the first 15 minutes was cool but it got old after awhile. Why didn't they just use subtitles?
Probably because the people who made the film reckoned the audience would be too dumb to read them and/or would be put off going to see it. Think of all the foreign films that have ended up being dubbed for the American market.
shareBecause there are no subtitles in real life.
To me, you are perfect.
yeah but in real life u don't have to repeat everything someone says to you.
But not everybody who watches the movie knows sign language. Plus a lot of the signs are local variants instead of what some people may know.
To me, you are perfect.
They also didn't show the signs throughout the whole movie. They would have had to do wider shots.
shareAlso, it's a lot more realistic this way. If you've ever tried to learn a language that's not your native tongue, then you know how difficult it is to understand it, no matter how fluent you may be. I've been studying spanish for about 7 years, and I still have to repeat what others say to me, just to make sure I understand what they're saying. Plus the subtitles would have been so distracting, the sign language is so powerful, you're supposed to not be able to readily understand her. Having James translate and repeat really gives you the impression of how dependent a deaf person can be on someone who is hearing and why that might make them so angry.
shareHere is an another aspect of the repetition..
Firstly:
It is said in the film that James is repeating all the signs for himself so it should not be a question for those who have seen the whole film..
Also: I live in Finland where every foreign film is subtitled (thank God!). It is so annoying when American films comes with their own subtitles. Then you either must put the subtitles on a black background so they wouldn't mix or put the titles somewhere else than at the lower part of the screen. It only looks stupid..
so it was a very smart choise to not to subtitle the signs.
Also: Because it is not an easy task to translate different language well. There are some little things that people just understand differently. Like: If I say that "I am going to sleep" or "I will go to sleep". Does they mean the same? Probably, but still different people can understand them differently..
So now we all know that the part where James is repeating Sarah's signs it is clearly not exactly what she is saying but more of James' understanding of what she is saying.
Another smart choise.
This edit is done now later that I also learned something new..
The movie Children of a Less God is actually a movie version what is originally a stage play. In stage using subtitles would be almost impossible or at least impractical. I know that some operas come with subtitles, but it's quite difficult to see the text while watching the stage production (as the subtitles are usually located somewhere outside the stage). So while it is not really a reason not to use subtitles, I can understand why they were not used in the movie. Along with what I had already answered.
[deleted]
Great point Susan. Hey you, up there complaining about sign language.
Stop being so lazy that you need subtitles. If he doesn't repeat what she signs
you'd have no clue what is going on. Geez, some people.
I think more annoying than William Hurt translating everything she said was having Marlee Matlin's voice dubbed in "Sweet Nothing in my Ears". That was just plain bad! I didn't mind William Hurt translating though. I bet if they would've used subtitles everyone would be complaining that it gave them a headache because they had to read too much. In the end, no one's happy unless they knew the language. I'm a spanish speaking person who's trying to learn ASL and I think it was good that William Hurt's character translated everything she said, so I can turn down the volume and try to understand what she signs
shareI suspect that the greatest reason for them not using subtitles is this is originally a stage play. Subtitles are not close to being an option for this, so when it was transferred to a screenplay, it was adapted based on not using them before.
And I do agree that the time spent reading subtitles would have detracted from being able to read the facial expressions and other, non-verbal aspects of their communication.
yeah, i agree - i did find it a bit annoying after a while when he kept repeating what she was signing...however i think with the subtitles it would have ruined it a bit, i find sign language very interesting and watching her emotions come through her signing was very inspiring...great film!!
i didn't find it annoying, but then again, i love william hurt's voice.
shareI would have to agree. It did get kind of annoying after a while. Honestly, I was disappointed with the way the movie was presented. Why did James have to repeat everything Sarah signed out loud? The movie was a walking contradiction, because it aimed to show us the world of the Deaf, but did it really? I don't think so. The whole movie was shown from the perspective of James, a hearing person. I understand that the movie was made for the hearing audience in general, but couldn't there have been at least a few scenes when there was no sound? Then maybe we could get a better feel of how Deaf people REALLY live. They could have put subtitles for Sarah's signs. Then we could have taken a walk in Deaf people's shoes. They could understand the dialogue without reading the subtitles. It would be OUR turn to read need to read the subtitles.
shareI agree with what you say, but it might have been too risky in a mainstream movie. And there's also an important dramatic, narrative reason why he does it throughout the film until the end: he's "translating" their conversation into hearing language, but finally they have to find a space which is neither speech nor silence: then he stops translating, and they use signs alone. The sign they both use is the one for "I love you", which by now the audience recognizes and which is fairly transparent in any case.
Another point which I found interesting (I'm a linguist) is Hurt's use of deixis, i.e. the personal pronouns; he uses the first person to refer to himself, the second person to refer to Sarah. In other words, he makes it about himself, not her. This is not what sign language interpreters do; if you watch Joey Lucas's (Mattlin's) interpreter (Kenny) on The West Wing, you'll see that he speaks for her, he represents her, he acts as her voice. So "I" means Joey, "you" means Josh; the interpreter himself is invisible. This is sometimes confusing for the other characters, especially Josh, but they get used to it.
A minor question: Does anyone know -- did William Hurt learn sign language for this movie, or did he know it before? And if so, how come?
By the way, jutuomin, I live in Finland too.
In William Hurt's bio on this site it said that he lived with Matlin for some time in the 80's. I'm sure that during this time he learned some ASL but I'm not sure how much he learned or how fluent he became. I'll ask around and see what I can find.
share[deleted]
This is off topic a bit but the repeating everything didn't bother me... what bothered me was that the signing wasn't done in true asl it was done in more of an SEE format SEE Signed Exact English When singing in asl it is not done word for word. ASL has its own grammer and syntex.
sharewhen they are dancing he says he likes to hear himself talk
I think if it had been made today they would have used subtitles (wished they did too). I like to think people are a tad more savvy now when it comes to them compared to in the 80's (I know I am).
share Subtitles turn too many people off, so Hollywood is afraid of them.
I thought the vehicle of having William Hurt speak it out loud worked just fine. Was it "realistic?" Probably not. But the character says, "I'm rusty on my signing, and speaking it out loud helps me to concentrate on the signing." That seems plausible enough for me to accept it for a two-hour movie.
It didn't take away from my enjoyment of one of my favorite films.