minded dubbing.

Obviously it's a necessity for European tv -- nobody wants subtitles. Thus frequently each actor simply speaks their own language. In the case of Rossellini's tv movies, in one sense there is no original language because Rossellini's intention was that each language-market would produce their own dubbing. But in another sense, say, with Blaise Pascal, where Pascal and the Jesuit shot in French and everyone else in Italian, one might claim priority for the French edition, given that Pascal never stops talking and he's Pierre Arditi. In the case of Rossellini's AGE OF THE MEDICI, it was shot in English with expectations of PBS , as is clear in the synching with maybe a few minor players as exceptions. But when one online critic reviewed the dvd, he proudly announced that HE had of course watched the original Italian version and scorned that wretched English DUBBING. In fact the Italian dubbing is beautiful, but it doesn't match the lips, which you won't notice however, since you'll be too busy reading all those words.

[TMDaines]

In the case of VIAGGIO IN ITALIA, the Italian-dubbing lacks a sequence in the JOURNEY edition, and it is difficult to believe that a lot of it wasn't shot in direct sound. It is curious that in Italian the word for "acting" is usually recitazione, and me certainly Ingrid Bergman's own voice intoning her extremely melodramatic roles is as important as if she were an opera singer -- replacing her voice with someone else's is a travesty, but Italian audiences clearly feel that, given the choice between dubbing and subtitles, there's no contest. And the same occurs even among American audiences, where dubbed versions spectacularly outperform subtitled ones. One wants that direct contact with the eyes of the character.

The thing is Tag - and I'm not making a point specifically about Rossellini or anyone else - but it isn't just Italian audiences who feel that way but Italian filmmakers. Nearly all of them during the 40s-80s quite clearly couldn't have cared less about the necessity of dubbing an actor as they were more than happy to cast internationally, regardless of whether an actor spoke Italian or the language of the production. And as the Pasolini interview extracts that I highlighted show, at times dubbing was an artistic choice. I think too many of us English language speakers are far too quick to dismiss the dubbing of an actor as sloppy practice rather than a standard part of filmmaking. As sound was largely post-synchronised it didn't really matter whether an actor was to be dubbed by another or not. For us, yes it matters, where we expect to hear the voice of the actor on-screen in our cinema, but for them? Nope.