Do you get a better sense of the filmmaker's true intentions with the actors' voices dubbed for foreign audiences or with subtitles?

By Praneet Dabral

Which is better for watching a foreign film: subtitles or dubbing? Well, the answer depends on the person to whom you are addressing the question. If it's someone educated, then most probably he will choose subtitles; if he's someone who can't read, then definitely he will prefer dubbing.

I was born and brought up in India where the literacy rate has thankfully jumped to 74 per cent. Close to 1.2 billion people reside in India, and I am sure as I am writing this article the figures are increasing. Millions of people in my country are illiterate, more than the population of many countries. These people would definitely prefer watching dubbed films.

Films are an internal part of everyone's lives. Trust me, if you are living in a rural village in India, you definitely want to be entertained. These people don't care whether they are watching Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt or Al Pacino because they can’t recognize them. If I wanted my film to appeal to them, I would definitely dub it. Poor Indian audiences from rural India maybe don't recognize these superstars, but they are definitely appreciative. It wouldn’t be fair to the movie makers or the audiences if these people didn't get a chance to watch the amazing movies these actors have worked in.

The best advantage of dubbing is that the audience can connect with the actors and the movie. There are more than 100 different regional languages in my country, and it would be hilarious to watch foreign actors speaking our languages, but I am sure it would work. Dubbing sometimes may be over the top and even funny in a not so funny situation, but as long as audiences are thronging to the theaters, no one cares.

Film is one of the best media to reduce cultural differences and introduce audiences to new cultures. I am a literate individual. I know what’s going on around the world. I don't need to watch a movie to understand world cultures. I can read about them, but illiterate people can't. Movies are their only source of information, and they don't care about sloppy acting or equally sloppy dubbing. What they care about is a good movie, the good guy rising against all odds and winning in the end. Even if he has badly acted his way to glory, they will still appreciate it because he wins. That gives them a sense of hope. Dubbing, I feel, is the only way to go about it.

Now personally I feel that subtitles are better because I can read. With a little pride I must say I read very fast. I know exactly what the actor is feeling when he is delivering the dialogue, which wouldn't be the case with dubbing. Dubbing can mar a brilliant scene. A bad dubbing artist can make Al Pacino in The Godfather look like a bad actor, which would be a crime.

Another advantage of subtitles is that are you are able to understand a movie in a much better way than by listening. Even if I knew Chinese, sometimes I wouln't be able to follow what the actor is saying because I don't speak Chinese on a regular basis. Subtitles come to the rescue here. I watched a brilliant Chinese movie called The Road Home and was blown over by the performance of Zhang Ziyi. I thanked God that I hadn’t seen a dubbed version because if the voice of the dubbing artist hadn’t matched with Ziyi's personality, then I wouldn't have been appreciative of her performance.

Show the same movie to some person in a village and he won't appreciate it because he won't understand it. Throw in subtitles and bingo, you have a winner. Maybe he won't say that Ziyi acted well, but he will definitely say that the movie was brilliant. Next time he sees Ziyi on a poster he will watch her movie because he will recognize her by face if not by name.

Both forms have their advantages and disadvantages. The answer to the debate dubbing vs subtitling, well I will go with subtitling, but I know quite a few who would prefer dubbing. It depends whom you are asking.