Books on Intertitles

[Donald Binks]

So if intertitles are supposed to be called subtitles, then what do we now call subtitles?

"Transtitles" - coming from "translation" ?

[Bob Birchard]

So if intertitles are supposed to be called subtitles, then what do we now call subtitles?

As stated above, whether full-screen cards, or lower-third screen superimpositions, they are all subtitles, or titles.

[galinas]

And we should also call all films photoplays

[wich2]

>"colorization" when "coloured" was the once operative word.<

Not exactly the same usages...

Colorization is the word for the process, a noun used as its title. A form of the word is also a verb for what is done: "Colorization was the method by which the image was colorized."

Coloured would be an adjective for the result, or a past-tense verb: "The image is now coloured, because someone coloured it."

[entredeuxguerres]

And we should also call all films photoplays

Yes! I've always wished that name had stuck! "Film," "picture," etc., carry too many unrelated meanings.

[Bob Birchard]

And we should also call all films photoplays

Actually, the term "photoplay" was coined circa 1912 by a contest winner, the goal of which contest was to come up with a term for the medium that had more dignity than "the movies." But the terms "motion picture" and "movie" were already established before the failed effort to promote "photoplay" as the universally accepted term.

[radiotelefonia]

Subtitles are subtitles... at first, when they began to be used they were referred as "overprinted titles" when they were seen for the first time in Argentina when THE BROADWAY MELODY was released in 1929, which was also the very first talkie shown in the country. The term changed to subtitles shortly after.

When dubbing was introduced the word adopted in Spanish was "doblaje", which was originally not used by magazines nor newspapers. It was created based on the "doubles" used to speak in a different language and, in fact, the word "doblaje" had an original meaning to despise those versions.

[Rodney]

So if intertitles are supposed to be called subtitles, then what do we now call subtitles?

We call them "subtitles." It's what they are commonly understood to be, and we don't have an Academie Francaise to assert new definitions to terms in common use.

Which is why, despite my respect for Bob Birchard's scholarship and my appreciation for his logic, I will still call the silent film text cards "intertitles." Both "titles" and "subtitles" have a far more common and different accepted usage nowadays, and it can lead to unnecessary confusion when talking to people not versed in silent film terminology. "Intertitles" is useful because it doesn't mean anything else.

Yes, "intertitle" wasn't used in the silent era, but neither was "silent movie" (for the same reason: because the distinction was meaningless until sound became dominant). "Intertitle" was not necessary until translation super-impositions became the only common form of "subtitle" and "titles" became synonymous (in most people's understanding) with "opening titles."

I hadn't come across the term "show cards" before this thread, and that's an interesting term. But I don't think it would mean anything today without an explanation, so it's not very useful anymore. "Dialog titles" and "Intro titles" are subsets of the titles we're talking about here, so those are still useful terms, but with different meanings that are more specific than "intertitle."

[Jack Theakston]

"Subtitles" are apt in the context that "sub" is referring to following the main titles, not their location on the screen. It was always the case, even with what we now refer to as "subtitles," and people take it for granted that "sub" refers to the title's placement.

From what I've seen, subtitles were of two classes contemporaneously, "Dialog" or "D" on some continuities, and "Caption" or "Action" titles, which are the framework titles.

[wich2]

>Yes, "intertitle" wasn't used in the silent era, but neither was "silent movie" (for the same reason: because the distinction was meaningless until sound became dominant).<

Much sense there - salut, sir!

[Bob Birchard]

So if intertitles are supposed to be called subtitles, then what do we now call subtitles?

We call them "subtitles." It's what they are commonly understood to be, and we don't have an Academie Francaise to assert new definitions to terms in common use.

Which is why, despite my respect for Bob Birchard's scholarship and my appreciation for his logic, I will still call the silent film text cards "intertitles." Both "titles" and "subtitles" have a far more common and different accepted usage nowadays, and it can lead to unnecessary confusion when talking to people not versed in silent film terminology. "Intertitles" is useful because it doesn't mean anything else.

Yes, "intertitle" wasn't used in the silent era, but neither was "silent movie" (for the same reason: because the distinction was meaningless until sound became dominant). "Intertitle" was not necessary until translation super-impositions became the only common form of "subtitle" and "titles" became synonymous (in most people's understanding) with "opening titles."

I hadn't come across the term "show cards" before this thread, and that's an interesting term. But I don't think it would mean anything today without an explanation, so it's not very useful anymore. "Dialog titles" and "Intro titles" are subsets of the titles we're talking about here, so those are still useful terms, but with different meanings that are more specific than "intertitle."

With all due respect, Rodney, and I respect you and your work a lot, I have to disagree on virtually every point you raise.

First, you are in your early 50s and essentially never knew a time when the word "intertitle" was not in use, and you have been sucked in by the mythology that there is/was some sort of general confusion about the term subtitle. As I mentioned above, the term "intertitle" did not gain any currency before the late 1960s, and audiences didn't seem to have any confusion over the interchangeability of the term "subtitle" before that time.

You also show a rather selective sense of history. While it is generally accepted that the term "silent" was never applied to pre-talkie movies because all movies were silent, it is simply not correct. I just did a Lantern search for the years 1900-1926, and while it is true that there are no references to "silent film" or "silent movie," the term "silent drama" came up with 3607 references. So there was a pretty widespread acknowledgment of the "silentness" of film even in the days in which there was no other kind.

The very fact that "Intertitle" has no other meaning than full-screen title cards in silent movies is also part of the problem with the term, and you yourself raise this issue without fully comprehending the pickle you have put yourself in. If you refer to "intertitles" in your program notes or opening remarks, and 'translation super-impositions became the only common form of "subtitle" and "titles" became synonymous (in most people's understanding) with "opening titles,"' as you say, are you not risking real audience confusion by resorting to the term "intertitle"? On a film like 7TH HEAVEN, for example, when an audience reads the credit: Titles by Katherine Hilliker and H. H. Caldwell, since "titles" became synonymous (in most people's understanding) with "opening titles." don't you run the risk of having audiences believe that Hilliker and Caldwell were little more than main title designers? And might they also wonder what those cards are in the middle of the film are, since there is no reference onscreen to intertitles?

And, although the trend never took off, what about those silent films that attempted to make superimposed titles a common practice? Titles in such films were often placed above the heads of the onscreen characters. Do we call these "supertitles." And what about the yackety parrot in many a silent comedy with full screen superimposed expletives? What do we call these? full-screen superimposed titles?

What about a film that might combine all four? (hypothetical) SHOW ME THE DIALOGUE (Pathe, 1924) with inter titles, super titles, subtitles, and full screen superimposed titles . . .

"Intertitle" is a useless term precisely because it only has a very specific meaning and is not elastic enough to cover all contingencies, and because it can lead to confusion in and of itself.

The truth is that context is everything, and I doubt that anyone would or could misunderstand the concept of "subtitles" as full-screen dialogue and descriptive titles in a silent film, AND as lower-third-supered translations in a foreign film. Or are you suggesting that your audience are idiots?

As for the term "Show Cards," I have never heard this term applied to silent film titles. Generally speaking, a "show card" is a hand-lettered advertisement, and the equivalent of a hand-painted widow card.

[radiotelefonia]

A 1921 movie magazine from Brazil, that can be read online. Notice the actual name of the magazine, which was never changed after the sound film revolution.

[Jim Roots]

The truth is that context is everything, and I doubt that anyone would or could misunderstand the concept of "subtitles" as full-screen dialogue and descriptive titles in a silent film, AND as lower-third-supered translations in a foreign film.

Bob, I think just about everybody nowadays has been encultured to understand "subtitles" as meaning captioning and as superimposed translations of foreign-language films.

After all, the designation on DVDs now is "SDH" ... "Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of hearing".

Ask anyone under the age of 30, and the majority of them will tell you "subtitles" means "captioning".

And they aren't idiots.

Jim

[Bob Birchard]

The truth is that context is everything, and I doubt that anyone would or could misunderstand the concept of "subtitles" as full-screen dialogue and descriptive titles in a silent film, AND as lower-third-supered translations in a foreign film.

Bob, I think just about everybody nowadays has been encultured to understand "subtitles" as meaning captioning and as superimposed translations of foreign-language films.

After all, the designation on DVDs now is "SDH" ... "Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of hearing".

Ask anyone under the age of 30, and the majority of them will tell you "subtitles" means "captioning".

And they aren't idiots.

Jim

Jim,

There is no doubt that the term "subtitle" means captioning or lower-third supered titles. I have never argued ottherwise. The issue is whether, in context, audiences are mentally incapable of understanding that the term "subtitle" also applies to title cards in silent movies. I simply have a higher regard for the mental capacity of audiences than you or Rodney, or the current community of film academics.

[Rodney]

Jim,

There is no doubt that the term "subtitle" means captioning or lower-third supered titles. I have never argued ottherwise. The issue is whether, in context, audiences are mentally incapable of understanding that the term "subtitle" also applies to title cards in silent movies. I simply have a higher regard for the mental capacity of audiences than you or Rodney, or the current community of film academics.

I agree with everything in your post, Bob, and I've made many of the same arguments and historical observations myself. But all of those observed facts put together does not lead me to think that the term "intertitle" is a bad or useless term. And no, I don't think my audiences are idiots, they can easily figure out what "intertitle" means from context the first time I use the term. If I use "subtitle," they would have the extra step of first figuring out that I'm not actually talking about subtitles as everyone now understands them, and then to figure out what I'm talking about instead of what I'm saying. Why not just use a word that means what I want to say?

All that said, I don't get the hostility. Don't use the term, for heaven's sake, if it offends you so much. But I will keep using it. I find it very useful and clear, precisely because "it only has a very specific meaning and is not elastic enough to cover all contingencies." When I want to cover all contingencies, I'll say "title." When I want to specify a certain sub-category of title, I'll use "opening title," "end credits," "superimposed title," "intertitle," "cartoon bubble," or "subtitle" as appropriate.

Go in peace.

[Bob Birchard]

Jim,

There is no doubt that the term "subtitle" means captioning or lower-third supered titles. I have never argued ottherwise. The issue is whether, in context, audiences are mentally incapable of understanding that the term "subtitle" also applies to title cards in silent movies. I simply have a higher regard for the mental capacity of audiences than you or Rodney, or the current community of film academics.

I agree with everything in your post, Bob, and I've made many of the same arguments and historical observations myself. But all of those observed facts put together does not lead me to think that the term "intertitle" is a bad or useless term. And no, I don't think my audiences are idiots, they can easily figure out what "intertitle" means from context the first time I use the term. C

All that said, I don't get the hostility. Don't use the term, for heaven's sake, if it offends you so much. But I will keep using it. I find it very useful and clear, precisely because "it only has a very specific meaning and is not elastic enough to cover all contingencies." When I want to cover all contingencies, I'll say "title." When I want to specify a certain sub-category of title, I'll use "opening title," "end credits," "superimposed title," "intertitle," "cartoon bubble," or "subtitle" as appropriate.

Go in peace.

Not being any more hostile than you, and that is to say I have no hostile intent--none at all. And by all means, keep using intertitle to your heart's content, but if "they can easily figure out what "intertitle" means from context the first time I use the term [which, by the way, is not what I am arguing--you and others keep trying to suggest I am saying something other than what I am],why would it be that they can't figure out what "subtitle" means from context the first time you use the term? Why would you assume that someone hearing the term "subtitle" in connection with silent film full screen titles would have to perform some sort on mental gymnastics to figure out what you were talking about? There is a logical flaw to your argument, and you are absolutely calling into question the IQ of your audience by suggesting that they would somehow be confused by the term "subtitle" in context. And why resort to multiple tortuous terms to convey the various states on titles in silent films when a single historically correct word will do the job with much less effort?