Subtitles

[sippog]

I don't know if anyone shares this peeve but my particular bête noire lately has been the quality of subtitles in some of the films I've been watching.

Why do they stick them over the bottom of high contrast images so you can barely read them? Why do the Americans insist on making them a glaring bright yellow? It doesn't so much matter when the film is in colour but it's very distracting with old black and white films.

And finally: why don't they rely on the normal subtitles for the deaf when they show old films on tv in the middle of the night? I've just had to erase yet another recording because of some woman gesticulating and mugging in the corner of the screen. Surely there cant be that many illiterate, insomniac deaf people out there that they need to do this? Can someone explain?

[Dame Starry]

Originally Posted by sippog I don't know if anyone shares this peeve but my particular bête noire lately has been the quality of subtitles in some of the films I've been watching. Why do they stick them over the bottom of high contrast images so you can barely read them? Why do the Americans insist on making them a glaring bright yellow? It doesn't so much matter when the film is in colour but it's very distracting with old black and white films. And finally: why don't they rely on the normal subtitles for the deaf when they show old films on tv in the middle of the night? I've just had to erase yet another recording because of some woman gesticulating and mugging in the corner of the screen. Surely there cant be that many illiterate, insomniac deaf people out there that they need to do this? Can someone explain?

I suffer with severe tinnitus and am also losing my general hearing abilities. Thankfully, I am lucky and I can manage with subtitles.

I've seen repeated TV programmes with sign language - but what channel shows the films with them?
Why don't you just contact the TV channel and make a complaint and they can then give you their viewing figures.

YDSL x.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by sippog I don't know if anyone shares this peeve but my particular bête noire lately has been the quality of subtitles in some of the films I've been watching. Why do they stick them over the bottom of high contrast images so you can barely read them? Why do the Americans insist on making them a glaring bright yellow? It doesn't so much matter when the film is in colour but it's very distracting with old black and white films. And finally: why don't they rely on the normal subtitles for the deaf when they show old films on tv in the middle of the night? I've just had to erase yet another recording because of some woman gesticulating and mugging in the corner of the screen. Surely there cant be that many illiterate, insomniac deaf people out there that they need to do this? Can someone explain?

First, show a bit of sympathy for the deaf and those with hearing problems. How would you like it? They aren't necessarily illiterate but sign language can include nuances that the written language can't, like shouting or laughter and can point to the emphasis on different words. Sign language is a complete language, it isn't just a way of representing words. And oddly enough, many of the deaf and hard of hearing do have VCRs or DVD recorderd so they can record those late night broadcasts and play them back later.

For myself, I never find a signer particularly intrusive.

But subtitles themselves can be done well or they can be done badly. When they are done well they are done in a font with an outline around each letter so that no matter what is on the screen behind it, they are still readable. And when there is something important at the bottom of the screen they are moved to the top of the screen. But that takes time, and some skill to do and so is more expensive.

When they are done badly they are not only hard to read because of the lack of contrast to the background but they are also allowed to obscure important things in the film behind them.

The other thing that can be done badly is when they give away the punch-line. When there is a complete sentence shown on screen long before the speaker has finished saying it and when the speaker delivers it with a dramatic, or comedic, pause.

The best ones I ever saw were at the San Sebastian film festival. Every film there that wasn't in Spanish (i.e. the vast majority of them) has subtitles projected onto the screen. They were carefully positioned so that they didn't obscure anything important on screen, even when the film had subtitles of its own. And the timing was perfect, never giving a punch line too early. But they were computer controlled so someone must have watched each film to set up the proper timing, and they were monitored to make sure that they remained in sync even if the projector broke down.


The other thing you can complain about, or laugh at, with subtitles, is when they make mistakes. This happens most often with real names, people and places, when the subtitler doesn't know the names being used.

My particular favourite is on the Criterion (and other) DVD of Black Narcissus. Sister Clodagh (Deborah Kerr) is explaining her history to Mr Dean (David Farrar), how she grew up in a small village in Ireland.

She says it was "a small place called Enniskelly". That's all quite reasonable, an Irish sounding name for an Irish village. (c.f. Enniskerrig, Co. Wicklow or Enniskillen, Fermanagh)

But the subtitler mis-heard it and the 'd' from "called" seems to have lingered into the name of the village. So the subtitles read "a small place called Dennis Kelly"

Steve

[Dame Starry]

Thanks, Steve.

YDSL x.

[sippog]

Yes, of course, I take the point about deaf people having recorders - I just gave in to the temptation to use alliteration in my comment.

I also didn't mean to sound curmudgeonly about allowing deaf people their due. It's perfectly reasonable to repeat shows late at night with signing. The only situation in which it becomes frustrating is when some rare film is shown in the wee small hours - and not at any other time - and then turns out to be signed. It's got so that I don't bother recording anything after 1 am.

What I really hoped was that somebody would know how to turn off the signers in the same way you can turn off subtitles when you don't need them. I swear I managed that trick once by pressing some button on my remote but I've never been able to repeat it.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by sippog Yes, of course, I take the point about deaf people having recorders - I just gave in to the temptation to use alliteration in my comment. I also didn't mean to sound curmudgeonly about allowing deaf people their due. It's perfectly reasonable to repeat shows late at night with signing. The only situation in which it becomes frustrating is when some rare film is shown in the wee small hours - and not at any other time - and then turns out to be signed. It's got so that I don't bother recording anything after 1 am. What I really hoped was that somebody would know how to turn off the signers in the same way you can turn off subtitles when you don't need them. I swear I managed that trick once by pressing some button on my remote but I've never been able to repeat it.

No, you can't turn off the signers. They are part of the main broadcast signal, not an addition to the signal like subtitles. They are usually just broadcast in a special slot where the films, documentaries and various other programmes are all signed. They are indicated as such in the Radio Times and I would hope they are similarly indicated in other listings.

The main time when you'll see these is in the programme area called Sign Zone and it's usually on BBC1 from about 02:05 - 03:45 on Friday night / Saturday morning.

So if you don't like signers, don't record any films broadcast at about that time on the BBC, or check the listings first in a listing that shows when signing will be used.

Steve

[FilmBuffuk]

I'm afraid I am in agreement about the use of "signing". I have had several occasions where I've recorded a rare film, only to find someone gesticulating wildly in the corner. Whatever one feels about rights and wrongs, as well as wanting those who are hard of hearing, to be able to enjoy the film, this does detract from the complete experience of watching the film. I have had to erase the films I recorded and now don't bother recording anything off of Channel 4, shown early in the morning.

What I should like is a compromise. With teletext, as well as digital TV, I feel certain that subtitles or signing can be incorporated for those that wish it, or not for those that don't. Aside from that, perhaps two screenings: one with and one without signs. We have plenty of repeats of the dreaded soaps and just about everything else. Why not some quality films as well or instead? That way, everyone is happy...... aren't they?

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by FilmBuffuk I'm afraid I am in agreement about the use of "signing". I have had several occasions where I've recorded a rare film, only to find someone gesticulating wildly in the corner. Whatever one feels about rights and wrongs, as well as wanting those who are hard of hearing, to be able to enjoy the film, this does detract from the complete experience of watching the film. I have had to erase the films I recorded and now don't bother recording anything off of Channel 4, shown early in the morning. What I should like is a compromise. With teletext, as well as digital TV, I feel certain that subtitles or signing can be incorporated for those that wish it, or not for those that don't. Aside from that, perhaps two screenings: one with and one without signs. We have plenty of repeats of the dreaded soaps and just about everything else. Why not some quality films as well or instead? That way, everyone is happy...... aren't they?

There is already a way to keep everybody happy - read the listings. They will tell you when a film, or other programme is signed. It doesn't happen very often that a film is shown with signing when it hasn't already been shown without signing.

Steve

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook There is already a way to keep everybody happy - read the listings. They will tell you when a film, or other programme is signed. It doesn't happen very often that a film is shown with signing when it hasn't already been shown without signing. Steve

That is quite right, programmes that are shown at very late hours with signing are repeats of programmes that have already bean broadcast in the normal way without signing so those who are irritated by " the mugging and wildly gesticulating people for the illiterate etc" as has so tactfully been described, should simply read the Tv listings!....the programmes are specifically broadcast at a late hour and are specifically aimed at the deaf so my advice to those who find it irritating is don't watch them and don't record them and don't complain about it!

[Marky B]

My dad is profoundly deaf,and whenever he is watching television or a DVD,the subtitles are always on,and I must admit,despite being an able listener,I often find them a help. Many films over the years,I have lost a trace of the plot due to mishearing lines etc,but since watching them on DVD,I have picked up the plot and have understood the film a lot better.
One complaint though about subtitles,whilst watching The Bourne Ultimatum in the cinemas,the opening scenes where JB was in Moscow,and the subtitles came up to transalate the Russian exchange,and they wrere way too big.
Ta Ta
MArky B

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Marky B One complaint though about subtitles,whilst watching The Bourne Ultimatum in the cinemas,the opening scenes where JB was in Moscow,and the subtitles came up to transalate the Russian exchange,and they wrere way too big. Ta Ta MArky B

As I said above, subtitles should never be intrusive and they should always be clear. But they can be done badly, as in this example.

One of the (many) things I like about Powell & Pressburger films, or even Powell's films without Pressburger, is that they treat the audience intelligently. Quite a few of them include passages spoken in other languages - but they never used subtitles. Even where they had a few minutes of dialogue in another language they assumed that even if the audience didn't speak the language they would be able to understand what was going on by the context, before and after the non-English part, and by the way the characters themselves acted and reacted.

And it works. I have hardly ever heard anyone complain about that aspect of their films.

It was only ever for a small part of the story, never for a major plot point that you have to understand exactly. But where characters would normally speak French, Dutch, Welsh, German or any other language then they let them speak those languages.

Steve

[Steve Crook]

I know you people who hate signing will find this hard to believe, but I recorded something last night that I had missed the first time around. I watched it as I was having my breakfast and it wasn't until it was about 20 minutes in that I realised that it was signed

And it wasn't even the "person waving their hands around" that made me notice, it was that the programme was in a smaller frame - the signer stood outside the frame so that you could see very nearly all of the programme as originally broadcast. They very occasionally obscured a tiny bit in the bottom right hand corner of this frame, but that was all.

I was watching the programme and I wasn't at all distracted by the signer in the same way that I wasn't distracted by the radio that was on in another room or the traffic that was driving past outside. I was just watching the part I wanted to watch

Steve

[aphra]

I seem to remember in the very early days of TNT (predating TCM) which I received via satellite, when a foreign language film was shown one had the choice of about three languages in which to receive sub-titles. If the film was in English, then you chose not to have French, Spanish, Swedish or whatever titles, and just watched the film pure and simple. If Sky could do it then, why cannot it be done today by our five main broadcast companies. Surely we are in the digital age?

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by aphra I seem to remember in the very early days of TNT (predating TCM) which I received via satellite, when a foreign language film was shown one had the choice of about three languages in which to receive sub-titles. If the film was in English, then you chose not to have French, Spanish, Swedish or whatever titles, and just watched the film pure and simple. If Sky could do it then, why cannot it be done today by our five main broadcast companies. Surely we are in the digital age?

They have the technology. They just don't have (or aren't willing to pay) anyone to create the subtitles in the different languages

Steve

[ted]

I found this discussion fascinating. You Brits do have your problems, don't you? Here in Canada I've never seen a signed film although signing does show up in some TV news programmes.