![]()
Chapter 1
Introduction
The end of a long divorce
1.1 The divorce
More than 120 years after it was born, film has evolved immensely, turning into one of the leading artistic modes of our times. Over this period, film has borrowed from, and in some cases even claimed ownership over, different areas that are now essential in the production of films, such as photography, design, animation, technology, etc. Translation and accessibility are exceptions to this rule. In an increasingly diverse and multilingual world, translating films and making them accessible for audiences with sensory impairments is an essential requirement, yet film translation is much less visible now than when it was first used at the beginning of the 20th century. Back then, even before sound was introduced in cinema, when the intertitles used in silent film had to be translated, translation was included within the post-production stage and it was thus part of the filmmaking process (Izard, 2001, p. 190). The production of the first talkies brought about the first unsuccessful attempts at dubbing and subtitling and, subsequently, a new solution: the so-called “multiple-language versions” (Vincendeau, 1988), also known as “multilinguals” or “foreign language versions” (Ďurovičová, 1992). Films were made and remade in 2 or 3 languages by the same director and sometimes in up to 14 languages with a different director for each language version. The cast could remain the same or change depending on the film and the number of versions to be produced (Vincendeau, 1999, pp. 208–209). Translation was then at the very core of the production process. However, once dubbing and subtitling techniques improved, studios opted for these modes, which would reduce the cost of their translations to some 10% of the film budget. Increasingly outsourced and unsupervised by filmmakers, translations lost their status as part of the filmmaking process and became part of the distribution process, as is the case now. The divorce between film and translation/accessibility was consummated, and it is now visible in training, research and professional practice.
Indeed, most film courses, whether offered at universities or at film schools, ignore film translation, just as most audiovisual translation (AVT) courses do not include training on filmmaking (Romero-Fresco, 2019). Similarly, film studies is now an established area of research that looks at the narrative, artistic, cultural, economic and political implications of film, while building bridges with media, cultural, television or gender studies. However, in over 100 years of life, the discipline has not yet explored in detail what happens when films are translated and made accessible or analysed the experience of foreign or sensory-impaired viewers.1 But nowhere is this divorce more evident than in the professional practice, where translation and accessibility have become an afterthought in the filmmaking process. Unlike other important elements in film, translation and accessibility are not supervised or controlled by the filmmaker or the creative team, which means that foreign, deaf and blind audiences are simply not considered in this process.
The numbers tell a sad story. As can be seen in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, more than half of the revenue obtained by the top-grossing and Best Picture Oscar-winning films from the beginning of the 21st century come from foreign markets.
Leaving out those English-speaking countries where these films are shown in their original versions (Australia, UK, etc.), the dubbed and subtitled versions provide an average of 45% of a film’s total revenue, to which one would need to add the accessible versions screened for deaf and blind audiences both in the US and abroad. In other words, translation and accessibility account for almost half of the revenue obtained by these films. However, only around 0.1% of their budgets are devoted to translation and accessibility (Lambourne, 2012). Although from a financial point of view this seems like a very profitable business, there are both economic and artistic reasons to call for an urgent and much-needed change.
Table 1.1 Domestic and overseas revenue as percentage of total gross for top-grossing films (2001–2017); percentage of total revenue generated by dubbed or subtitled prints. Film | Foreign gross | Domestic gross | Total revenue dubbed/subtitled |
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) | 67.4% | 32.6% | 56.4% |
Spider-Man (2002) | 50.9% | 49.1% | 43% |
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) | 66.3% | 33.7% | 53.1% |
Shrek 2 (2004) | 52% | 48% | 38% |
Star Wars: Episode III (2005) | 55.2% | 44.8% | 43.2% |
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006) | 60.3% | 39.7% | 48.2% |
Spider-Man 3 (2007) | 62.2% | 37.8% | 52.2% |
The Dark Knight (2008) | 56.8% | 63.2% | 33.7% |
Avatar (2009) | 72.7% | 27.3% | 63.5% |
Toy Story 3 (2010) | 61% | 39% | 46.3% |
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) | 71.3% | 28.7% | 58.8% |
The Avengers (2012) | 59% | 41% | 49.8% |
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) | 50.9% | 49.1% | 40.3% |
American Sniper (2014) | 36% | 64% | 29.4% |
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) | 54.7% | 45.3% | 43.4% |
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) | 49.6% | 51.4% | 38.2% |
Beauty and the Beast (2017) | 61.1% | 38.9% | 49.8% |
Average | 58.1% | 41.9% | 46.31% |
Table 1.2 Domestic and overseas revenue as percentage of total gross for Best Picture Oscar winners (2000–2017); percentage of total revenue generated by dubbed or subtitled prints. Film | Foreign gross | Domestic gross | Total revenue dubbed/subtitled |
A Beautiful Mind (2001) | 45.5% | 54.5% | 38.2% |
Chicago (2002) | 44.4% | 55.6% | 32% |
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) | 67.3% | 32.7% | 53.1% |
Million Dollar Baby (2004) | 53.6% | 46.4% | 46% |
Crash (2005) | 44.5% | 55.5% | 31.6% |
The Dep... |
