MovieChat Forums > The Lady in the Van (2016) Discussion > MUCH of the dialogue, I (an American) co...

MUCH of the dialogue, I (an American) couldn't make out!


Was frequently frustrated that I couldn't understand the dialogue.

Anybody else have trouble with it?

I'll look forward to it coming out on dvd so I can use the captions.

reply

Americans have that problem because they tend to just watch American stuff. Funnily enough I'm Scottish (so you would struggle even more) and I can understand at least a dozen other accents including your own. That's because most of the TV we see is English or American. We get Aussie soap operas and Canadian stuff too frequently. I struggle with Stallone sometimes though.
;)
--
It's not "Sci-Fi", it's SF!

"Calvinism is a very liberal religious ethos." - Truekiwijoker

reply

Even us bloody Yanks struggle with Stallone's "accent". But, we still love him!

reply

No more than I do with some American accents, and I'm born and bred in the USA. The British accent was quite mild in this film. We did turn the volume up just a trace to help.

The DVD is out; got it from Netflix a couple of weeks ago.

Edward

reply

I always use the subtitle option when watching a film that I know I might have a problem with the accents.

reply

It's an extraordinary fact that the whole world speaks with a whole continuum of more or less unintelligible accents... apart from citizens of the USA.

Could somebody please explain why Americans don't speak with an accent? I'm dying to know why.

reply

I realize you are trying to make a joke, but consider, when you hear a British singer you rarely, if ever, hear them singing with a British accent, very similar to American singers. It is a very neutral accent. I believe the whole "British accent" thing is a deliberate attempt to make them sound what they think is more sophisticated.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.

reply

Mike I understand where you're coming from, however in this particular case the "accents" are anything but sophisticated. In fact its very antithesis.

The accents of the British Isles have incredible regional variety and consistency. Linguistic scholars can locate the regional source of vernacular accents to within about 30 miles or so, and in some urban contexts to within a few streets! The same is probably true of other regional dialects of say French & German too. Colonial outposts of the Empire seem to lack much of this regionality, as mass transit, communication and the melding of a variety of international languages & dialects have much more of a "melting pot" influence, without establishing a micro-regional identity.

In the Old World, dialects are much more about regional identity and perhaps social class than about any perceived "sophistication" being conveyed to an untrained listener.

Yet as a colonial myself, I can still identify at least some of the regionality inherent in not only English, but also some other European languages too. Variations in pitch, intonation, tone and timbre combine to both differentiate & locate, for example, a Texan from a Californian, from an "Okey", or a hillbilly, an Alabaman from a New Yorker or Canadian too. This is no different to variations between say Geordie, Scouse, Glasgie, Highlands, Welsh (North & South), Cornish, Anglian, Northern or Southern Irish, West Country, Brummie, Lancastrian or Yorkie. These are also just as easily recognised & differentiated.

Quite frankly, I'm mightily pleased that we don't all speak mid-atlantic or RP (received pronunciation)! One's linguistic limitations are just that: a product of a rather limited education or insularity, and given the globalisation of our common language, nothing to be proud of!

Nevertheless, I freely admit that much negro and ghetto language remains relatively unintelligible. Not necessarily because of dialectic differences, but more in linguistic, grammatic and even contextual inconsistencies. Familiar sounding words frequently have abbreviated useage, or uniquely unrelated meanings, just as I suppose the abbreviations used in rhyming slang is equally unintelligible to the uninitiated.


reply

A very comprehensive explanation. Very well written too.

reply

Maggie Smith was very mumbly at times.

http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

Not when we saw her in this play in London's West End about 20 years ago. No munbling in the theatre......if you want to be heard!

reply

I definitely needed the subtitles. I always use them when watching British movies, because even if I can follow 98% of what's being said, I know a word or term, such as "M.O.T.," asked about in another thread, is bound to pop up and leave me in the dark - not just as to its meaning, but often about how to spell it so I can look it up.

Years ago, I watched an interview with Princess Caroline (then) of Monaco, and admired her flawless English, but was surprised that it sounded "purely" American; i.e., vs British - which I'd expected, I imagine, per proximity - but with NO trace of a regional accent. I've always wondered, as well, how it is that singers who speak with a British (Scottish, Irish?) accent sing without one. (If an explanation of this is included in your post, lansdownehouse, I'm afraid it flew right over my thick Yankee skull!)

I'm old enough (eek!!) to remember when Beatlemania hit the US, and we got a crash course in the boys' Liverpudlian accents vs those considered more "posh" in England - primarily, IIRC, from the Beatles' pointing out and making fun of them, themselves.

And when I first heard Cheryl Cole - or I guess it's just "Cheryl" now? - speak (in a clip from the UK X-Factor) I was sure she was Scottish! (I think her dialect is called "Geordie?")

When reading a British newspaper's comment section under an article about the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton, I couldn't believe all the catty remarks about Kate's having "really poshed it up" (it was evident that people meant she'd faked an upper-crust speaking style) during their first formal interview. (At least I think the word was "poshed," please correct me if I'm wrong.)

American dialects can be *very* different, as well, of course. (And no; I'm not going anywhere NEAR Ebonics!!) I still remember (with great embarrassment!) when a guy came into the (university) office I shared with a co-worker and spoke about three sentences, the last clearly being a question, and the *only* word either of us could make out was the name "Maureen." He repeated himself twice as my co-worker and I just sat there with our faces red and jaws agape. I finally called a friend in another office in the building who spoke seven or eight languages, while my cohort "signaled" (omg . . . ) to the guy to please wait, then ran down the hall to get another co-worker - Maureen. She walked in as my multilingual friend was questioning the poor, very puzzled guy in Spanish, Standard Arabic, Italian, Portuguese, Egyptian Arabic - until Maureen said "You *guys*, this is Tom, our new grad assistant. What's going on?? He's from Louisiana!!"

reply

>I've always wondered, as well, how it is that singers who speak with a British (Scottish, Irish?) accent sing without one.

Trained singers learn something called "bel canto" and in this all vowels are simplified to the Italian vowels, but apart from that all the tight and particular vowels are not easy to sing, so even if you are not a trained singer, to sing well you will find yourself simplifying the vowels. As well, trained singers not singing in Italian have something with a few more sounds than bel canto, but I threw that term in so you can google it if you're interested in more of the theory. Basically, North American accents are looser and softer than British ones, and so as far as singing, we are already halfway there, as long as we don't pull a Hank Williams or something. All bets are off for country twang.

reply