subbing vs. dubbing
Martin Cassidy Ogando Debate and Polemic
Subbing versus dubbing, a debate that has been discussed in the film and television industry for decades.
For years and years now both professionals and aficionados have argued about this topic, both sides of the debate having valid reasons which back their opinion. From film critics to colour artists, it seems that everybody has a say on the subject. Personally I have had a lot of experience when it comes to this debate, as I grew up in Spain watching American productions dubbed into my native tongue sometimes even into my local dialect, Galician.
Over the last six years my interest in international cinema has broadened and I have witnessed my fair share of both dubbed and subtitled content. There are many factors which contribute to a film or television programme, the quality of direction, the actors performance, the sound design, the visual effects, the colour grading or the seamless editing these are just some of the many attributes that make a production great.
So how do you choose which of these is more important than the next? Why should actor performance have to be sacrificed for visual effects or vice versa? The truth is everybody complains about this matter. Those who support dubbing complain about having to read through out the film when they believe they should be focusing their attention on the beauty of the composition, the on screen action or the visual effects whilst supporters of subtitling argue that by extracting the voice of the original actors you take away a key part of their performance, the tones of their voice which express their characters emotions are changed, normally replaced by unenthusiastic voice dubbing actors.
So what is the solution? how can you take in the all round audiovisual experience without losing character representation nor spending the entire film reading? The key is in doing it properly, investing in quality actors who are directed when recording the dubbing
Subbing versus dubbing, a debate that has been discussed in the film and television industry for decades.
For years and years now both professionals and aficionados have argued about this topic, both sides of the debate having valid reasons which back their opinion. From film critics to colour artists, it seems that everybody has a say on the subject. Personally I have had a lot of experience when it comes to this debate, as I grew up in Spain watching American productions dubbed into my native tongue sometimes even into my local dialect, Galician.
Over the last six years my interest in international cinema has broadened and I have witnessed my fair share of both dubbed and subtitled content. There are many factors which contribute to a film or television programme, the quality of direction, the actors performance, the sound design, the visual effects, the colour grading or the seamless editing these are just some of the many attributes that make a production great.
So how do you choose which of these is more important than the next? Why should actor performance have to be sacrificed for visual effects or vice versa? The truth is everybody complains about this matter. Those who support dubbing complain about having to read through out the film when they believe they should be focusing their attention on the beauty of the composition, the on screen action or the visual effects whilst supporters of subtitling argue that by extracting the voice of the original actors you take away a key part of their performance, the tones of their voice which express their characters emotions are changed, normally replaced by unenthusiastic voice dubbing actors.
So what is the solution? how can you take in the all round audiovisual experience without losing character representation nor spending the entire film reading? The key is in doing it properly, investing in quality actors who are directed when recording the dubbing