MovieChat Forums > West Side Story (2021) Discussion > Don't listen to the idiots making a big ...

Don't listen to the idiots making a big deal about the use of Spanish


I just got finished seeing Spielberg's West Side Story and can truthfully say, as one who doesn't speak Spanish, that I was never confused about what was being communicated even when Spanish was being spoken. It was usually something simple like "Maria--come inside" or something similar. Usually if someone says something in Spanish, a translation in English immediately follows, oftentimes because the character of Anita keeps reminding the Puerto Ricans to speak English. There was only one scene near the end between Chino and the Sharks that was spoken in Spanish that left me a little confused, but the rest of the film you can figure out what the meaning is intuitively. A lot of the boo-hooing about using Spanish is coming from the same types who are getting their panties in a wad because they fear that Spielberg has gone "woke". The only bit of "wokeness" I discerned was when the elderly Rita Moreno pronounces judgement on the Jets that they are "rapists" because they almost force themselves on Anita near the end. It actually looked more like a "rape" in the '61 version, to be quite honest.

Don't listen to the naysayers. There is no "40% in Spanish" garbage like dimwits are spreading. Any moderately intelligent person can figure out what is being conveyed even if they occasionally hear a sentence or two in a language they don't know.

reply

Both Spielberg and the media were "the idiots" who were making a big deal about the use of Spanish in this film. When Googling on the subject I found literally multiple dozens of articles on the subject. If it isn't different from say the use of Italian in a film like The Godfather then why were they making such a big deal out of it?

reply

[deleted]

That 40% number is totally wrong. In my "guestimation" less than 5% of the spoken words in this film is untitled Spanish. Most of it was translated to English by the actors (as I have already posted about that dialogue and how it was done so smartly).

Before seeing the film, I read about the "40% untitled Spanish and I figured that percentage was over exaggerated and I was correct. I just knew Spielberg would not alienate his English only speaking public. That silly rumor going around certainly did not deter me from seeing Spielberg's film and I'm so glad I listened to my gut.

reply

I have to say it was a good publicity move to announce that it won't have English subtitles. I didn't even know it was a thing until a couple of days ago when I saw someone complaining about it.

Out of interest, what do you think they will do when people watch it on streaming or disc and they turn on the subtitles?

Just have the Spanish dialogue with Spanish subtitles maybe, or no subtitles at all?

reply

Same here. I don't speak Spanish yet I was able to understand what was being communicated. The acting was superb and that was a major part of the communication. Also...much of the Spanish was immediately translated in English when the characters were reminded to "speak English!!!" Honestly, it was done very seamlessly.

reply

"I have to say it was a good publicity move to announce that it won't have English subtitles. "

Was it, though? I don't agree. Spielberg's main mistake was in how he explained it more than the lack of translations in and of themselves. Before the film even came out it turned into a debate about whether subtitling English was "racist" or not, instead of just letting the audience decided for themselves. By all accounts (from those who've seen it) is that it made sense within the context of the film and was comprehensible.

reply

The lack of subtitles is a non-issue. I am watching Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, a 40’s era British film, and it’s loaded with unsubtitled French and German. This never bothered me and doesn’t distract from the story. Doubtless there are many other newer examples. Shogun the TV miniseries, for instance. Lost in Translation, for another.


Spielberg would have done better not to even call attention to this. Modern audiences are more used to being spoon-fed and thanks to the internet, complain a lot more.

reply

As usual, I think most of the complaints aren't because the Spanish isn't subtitled but because the filmmakers made a big deal about it with the statements. They made statements that people see as holier-than-thou while ignoring the fact that the reason subtitles are used for Spanish, in North American or British movies, is because the majority of the audience doesn't speak Spanish, not because the audience doesn't value Hispanic or Latin American culture. It's the smugness and the fact that it's making its smug point in an impractical way.

I saw a panel discussion once about political correctness or woke or whatever where a girl made the statement that society had barriers that supported people with privilege. Her example that she used was curbs on sidewalks, saying that they made life harder for people in wheelchairs. It took more than an hour, during the Q&A, for somebody to point out that there is a good reason sidewalks have curbs and it has nothing to do with being ablist or making life harder for people who have less privilege.

reply

It's agreed---the fact that a reboot/remake of the film version of West Side Story occurred at all was rather sickening as it is, but the parsimoniousness of Tony Kushner made it all the more sickening. The fact that the girl in question, however, said that sidewalks should not have curbs was rather uncalled for, too. They have to have curbs for a reason: so that cars won't mount them and hit, injure and/or kill the people who walk on them. I'll also add that the girl in question fails to realize that the vast majority of sidewalks throughout the United States and elsewhere have ramps that enable people in wheelchairs to get on and off of the sidewalks.

reply

I didn't see the remake, so... I suppose it's a non-issue for me either way.

Parsimonious? Like, he didn't want to spend money?

The girl was 100% out to lunch. This panel discussion was a more civilized one than we often see these days. It was right before the "Diversity and Inclusion" movement really took off.

reply

No. Tony Kushner's attitude is a rather "I'm holier than thou" attitude that's rather off putting. It has nothing to do with whether or not he wanted to spend money.

As a devout fan of the old, original 1961 film version of West Side Story, there are a number of reasons why I'm voting my pocketbook and not going to see it, at all, which I've posted on other threads here on movie chat.org, so I won't post them on here, plus I've always had a gut reaction against remakes of good, older classic films, especially something such as the 1961 film version of West Side Story.

reply

I always want to leave room for remakes, because sometimes it's fun to get a new take on an old story, or just a really good redoing of one, but yeah, mostly they're pretty bad.

The problem with most remakes is that they seem to be going in with the idea, "We'll use improved FX to make this movie cooler and edit it faster than the original!" but they don't really have a *reason* to make it. Like, they aren't fans of the original, or if they are, it doesn't show.

Sometimes they are fans, though, and they are respectful, and they do have a good reason to make the movie - you can see that passion on the screen. Take True Grit, for a positive example.

But, yes, most of the time it's Ghostbusters and Total Recall...

reply

Thanks for your input, Ace Space. I see where you're coming from, but remakes in general, do not have the same charm, charisma and exuberance as the original, and, from what I've seen and heard (i. e. parts of the reboot/remake of WSS, and the soundtrack to the reboot/remake of the film WSS), I feel that it doesn't have nearly the same charm and charisma as the original 1961 classic film version of West Side Story, and it never will even begin to top it. For me, there's only one film version of West Side Story, and that's the old, original 1961 film version.

reply

Yeah, when a movie's special like that, it would be almost impossible for a remake to match it. Much as I enjoyed The Magnificent Seven, it never came close to Seven Samurai, at least for me.

reply

Films such as the original 1961 film version of West Side Story are virtually, if not downright impossible to even try to match, much less top. Imho, the old, original 1961 film version of West Side Story will never, ever be topped, no matter who tried to re-make/reboot it.

reply

You know, I often think about The Maltese Falcon while thinking about reboots. If people didn't remake or reboot, we wouldn't have The Maltese Falcon. The Bogart version isn't the first. (I think it's the third? I could be wrong there...) But, paradoxically, I would be REALLY skeptical of any Maltese Falcon remakes that somebody tried to pull off. It'd be nigh impossible to match the superlative heights of the "original" Bogey version - a film I can basically watch, start over, and watch again.

So, I like to keep a vague, "remakes are generally good," stance, while recognizing that there are some battles that are more uphill than others.

It also depends on what they're doing. Throne of Blood is a remake of Macbeth, but it's got all-new dialogue and setting. Heck, West Side Story is that to Romeo & Juliet, but it's bringing the specificity of its time and place (updating dialogue and adding musical numbers), so it works.

Which brings me to another aspect: theatre. Live theatre remounts happen all the time. I know it's a different animal, because if you missed it the first time, you can catch it the second, but I am a big believer in hand-me-down stories. We stay in touch with out oral tradition roots that way, culturally, and I think it's worth exploring new ways to tell old stories - even if they bomb out.

It can be really fun seeing a new version, too; they can be good, even if not as perfect as the original.

I completely understand why you don't want to see WSS, though; I get it. I'm more pontificating (bloviating?) on remakes in-general.

reply

It's to each their own, Ace Space, but remakes of older classic films very seldom, if ever, come out very well. I think that Spielberg's reboot/remake of the film version of West Side Story is no exception to that. Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from on this one.

reply

I disagree I think the remake of West Side Story is better than the old one.

reply

To each their own, but I stand by everything I've said here.

reply

And so do I. In my opinion the new is better in every single way.

reply

I don't care what you think. I have absolutely no intention what.so.ever of going to see the new film version of West Side Story, nor do I like your nasty, snotty tone. I feel the same way about the old, original 1961 film version of West Side Story that you feel about Spielberg's new film version of West Side Story! Over and out.

reply

I don't care what you think. I have absolutely no intention of changing my mind about the original, nor do I like your nast snotty tone. I feel the same way about the new film how you feel about the original. Over and out!

reply

Nobody's asking you to change your mind about the original 1961 film version of West Side Story. You came on with a nasty and snotty tone first, and I reacted accordingly. over and out.

reply

Nope I posted my opinion and you acted rude. Over and out.

reply

You're dead wrong here, moviefanatic505! You're being rather rude and nasty yourself. K**s off, buster.

reply

I agree. I do appreciate the new version and do feel it is better than the "dated" less realistic version. I prefer the staged fight and rumble scenes to be more realistic rather than the gangs' choreographed fights with contemporary/balletic movements. Seeing the men dance in a more aggressive way is much more realistic and exciting to me.

reply

I agree wholeheartedly. Glad to know I'm not alone in feeling this way.

reply

Spielberg's film is not a remake of the 1961 movie. Spielberg's film is an adaptation of the 1957 Broadway stage production. Spielberg followed the stage play's order of the songs. For example, the stage play had "I Feel Pretty" AFTER the rumble. The 1961 film changed that order to BEFORE the rumble. This is the order Spielberg used for his adaptation. "Gee, Oficer Krupke" also follows the order of the stage play which was changed for the 1961 film.

reply

I still disagree with you, luvthepros. I'm sticking with the old, original 1961 film version. Imho, a reboot/remake is a reboot/remake of a film, even if it's an adaptation of the Broadway stage production. So was the old, original 1961 film version of West Side Story, for that matter. I also prefer the order of "Officer Krupke" and "I Feel Pretty" being before the rumble, which they both were in the 1961 film version of WSS to them both being after the Rumble, plus I also prefer the "Cool" scene being after the Rumble, rather than before.

I like the colors, the dancing and the cinematography better in the old, original 1961 film version of West Side Story, as well as the opening that starts out with the aerial views of 1950's-1960's West Side of NYC that gradually zero in on the finger-snapping Jets.

I prefer the fact that the 1961 film version was pr4served as a larger than life-size piece of theatre when it was transferred from stage to screen, also.

reply

The order of these songs in the stage production doesn’t make sense. Robert Wise and Ernest Lehman made the right call and their changes improved story greatly. Steven Spielberg should not have messed with it. Period.

reply

Um, we DO need to understand what is being said…you know, so we can understand what is going on?

reply

I agree.
Sometimes you find need to know exactly what is being said.

I think back to The Godfather, when Michael is in the restaurant with Solozzo and McCluskey. Solozzo speaks Italian and there are no subtitles. The dialogue doesn't matter, what's important is the building of tension shown in Michael's eyes darting around the room. I think that if the dialogue had been in English it would detract from the visuals.

reply