Translation for the Lazy of the West

I am on a roll here. No sense in quitting while I am ahead!

It seems to me that the film industry, in spite of whatever new technology, financial crisis, or writer's strike we throw at it, is one of the strongest creative outlets that we, as a culture, have produced to date. And when I say 'we', just imagine I am from whatever country you are, because of course there are many different cultures producing films worldwide, not all of which are shelved as alien trash by Western society in general. There are some films that have the power to reach across cultures and across language barriers to inspire an audience outside of their comfort zone. These films are, for the most part, moving, well-made, well-cast, well-scripted hours of entertainment, and there are many of them out there. I for one am quite the fan of foreign cinema, as those who follow my movie blog will know: I own DVDs in German, French, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean...

Which is why I am more than slightly alarmed by a trend that seems to have been picking up speed over the past few years. It is the trend of taking a film made outside the US in a non-English language, repackaging and rebranding it, and rereleasing it fresh from a Hollywood studio. Is this really necessary? Are we in the West so comfortable in our dominance that we must siphon out all strains of other cultures before introducing them to our cinemas? God forbid, if we actually watched something in another language we might end up learning something! I think it is clear that I am somewhat bemused by this entire idea, and I want to explore not why it may or may not be wrong, but why it is happening in the first place, and how long it has been happening for.


The film that first really got me thinking about this was 'Funny Games', by a director whom I personally consider to be a living genius, Michael Haneke. In 1997 he released 'Funny Games' in German, and decided that it was the best and most perfect thing he had ever done. Soon afterwards, however, he began to despair. He realised that, because he had made his film in German - his own language - no one other than Germans were ever going to watch it. But this was the highest point of his career! His major work! To think that no one would ever see it would be... unthinkable! So, he set about remaking the movie himself and released it in 2007, in English, with Naomi Watts and Tim Roth starring as the now so recognizable married couple. Instead of watching some Germans get tortured during this movie, now we as a Western audience see two actors, because we know who they are. We have seen them both getting beaten up before, and we know their reactions. The cast are wonderful, but that is not the point. The point is that Michael Haneke reproduced his movie almost entirely frame for frame (this blog has some comparisons, though I don't agree with their review), just so that it had a chance of being seen by English-speaking viewers.

Did it work? Well, I guess so, because I first stumbled across 'Funny Games', and Haneke, when an American tutor of mine showed us the movie as part of a film studies seminar. 'This film,' he said to us, 'Was remade frame for frame from an original German movie ten years before. It's an excellent study of the use of film theory, and it's really very good.'

He could have said, 'This film is a German film that was remade for a Western audience. I am going to show you the original, though, so you don't get too caught up in the fact that it is Naomi Watts and Tim Roth there on the screen'. He did not. He also showed us a French film with English dub, which almost blew me up with frustration since I speak French perfectly well and did not need my viewing experience to be ruined by bad dubbing. Is this a problem that we, as a culture, need to address? I think it is, because English is not the most spoken language in the world. There are apparently over eight hundred million (800,000,000) people in the world whose native language is Mandarin Chinese. There are three hundred and fifty-eight million (358,000,000) whose native language is Spanish. There are only three hundred and fifty million (350,000,000) whose native language is English. I think our arrogance does not become us.

This is far from the only film remade for a Western audience. A quick summary, listed in chronological order, of some films you may have seen coming from Hollywood but that originated elsewhere:
1959: Some Like It Hot (Germany - 'Fanfaren der Liebe')
1960: The Magnificent Seven (Japan - 'Seven Samurai') note: the cultural references were changed drastically
1961: The Parent Trap (Germany - 'Das doppelte Lottchen')
1964: A Fistful of Dollars (Japan - 'Yojimbo') note: the cultural references were changed drastically
1965: The Sound of Music - reportedly based on a German film 'Die Trapp-Familie', though I cannot verify this
1983: Breathless (France - 'À bout de souffle')
1992: Reservoir Dogs (China - 'City on Fire')
1995: Twelve Monkeys (France 'La jetée') note: this version was also made longer, and the direction style was changed considerably
1996: The Birdcage (France - 'La Cage au Folles')
1998: The Parent Trap (Again) (Germany), Godzilla (Japan - 'Gojira')
2001: Vanilla Sky (Spanish - 'Abre los ojos')
2002: The Ring (Japan - 'Ringu')
2004: Taxi (France - 'Taxi'), Wicker Park (France - 'L'Appartement'), The Grudge (Japan - 'Ju-On')
2005: Dark Water (Japan - 'Dark Water')
2006: The Departed (China - 'Infernal Affairs')
2007: Interview (Holland - 'Interview'), No Reservations (Germany - 'Bella Martha')
2008: Funny Games (Germany - 'Funny Games'), Bangkok Dangerous (Thailand - 'Bangkok Dangerous')
2009: Blood: The Last Vampire (Japan - 'Blood: The Last Vampire')
2010: The Orphanage (Spanish - El Orfanato), Let Me In (Swedish - 'Låt den rätte komma in')
To be released in 2011: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Swedish - 'Män som hatar kvinnor')


Though I found this list on Wikipedia, which you may doubt as a reliable source, all of the information here checks out pretty well. Some of these surprised me, for sure, and unless you are a film buff I am sure they surprised you! How is it that a film can be completely unknown in Chinese, and become a box office hit when remade in English?

I think the one from this list that annoys me the most has to be 'Let Me In', a remake of 'Låt den rätte komma in', which was originally released in Swedish only two years before. Two years! It was also very popular in it's own right: my university actually held a screening of it in 2009, which was well-attended. It won a whole scoop of awards, and featured heavily in all the best-of-2008 lists that anyone paid any attention to. It was praised readily by the English-speaking world just as it was... and yet here we are, with a remake. Disappointing? Yes. Surprising? No.

But why has this happened? Perhaps we as an audience have allowed it to happen. Sales of Hollywood DVDs and cinema tickets clearly outstrip that of any other film industry in the West, including the British film industry. Is this just because there are more Americans, or because Americans seem to be able to put a bigger budget behind their productions? Is it because it is hard to market material from another country in the US and Britain, given the language and culture gaps? I was also horrified to hear lately that the film 'Death Note' which was a phenomenal success in Japan going off the back of the manga/anime/book franchise, is being remade by Warner Bros next year. Ridiculously, some articles written recently, as news trickles down to us about the imminent production, have failed to mention that there are three Japanese films about the subject already. My advice? Do your research. Be open to other cultures. If there is an option to use subtitles instead of dubbing, use them. If we do not value and learn about other cultures, how can we truly value our own?

Now, take a deep, calming breath, looking at the soothing blue and white flowers on either side of this post and how pretty they are, and tell me what your view on this is.

PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals??

Oooh, controversial subject! The first thought of many PETA-fans is going to be to comment a slew of insults and OMG!!!'s, I am sure. However, such people may want to read ahead, since they may actually discover that I am making a valid point.

First of all, I myself am vegetarian, and always have been, coming from a vegetarian family. For the record, I am completely okay with the fact that they made that decision for me at the start of my life, so I can say with pride that I have never eaten the flesh of another living thing. I have owned multiple pets throughout my life, and cared for them, most lately a pair of humongous rabbits that took up the most part of my Saturday with cleaning duties. Sadly, all but two of our pets - a couple of amazing fish - have passed away, but I think you are getting the picture - I am an animal lover. In fact, I am subscribed to Peta and Peta2's mailing lists, I follow them on Facebook, and I once spent a day of school talking only in French to raise money for the RSPCA. So, I am not your average Peta-basher, just out here to make comments like 'LOL MEAT IS NICE' or 'WHO NEEDS SEALS ANYWAY'. I am here to make what I believe is a valid, considered rant about some things they do that really annoy the Hell out of me.

I am going to make two points here, which I believe I can prove. Peta are HYPOCRITICAL (1), and they do not CONSIDER the consequences of their propaganda (2).

Let's start by examining the following campaign, which encourages people to adopt instead of buying dogs: Outward link to Peta website



In the past, I have seen Peta encourage Facebook users to be abusive towards certain celebrities during a weird hate campaign, which frankly is nothing short of inhumane in itself. Who deserves to be bombarded with this kind of press, not to mention the viewer comments, emails, posts elswhere etc etc, just because they wanted to buy a dog? Should Peta not be celebrating the fact that someone wants to look after an animal, rather than condemning it? In the eyes of Peta, it seems, it is worse to buy dogs because 'animals sold in pet shops often come from "puppy mills", where they are housed in cramped, filthy and unhealthy conditions and lack proper veterinary care'. Hmm. Alright. Well, I can see why they would want to discourage the advance of this industry, but don't they usually encourage people to save animals from such horrific treatment (1)? They state that, in regards to animal shelters, 'as many as one dog every hour is killed because of a lack of good homes'. Right, right, okay. But... what exactly happens to the dogs in the pet shops when no one buys them, then (2)?

And hang on, wait a moment - don't Peta put down animals too? In fact, don't they put down a hell of a lot of animals, claiming that it is a 'necessary evil', according to the article I have just linked (1)? If you cannot be bothered to cast an eye over the above information, I will summarize it for you: there are alternatives which have been proved to work, which mean that only unhealthy animals need to be put down. Is peta campaigning to get these alternatives used by more shelters? No! Is peta in fact practicing these methods itself? No!

So let's put Peta to the question: Why do they still euthanize unwanted pets? Well, they have created this useful little page as an answer (warning: disturbing images), presumably because so many people have asked the question. Again a summary: they plainly state, in much nicer words, that they are willing to put down animals who do not have a home in order to save them from the nasty men who will be mean to them if they don't. All of this, by the way, inbetween horrific photographs of injured and unwell pets, drawing your attention away from the words between the lines.

A little side note here, too: If you had young children, would you feel comfortable with the idea of adopting a dog with a troubled past, that may or may not have violent tendencies because of it?

So, in conclusion, what makes me mad about Peta is their hypocrisy and their short-sightedness. They need to stop needlessly pummeling celebrities for buying dogs and start focusing on making sure that they do not euthanize dogs without homes, they encourage more people to spay and neuter to stop the growth of the canine population (and again, this is hypocritical, but still better than the above), and that they make sure people know that there are dogs out there in shelters that need homes in the first place. It has been shown many times throughout history that going on the attack is not a very good way of getting people to listen to your message - it is a way of making people lose respect for you. Please, Peta, stop making veggies look bad.

Now, take a deep, calming breath, looking at the soothing blue and white flowers on either side of this post and how pretty they are, and tell me what your view on this is.