|
By
Ramez Maluf
Abstract
This paper examines the commercial and cultural reasons the
dubbing of American films and television programs, common throughout
much of the world, remains non-existent in the Arab World. Despite
a marked surge in the number of Arabic-language television stations
in the last ten years, and much need for quality programs, dubbing
into Arabic remains limited to a few Latin American soaps, children’s
cartoons and, more recently, Iranian films.
_________________________
Dubbing
, the replacing of the original language or voice by another,
is a practice almost as old as the talkies themselves. Following
the introduction of synchronized sound and dialogue by Warner
Brothers in their 1926 production of The Jazz Singer,
the cinema industry was radically and rapidly transformed so
that within a few years, the feature film with a full soundtrack
became the norm, and dialogue—with its potential for complexity
of script and cultural expression—became an integral part
of Hollywood production. In the early years of the talkies,
producers occasionally resorted to dubbing, from English to
English, when the intonation, dialect or accent of the great
stars of the silent era conflicted with their popular image.
However, it would not be long before most of these stars were
superceded by new talents, more in harmony with the new talking
movies.(1)
Outside
the United States, in Latin America and Europe, where Hollywood
productions started to make serious inroads as early as the
late 1910s, the fact of sound and dialogue forced distributors
to consider ways to reach out to non-English speaking audiences.
Dubbing and the less expensive practice of subtitling American
films were the options adopted by film producers in response
to these technological developments. By 1931, the art and technique
of dubbing had been refined enough to be used adequately and
convincingly.(2) The stimulus for the more expensive practice
came, on one hand, from nationalists and governments who believed
that dubbing would defend the national language against the
Hollywood onslaught(3) and, on the other, from distributors
whose concern were reaching a wider audience.
Thus in
1941, Spain, which had virtually no cinema industry, ordered
that all foreign films be dubbed into Spanish before they could
be shown locally.(4) The decree was well-received, and soon
American, British or French stars, on the large and, later,
on the small screen, were all speaking Spanish. A similar law
came into effect in France in 1947. Again, the main incentive
was the belief that dubbing would preserve the local language,
and through it, the national culture. In the two largest South
American countries, Brazil and Argentina, the dubbing of foreign
films also has been compulsory since the late 1940s.(5) However,
even before it was mandated by law, dubbing already was the
favored option of distributors when the movie held promises
of success at the box office.
In Mexico
alone, where there was a relatively strong cinema industry,
dubbing met with opposition. There, the concern was commercial.
The Mexican Film Law of 1949 prohibited the dubbing or distribution
of all films except those classified as educational. While local
television stations and production houses have been dubbing
American productions into Spanish for decades, Mexican studios
successfully prevented Hollywood from dubbing their films into
the local language until the year 2000, when lawyers representing
American interests—alleging that the Mexican prohibition
discriminated against 20 million illiterate Mexicans, as well
as the elderly and those with poor eyesight— were successful
in overturning the law.(6) In India, also a major film producer,
the dubbing of foreign films was made legal only in 1992.(7)
With the
advent of television, dubbing of TV programs also became popular,
so that by the late 1970s, most major European and Latin American
markets were watching television and cinema productions made
in Hollywood in their local languages. Today, in Austria, France,
Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey—and increasingly
in the major East European nations—audiences see Hollywood
productions in their local languages, rather than subtitles,
as a result of concern for audience size and linguistic purity.(8)
Ironically, Hollywood commercial interests have as allies cultural
purists concerned with safeguarding the local language against
the American cultural invasion. The concern that dubbing, by
bringing characters and plots closer to the audience, may act
as a cultural Trojan Horse, allowing for the intrusion of a
foreign culture through the local language, does not
seem to have been a major consideration.
In the Arab
world, dubbing of feature films or TV productions has been slow
in coming, despite a large market and a high index of illiteracy,
estimated at higher than 40 percent of the 280 million population,(9)
and which should, at least theoretically, favor dubbing over
subtitling. The mushrooming of competing Pan Arab stations,
numbering about 280 in 2005, has also failed to trigger an increased
interest in the practice, except for children’s cartoons.(10)
Possibly
the first, production houses to dub media programs into Arabic
was the Beirut-based independent Al Ittihhad al Fanni, originally
developed as a radio production house by the late Ghanem Dajjani,
Sobhi Abou Loghd and Abed El Majid Abou Laban in 1963. Their
first experiment, commissioned by Radio Liban, was a voiceover
adaptation of a BBC radio episode of Jane Eyre. Dajjani
remembered it as a “very modest” success.(11) The
pioneer of video dubbing into Arabic is Nicolas Abou Samah,
whose company Filmali dubbed the children’s cartoon Sindbad
in 1974. The success of this production was such that it was
followed by the dubbing of Zena Wa Nakhoul in 1975
and later by a slew of other children's cartoons. The Lebanese
civil war forced the company to move its operations to Cyprus.
From there, in 1991, Filmali dubbed the first of a series of
Mexican soaps into Standard Arabic to be broadcast at the privately-run
Lebanese Broadcast Corporation (LBC), a station that gained
immediate popularity when it was launched in 1985 during the
country's civil war. The success of that Mexican series, with
the translated title of Anta Aw La Ahad, literally
“You or No One,” was such that 11 Mexican and Brazilian
soaps were translated into Standard Arabic within a period of
eight years. The practice continues, although it has tapered
off in recent years. George Abou Salbeh, then with Filmali,
recollects that the primary motive behind LBC's decision to
commission the dubbing of the Mexican telenovela was a desire
to increase their Arab programming at little expense. The cost
of the dubbed telenovela was significantly below that of a locally
produced program of comparative quality. No one anticipated
the huge success of this stopgap measure.(12)
In 1999,
what was probably the first dubbed long feature film, Police
Academy, was shown on Beirut's Murr TV, known locally as
MTV. The dubbing in Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA) was not well
received and the station discontinued what it had originally
programmed as a weekly showing of a long US feature film. The
reasons for the success of the Mexican soap and the failure
of the otherwise very popular Police Academy film series
to attract a wide audience in Arabic were, in the opinion of
Abou Samah, cultural. The plots and dialogues of the former,
originating in relatively conservative Latin societies, were
culturally acceptable by Arab audiences as plausible Arab stories
with Arab actors while the latter were seen as a contrived translation
of plots and dialogues that had no bearing on Arab reality.
Latin American soaps require “a minimal amount of editing
to make them acceptable to Arab audiences and at no sacrifice
to the storyline,” he says. This was not only true of
the dialogue, but also of the actors’ deliveries. On the
other hand, the cultural leap required to accept Hollywood storylines
and their actors, with all their idiosyncrasies, as speakers
of Arabic was seen as too great, and unacceptable to Arab audiences.
“Arab heroes do not use curse words,” says Abou
Samah, “they don’t jump on a moving train, slide
down a window and machinegun 10 criminals.” Arab audiences,
believes Abou Samah, are accustomed to hear Hollywood actors
speak English and prefer to read subtitles.(13)
More recently,
in time for Ramadan 2005, the Arab satellite television network
MBC introduced a dubbed version of the U.S. cartoon The
Simpsons, or Al Shamshoon. MBC has committed to
dubbing all 17 seasons of the program if this first one proves
to be a success. However, according to Yasmine El-Rashid, writing
in The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 14, 2005), the program
is getting “few laughs.” She suggests that one main
reason is the inability to of the dubbing to translate the very
iconoclastic character and language of the program. Omar Shamshoon,
in contrast to Homer Simpson, does not drink beer, eats no bacon,
and does not hang out at “seedy bars with bums and lowlifes.”
Many Arab fans of the English-speaking Homer, writes El-Rashid,
are incensed over the Arabized version.
Subtitles
however carry none of the pretenses of dubbing. Rather, they
act as constant reminders that the film or television program
being watched is foreign. Viewers are not required to identify
with the actors, or to believe that the storyline applies to
their own cultural environment. The objective of any good dubbing
is precisely for viewers to fail to notice, or at least to forget,
or indeed to suppress the fact that they are viewing a translation
of the original production.
[S]ubtitling creates a double text out of an originally single
text, it draws attention to its own mode of production, ruptures
the ease with which character identification normally proceeds,
and makes room for intellectual evaluation and analysis. At
the same time it destroys the usual unity between the spectator
and the cinematic world she or he experiences. This results
in the perception of “difference” rather than in
the confirmation of “sameness” and identity…(14)
However,
the cultural explanation may not in itself be enough to explain
why dubbing has failed to make the inroads in the Arab world
that it did elsewhere. Cultural differences also are significant
between the US and Italy, or between the US and Turkey, or,
indeed, India, where the practice, although selective, is nevertheless
common. Indians shy away from dubbing dialogue-oriented films,
but will dub action-oriented productions. The movie Kramer
vs. Kramer, rather than being dubbed or subtitled, was
remade in Hindi and released in 1995 as Akele Hum Akele
Tum (I Am Alone You Are Alone) with Aamir Khan and Manisha
Koirala stepping in for Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. However,
Jurassic Park and Anaconda are two examples
of movies that were dubbed and well received.(15) The practice
of dubbing locally made Hindi films into Tamil or other Indian
languages is not uncommon.
Non-Cultural
Impediments to Dubbing
Movie theaters.
In Europe, Asia and Latin America, the initial impetus for dubbing
was the cinema, or long feature films. In the Arab world, outside
of Egypt, viewing audiences for foreign movies were not substantial
before the 1960s, when Arab countries started to develop what
were essentially state-owned or -controlled TV stations. In
most of the Arabic-speaking countries, there were few movie
theaters. In Algeria and other countries under French rule,
although the number of theaters was large, cinema was a colonial
activity until independence. Where movie theaters were common,
such as in Egypt, local productions fared well against foreign
films. It was often profitable to replicate American movies
with local talents and adapted scripts and settings, than simply
to dub the language. Egyptians did a good job of that and a
number of their more successful films, including musicals, cop
and robbers, whodunits, and love stories were local versions
of Hollywood films.(16) In the richer Gulf countries, movie
theaters were either slow to develop or, as in Saudi Arabia,
remain nonexistent.
Dialect. Which vernacular Arabic should be
used? Arabs do not all use the same dialect in everyday speech
and, in some cases, the differences are such that the vernacular
is almost incomprehensible or significantly alien to people
from different Arab countries. While the Egyptian dialect is
the more widely understood form of colloquial Arabic, precisely
because of the diffusion of film and popular lyrics from that
country, the fact that Egypt was not dubbing Hollywood productions
meant that the dialect was not being used for that purpose.
The language Arabs have in common is Standard Arabic, a high
or classical form of the language. That language is normally
reserved for literature, formal occasions, or, in the context
of television, news broadcasts. The medium of everyday discourse
is the vernacular. Some media will use a form of Arabic known
as Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA) that intermixes between Standard
Arabic and acceptable intrusions from the colloquial.(17) Despite
the popularity of Mexican and Brazilian soaps or telenovelas,
their use of Standard Arabic in the dialogue is seen as stilted
and remains the butt of popular jokes. Arabs simply do not use
their “common language” in everyday speech. The
relative proliferation of dubbed children’s cartoons into
Standard Arabic is explainable partly on educational grounds
in order to introduce children at an early age to the “higher”
form of the language.
Politics. At the ideological and political
level, there were essentially two factors that discouraged dubbing,
and indeed, even the broadcast of Western and particularly US
programs. The first was the concern that traditional values,
political assumptions and social structures would be questioned.
These concerns militated against any significant import of Western
programming, even in their original languages.(18) The second
had to do with the lack of interest shown by state-controlled
television stations for market forces that, since the 1960s,
have been the main propellants of dubbing in Latin America and
Europe. In the Arab World, these forces were only to come into
play in the latter part of the 1990s, with the proliferation
of satellite television stations vying for viewership.(19) As
long as local populations had no choice other than state-controlled
stations, programming was mostly dictated by official, rather
than market considerations. The concern for television audience
size that encouraged the practice of dubbing in Europe and Latin
America simply did not exist in the Arab world.
Costs.
This point only underlines the importance of the other three:
the mechanics and the costs of dubbing are considerably more
significant than those of subtitling, and riskier. Developing
a market for dubbed films, particularly where no clear choice
of dialect exists and where cultural differences between film
and audiences are very significant, requires long-term commitment.
Conditioning audiences to dubbed programs requires time and
money. This is especially problematic when local production
is strong and successful. To dub a film adequately involves
casting, rewriting the script in language that can be roughly
timed to the lip movements of the screen actors, directing and
long editing hours— “everything,” in the language
of dubbing companies, “but the visuals.” Nevertheless,
as the Indian market has shown, even if a film has to be dubbed
into three or four languages—in the case of India typically
Hindi, Tamil and Telegu—the practice may be worthwhile
if the right movies are chosen.(20) The success of telenovelas
should underscore that point. The dubbing of The Simpsons
by MBC for Ramadan 2005 should provide an interesting test case.
The cost
of dubbing in the Arab world, although higher than subtitling,
is in other words, not necessarily the only factor that deters
TV stations from opting for the practice. The concern is how
the dubbing will be received. In Lebanon, where the dubbing
industry is relatively significant, unknown or inexperienced
actors charge around $100 for a day’s work, while experienced
actors may charge more than $500. Acting crews can on occasions
number in the tens. Dubbing, according to Walid Hashem of Arabian
Media Production a subsidiary of MBC, also is technically complicated
when compared to subtitling, and on average requires 24 hours
of studio work for one hour of programming.(21) Nasser Akhdar,
director of programming at Al Manar television, says the dubbing
of a one-hour long television program costs his station about
$2,500 to $3,500. Subtitling the same program will cost, he
estimates, about 10 to 15 percent of the amount. Unless the
program is a great success, says Akhdar, dubbing is not a profitable
venture. Al Manar recently put an end to its dubbing of long
feature films -- all of them Iranian productions, which Akhdar
believes are culturally in harmony with Arab values and Al Manar’s
mostly Shiite audience.(22)
Nicholas
Abou Samah of Filmali, whose company, together with Disney,
was among the first to start dubbing cartoons into Arabic in
the mid 1970s, estimates the cheapest TV dubbing production
to cost about $3,000 per episode. For the most part, these prices
only became affordable once the audiences became large, as they
have with the advent of satellite stations. Dubbing for TV is
now, roughly, a $10 million industry, estimates Abou Samah,
a “small sum compared to its potential.”(23)
Even in
the money-strapped world of Arab TV, $3,000 is not a prohibitive
sum if the demand for dubbed programs can be exploited correctly.
As long as the success of dubbing remains limited to Latin American
soaps, the full potential of that practice, which has totally
transformed programming in Europe and Latin America, will remain
minimal in the Arab World.
Will
It Catch On?
With the
development of satellite television in the region in the mid-1990s
and the increased competition for audiences, will the demand
for dubbed programs increase? If developments in other parts
of the world are any indication, then the answer should be in
the affirmative. However, as long as some of the obstacles referred
to above remain, the potential for dubbing into Arabic may remain
untapped.
Of all the
obstacles currently facing the dubbing of Western programs in
the Arab World, cultural clash may be the most serious, particularly
as the industry becomes more market-oriented and more competitive.
While the choice of appropriate dialect is likely to remain
an issue, local productions in Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese
dialects—as well as in Standard Arabic—all have
been able to make significant inroads in the Pan-Arab media.
Theoretically, the dubbing of Hollywood productions into any
one of these dialects is an alternative. However, neither programmers
nor distributors seem to believe that Arab audiences will be
willing to accept situations and dialogue that are too foreign
to their culture, expressed in Arabic. Mazen Rifka, vice president
for Sham International, a Damascus-based production and dubbing
house, says his clients are initially reluctant to include dubbed
telenovelas into their programming, deeming even these innocuous
productions too culturally incongruent for their audiences.
Audiences, they argue, have no problem viewing and enjoying
the same programs in their original languages, and accessing
them through subtitles, where there is no pretense that the
protagonists are Arab speakers and where rapport is relegated
to a non-ideological level.(24) Arab audiences, by this logic,
are seen as capable of responding to the general message of
a subtitled video or film production without considering themselves
part of the producing culture and without internalizing its
principles. All that is required is that they appreciate, at
some level, the film’s semiotics, or the structure under
which it is produced. This argument helps explain why culturally
divergent audiences feel comfortable with, and even empathetic
towards, Hollywood productions without committing themselves
to their messages, as long as the TV or film production they
are watching follows standard production templates to which
they have been accustomed and educated to respond. They can
do so without identifying with the protagonists. (25)
However,
the different levels of signification or appreciation of a cinema
or television production are neither static nor always distinct.
Culture and meanings change and adapt, and audiences may move
from one level of appreciation to another, depending on how
significant the influence of the medium and how much of an encroachment
the producing culture has on the receiving culture. In today’s
world, satellite television and technology in general have freed
mankind from the constrictions of social relations and cultural
values defined and shaped strictly by geographical space, local
community, or face-to-face interaction. Wide and diversified
sets of influences, emanating from different parts of the globe,
constantly encroach into our daily lives, enjoining us to accept
them as part of everyday experience. This development is an
aspect of what some have referred to as “deterritorialization,”(26)
a result of the globalization of communication that affects
us wherever we may be. There is no need to leave home to gain
access to this cosmopolitan, potentially globalizing influence.
One may say, with Tomlison “that for most people, most
of the time the impact of globalization is felt not in travel
but in staying at home.”27 This globalizing influence
is present in our daily lives. The telephone, television, Internet,
cinema and global newspapers, as well as chain stores, fast-food
outlets, and universal consumer goods, coexist with our traditional
ways of communication, local entertainment, norms and values.
While these influences do not cancel out more immediate factors,
they help transform them. Giddens (1991) has articulated the
process:
In conditions
of late modernity we live ‘in the world’ in a different
sense from previous eras of history. Everyone still continues
to live a local life, and the constraints of the body ensure
that all individuals, at every moment, are contextually situated
in time and space. Yet the transformations of place, and the
intrusion of distance into local activities, combined with the
centrality of mediated experience, radically change what the
world is”(27)
Although
we live "locally," writes Giddens, our lives have
become a mixture of the local and the global. The extent to
which this transformation results in a disfiguration of our
traditional values is dependent on many factors, including the
extent of global "encroachment", local reaction to
the process and the disparity between local and non-local messages.
Much has been written about this issue by Giddens, Tomlison
and others. It is not the purpose of this paper to develop this
argument further, but rather simply to underline the fact that
culture and identity are today being shaped by a variety of
factors, including those intruding through the global media
and that this is true in the Arab World as elsewhere.
In much
of the Arab world, the level of 'encroachment'—and particularly
through television—on the local culture is significant,
affecting individuals and society at large and the ensuing tensions
are considerable. Even in a closed society such as Saudi Arabia,
where media control is among the most severe in the region,
media encroachment has occurred via such instruments as the
radio or the VCR, and more recently via satellite television.
As early as 1986, 75 percent of Saudi homes owned VCRs and the
Saudi kingdom ranked ninth in the world in terms of VCR per
capita ownership.28 Albeit circumscribed, terrestrial television
helped do its share of encroachment, sharpening the distinctions
between Arab and Western culture and spurring widespread concern
over the invasion of foreign values. It is a commonplace that
in the Third World, the amount of imported television programming
is significant. A study by Dupagne and Waterman argues that
even in developed countries, the import of programming tends
to be inversely proportional to GNP. The study also indicates
that private stations tend to import more programs and, in the
absence of local productions, tend to cater to those with greater
English proficiency, even if subtitled.(29)
While the
broadcast of English-language programming may reach a limited
audience, it also serves to increase the gap between the local
and the global, or the “deterritorialized,” accentuating
the tensions between them and those who want to defend Arabic
and Islamic culture against the threat coming from the West
via the television. What will be the place of dubbing in these
developments? If the cultural clash assumption of programmers
is true, any surge of dubbing of Hollywood productions would
require a cultural shift among Arab audiences, and any future
success of the practice may be used as a yardstick for the level
of American "encroachment" on Arab culture. Recently,
Heya TV, a Pan-Arab station vying for the female audience—“heya”
in Arabic means “she”—headed by Filmali’s
Abou-Samah, has started to dub American soaps into Standard
Arabic. The lack of an adequate rating system in the Arab w
orld makes it difficult to judge the extent of the success of
this breakthrough. At a minimum, the experiment is there for
researchers to consider.
Ramez
Maluf is the director of the Beirut Institute for Media
Arts at the Lebanese American University where he also lectures
on journalism and public relations. Formerly editor of Beirut's
The Daily Star and the Athens-based Middle East
Times, he is currently editor of The Middle East Broadcasters
Journal. A graduate of Duke University, Maluf has a Ph.D.
in the History of Science from the University of Oklahoma.
Notes
1. David Parkinson, History of Film. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), 85-86.
2. Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell, Film History: An
Introduction. 2nd ed. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003), 210.
3. Kerry Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s
Domination of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s
to the Present.(Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1997), 77-104.
4. Marvin D’Lugo, Guide to the Cinema of Spain.
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,1997)
5. Kerry Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s
Domination of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s
to the Present, 155-56.
6. Someon Tegel, (2000). “Hollywood gets last word in
Mexican dubs dispute.” Variety, March 13, 2000.
7. Arpita Mukherjee, Audio-visual Policies and International
Trade: The Case of India. (Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of
International Economics, 2003), p.11.
8. Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s Domination
of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s to the Present,
256-257.
9. The Best Investments: Education, Research, and Development.
Arab Human Development Report 2003-UNDP, 3E-1
10. Jehan Zitawi, “English-Arabic Dubbed Children’s
Cartoons: Strategies of Translating Idioms.” In Across
Languages and Cultures, 4 (2), (2003), 237-251.
11. Personal communication, December 5, 1999.
12. Personal communication, March 12, 2002.
13. Personal communication, March 11, 2003.
14. Gerd Ascheid and Heinrich Meyer. Synchronization in
digital communication. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 1999), 3.
15. “Dubbed Hollywood Flicks Cut Into Hindi Market,”
http://www.screenindia.com/nov21/cover1.htm
16. Shafik, Viola. Arab Cinema: History and Cultural Identity.
(Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 24.
17. Adrian Gully, ”The Discourse of Arabic Advertising:
Preliminary Investigations.” Journal of Arabic and
Islamic Studies, Vol.I, (1996-97), 28-32.
18. Hamid Mowlana,. Global Information and World Communication.
(New York: Longman.1986), 27.
19. Miranda Beshara, Globalization and the Middle East: Growing
Together Or Growing Apart? Master’s Thesis, University
of Pittsburg,1999.
20. “Dubbed Hollywood Flicks Cut Into Hindi Market,”
http://www.screenindia.com/nov21/cover1.htm.
21. Personal communication, January 15, 2005.
22. Personal communication, January 15, 2005.
23. Personal communication, January 15, 2005.
24. Personal communication, February 18, 2005.
25. Hayward, Suzan, Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts.
2nd ed. ( London: Routledge, 2000), 322-3.
26. John Tomlison, Globalization and Culture, (London:
Polity Press, 1999), chap 4.
27. Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self Identity: Self and
Society in the Late Modern Age, (Stanford: Stanford University
Press,1991), 187.
28. Douglas Boyd, Joseph D. Straubhaar, and John A. Lent, Videocassette
Recorders in the Third World. (New York: Longman, 1989)
66.
29. Yahya R. Kamalimpour, and Kuldip R. Rampal, eds. Media,
Sex, Violence, and Drugs in the Global Village, (Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001), 249-50.
REFERENCES
Alterman,
Jon B. “Transnational Media and Social Change in the Arab
World, “ Transnational Broadcasting Studies,1999,
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring99/spr99.html
Ascheid, Gerd, and Heinrich Meyer. Synchronization in digital
communication. New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 1999
Beshara, Miranda. (1999). Globalization and the Middle East:
Growing Together Or Growing Apart? Master’s Thesis, University
of Pittsburg.
Boyd, Douglas. Straubhaar, Joseph D., and Lent, John A. Videocassette
Recorders in the Third World. New York: Longman, 1989.
D’Lugo, Marvin. Guide to the Cinema of Spain.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,1997.
“Dubbed Hollywood Flicks Cut Into Hindi Market,”
http://www.screenindia.com/nov21/cover1.htm
(Accessed January 21, 2003)
“Dubbing vs. Subtitling of Foreign Language Movies,”
http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata163.htm (Accessed January 27,
2003)
Fuery, Patrick. New Developments in Film Theory. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.
Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self Identity: Self and
Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1991.
Gully, Adrian. ”The Discourse of Arabic Advertising: Preliminary
Investigations.” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies,
Vol.I, (1996-97): 1-49.
Hall, Stuart. Modernity and its Futures. Sao Paulo-SP:
Fundacao Memorial da America Latina, 1997
Head, Sydney. Broadcasting in America: A Survey of Electronic
Media. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.
Hassanpour, Amir. “Language and Television.” In
The Encyclopedia of Television, edited by Horace Newcomb,
Hassanpour, Amir. “Dubbing.” In The Encyclopedia
of Television, edited by Horace Newcomb, http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/Encyclopediatv.htm
(Accessed March 23, 2003)
Hassanpour, Amir. “Subtitling.” In The Encyclopedia
of Television, edited by Horace Newcomb, http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/Encyclopediatv.htm
(Accessed March 23, 2003)
Hayward, Suzan, Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. 2nd
ed. London: Routledge, 2000
Mowlana, Hamid. Global Information and World Communication.
New York: Longman. 1986
Parkinson, David. History of Film. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995.
Kamalimpour, Yahya R., and Kuldip R. Rampal, eds. Media, Sex,
Violence, and Drugs in the Global Village. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield
Publishers, 2001.
Scheilifer, Abdallah. Interview with Peter Einstein.
TBS, Transnational Broadcasting Studies, no 3, fall 1999. http://www.Tbsjournal.Com/archives/Fall99/Interview/interview.html
(Accessed October 5, 2000)
Segrave, Kerry. American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s
Domination of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s
to the Present. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1997.
Shafik, Viola. Arab Cinema. History and Cultural Identity.
Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1998.
Tegel, Someon. (2000). “Hollywood gets last word in Mexican
dubs dispute.” Variety, March 13, 2000
Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell. Film History: An
Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003.
Tomlison, M. (1999) Globalization and Culture, London: Polity
Press
Zitawi, Jehan. “English-Arabic Dubbed Children’s
Cartoons: Strategies of
Translating Idioms.” In Across Languages and Cultures,
4 (2), 237-251. 2003
NOTES
1. David Parkinson, History of Film. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995), 85-86.
2. Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell, Film History: An Introduction.
2nd ed. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003), 210.
3. Kerry Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s Domination
of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s to the Present.(Jefferson,
N.C.: McFarland, 1997), 77-104.
4. Marvin D’Lugo, Guide to the Cinema of Spain. (Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press,1997)
5. Kerry Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s Domination
of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s to the Present,
155-56.
6. Someon Tegel, (2000). “Hollywood gets last word in
Mexican dubs dispute.” Variety, March 13, 2000.
7. Arpita Mukherjee, Audio-visual Policies and International
Trade: The Case of India. (Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International
Economics, 2003), p.11.
8. Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s Domination
of the World’s Movie Screens from the 1890s to the Present,
256-257.
9. The Best Investments: Education, Research, and Development.
Arab Human Development Report 2003-UNDP, 3E-1
10. Jehan Zitawi, “English-Arabic Dubbed Children’s
Cartoons: Strategies of Translating Idioms.” In Across
Languages and Cultures, 4 (2), (2003), 237-251.
11. Personal communication, December 5, 1999.
12. Personal communication, March 12, 2002.
13. Personal communication, March 11, 2003.
14. Gerd Ascheid and Heinrich Meyer. Synchronization in digital
communication. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 1999), 3.
15. “Dubbed Hollywood Flicks Cut Into Hindi Market,”
http://www.screenindia.com/nov21/cover1.htm
16. Shafik, Viola. Arab Cinema: History and Cultural Identity.
(Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 24.
17. Adrian Gully, ”The Discourse of Arabic Advertising:
Preliminary Investigations.” Journal of Arabic and Islamic
Studies, Vol.I, (1996-97), 28-32.
18. Hamid Mowlana,. Global Information and World Communication.
(New York: Longman.1986), 27.
19. Miranda Beshara, Globalization and the Middle East: Growing
Together Or Growing Apart? Master’s Thesis, University
of Pittsburg,1999.
20. “Dubbed Hollywood Flicks Cut Into Hindi Market,”
http://www.screenindia.com/nov21/cover1.htm.
21. Personal communication, January 15, 2005.
22. Personal communication, January 15, 2005.
23. Personal communication, January 15, 2005.
24. Personal communication, February 18, 2005.
25. Hayward, Suzan, Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. 2nd ed.
( London: Routledge, 2000), 322-3.
26. John Tomlison, Globalization and Culture, (London: Polity
Press, 1999), chap 4.
27. Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society
in the Late Modern Age, (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1991),
187.
28. Douglas Boyd, Joseph D. Straubhaar, and John A. Lent, Videocassette
Recorders in the Third World. (New York: Longman, 1989) 66.
29. Yahya R. Kamalimpour, and Kuldip R. Rampal, eds. Media,
Sex, Violence, and Drugs in the Global Village, (Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2001), 249-50.
[printer
friendly version]
|