The Beginnings of a New Model for Subtitling Practice

The question of whether there should be a new form of guidelines for aesthetic subtitling is a tricky one. On the one hand, developing yet another set of prescriptive norms robs the concept of aesthetic subtitling of its very creativity and flexibility (McClarty, 2012). It could be counterproductive, or worse, hypocritical. Yet one of our defining features of aesthetic subtitles is that they have a certain level of restraint in order to avoid “upstaging” the film, and more importantly to remain actually usable

for the audience. The audience may be more able than previously assumed (Szarkowska & Gerber-Morón, 2018), but the human brain still has its limits. Besides, viewers will generally watch a film for entertainment or as a pastime, rather than for an intellectual challenge. There is also something to be said for maintaining and guaranteeing a level of quality. As a professional subtitler once noted that there is a difference between producing subtitles and producing good subtitles (Viennot, 2018).

Maintaining some principles would help distinguish (and justify) the work of a professional over that of an amateur.

Fox suggests that, rather than getting rid of the old standards entirely, they should be adapted and extended (2013). They still have some value, but should not be seen as set in stone, incapable of evolving. She suggests a new set of “modular guidelines”

(fig. 10) for the aesthetic subtitling process (Fox, 2013, p. 27). It is a slightly longer, more reflective method, with several steps dedicated to the analysis of the source text and the needs of the target audience. The built-in opportunity for reflection is the point at which an aesthetic subtitler can look “sideways” to related disciplines and apply the appropriate knowledge to their analysis and process.

According to Fox’s guidelines, the translation of the dialogue is always the first step, and the design phase is always the last. She does not go into detail about the translation step, presumably because it is fairly self-explanatory and not related directly to design.

But it is important that translation comes first, as it produces the raw subtitles that can then be designed to become aesthetic. The final step, placement and design, is also quite self-explanatory — it is the point at which the aesthetic subtitler actually implements their decisions regarding the design of the subtitles and where they appear on screen. The steps in between are related to the analysis of the source text

Translation

Scene Complexity Scene Situation Design Criteria Target Audience

Placement and Design

Figure 10

and the target audience and what the aesthetic subtitles are intended to do. Scene complexity involves analysing the whole scene and how it develops — for example, the number of speakers on screen, camera movement, editing, focus points and contrast. The scene situation, however, is a more general description of what is happening (for example, if the speech is a monologue or a dialogue) and how speakers and on-screen text are arranged within the frame. These two types of analysis are very similar, as Fox herself admits. That does then raise the question of whether there is a better way to divide the two or if it is worth making the distinction at all. In the modular guidelines, the aesthetic subtitler must also come up with criteria for how they want the final design to contribute to the film and cater to a target audience. This could be where the aesthetic subtitler could consider the usefulness of current norms and, if they see fit, select the ones to keep.

Overall, Fox’s modular guidelines are very conducive to producing aesthetic subtitles, especially if we consider that much of its definition already implies a more analytical process. If aesthetic subtitles are to be coherent with the design of the film, it is imperative that the subtitler takes time to understand the film and its design. If aesthetic subtitles are to remain user-friendly and enhance a film for an audience, the subtitler must take time to consider what the needs of that audience are. And if design is contingent on these factors, it makes no sense to start designing the subtitles before this analysis has taken place. There is a very defendable logic behind the steps that she suggests. It also aligns with the need to come up with unique criteria for the subtitles that are dependent on the film, rather than an inflexible approach that does not consider the individuality of the film or the ultimate purpose of the subtitles.

Furthermore, it can not only apply to the film as a whole, but also to individual scenes.

However, there are some shortcomings and limitations to Fox’s model. According to her, the four analytical steps — scene complexity, scene situation, design criteria and audience needs — do not need to be in any particular order, as their relative importance can vary depending on the film (Fox, 2013). But in terms of process, it does not make much sense to put the step involving forming design criteria on the same level as the others. Surely the analytical steps should inform the design criteria, and so the criteria should be a step that follows them, rather than happening alongside them.

It should also be noted that Fox’s guidelines only relate to the positioning of subtitles, and not their design in terms of colour, font, or special effects. Including these three aspects would involve looking at parts of the film and its design that Fox neglects to mention in her suggested analyses, due to its limited scope. Finally, there is the aforementioned similarity between scene situation and scene complexity that needs to

be addressed to avoid confusion. This may involve re-categorising some of the aspects looked at in each step.

The above shortcomings suggest that Fox’s model needs to be adapted before it is used for a practical case of aesthetic subtitling. The final version that will be used in this paper can be seen in figure 11. In this model, “Design Criteria” is treated as a separate step that only comes after the analytical steps in an attempt to replicate a more logical order in terms of process. Some of the elements involved in analysing “Scene Situation” and “Scene Complexity” have been re-categorised and expanded. This aims to make the distinction between the two clearer and expand the scope of the model to

Translation

Design Criteria

Target Audience Scene Situation Scene Complexity

Placement and Design

Figure 11

include design aspects such as font, colour and animation. The number of speakers involved in a given scene has been moved from “Scene Complexity” to “Scene Situation” and aspects such as narrative and character development, emotion, and extralinguistic cultural references (ECRs)⁶ were also added. These are factors which Fox does not mention, but which can nonetheless influence the design of aesthetic subtitles, as McClarty suggests (2014). The elements under “Scene Situation” relate more to a scene’s content, and so it makes sense to add narrative development, emotion and ECRs as these are also related to content. Scene Complexity in the above model then becomes more related to mise-en-scene, cinematography and montage. In other words, it is a more in-depth look at the form of a frame or a sequence (contrast, focus points, camera movement, colour, and so on). The aesthetic subtitles can then be effectively integrated into that frame or sequence through design and positioning. The step for analysing the target audience does not change. Table 2 summarises each of the aspects in their new categories. The criteria for the design of the subtitles, being a direct response to those needs and the art of the film, can only come after the analysis of the audience and the source text.

6 “ECRs are expressions that refer to entities outside language, such as names of people, places, institutions, food, customs etc., which a person may not know, even if s/he knows the language in question.” (Pedersen, 2007, p. 30)

Target Audience Scene Situation Scene Complexity

Translation commentaries seem to be the prerogative of literary translation or academia, especially for assessment purposes (Shih, 2018). Yet there is nothing to say that they cannot be applied to the many other types of text that are dealt with by translators. All types of translation, with the honourable exception of some very technical texts, involve making choices, overcoming challenges and applying procedures, the rationalising and explaining of which is all valid content for a translation commentary (see Shih, 2018). Film is no exception.

Translating film can pose several challenges to a subtitler. It is a cultural product, and so it is inevitable that a subtitler will have to deal with ECRs. Does the subtitler substitute the source text ECR with an equivalent from the target culture? Do they retain it? Do they paraphrase it? Do they omit it (Pedersen, 2007)? As we have already mentioned, translators are also often obliged to condense and reformulate dialogue.

They must decide what information is relevant and then come up with a way of getting as much of that information across within their constraints (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007). Even establishing those constraints is the result of choice (either by the subtitler themselves or by whoever commissioned the subtitles). And then there is the style of language to use in the subtitles. By that, I am referring to the change of mode of communication in subtitles — from the spoken to the written (Díaz Cintas & Remael,