The one inch barrier- Mara Fendrich

THE ONE

As he accepted an award for his film “Parasite” at the Golden Globes, South Korean filmmaker Bong Joon Ho started a cinephile revolution by mocking close-minded viewers.

“Once you overcome the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films,” said Ho in Korean, which was carried through by his translator. “Just being nominated along with fellow, amazing international filmmakers was a huge honor. I think we use only one language: the cinema.”

In the following month, “Parasite” became the first ever foreign film to win best picture at the Oscars. Since then, it appears everyone has lost their minds — including myself.

Ho’s words to the Golden Globe’s audience collide feverously with Hollywood’s slow-burning debate surrounding subtitles, in which the American attitude of impatience is tested on the accusatory waters of cultural insensitivity. So, is it actually racist not to read subtitles?

The answer is more loaded than you might think. In order to respectfully and thoroughly dissect such a complicated question, I need to provide some background. For as long as East Asian culture has obtained the interest of the American people, two types of viewers have been at each others’ throats: those who experience film and television in their original audio and read the closed captions, and those who listen along to the dubbed over versions in English.

Viewers who argue in favor of subtitles do so because they preserve the content the way it was meant to be. Voice actors are cast as the producer intended, which is telling of each character and how they come across to the viewer. Still, many who don’t speak the original language of the film complain that having to read the bottom of the screen takes away from the overall experience and gets exhausting in a matter of minutes, sticking with dubbed audio for its convenience and simplicity.

In terms of cognitive experience, however, this argument falls apart. Back in 1992, psychologists Gery D’Ydewalle and Ingrid Gielen published a study tracking eye movement and attention while watching movies with subtitles. They found that the overlapping of sound, image and text was not a distraction, but rather a balancing act that the brain adjusts to in time. In 2007, D’Ydewalle published another study on children participating in the same eye-tracking test. Apart from a slight increase in the time for the eye to transition from text to screen and back, their conclusion remained the same.

INCH BARRIER

by Mara Fendrich

They are not the only ones backing this area of research. Professor Tim Smith at Birkbeck, University of London and Professor Jeffrey Zacks at Washington University both argue that the presence of subtitles are not limiting cognitively; they are instead more engaging to the viewer. Simultaneously processing visual information and text requires more parts of the brain to function at the same time, but that does not make it any more laborious.

With this information, there is a valid argument that this barrier does not, in fact, pertain to a simple language barrier. It is instead built from an unwillingness to connect.

East Asian cartoons that reached the American mainstream, such as “Sailor Moon,” opened the door for similar shows, which lead to the current Western debate on the “right way” to interact with certain types of media. Those who grew up on those cartoons may have grown accustomed to media that accommodates English speaking viewers and their interests, which perpetuates a main issue with American consumerism: the sense of entitlement.

Closed captioning, though potentially annoying to neurotypical Americans, holds a higher importance. It is more suitable for those who are hard of hearing. It makes fast-paced movies easier to understand for those who may need it. And, as Indian academic Brij Kothari has proven through years of research, it helps children establish a connection between text and sounds, which furthers their ability to read.

Despite these counterarguments, people who side with dubbing maintain that they “don’t want to read a movie,” eventually creating a stalemate. That’s where Ho comes in. Now, with his remarks on the political implications behind the subtitle debate, the future of foreign films and their role in Hollywood is completely open-ended.

With the already booming interest of South Korean entertainment in America, Ho had ample opportunity to find success at winning an Oscar following his nominations, which had an unclear effect on the future success of other cultures’ films. Either Ho’s film completely opened the door for foreign languages and cultures to mix and become a prevalent part of American entertainment, or it set up only the success of films of its same nature.

It’s important to keep in mind for the American viewer interested in foreign culture, whether it be Bollywood, K-Dramas or otherwise, that culture does not exist purely for their entertainment. Each continent, each country and even each city has unique customs and ways of life that stretch far beyond amusement to the outsider. In separate interviews, Ho has made it clear that he doesn’t care about American audiences’ backlash regarding subtitles. He didn’t make it for them.

In avoiding the coveted celebrity status, Ho has left more than enough room open for the endless pursuit of his art. He has become the symbol of chaos that Hollywood has long feared, and all he had to do was exist. The politics, awards and glory that come after mainstream success are all secondary. He is simply here for the art. Nothing more, and absolutely nothing less.

As for that one-inch barrier, there is no way to tell if we as a people will cross it. If you were to ask me, I would say we’re only a centimeter of the way there.