From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: Supertitling
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:16:08 GMT

I found the issue of OPERA with the article on supertitling, and thought
I'd share at least the main topic sentences to give an idea of the (to
me, highly convincing) argument.  For those wishing to read the whole
thing, which I recommend, look for OPERA, April 1992, "Sense, Condoms,
and Integrity," by David Pountney.  He is director of productions at
English National Opera, and the article derives from his presentation to
the board of ENO at an annual meeting in which the results of their
market research on the translation/supertitling question were debated.
I include only the beginnings of his sections, and thus deprive him of
the force of his reasoning, but it's a long article.  For those
unfamiliar with ENO, their practice is to perform in English, without
supertitles.

----------------------------[QUOTE BEGINS]

A theatre is a place of communication, and language is a primary means
of communication.  It is therefore a very strange decision indeed to
elect to address an audience in a language they do not understand.  It
is against the very nature of theatre....I therefore assert that as a
matter of principle, opera as well as theatre of all kinds must be in
the language of the audience.  From this sound basis we may look at the
various arguments which are brought to bear on this issue.

"Translation involves compromise."  This is unquestionably true.  We
should assume however that a competent translation conveys the sense
accurately, thereby fulfilling the primary function of the text....Our
task should be to prepare performances that have their own integrity and
honesty, and do not necessarily attempt to ape performances elsewhere.

Another consequence of the prevalent view that Romantic Italian operas
should be given in the original language is the prejudice that they are
dramatically less valid works.  Many people for instance consider works
like Il Trovatore to be dramatically invalid precisely because they have
not had the experience of following its text through blow by blow....

"We can't hear the words anyway."  A rigorously serious view would
assert that this objection is entirely irrelevant to the argument.  The
text should be audible whether it is in English, French, Italian, or any
other language....

"Opera texts are silly, and therefore unimportant."  Quite a common
argument, and a very ignorant one....

"We know the story -- we don't need to know what they are saying."  This
is to deny theatre and music the absolutely vital element of "time" and
spontaneity.  It is not sufficient in a drama to know that during this
scene X says he loves Y, but [one must] discover it at the same moment
that X says he does.  Anything else is drama by tableau....

"We come for the music -- we don't want to hear the words."  Kindly
leave the theatre.  The text is the bridge between music and drama....

"Surtitles (a.k.a. theatrical condoms -- pieces of celluloid interposed
between the audience and the performers)."  Let us admit at once that
audiences like them.  The same is apparently true of hanging.  Neither
would get my vote....

But why *not* have surtitles?  Why not, for instance, contradict the
efforts of the theatre architects who have spent centuries perfecting
designs which concentrate the audience's attention on the stage, by
installing little flashing screens in a part of the proscenium that was
specifically designed to be looked at only during the interval?...

Why not, for instance, contradict the efforts of the composers and
dramatists who have striven to integrate music, text, and action into
one concentrated thread by isolating one element miles above our heads?
Why not render useless the priceless comic timing of our singers by
making the audience laugh at the crib sheet instead?

Why not, for instance, have surtitles also describing the nature of the
music: "This bit is in F major," "This is the cup and saucer motif,"
"This is an inversion of Wozzeck's madness motif," and so on.  Why leave
it at the text?  Why not flash up instructions about emotional
involvement: "Start crying now," "Isn't Pinkerton a cad?"  Why not
explain the production (at last): "cornfield -- a symbol of nature at
the mercy of capitalist exploitation."  Why not give really useful
information: "England 243 for 7," "Clamping lorry in St Martin's Lane"
or "only 20 minutes until Nessun Dorma."

In fact surtitles do strike directly at the integrity of what we do
because they are an extraneous technical device superimposed on top of
an extremely delicately poised balance of interaction and participation
between audience and performer.  Once you have given in to this
quick-fix solution, the absolutely inevitable long-term deterioration of
artistic integrity on all sides may be summed up as "why bother?"  Why
should the singer bother to acquire the discipline of good diction, why
should the conductor bother to restrain and control the orchestra for
the sake of balance, why should the audience bother to cooperate on
listening, why should the Board bother with the desperate acoustic
problems of our theatre....

Is it naive to place such a high value on integrity?  Will the cynical
process of political decisions about the future of our company really be
affected by such an invisible factor?  I think they will....

--------------------------------

Jon Alan Conrad