Spielberg Remaking WEST SIDE STORY - Subtitles Are (Apparently) Racist!

[Edmund Kattak]

And ultimately, this movie may BOMB because of this kind of arrogance.

What about Spanish-speaking DEAF people out there who won't be understand what's going on, needless to say us peon *whites* who paid for your movies all these decades.

[AndyDursin]

Someone has to translate this woke-speak for me. I apologize for repeating myself but this one...this one is just so senseless. How does English "have power over" Spanish if scenes are subtitled? Again I don't understand this. Isn't the goal to be INCLUSIVE of all viewers regardless of their heritage, language, culture, etc.?

If that's his bottom line, why wasn't this entire movie shot in Spanish? Why subtitle ANY movie not in its native language? Why not make the movie for the Latin American market and leave it at that? His utter pandering is sad to witness, because as left as Spielberg is off-screen, he has scarcely been a "political filmmaker" and has tried to be "inclusive" regardless of the subject matter of his films -- not to mention someone who cares about actual history (AMISTAD is one of the few movies ever to show Africans being sold into slavery by other Africans AFAIK).

I noticed Spielberg uses "Latinx" as well in that article which is an invented term by elite liberals that offends a large percentage of Hispanics (40% according to a recent poll) because it grafts contemporary, gender-free verbiage onto its cultural and linguistic history.

Clearly he's drunk the kool-aid here -- they must think they understand their marketplace and are gunning for the HAMILTON crowd of rich elites who will embrace a movie that dares to not "give English the power" by not running subtitles. Or something so stupid as that -- yet these are the type of hills they are willing to die on, I guess. Good luck to them, it's not the kind of audience-EXcluding move I'd make for my movie.

[jkholm]

I'm certainly not a "wokeness" expert (although I did find the book Cynical Theories extremely helpful) but I believe the issue here is one of "power." The general idea behind CRT and all the other "theories" is that white males and Western civilization oppress minorities through the use of various forms of power. One of the primary means of exerting that power is through language. This is why there are so many words and phrases that you can't say because they're "politically incorrect." One of the goals of CRT is to find and eliminate any words that are used to oppress non-white people.

Apparently, showing the English language onscreen is now seen as an attempt by white people to extend the power of oppressive language over non-English speaking people. No, it doesn't make any sense but that's clearly what Spielberg and everyone in the left wing Hollywood bubble believes. And if theater owners start reporting that their customers are complaining because the subtitles aren't working, that will just be proof of how racist the customers are.

The only possible means of this movie becoming a hit is if the universal nature of the source material (Romeo and Juliet) comes through.

[Edmund Kattak]

Someone has to translate this woke-speak for me. I apologize for repeating myself but this one...this one is just so senseless. How does English "have power over" Spanish if scenes are subtitled? Again I don't understand this. Isn't the goal to be INCLUSIVE of all viewers regardless of their heritage, language, culture, etc.?

If that's his bottom line, why wasn't this entire movie shot in Spanish? Why subtitle ANY movie not in its native language? Why not make the movie for the Latin American market and leave it at that? His utter pandering is sad to witness, because as left as Spielberg is off-screen, he has scarcely been a "political filmmaker" and has tried to be "inclusive" regardless of the subject matter of his films -- not to mention someone who cares about actual history (AMISTAD is one of the few movies ever to show Africans being sold into slavery by other Africans AFAIK).

I noticed Spielberg uses "Latinx" as well in that article which is an invented term by elite liberals that offends a large percentage of Hispanics (40% according to a recent poll) because it grafts contemporary, gender-free verbiage onto its cultural and linguistic history.

Clearly he's drunk the kool-aid here -- they must think they understand their marketplace and are gunning for the HAMILTON crowd of rich elites who will embrace a movie that dares to not "give English the power" by not running subtitles. Or something so stupid as that -- yet these are the type of hills they are willing to die on, I guess. Good luck to them, it's not the kind of audience-EXcluding move I'd make for my movie.

Even the term "hispanic" is offensive to me because it lumps in all Spanish-speaking cultures into one convenient block or category. It is purely a "political" categorization - just like latinx. I believe "hispanic" was coined during the Nixon administration. I had this conversation with my boss, who is Colombian. I recognize him as an American from Colombian decent, not the amorphous "hispanic" which doesn't tell me anything about the cultural heritage.

[jkholm]

I was talking to my wife about this controversy. She works for a non-profit organization in Dallas called Literacy Achieves that teaches ESL to students. She said a bit more than 50% of the group's students speak Spanish. These students are often desperate to learn English. Why? They want to read instructions, talk to their children's teacher, talk to their landlord, go to the library, go to the airport, read road signs, read a menu at a restaurant, etc. They know that English is the dominant language spoken in America which is precisely why they want to learn to speak it well. My wife also mentioned she once needed to communicate with a student who could not speak English and so my wife asked a fellow student who had been learning English to act as a translator. This second student was so excited and proud to be able to translate English into Spanish.

It's a wonderful thing to be bilingual and there's nothing wrong with bringing elements of your culture to America but to deny English speakers the right to understand you just because you weren't born here? Insufferable.

[Monterey Jack]

If you asked 100 Spanish-speaking people if seeing their language subtitled in a movie was "offensive" to them, I'm sure at least 95% of them would consider that a bizarre question.

[mkaroly]

I'm certainly not a "wokeness" expert (although I did find the book Cynical Theories extremely helpful) but I believe the issue here is one of "power." The general idea behind CRT and all the other "theories" is that white males and Western civilization oppress minorities through the use of various forms of power. One of the primary means of exerting that power is through language. This is why there are so many words and phrases that you can't say because they're "politically incorrect." One of the goals of CRT is to find and eliminate any words that are used to oppress non-white people.

Apparently, showing the English language onscreen is now seen as an attempt by white people to extend the power of oppressive language over non-English speaking people. No, it doesn't make any sense but that's clearly what Spielberg and everyone in the left wing Hollywood bubble believes. And if theater owners start reporting that their customers are complaining because the subtitles aren't working, that will just be proof of how racist the customers are.

The only possible means of this movie becoming a hit is if the universal nature of the source material (Romeo and Juliet) comes through.

Great post!

[Monterey Jack]

9.5/10



This is a pretty stellar remake, with fluid, dynamic camerawork, dazzling choreography, fine performances/singing, a lush arrangement of the Bernstein/Sondheim score and some smart additions/alterations to the screenplay. And, truth be told, there's not NEARLY as much unsubtitled Spanish as people have been grousing about (mainly scenes with the Puerto Rican characters conversing amongst themselves, and often chiding each other -- or being chided by cops -- to "Speak English!"). Yeah, there were a few moments when it went on a hair too long, but it's easy enough to get the "gist" due to narrative context clues or body language/emphasis. All-in-all Spielberg knocked this one out of the park, and it looked stunning up on the oversized XPlus screen I saw it on this afternoon. Shame that it's not tracking too well box-office wise for the weekend, but I think it will have a decent performance in the long run through Christmas, especially if it gets Awards Season traction (and it deserves to).

[AndyDursin]

I don't know about that necessarily. This isn't the same marketplace as before covid. Movies don't tend to be "found" anymore. It's either something people want to see or don't.

No matter what, Spielberg wanted this movie made far more than there was an audience who was interested in seeing it. Judging from the awful box office it seems this property had a problem in two ways: older viewers have already seen it on stage and at the movies, so it's a remake with no appeal. And young viewers obviously just don't care about it period, and aren't moved by Spielberg's name or anyone in the cast.

Given the heavy promotion it's had from Disney, it's a flat out bad opening. But I said it from the start....this was a no win project for him. Even with all the good reviews it's gotten, and I don't discount your opinion MJ, I still have no interest in it.

[AndyDursin]

Looks like the tide has turned --

New Yorker with a dissenting view trashing Spielberg and Kushner's revisions:



And a NY Times editorial that essentially does the same, as well as pans the movie's non-subtitled sections:

Mr. Spielberg said that he chose not to use subtitles, so as not to give “English the power over the Spanish.” But the question of identity and language is complicated, and not all Latinos speak Spanish. When words are not translated their meaning and power can be easily lost. In one scene, Anita, played by Ariana DeBose, an Afro-Latina who identifies as queer, confronts her boyfriend, Bernardo, after he excludes her from a family conversation. She asks him if he’s rebuking her because she’s “prieta,” a derogatory term for someone with dark skin. This denunciation of colorism will likely be lost on English speakers.

The over-accented Spanish, coaxed out of U.S.-born actors by dialect coaches, ultimately becomes a kind of linguistic brownface, providing little more than a facade of authenticity as thick and corny as the brown makeup worn by the actors in the original version. Was the point to make a film that speaks more authentically to a Latino public? Or one that non-Latinos would feel less guilty producing and consuming?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/opin ... B5R4xVmMDQ

[Monterey Jack]

Rated 12 in the UK for "discrimination" and "implied strong language".

[mkaroly]

This is the only Spielberg film I will never own up to this point in his career. Zero interest in this.

[AndyDursin]

Like we said it was a no-win proposition right from the get go.

What the hell is "implied strong language". How can it be "strong" if it's "implied"???

[Monterey Jack]

Hardcover making-of book from Laurent Bouzereau only $4.32(!).