the Criterion version's odd subtitles

I'm intrigued, as well as mildly alarmed, by your observations. I have viewed this film several times, and the possibility that its meaning was disrupted, or hindered, by an oversimplified subtitle translation makes me feel that I had a cheapened experience with the film. However, as an avid viewer of Criterion's releases, I know that they always attempt to work with the director whenever possible, and they are very much devoted to producing a “definitive” version of the films they release. An inaccurate or inadequate translation seems like a mistake that would not be made, however, it's not entirely impossible. When you have a film with dialogue in four different languages, loosing some linguistic nuances is very much a possibility. The language could have been simplified in favour of a more concise, easily readable subtitle presentation. Perhaps a simpled translation is sufficient for most people who are viewing the film, and Criterion decided that a more complex, direct translation would detract from the cinematic experience. Or maybe the translation was generally mangled, I don't know, but either way I am inclined to think that there may be flaws with the subtitles provided on Criterion's 2002 DVD.

The feature listing on the Criterion DVD boasts the usual “New and Improved English Subtitle Translation,” which suggests some tweaking has occurred for the release. Whether “improved” refers to a more concise laconical translation, or to a more accurate direct translation is not altogether obvious to me since I am not intimately familiar with the languages spoken. However, at certain points, I must say that I did get the distinct feeling that the subtitles were not displaying everything that was spoken, that spoken dialogue was either omitted, or only partially translated. But I just assume that someone more knowledgeable than I was responsible for generating the translation, and that trusting the translation provided was my only course of action.

If the VHS version of Contempt featured more words on the screen during dialogue exchanges, then there is a possibly that the translation may have been unnecessarily convoluted, and the Criterion translation preserved the original meaning, while condensing it slightly for purposes of increasing readability and cohesiveness? Also, it may not be directly relevant since the European languages used in the film are syntactically similar to English, but as an aside, sometimes a literal translation is not ideal, and can serve to complicate rather than elucidate linguistic communication.

Last March, when Criterion announced their first 13 blu-ray discs, Contempt occupied a spot on the list. Though I haven't heard any more details about a release, it's entirely possible that a rerelease is in works, possibly with a more accurate subtitle translation....or maybe it will be simplified even further.

It does sound as though the Criterion subtitling is a real hack (or hatchet) job. Oversimplifying subtitles is a maddening practice. However, I am watching a French edition (from Les Films de Ma Vie), presumably as originally shown in French theaters -- though who knows? -- and it is unsubtitled for ALL languages. Knowing how few French people speak any foreign language well -- very few (surprise! they are just like us Americans!) -- apparently Godard's intention was that the audience would swim along and get whatever it could. So don't feel bad, the French aren't getting any better than we are.

Yep, very frustrating. In some scenes they don't translate the french interpreter at all if Prokosch says it already in English. It was my first time watching this film and I didn't even pick up on the mistranslation until I re-watched with the commentary on and narrator pointing it out.