Subtitling's effect on original film

"Filmmakers dependent on foreign-language markets are well aware of how little spoken language can actually be represented in on-screen writing. Sometimes they choose to limit the volubility of their characters to make it easier for foreign-language versions to fit all the dialogue on the screen. Ingmar Bergman made two quite different kinds of films—jolly comedies with lots of words for Swedish consumption, and tight-lipped, moody dramas for the rest of the world. Our standard vision of Swedes as verbally challenged depressives is in some degree a by-product of Bergman’s success in building subtitling constraints into the composition of his more ambitious international films. It’s called the ‘Bergman effect’...."

David Bellos, 2011: 139

I am really curious about this passage from Beloss's interesting history of translation, Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Was Bergman really thinking about the international market when making his films? From what I know about him (my limited knowledge involving seeing some of his films and visiting the Bergman museum), he was more of an auteur than a mogul. Would he really have allowed his artistic vision to be affected by language constraints?

Film makers like to leave 'space' in the dialogue, for a variety of artistic reasons and meaning. And maybe the lighter films didn't do so well on the international market as most countries produce their own comedies (suited to their own sense of humour), whereas Swedish melancholy offered something different and unique for international audiences.

However, it makes sense that the major Hollywood studios are making movies for the international market - it is, after all much larger than the domestic and they are out to make money. There are estimates that 80% of revenues come from outside the US (1) so that might explain some of the success '(and never ending nature) of action franchises like Fast and Furious which rely on explosions and cars rather than witty dialogue to tempt viewers.

'Nordic Noir' might have a mixture of the two. There can be some sparse dialogue in these Scandi crime dramas, but also action and universally appealing murder plotlines for viewers. Of course the thought of an international market will affect how studios produce film and TV, but are the writers and directors actively thinking about it?

So what I'm trying to say is...although I am very intrigued by the idea of a 'Bergman effect', I am sceptical that it really exists. The 'Fast and Furious' effect of Hollywood movies relying on action rather than dialogue seems more evident.  Has anyone found any good sources for either theory?

Sources:
Bellos, David, 2011. Is that a fish in your ear: The amazing adventure of translation
London: Penguin

(1) http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/america-you-really-dont-matter-all-that-much-to-hollywood-studios-anymore

A view on 'Why so many Hollywood movies suck'  http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html

Fake sign language interpreting at the Mandela memorial

BBC News: Owners of Mandela 'fake' interpreter firm 'vanish'

What a scandal! Of course by now everyone has heard about the interpreter at the Mandela memorial who was 'signing' using apparently made-up gestures. He was either a conman, having a psychological health episode or linguistically confused, depending on which story you read.

There is some linguistic discussion at Language Log here: Language Log: Fake sign-language interpreter at Mandela funeral. It seems that his gestures could not have been any sort of language as there was no structure to them and he did not use facial expressions at all in his interpretation.

This palaver raises a lot of issues, for example the need to increase understanding of sign language among the hearing community as well as the understanding of the science of interpreting. Authorities also need to make sure they employ qualified and certified translators and interpreters, and that certification is only awarded to people who really know what they're doing!

There will always be unqualified/uncertified people providing translations and interpreting (I have done both myself in informal settings), and often they provide a good service to the people they are helping. However, where national and international events are concerned, governments should probably check and double check the credentials of those providing language services before hiring them and putting them in front of an audience of millions.

In the first link you can watch a video of an fully-qualified interpreter interpreting a segment from one of he speeches at the memorial. Quite a difference from the 'fake'!