Applying a Multidisciplinary Approach to Aesthetic Subtitling Practice: A Subtitle Commentary on Original Aesthetic Subtitles for ‘Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain'

(1)

Master

Reference

Applying a Multidisciplinary Approach to Aesthetic Subtitling Practice:

A Subtitle Commentary on Original Aesthetic Subtitles for ‘Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain'

POLLARD, Ceri

Abstract

Aesthetic subtitling is slowly gaining visibility and popularity in audiovisual translation, with some advocates positing it as an established alternative to traditional subtitling practice.

Aesthetic subtitling also has the potential to integrate other disciplines, including film studies, typography and literary translation, to form a multidisciplinary approach. This dissertation discusses the potential of a multidisciplinary approach to aesthetic subtitling by using it to create original aesthetic subtitles for the Jean-Paul Jeunet film ‘Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain'.

POLLARD, Ceri. Applying a Multidisciplinary Approach to Aesthetic Subtitling Practice:

A Subtitle Commentary on Original Aesthetic Subtitles for ‘Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain'. Master : Univ. Genève, 2019

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:126287

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

Applying a Multidisciplinary

Approach to Aesthetic Subtitling Practice

A Subtitle Commentary on Original Aesthetic Subtitles for Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain

Ceri Pollard

for the Masters in Translation and Specialised Multilingual Communication University of Geneva

Supervisor: Alexander Künzli Jury: Stuart Coe

July 2019

(3)

1. Introduction

Audiovisual translation scholars are becoming increasingly interested in the subject of aesthetic subtitling. Aesthetic subtitling is generally defined as a method in which the subtitles are deliberately, graphically integrated into the film of which they are part.

In doing so, aesthetic subtitling rejects the dogmatic approach of current standards.

While it is a relative newcomer to academic circles, it has long been present in popular culture. Fansubbers, for example, have produced radically designed subtitles for years.

Graphically sophisticated text is also quickly gaining ground on screens in mainstream media, especially online. Considering the technological advances that have happened since subtitling norms were born, some have suggested developing aesthetic subtitling as, if not a new norm, a new alternative.

But there is still work to be done to reach a similar volume of knowledge and research in aesthetic subtitling as there is in other areas of audiovisual translation. Especially when it comes to practice. So far, writing has, quite understandably, mostly been focussed on establishing what it is and what its potential is. Scholars have mainly done this through looking at the final product, be it aesthetic subtitles themselves to determine the key features, or audience responses, to determine their possible impact.

When it comes to practice, some scholars, including Rebecca McClarty, have stressed the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. But so far, only film studies as a related discipline has been discussed at any length, and others such as graphic design have been but briefly mentioned (McClarty, 2012). Neither has there been much consideration about the practical insights that related disciplines could offer and that aesthetic subtitlers could actually use. If aesthetic subtitling is to be put forward as a new regular practice, there needs to be a closer look at the actual subtitling process involved and how multidisciplinarity is integrated on a practical level. If how it works is not thoroughly understood, then there is no reason or way to present it as a viable alternative.

This dissertation is intended to be yet another supportive voice for aesthetic subtitling.

It is partly inspired by a piece of undergraduate work that involved applying film studies to an analysis of professionally produced aesthetic subtitles. Thanks to the

(6)

increased scope of this dissertation, there is the opportunity not only to further explore multidisciplinarity in aesthetic subtitling, but also to see how it could become a part of the practice. The aim is also to approach multidisciplinarity with a different goal in mind. Instead of using it as a tool to analyse a product that has already been created, the aim is to apply the related disciplines from the beginning of the subtitling process and use them to create original aesthetic subtitles. The intention is to experiment with a multidisciplinary model for aesthetic subtitling practice, in order to see how successfully the theory can be applied.

Before embarking on the production of aesthetic subtitles, it is necessary to state what it actually is, why it is relevant and what is meant by a “multidisciplinary approach”.

This also implies looking at subtitling practice as it currently stands and the norms that influence it, especially as the definition and purpose of aesthetic subtitling is to challenge those very norms. With a greater understanding of what aesthetic subtitles are, we can look at what potential it has and why a multidisciplinary approach is important. This will include exploring some of the related disciplines that could be useful. All of this knowledge can be put into practice through a new multidisciplinary model that will be used to produce original aesthetic subtitles. The film being subtitled in this dissertation is the French film Amélie, directed by Jean-Paul Jeunet. As we shall see, the film lends itself particularly to an aesthetic method of subtitling. It will be accompanied by a translation commentary that reflects on the processes involved.

This, in turn, will provide the opportunity to test, evaluate and demonstrate what aesthetic subtitling using a multidisciplinary model looks like on a practical level.

2. The Current State of Subtitling

2.1. A General Definition of Subtitling

Subtitles are so common these days that providing a lengthy explanation seems unnecessary. But for the sake of clarity and to avoid any misunderstandings from individual nuances in definition, I will state what is meant by subtitling in its most basic form, before the concept is explored and expanded. Díaz Cintas and Remael define subtitling as follows:

(7)

“Subtitling may be defined as a translation practice that consists of presenting a written text… that endeavours to recount the original dialogue of the speakers, as well as the discursive elements that appear in the image (letters, inserts, graffiti, inscriptions, placards, and the like), and the information that is contained on the soundtrack (songs, voices off).” (2007, p. 8)

Their definition is very clear and satisfyingly all-encompassing. It can be divided roughly into two parts. The first establishes subtitling’s main feature that distinguishes it from other forms of audiovisual translation — while dubbing and voiceover are part of what is heard in a film, subtitling is part of what is seen. It is an additional semiotic element that, instead of replacing part of the source text, becomes yet another piece of the translated film (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007). The second part specifies the main function of subtitles and the parts of a film to which they are related, including the need to translate more than just speech. Delabastita (1989) points out that verbal communication in a film (more simply, words) can be spoken or written. If subtitles are responsible for ensuring that a target audience can understand the verbal communication of a film, the subtitler must take into account all the key discursive elements that would otherwise be inaccessible to them. We “should [be] wary of confusing the translation of a film’s dialogues with the translation of ‘all the verbal signs’ contained in the film” (Delabastita, 1989, p. 198). Then again, subtitles are not limited to verbal signs (as the examples of discursive elements given by Díaz Cintas and Remael imply). In subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (SDH), tone of voice, sound effects and musical score may also be subtitled, as the viewers do not have (full) access to the acoustic semiotic channel of the film (Bogucki, 2015). The fact that these examples are not mentioned in Díaz Cintas’ and Remael’s definition is one drawback.

However, for the purposes of this paper, which shall focus on interlingual subtitles for hearing audiences, this definition is satisfactory and will thus be the basis of the following discussion.

What is disheartening is that many of the most important writers on subtitles are also very critical of them. From Marleau’s “mal nécessaire” [necessary evil] (1982) to Díaz Cintas and Remael’s “blemish on the film screen” (2007). Even Ivarsson and Carroll,

(8)

two gurus of the subtitling profession and the very creators of the Code of Good Subtitling Practice, are rather disparaging:

“The disturbing subtitles crowd out the picture and ruin the composition… And then they divert the viewer’s attention from the picture. The subtitles often flit in and out without being synchronised with the takes, in utter disregard of the film’s rhythm and intention… It is not easy to define the advantages of subtitling.” (Ivarsson & Carroll, 1998, p. 34)

It seems quite bleak that the leading experts in the field seem to have the same complaints that general viewers tend to have. But, as we shall see later, it is some of these specific criticisms that aesthetic subtitles address in an attempt to remedy, or at least mitigate, their perceived negative effects by embracing their very presence.

2.2. Subtitling Standards

Subtitles have been governed by standards for decades, with the most influential of these probably being Ivarsson and Carroll’s Code of Good Subtitling Practice (itself developed from their book Subtitling, 1998). The Code has been cited and taken up many times by subsequent key manuals on subtitling, including that of Díaz Cintas and Remael (2007), whose guidelines have the benefit of being more recent and more detailed. These norms cover everything from the way the subtitles look, to how long they should be on screen, via punctuation conventions and translation techniques that help the subtitler deal with the constraints imposed on subtitles by the nature of their medium. The existence of subtitling norms seems to be borne out of two main concerns: that subtitles should be invisible and that they should be usable.

As we have seen, one of the main criticisms of subtitles, is that they are distracting and interrupt the visual part of the film. As such, there is a concerted effort to make them as plain and unobtrusive as possible, to the point of invisibility, and this is reflected in subtitling norms. For example, subtitles are “limited to two lines, which occupy no more than two twelfths of the screen” and positioned at the bottom of the screen where less important action takes place (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007, p. 82). It is assumed that this is where they will be of least nuisance to the film and the viewer. The attempt at invisibility could also be part of a larger concern for subtitling theorists — that subtitles

(9)

always need to consider and work to the needs and expectations of the audience. Díaz Cintas and Remael point out that audiences want to watch a film, not read it (2007), and so subtitles must become invisible to avoid infringing on the audience’s enjoyment. However, as we shall see later, the idea that subtitles are and should be anything but visible is a fallacy and results in the so-called invisibility paradox (Foerster, 2010). But we will return to this argument later when discussing the advantages of aesthetic subtitling.

Usability includes aspects such as legibility and reading speed. It refers to the extent to which subtitles are actually practical for the audience, how feasible it is for them to read and understand the subtitles, based on their needs and abilities. An audience needs to be able to read the subtitles, otherwise what is the point of their being there?

So, there are standards for legibility to ensure that the audience can quickly and easily recognise words while they are on-screen, and there are standards for reading speed to ensure that the audience can take in the whole subtitle in the time allotted it to appear on screen. The standard is a sans serif font, as it is said to be easier to read (Ivarsson & Carroll, 1998), in white as it generally has a higher contrast, but with a black outline or drop shadow to compensate for visibility should the subtitle appear on a light background (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007). Figures for ideal reading speeds, however, vary. Reading speeds, typically measured in words per minute (wpm), are based on the time it takes the average viewer to read a subtitle of a particular length.

According to Díaz Cintas and Remael, this can range from 145 wpm to 180 wpm depending on factors such as medium (e.g. television, cinema or DVD) and viewing conditions (2007).

The general advantage of having standards such as the ones above is that it does set and demand a certain level of quality. Professional practitioners have something concrete to aim for and measure their work against to ensure that it is acceptable and fit for purpose. It also enables them to distinguish their work from that of amateurs.

However, there are two main criticisms that could be levelled at these standards. The first is that Ivarsson and Carroll’s code, that continues to influence even more recent guidelines, is now 20 years old. Indeed, Díaz Cintas and Remael’s work, with its detail

(10)

and thoroughness, is over ten years old itself (2007). Although that does not sound like a significant amount of time, subtitling technology and practice (to say nothing of filmmaking) has come on leaps and bounds. But no-one has thought to review these various guidelines in the context of today’s technology. Today’s environment looks almost unrecognisable to that of the late nineties and can only become more so as we move into the future (Bogucki, 2015). Some of the original suggestions for good subtitling practice are no longer relevant. To give just one example, Ivarsson and Carroll’s mainly justify their recommendations on typeface through arguments about image definition. Definition can depend on factors such as the width of the original film stock to the screen resolution of cathode-ray tube (CRT) television, and the quality of the image cannot be guaranteed across all formats. The subtitles had to be in a font that was highly-defined and legible across the board (Ivarsson & Carroll, 1998). But in today’s digital world, replete with high-definition LCD and LED screens that seem to be constantly increasing in size, fluctuations in image definition is probably of lesser importance to the subtitler.

The second criticism is the lack of empirical evidence backing up many of Ivarsson and Carroll’s norms, and by extension subsequent handbooks based on them. It does not feel entirely appropriate to cite “general agreement” (Ivarsson and Carroll, 1998, p. 42) and “conventional wisdom” (p. 47) as sole, unshakable grounds for establishing a standard that puts so much emphasis on catering to a third party (in this case, the audience). Convention, agreement and common sense are, somewhat ironically, quite subjective. Díaz Cintas and Remael even admit that subtitling convention can vary from country-to-country (2007). How can one be sure of what the true needs and abilities of third party are without asking? Ivarsson and Carroll cites some theorists from the field of typography, but those citations are sparse, and when tests are mentioned, none are directly referenced.¹ There is, of course, a place for logic in theorising, especially in a relatively new area of study. But since Ivarsson and Carroll, there have been several studies that explicitly look at audience reception of subtitles

1 For example, Ivarsson and Carroll state that “[many] tests have shown that it is easiest to read text that stands out against a fixed dark background” (1998, p.46), but the lack of author, date or name for these tests makes this claim far less credible.

(11)

from cognitive and subjective points of view (D’Ydewalle, Praet, Verfaillie, & Van Rensbergen, 1991; Fox, 2013; Künzli & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011; Szarkowska &

Gerber-Morón, 2018, to name only a few) and some of these have even contradicted some of the rules found in current subtitling practice guides. This new empirical evidence should be included in subtitle guidelines. We no longer have to rely on guesswork; we have a deeper understanding of how people read subtitles and what they think of them. We can use it to improve subtitles and better tailor them to the abilities of the audience.

3. Introducing Aesthetic Subtitles

3.1. Putting a Name to a Concept

Finding a term for the central concept of this paper is actually more complex than it first seems. Many different names are used across academic literature for the same concept: aesthetic subtitles (Foerster, 2010), innovative subtitles (Künzli &

Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011), creative subtitles (McClarty, 2012 and 2014), and integrated subtitles (Fox, 2013). Such variety is quite problematic. With no consensus on terminology it is harder to have constructive, coherent discussions on the subject and it is harder to validate it as an object of study in audiovisual translation, itself a victim of varied nomenclature. Each name also has slightly different connotations, creating more confusion when it comes to defining the concept.

Foerster was the first to coin “aesthetic subtitling”, which she used in her influential case study of Night Watch (Bekmambetov, 2004). One advantage of her term is that it specifically emphasises the importance of the visual and the design of the subtitles.

This is of course the primary feature that distinguishes “aesthetic” subtitles from traditional ones. It is specific about the part of subtitling norms that this type of approach questions: the visual presentation of subtitles, rather than technical or linguistic aspects.

“Creative subtitling” is the term of choice for McClarty, one of the more prolific theorists on the subject (2012, 2014). “Creative” has more emphasis on the originality of the subtitles and is more general than aesthetic, potentially encompassing more than design. Some (including Caffrey, 2009; Künzli & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011; McClarty,

(12)

2012) suggest that unorthodox additions to subtitles such as pop-up glosses and on- screen translators’ notes, that provide insight into cultural idiosyncrasies could also be classed as part of this non-traditional subtitling practice. Therefore, less specificity could be more useful. Then again, there is the risk of it being too vague and the fact that the notion of what creativity actually is can be prone to subjectivity.

The main advantage of Fox’s “integrated subtitles” (2013) is the suggestion that the subtitles become part of the film. They are elevated to have a more active role in it, rather than being a blemish. Subtitles having a close-knit relationship with the film is another defining feature of this subtitling. The subtitler considers how the film is put together and aims to work with it, rather than work against it or ignore it altogether.

So, like “aesthetic”, there is the advantage of the definition of the term being partly evident in the name.

The final candidate term is “innovative subtitles”, used by Künzli and Ehrensberger- Dow (2011). “Innovation” there suggests novelty, revolution, positive change. This is certainly in line with the perspective of proposing it as a new regular practice that I, and other scholars who focus on this type of subtitling, advocate. But it is not obvious exactly how they are innovative, and what sets them apart from traditional, normative subtitles. Furthermore, “innovation” is a relative concept — “innovative subtitles” will only remain so as long as they are an obvious radical departure from what is usually accepted. It is not suitable for the long term, if this approach to subtitling is to be adopted into regular practice.

So what to choose?²McClarty’s “creative subtitling” (McClarty, 2012) seems a very likely candidate. “Creative subtitling” hints at the particular nature of these kind of subtitles, is general enough to potentially include features such as on-screen footnotes, and seems to occur the most in the literature. However, I feel that “creative subtitles”

is a bit too vague. It could equally apply to original solutions for translation challenges

2 I have not even mentioned the term “abusive subtitles”, coined by Nornes (1999) and later taken up by Caffrey (2009). While Nornes is often cited, usually in a call to adopt his slight sense of rebellion, his terminology seems to have been dropped. “Abusive” also has negative connotations. Furthermore, Nornes only uses it in relation to the frequent domesticating translations in subtitles, which he objects to on moral grounds, which is not strictly the same focus of aesthetic subtitles (1999).

(13)

(e.g. condensing dialogue or translating cultural references) as visual presentation, which is actually the main concern and the main defining feature here (as it was, indeed, for McClarty). And though it may feel more common than some of the other terms mentioned above,that may simply be because McClarty has been particularly, consistently productive in terms of publishing in this area. Foerster’s “aesthetic subtitling” would be more appropriate: it makes it truly explicit that it is design that sets these kind of subtitles apart. It does seem to exclude features such as on-screen translator’s notes, but for me that is not as important a defining feature as the actual design. It may be interesting to note, though, Foerster did not initially approve of aesthetic subtitles; for her, they involve a complete disregard of subtitling norms, and result in subtitles that are unprofessional and inappropriate. The ideal approach, according to her, is one that keeps subtitling norms that “are proven to be sensible”.

She called them “creative subtitles” (Foerster, 2010, p. 95). Thus, while I am borrowing her wording, I am not borrowing her precise definition. I am reapplying Foerster’s term to a new, wider definition.

3.2. Defining “Aesthetic Subtitling”

Despite the proliferation of terms, scholars overlap greatly in their descriptions of aesthetic subtitling’s key characteristics. These characteristics can be handily grouped into three overarching features, these being their unconventional design, their coherence with the film, and their continued usability through restraint.

3.2.1. Feature 1: Unconventional Design

Aesthetic subtitles are first and foremost defined by their unconventional visual characteristics that “violate established norms” (Künzli & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011, p. 199). That includes using atypical fonts and colours, a variety of on-screen placements, and sometimes even animation. If we were to include them, on-screen glosses and translation notes could also be included here. Scholars have arrived at these conclusions mainly through observing and analysing existing cases of aesthetic subtitles, and comparing the characteristics they observed to current norms.

The stereotypical example that is given to describe this feature is fansubs, subtitles produced “by fans for fans”, especially of Japanese anime, and distributed on the

(14)

internet (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007, p. 27). Fansubs exhibit all of the above design features and more (Díaz Cintas & Muñoz Sánchez, 2006) to cater to the desires of their target audience: fans who watch anime for a greater exposure to Japanese culture.

However, there are also examples to be found in mainstream film and television, with Night Watch (Bekmambetov, 2004), Man on Fire, Slumdog Millionaire (Boyle, 2008) (see fig. 1) and Sherlock cited throughout the literature as demonstrating aesthetically creative on screen text more or less effectively.

The list keeps expanding, especially when we consider the audiovisual content now available on social media. Figures 2–5 are examples taken from videos found on Facebook. The first, as seen in figures 2 and 3, is a national news report from the U.K.

news provider Channel 4 News (2018), and the second, in figures 4 and 5, is a promotional video for the blockbuster film Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (Marvel Studios & Walt Disney Pictures, 2017).

Figure 1

(15)

Both demonstrate typical features of aesthetic subtitling, although to different extents.

The clip from Channel 4 News is more subtle. The subtitles are still white, in a sans serif font, and positioned at the bottom of the screen, conforming to subtitling norms in this respect (see fig. 3). However, they take up more of the screen than is recommended for traditional subtitles and the subtitle in figure 2 is animated. The words zoom in one by one as the man speaks, drawing the viewer’s attention to his words, so the overall effect is like that of a pull quote used in a regular printed newspaper or magazine article. The subtitles in the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 trailer are a lot wackier. For the subtitle in figures 4 and 5, the purple band with the subtitle on it unfurls across the screen like a piece of tape before the word ‘tape’ flashes red.

The subtitle is exciting to watch and ties in with the playful tone associated with the Guardians of the Galaxy film franchise. It also reinforces the linguistic content of the subtitle and mirrors the voice-actor's melodramatic intonation. And finally, the

Figure 2 Figure 3

Figure 4 Figure 5

(16)

animation captures the attention of the Facebook user as they scroll through their feed, making it effective promotional material.

Through the purposeful selection of particular fonts, colours, placement and animation, aesthetic subtitles establish their own aesthetic and graphic identity (Foerster, 2010; McClarty, 2012, 2014). The concept of purpose is especially important, as aesthetic subtitles’ design is not an accident — it is developed with careful consideration of the film itself.

3.2.2. Feature 2: Aesthetic Coherence with the Film

Aesthetic subtitles must also relate to the film of which they are a part. They are an artistic response to the film (McClarty 2014) that support its visual style (Foerster, 2010). Fox even suggests that an aesthetic approach shows more respect towards the original film (2013). Whereas current norms dictate one single design that is applied to all films and all genres, aesthetic subtitles’ appearance is tailored to each film (McClarty, 2014), and so is heavily dependent on it. An aesthetic subtitle can be categorised further depending on the type of relationship it has with the film. Foerster calls these two categories “diegetic subtitles” and “stylistic subtitles” (Foerster, 2010, p. 88). Diegesis, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary Online, is “the fictional time, place, characters, and events which constitute the universe of the narrative” in a film or literary work (“diegesis, n.”, 2019). Diegetic aesthetic subtitles, therefore, forge a link with specific narrative features or motifs that occur throughout the film. Stylistic subtitles, on the other hand, simply mirror the mise-en-scene, with no further enlightenment about or portrayal of the plot, characters or themes. Foerster provides some helpful examples from Night Watch to clarify the distinction. Figure 7 is an example of diegetic subtitles as the subtitles appear as “clouds of blood”, creating a connection between the subtitles and the boy’s nosebleed (Foerster, 2010, p.88). The imitation of blood could also represent the vampire who is calling the boy, so it becomes a form of metonymy for that character. But the subtitles in figure 8 are stylistic, as the way in which the subtitles appear word by word reflect the action of the character cutting an onion (Foerster, 2010, p. 93). The chopping action is replicated

(17)

in the subtitles’ choppy entrance, but it ultimately has no significance for the character or narrative.

For some more recent examples, we could look to The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (Ritchie, 2015) (taken from Pollard, 2017). According to Foerster’s classification, the subtitles in figure 8 are stylistic. The subtitle is wiped off the screen by the incoming car, but the animation does not provide any further insight into the content of the subtitle. It is simply a novel way to cue it out. By contrast, the subtitle in figure 9 is diegetic — instead of disappearing as the shot cuts to a different setting, the subtitle slowly fades

Figure 6

Figure 7

(18)

across the cut, lingering with the actor’s final word and thus reflecting the tension hanging in the air after a more menacing than innocent invitation to lunch.

Creating a dichotomy between diegetic and stylistic is perhaps too stark a contrast.

Even when a subtitle contributes to a narrative element, it still involves some interaction with the mise-en-scene of the film and so is arguably inherently stylistic too. Likewise, the mise-en-scene is partly chosen and manipulated by the filmmakers for narrative purposes. The two concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Nevertheless, these two terms are incredibly useful for describing the function of an aesthetic subtitle and the way in which it interacts with a film.

3.2.3. Feature 3: Restraint and Continued Usability

It might seem odd to suddenly ascribe restraint to a practice that desires to break free of it. Yet, even among scholars who advocate aesthetic subtitling, they hasten to add

Figure 8

Figure 9

(19)

that it does not constitute a call for complete abandon. In addition, when looking at successful commercial films that have used aesthetic subtitles, the majority tend to stick to a theme throughout the design, with animations being subtle, anything more adventurous only appearing in a handful of subtitles. The subtlety and limited variation suggest that the boundaries for the aesthetic subtitler have expanded but have not disappeared completely.

This could be a sign of just how prevalent subtitling norms are and how reluctant subtitlers seem to be to reject them (c.f. Nornes, 1999). Yet, in the context of the above feature, that aesthetic subtitles are coherent with the film, it implies that there are indeed limits to which a subtitler can go. Being coherent with the film means that the subtitles’ design is already heavily influenced by what is expected and thus appropriate for that genre or that film (McClarty, 2014), or the visual identity the film itself establishes. The subtitles must also be coherent with each other, lest it give the impression that some effects or designs are merely chosen for the sake of it (one of Foerster’s criticisms for the Night Watch subtitles) rather than to add any value.

Above all, aesthetic or not, subtitles have a pragmatic function. They are there to provide a translation for an audience who does not understand the source language of a film, so that they can also access it. If subtitles do not fulfil that role, why bother providing them at all? Therefore, the aesthetic subtitler must also be mindful of the needs of the audience and their ability to read and understand the subtitles. This has caused aesthetic subtitle advocates to reiterate that subtitles still, indeed will always, have spatio-temporal constraints (McClarty, 2014). The cinema screen will always have physical borders, the main focus points of the image will always prevail, and the subtitles should always be synchronous with the dialogue of which they are the translation, as it makes the subtitles more believable as a translation of the dialogue (see Pedersen's "contract of illusion", 2010, pp. 17–18). Aesthetic subtitles are there to become part of the film, not upstage it.

At last combining all of the above, we can produce a definition for aesthetic subtitling that brings together all of its key characteristics in one place, unlike the case of past

(20)

attempts. The aim of this is also to be more universal and precise. As such, I propose that aesthetic subtitling is:

A process of creating subtitles whose design adapts to a film, interacting with and incorporating aesthetic and narrative elements of the film in question, but not at the expense of their usability for the final target audience. It must not be forgotten that subtitles have a pragmatic function.

4. Justifying an Aesthetic Approach

Now that aesthetic subtitling has been defined, we must raise the question of why it is worth considering at all. After all, the norms that have held sway for decades “have proved perfectly functional”(McClarty, 2014, p. 593), and producing aesthetic subtitles implies extra time, effort and, of course, money. However, these conventions do have their shortcomings, and the suggestion is that aesthetic subtitles could go some way to remedying those shortcomings. They also have the potential to provide a better experience for film audiences, which could justify the extra effort needed to produce them.

4.1. The Nature of the Film Text

The simple nature of film as a medium lends itself particularly well to a more visually adventurous approach to subtitling. Many scholars of subtitling in general remark on how complex film is as a text, made up as it is of different semiotic channels — including verbal and non-verbal, aural and visual — all of which combine to create the final thing (see Chaume, 2004 and Delabastita, 1989). However, Bogucki believes that to look at audiovisual texts and focus purely on the aural semiotic channel, ignoring the visual, is a mistake made by novices (Bogucki, 2015). While he was specifically referring to researchers, his is an opinion that could be extended to subtitling in general.

The main focus in subtitling is arguably the aural channel. Subtitles represent dialogue and, for the deaf and hard of hearing, sound effects and music. The sound is the most important. However, looking at film studies offers a different perspective. In her book Screen Language, Potter suggests that it is actually the sound that works with the image,

(21)

rather than the other way round, for harmony (or discord), clarification and intensity (2001). Metz, well-known for his work in film semiotics, believes that each frame is on its own a complete énoncé, in the Saussurian sense, capable of both denotative and connotative meaning through what is shot and the way in which it is shot (2003). He uses an example a dock that is photographed in the style of a noir film to illustrate this.

The denotative meaning is simply the dock itself, darkly lit, but the connotative meaning is the atmosphere created by that lighting choice, that brings to mind all the emotions and themes associated with film noir (Metz, 2003, p. 100). Whereas a novel can go on with pages and pages of lush, poetic description, a film provides a wealth of detail in the image, the director’s choices of how to film something generating meaning that could not be generated through action alone (Monaco, 2009).

Clearly, the visual code is so important when it comes to interpreting meaning in film that it cannot be disregarded. But in the world of subtitling, that is what has happened.

No-one so far has really concerned themselves with the real value of the visual semiotic channel of film as a source text. They simply acknowledge its existence and fervently insist on keeping out its way. But as Díaz Cintas and Remael rightly point out, subtitles need to “become part of [the film’s] semiotic system” and “must interact with and rely on all the film’s different channels” (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007, p. 45). If it is important for the source text (the film), then it should be equally important for the target text (the subtitles). As such, it makes perfect sense to thoroughly consider subtitle design and how it can be used to make them be part of, interact with, and rely on the image. As “a translator of poetry may produce poetry and a translator of theatre may produce theatre”, so could a translator of film produce film (McClarty, 2014, p.

598).

4.2. The Invisibility Paradox and Stylistic Synchronicity

Many of the current conventions for subtitling are based on the view that the ideal subtitles pass unnoticed. Thus they are devoid of elaborate design and positioned at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. However, Foerster points out that despite all this “subtitles have never been and will never be invisible” (2010, p. 83), a reality she terms the invisibility paradox (p.82). Indeed, the purpose of subtitles is for the

(22)

audience to see them and understand them (McClarty, 2014b). Otherwise they are just superfluous. What’s more, subtitles are not only visible, they are visibly a translation as the simultaneous presence of the source language serves as a constant reminder to the audience that they are watching a foreign product (Caffrey, 2009; Foerster, 2010).

This means that the presence of subtitles cannot, and should not, be denied. To do so would be foolish.

The invisibility paradox is very important for the argument supporting an aesthetic approach to subtitling. If assumed to be true, the counterargument that aesthetic subtitles are not invisible enough (and by implication too distracting) is no longer valid, as the same could be said of conventional subtitles anyway. This has led McClarty to believe that we should essentially give up on trying to make subtitles invisible, since it is impossible, and instead “[uphold] difference”, embracing their presence and their role as a translation (2014, p. 599). In doing so, the subtitler no longer needs to feel bound by aesthetic norms that attempt to downplay the subtitles’

presence, and so can be more adventurous in the design process (McClarty, 2014).

It could further be argued that the norms that claim to advocate invisibility actually, ironically enough, reinforce the invisibility paradox. The minimalist style that they encourage is often at odds with the aesthetic of a film, and this creates a bigger contrast between the subtitle and the image and draws attention to their alien-ness. So, the subtitles appear less like a part of the film and more like the blemish so many criticise them of being. The implication is, then, that aesthetic subtitles could go some way to helping resolve the subtitles-are-a-blemish argument. They can be adapted to the aesthetic of the film, thus “[achieving] a form of stylistic synchronicity with the film”

(McClarty, 2014, p. 599). This means that the subtitles would feel more like an integral part of the image, as if the filmmakers intended them to be there the whole time, and would create a more effective illusion of ‘invisibility’, despite being more visible than ever.

4.3. Translation Solutions

Nornes bemoans the domesticating tendencies of the translations of subtitles going so far as to call them violent and corrupt (McClarty, 2014; Nornes, 1999). Elsewhere, de

(23)

Linde and Kay worry that the frequent need to condense subtitles and restrict them to

“essential static information” (1999, p. 6) runs the risk of removing important linguistic and rhetorical devices. The aesthetic subtitler could use a subtitle’s design to “respond more accurately to the full spectrum of communicative codes offered by the film text”

(2014, p. 593) and help restore these elements that are ‘lost in translation’ (or perhaps more accurately in the case of subtitles, ‘lost in condensation’). For example, a word emphasised using repetition in the dialogue could be emphasized through font size or colour in its corresponding subtitle. Or perhaps the difference between “tu” and

“vous” in French, which indicate social distance — the former is more intimate than the latter, but both translate as “you” in English — could be reflected in the physical distance between two characters’ subtitles on screen. In the first example, de Linde and Kay would be satisfied to see that the rhetorical impact of the dialogue has been maintained. In the latter, Nornes would be pleased that the linguistic idiosyncrasy related to social distance in French has not been swept under the rug.

4.4. Audience Experience and Audience Behaviour

The audience is incredibly important in subtitling. They are its users and many subtitling norms have developed from attempting to determine their needs and abilities and the best ways to cater to them. But over time, as with all things, these needs and abilities have evolved. And, as has already been mentioned, judgements on an audience’s capabilities have been mostly founded through guesswork or assumptions rather than (reliable) empirical evidence (Künzli & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011; Szarkowska & Gerber-Morón, 2018). Perhaps it is time for a new approach.

McClarty suggests that it is likely that audiences these days are more used to creative text on screen, and therefore are more able to cope with it (2014). This is especially plausible given the aforementioned rise of audiovisual content on social media, where more and more videos are subtitled, most likely in response to users wanting to watch videos but without the need to turn on the sound. As this trend continues, it could be that audiences do not just become more used to graphically sophisticated subtitles — they may even grow to expect them. Some translation researchers have gone to the extent of undertaking empirical studies that lean more towards cognitive psychology to determine the real abilities of an audience. Their compelling results suggest that

(24)

audiences are indeed a lot more capable than they have been given credit for in the past and that certain features of aesthetic subtitling are not as detrimental as its detractors fear. For example, Szarkowska and Gerber-Morón suggest that the six- second rule “is unnecessarily long for modern viewers” (2018, p. 26), who are not only capable of reading faster subtitles, but may be less satisfied with slower ones. Indeed, they do not seem to draw any advantage from slow subtitles in terms of comprehension or cognitive effort (Szarkowska & Gerber-Morón, 2018). With a direct link to aesthetic subtitling, Künzli and Ehrensberger-Dow also found that adding translator-note surtitles to a subtitled film did not negatively affect how the audience understood the film or how much of the image they remembered (2011). Overall, it suggests that subtitling guidelines, as they stand, and what an audience is truly capable of and truly needs, are in need of an update.

Aesthetic subtitles could also work with the audience and their natural behaviour when watching a film than traditional subtitles have so far. With any image, there are parts of it that a viewer’s eye is drawn to, either consciously or unconsciously (Monaco, 2009), and in film these parts are often key to narrative development (Bordwell &

Thompson, 2013). These findings in film studies correlate with those of Fox (2013), from which she develops the concepts of focus points and primary and secondary areas in a film frame (Fox, 2013). The results from her experiment showed that the eye trace for target language (TL) viewers watching aesthetic subtitles, that were positioned closer to primary focus points, was more like that of a native source language speaker, watching without subtitles, than TL viewers watching the same film with traditional subtitles. It implies that aesthetic subtitles have the potential to better follow the natural eye trace of an audience, as guided by the action and the mise-en- scene. This as opposed to traditional subtitles that, in an attempt to stay away from primary focus points, actually drag the eye physically away from them.

Aesthetic subtitles could even enhance a film for a foreign audience in the way that it

“[responds] more adequately to the full spectrum of communicative codes offered by the film text” (McClarty, 2014, p. 593). This is simply applying to subtitling the same philosophy of many film scholars that the cinematic codes of the image are just as important for communication and understanding in film (such as Monaco, 2009 and

(25)

Speidel, 2012). Diegetic aesthetic subtitles could be “an additional narrative device”

(McClarty, 2014, p. 599) that contributes extra layers of meaning to narrative themes and characterisation. Or stylistic subtitles, apart from being better integrated into the mise-en-scene, could simply be more pleasing to watch and contribute to an audience’s overall appreciation of a film.

5. Adopting a Multidisciplinary Approach

Translation scholars outside of the audiovisual field already acknowledge how important multidisciplinarity is for translation. For specialist translators in technical fields, it is imperative to have extensive knowledge of that particular field, beyond simple language skills and awareness of terminology. Lefevere believes that literary translators would find knowledge of linguistics, literary theory and the history of literature useful when they translate (1992). Having external knowledge of a subject grants a translator deeper understanding of a text’s subject matter and the ability to glean nuances of meaning and style in order to produce a more acceptable target text.

According to Di Giovanni, Orero and Agost, audiovisual translation as a whole has always quintessentially been multidisciplinary, highlighting its “multifarious nature”

(2012, p. 12). When it comes to aesthetic subtitles, McClarty insists that it is their very multidisciplinary nature that allows them to be so (2012). She suggests that subtitlers adopt a so-called “trilateral gaze”:

The [aesthetic] subtitler, therefore, must keep a trilateral gaze: backwards to the source culture and the aesthetic qualities and semiotic codes of the source text;

sideways to the influences to be gained from related disciplines; and forwards to the target culture and the aesthetic qualities and semiotic codes of the subtitles. (McClarty, 2012, p. 139)

If a subtitler must be sensitive to and fully understand the “aesthetic qualities and semiotic codes of the source text”, it implies the need for technical knowledge and awareness beyond pure language, as the semiotic codes of the film go beyond pure speech or writing. But, once the nuances of meaning in all semiotic channels have been analysed, the visual included, the aesthetic subtitler then needs to know how to

(26)

translate that into the design of the subtitles. McClarty suggests looking at graphic design (including motion graphics) (2012). But what may be more appropriate is to re- visit typography, a precise discipline of its own within graphic design, as we shall see in section 5.3.

5.2. Film Studies

Film studies is the most obvious of the related disciplines for aesthetic subtitling — film is the source text. Indeed, many scholars have suggested that an understanding of film studies is important for subtitlers in general, before aesthetic subtitling became an object of study (see Chaume, 2004). Film studies actually encompasses a huge range of phenomena. Phillips lists four possible procedures in film studies: the origins of a film; the form and style of a film; the meaning of a film, internally and in context; and contemporary responses to a film (2012). That is to say nothing of history, technology, industry and so-called star studies. All of these topics may be useful to an aesthetic subtitler; they are certainly all interesting. But it is the second of these — the form and style of a film — that is the main focus for us. In film, it is often a case of not just analysing what is in the frame, but how it is presented. Metz specifies that it is elements like framing, composition, lighting and camera movement that create connotative meaning beyond the basic setting and objects on screen (2003)³. Elsewhere, Monaco describes how a “great variety of codes combine to form the medium in which film expresses meaning” (2009, p. 197), these codes being “systems of logical relationships”

and association that originate beyond the film in question (p. 197).

When it comes to style, the two most important factors are mise-en-scene and cinematography. The two concepts have been listed separately but, as Speidel points out, no-one has yet decided where the distinction between the two lies, if there is indeed one (2012). One possibility is describing mise-en-scene as being how physical space and the objects and figures within it (including actors) are presented and arranged, and cinematography as how the camera is ‘arranged’ to capture that mise- en-scene, as Bordwell and Thompson do (2013). The problem is that it can get confusing, especially when some elements of film style could arguably be placed in

3 C.f. Metz’s example of a dock in a noir film cited on p.17 of the present paper.

(27)

both categories. For example, a filmmaker could play with colour for effect through costumes, setting and lighting; or through saturation, contrast and colour grading. It is the same element being manipulated (colour), but assuming Bordwell and Thompson’s distinction, the former set of options (costumes, setting and lighting) would come under mise-en-scene and the latter set (saturation, contrast and colour grading) under cinematography (2013). For Speidel, however, it is all the same thing.

The physical space and objects within the frame, the way the camera is used and special effects added in post-production are all part of mise-en-scene (Speidel, 2012).

Indeed, it seems petty to categorise some elements as either cinematography or mise- en-scene as they can be very closely related. Perhaps a more useful definition, then, would be Gibbs’, for whom mise-en-scene is “the contents of the frame and the way they are organised” (2002, p. 5) or “what the audience can see, and the way in which we are invited to see it” (p. 5).

Filmmaking involves choice. Choices about mise-en-scene can help a filmmaker guide a viewer’s expectations, shape their emotional response, or direct their attention (Bordwell & Thompson, 2013). It can create additional metaphorical relationships through metonymy and repeating visual motifs (Speidel, 2012). But what are the actual elements that make up mise-en-scene and that are subject to the filmmakers’ decision- making? Table 1 provides a (by no means extensive, but sufficiently thorough for current purposes) list of some elements that make up mise-en-scene, mostly based on Bordwell and Thompson (2013), but also incorporating points from others (Gibbs, 2002; Monaco, 2009; Speidel, 2012).

Setting and Props Speidel states that setting is very important to give a narrative authenticity (2012), but it could just as equally be fantastical as realistic (Bordwell & Thompson, 2013). Setting can be real, filmed on location, or constructed, built in a studio or via computer graphics. Props, objects that have a distinctive purpose within the narrative, are also part of setting. They could even take on a particular symbolic meaning through metonymy.

(28)

Lighting Lighting is controlled in film to highlight, cast shadow, contrast, define, distort or even suggest a particular atmosphere or emotional state. It is more about simply making sure the subject and the action can be seen. The options filmmakers have to alter lighting include direction, quality, source and colour.

Framing There is definitely a technical aspect to framing. Camera position and movement, and aspect ratio are mentioned by both Bordwell and Thompson (2013) and Metz (2003) as important influencing factors. However, judging from Bordwell and Thompson’s comments earlier in their book, and from Monaco (2009), it also has an artistic side, for lack of a better word. It is how the space within the physical borders of the screen (or beyond them, for that matter) and the characters or objects within it are arranged and distributed. Even sections within the screen’s borders can become smaller frames for particular parts of action.⁴

Camera This category includes choices about both the camera’s position and the camera’s movement in relation to its subjects. Even when just using a static camera, the filmmaker must choose where and how to position it in terms of height, angle, distance and level (to the horizon or canted). But of course, the camera does not have to remain static, and can move, using tracking, panning and zooming, for example.

Focus While it still undoubtedly involves the camera, focus has not so much to do with the position and movement of the physical camera, but more to do with the sharpness of the

4 See Bordwell and Thompson’s example of a doorway framing an important character from Les Vampires (2013, p. 117, fig. 4.16 – 4.17).

(29)

image. Focus can be combined with depth of field, which is the range of distances within which the planes of composition will be in more or less sharp focus.

Performance Performance is not just limited to human actors — it can also include animals or objects. The figures seen on screen are a very big part of mise-en-scene and should not be overlooked.

For actors, performance involves decisions about how they are going to play a role — are they going to be cartoonish and over-the-top, or naturalistic and understated? Bordwell and Thompson note that acting style is dependent on other aspects such as genre and narrative (2013).

Costume and Make- up

Costume and make-up, whether real or digital, are incredibly important when it comes to characterisation. They can establish and represent a character, recreate a famous figure, evoke a time period or even represent narrative development. They can completely transform the appearance of an actor, who may become unrecognisable.

Colour It is Gibbs (2002) who actually treats colour as its own, individual element of mise-en-scene. It is a special case, however, as it cannot exist independent of any of the above.

Colour is present in lighting, costume, setting and can be altered through the camera or effects added in post- production. But it is a visually powerful part of mise-en- scene, no matter how it is present.

Table 1

Again, this is by no means an extensive list. The above techniques are simply the ones that will be particularly useful for the commentary on aesthetic subtitles to follow.

Speidel highlights the importance of “a thoughtful, perceptive analysis of a film” so we can see how it “enhances our understanding of it, and how cinema works to

(30)

engross, influence and communicate with us” (2012, p. 110). If an aesthetic subtitler is supposed to recognise all of the ways film communicates, so they can make appropriate creative decisions, they need to know as much as possible about the techniques a filmmaker has at their disposal and how to analyse them when they are used. It is comparable to analysing the poetic techniques a writer uses in a novel to add layers of metaphorical meaning or create a particular emotional effect.

5.2. Typography

Not since Ivarsson and Carroll have subtitling scholars referred to the work of typographers. While graphic design focusses on creating appeal through the particular combination of text and image (Golec, 2014), typography is about the design and arrangement of the text itself — “l’art de donner une forme aux mots” (Ambrose & Harris, 2008, p. 6). That involves more than just choosing an attractive font. It involves making decisions about “legibility, leading, kerning, layout, letterspacing, and the use of white space”⁵ (Chandler & Munday, 2016d) so that the presentation of the final written text is fit for its purpose, being effective and efficient communication (Jury, 2006).

That statement implies an absence of rigid regulations. But that is not to say that typography does not have its standards or rules of thumb. For example, it is generally accepted that, for lengthy texts, serif fonts are easier to read than sans serif fonts, which are easier to read than script fonts ; or that left-aligned text is easier to read as each line begins in the same place (Ambrose & Harris, 2008), at least for languages that are written left to right. Some of these standards are based on research into how people read. People do not take in words letter by letter, but in groups of letters and recognisable shapes formed by the ascenders and descenders of the characters (Jury, 2006). But these rules are not set in stone and neither are particular ones prescribed to particular situations. In fact, according to Jury, a good typographer knows when and how to break the rules (2006).

As far back as 1683, Joseph Moxon wrote:

5 To explain some of the less common terms, leading, letterspacing and kerning are all related to spacing: between lines, between letters in a word, and between individual letter pairings respectively (Chandler & Munday, 2016b, 2016c, 2016a).

(31)

“A good [typographer] is ambitious as well to make the meaning of his Author intelligent to the Reader, as to makes his Work shew graceful to the Eye and pleasant in Reading: ... he reads his Copy with consideration; so that he may get himself into the meaning of the Author, and consequently considers how to order his Work the better both in the Title Page, and in the matter of the book:

As how to make his indenting, Pointing, Breaking, Italicking, &c. the better sympathise with the Author’s genius, and also with the capacity of the Reader.”

(Moxon, 1683, as cited in Jury, 2006, p. 13)

Typography is not simply about making a piece of written text look appealing, there is also a practical aspect. It is about transforming an expanse of text into something that is useable for an audience and caters to their needs. Furthermore, typography can have meaning, and that meaning should, if not contribute to, at least complement the text’s content. Moxon’s statement of intent is lengthy, but it still seems to prevail in typography today. For Jubert, typography can be incredibly expressive and can assume many different “voices”, from understated to extravagant, from trendy to official (2013, p. 38). Similarly for Ambrose and Harris, the visual choices made in a sample of typography can become as much a part of the message as the words themselves (2008). So, there is definitely a communicative aspect to the aesthetic choices involved in text design. And typography has a more practical role in terms of reading ease, providing greater understanding, informing, and guiding (Jubert, 2013).

It is the job of the typographer to find a balance between the two.

Two key concepts in typography that could help in finding that balance are legibility and readability. Jury stresses that the two are different concepts. The former is “the degree to which individual letters can be distinguished from each other” (Jury, 2006, p. 82), whereas the latter is more or less the ease with which an extended piece of text can be read. A font may be legible, but it needs to be applied properly to be readable (Jury, 2006). Ambrose and Harris, however, are at the other end of the spectrum. They believe that a font may be completely illegible, but still capable of communicating a message to the reader through its design alone (2008). The words themselves are almost of secondary importance.

(32)

It seems that one of the key factors of legibility is actually the expectations of the readership. In the Middle Ages, the characteristic, elaborate Gothic scripts were considered perfectly normal and easy to read, but that is not so much the case today (Ambrose & Harris, 2008). Predictability and consistency are key for making sure a reader feels comfortable and can read with ease; then, once a predictable pattern has been established, the type itself may even become invisible because it is so easy to read (Jury, 2006). Perhaps the concepts readability and legibility could also help aesthetic subtitlers find the balance between design and usability.

Fox (2016) remarks that films often have their own typographic identity. That identity is very important for how a film is represented and recognised, and not just when it comes to the main title. For Fox, an aesthetic subtitler would at least need to be able to recognise the typographic theme used in a film, and why it is used, to avoid making typographic choices for the subtitles that are jarring rather than complementary (2016).

This would contribute to making the subtitles coherent with the overall design of the film. But aesthetic subtitlers need to understand typography for more than the ability to analyse text design produced by someone else. They need to understand how they can use text design themselves. There are some very technical parts of font design and text setting which have not been introduced here, but which would be very useful for an aesthetic subtitler to know. It is necessary to know and understand the building blocks before being able put them together effectively. Of course, there are also the insights to be gained for more practical matters, such as the aforementioned legibility and readability, which are both concerns in subtitling. But looking at the two from the more general perspective found in typography provides a greater awareness and understanding of how they can be used and optimised for subtitles. It can even ensure that an aesthetic subtitler produces sound work.

5.3. Literary Translation

Given that subtitles fall into the category of audiovisual translation, it would not do to leave translation studies out of the equation completely. But rather than trying to include the whole of translation studies — which is vast and not all relevant to

(33)

audiovisual translation — it would be more appropriate to just focus on literary translation.

For many, style is incredibly important when translating literature. It is generally accepted that the translator is obliged to reproduce both the semantic content and the stylistic content of the source text in the target text (Lefevere, 1992; Wright, 1993).

Words alone are not enough, the aesthetic aspects, poetic techniques and rhetorical devices the author has used must also be transferred as much as possible too. Boase- Beier suggests three reasons for this:

(1) When translation is considered as a form of communication, the important part is not just what the text says, but how it says it.

(2) It is the particular stylistic techniques and the concentration of them found in literature that define it as literature.

(3) The reason for translating a literary work is partly to record the particular features that originally made it remarkable and worth translating (Boase-Beier, 2011).

These observations appear quite logical. It is more or less common knowledge that people are able to adapt the words they use, and thus their communication, according to what they believe is appropriate in a given situation. Words have their own semantic fields and connotations, and even those listed as synonyms have their nuances in meaning, intensity or register. Because of these nuances, changing a word could alter the meaning of an utterance, or at least how it is interpreted. If literature is considered as specially crafted writing, then word choice is particularly important as, ideally, the words will have been chosen with purpose. Secondly, we classify particular vocabulary or usage as “literary” in style or register. Countless books and guides exist on literary devices and terms, implying that there is a certain, expected way of using language that is associated with, and by extension defines something as, literature, that is not (as) present in other text types. And of course, a book is translated by choice rather than chance, and the selection process is likely based on particular criteria. Those criteria could have personal, aesthetic, cultural or economic origins (to suggest but a few), but regardless of where they originated, it does not follow to

(34)

completely ignore them when actually translating a book. It would not make sense to translate George Perec’s La Disparition and add all the letter ‘e’s back in, for example.

The form of a work can be as much a part of its identity as the content, and therefore must be kept intact to retain and demonstrate its value.

But the reasons for translating a particular piece of literature are not the only decisions related to the translation process that need to be made. Wittman points out that the strategy used in a translation can depend on other factors such as “the subject, the precision of the original, the type, function and use of the text, its literary qualities, and its social or historical context” (Wittman, 2013, p. 439). How important is the style relative to the content? Who are the readers ultimately going to be? Should the translation be domesticated or foreignized? Has the work already been translated, and if so, why retranslate it? There are so many questions that need to be answered before the translation process even begins. Those answers will clearly influence how the translator will work and, by extension, what the outcome will be. Given the nearly infinite number of permutations that the answers to the above (and further) questions could result in, Lefevere’s comments make sense — “no rules can be formulated as absolute” (Lefevere, 1992, p. 19). Translation is transfer between two different contexts, not “following and applying rules” (Lefevere, 1992, p. 11).

But style is still unavoidable in literature (see the above points from Boase-Beier, 2011) and what’s more, an author can use style to produce connotative meaning beyond the denotative. Nowotna warns that a lack of thorough analysis of the source text could mean the translator does not register or misreads part of its meaning, and so mistranslates it (Nowotna, 2005). This highlights the importance of fully recognising style and how it contributes to understanding the source text. It also implies that, while there are indeed no fixed rules for how to translate expressive texts, there at least needs to be an established analysis stage that precedes the translation stage. Otherwise, as Nowotna says, meaning could be missed and a poor translation could be produced.

Even if a translator ultimately decides that style is not especially important for a particular text, they at least need to be aware of any extra layers of meaning that the style has contributed to the source text.

Applying a Multidisciplinary Approach to Aesthetic Subtitling Practice: A Subtitle Commentary on Original Aesthetic Subtitles for ‘Le Fabuleux Destin d&#039;Amélie Poulain&#039;