Art of the Title Interview

Here is the irony. I notice someone saying "I just want to know what happened, I don't want to have to watch it."
The mindset here is that the experience of watching is merely the means to acquire the information on what happened.
In a good film, (not most TV), it is the other way around. The "what happens", the story, is the vehicle the filmmaker uses to craft an experience. It is the viewing experience which is the treasure, whereas that is the thing being discarded by a story-focused viewer.

However, many shows cater to the interest of the story-focused viewer, making their filmmaking disposable. So there is nothing special to be derived from the experience of watching, which perpetuates the attitude.

I've been horrified to discover that many DVDs now contain audio tracks that describe the film for the sight-impaired. I am very sorry, but that is absurd. I am reminded of an incident when Jeremy Irons complained that his live reading performance was accompanied by a sign language interpreter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/irons-shows-hearing-impaired-signs-anger-article-1.724088

What do you think of podcasts and radio, Peter? Do you think the imaginative experiences those provide are necessarily less rich than visual media?

I love a good podcast or radio play. I greatly enjoyed this recent one on BBC4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b095t0r2

It conveys a situation and the internal workings of vivid characters without relying on exposition. You get everything through subtext, innuendo and interpretation.

The point is not that an audio track description of a film is worthless because it is text based. It is that a good film is one which has been carefully crafted to be an experience of visual perception. The sensation of sight is comprised of many specific skills one acquires to derive meaning.

A good radio play has been crafted to trigger our brain's capacity to derive meaning through auditory cues. Not just the words, but the pauses, inflections, changes in volume, tonal shifts that make up a good performance.

Let me know if there is something that is still not clear. The question is odd. A painting needs to be seen. A symphony needs to be heard. A verbal description of either is not a substitute for the experience.

Catch it soon, only 9 days left to listen.

I get that. You seemed close to saying that audio storytelling is more information-based and so less valuable or rich but I can see now you weren't saying that. (Good!)

And thanks for the link!

What are your thoughts on foreign language dub tracks?

It depends.

Philip, what are your thoughts on foreign language dub tracks?

I think watching dubs makes for a completely different (and sometimes better!) movie for me, but therefore I'd also assign a bit more credibility to the thoughts of a blind movie reviewer over one who has seen a dub (or is watching with translated subtitles because he isn't a native speaker).

For animated films I usually prefer dubs. Hardline sub people who think you need the most "authentic" experience are silly, for several reasons.

1) It's not an "authentic experience", you're reading text at the bottom of the screen and taking your eyes away from the rest of the visual information. In some movies this is worse than in others.

2) It relies on a belief that the creator(s) always do a good job with voice casting and directing. This often isn't the case. I don't need to hear bad Japanese voice acting while missing 60% of the animation to get a good experience from the work.

It's especially funny when people take this stance with video games, which usually have awful voice acting anyway as well as awful stories.

I think it really does depend on the film. I'd rather watch Bloodlust in English than in Japanese, but something like The Tale Of Princess Kaguya would be jarring to watch in English.

Having said that, I really don't care for most redubbing of films, and usually avoid dubs. I've been watching subtitled movies since I could read; I don't find subs distracting or overly-mediating. I can see why someone else might experience subtitles as visual pollution, but to me it's just a natural part of watching foreign films.

And live-action movies are almost always much better subbed than dubbed. I can't think of one that was improved by being redubbed in another language, except maybe for comedy purposes.

With subtitles, I very much feel I'm at the mercy of the translator. The English subtitles for Okja, for example, has a few deliberately mistranslated passages, perhaps to drive home that point.

Finally got around to reading this thing, very interesting. Thanks for doing this interview, Peter.