Comment, Comics and the Contrary.
The little Culture
that I have to offer is a reflection on non-English language cinema. Discussing the film Princess Mononoke
, it was agreed that subtitles are part of the plus points of these films. Not simply, or hopefully at all, for the snob value*. Nor simply, though this cannot be discounted, because it prevents me from having to listen to bad voice acting. Or, at least, bad voice acting that I find comprehensible. Nor, further, is subtitling preferable because dialogue that might be perfectly workable in Japanese, in Russian or in French cinema appears to be particularly artless scripting when translated into English. No, the subtitling of a film is a plus point because it forces creative and imaginative engagement. It cannot rescue the film from its unrelenting, unreflective pace – a book, by contrast, can be consumed at the pace set by the imagination of the reader – but subtitles do demand that the viewer follow every line of dialogue, using their imagination to give the lines a life that mirror the emotional expression of the otherwise unintelligible actors. When watching a subtitled film we are forced to give them a far greater space within our inner worlds then that demanded by a film in our native language.
*That said, I was astounded when buying a ticket to watch Night Watch
in the cinema the teller leaned across and warned me that it was ‘in foreign’. When I laughed, she told me that people had asked for their money back. It cannot have been a bad as when I went to see Dogville
; more than half the admittedly small audience got up and left as soon as they realised, I presume, that this was not ‘a Nicole Kidman’ movie.
, I am a new writer over at The Sharpener
. I do, though, have two problems; I have not yet decided when to publish my first post, nor have I decided what subject/s to discuss. Suggestions that answer my latter problem are welcome. I have also agreed to write the occasional post over at The Fluffy Economist
; watch that space for more of me.
And so finally to Sport
, and it can only be England’s twenty three
. Fantastic! And I mean that. For my money, Eriksson has made the correct response to the loss of Rooney and has signalled that he will change the system to allow our two remaining world-class players, Gerrard and Lampard, as the main attacking force supporting a lone striker. All the controversy has been centred on Walcott, but taking a twenty-third player of, apparently, considerable talent, for the experience is perfectly laudable. Admirable, even, given that the ‘resigning’ Eriksson will not reap the rewards of this decision. As for Lennon, well, surely he had to be the choice over the bench-bound Shaun Wright-Phillips. And no-one is mentioning Downing, a brave pick who offers to play the role of dangerous ball-player on the left complementary to that Beckham plays on the right. With both of those pinging them off the head of Crouch, knocking the ball down to Gerrard and Lampard (and Cole) surging forwards we might have a system that accommodates the payers that England do have available, not the players that England wish that they had.