You’ve probably never heard of “Indiscreet”. It’s a 1958 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant, directed by Stanley Donen. It’s not the best film in the world, but I’ve seen it more than once, obviously, I must like it. But a recent revisit left me with a feeling of “blah”. Why did I not enjoy the film? It took a while before it dawned on me. I had watched “Indiscreet” in the original version.
And the version that I had remembered, the one I have an undeniable soft spot for, was the German dub.
But why did I enjoy the dubbed version so much, while the original left me unimpressed? Did they change anything in the dub? Add jokes? Edit out boring bits? If you ask me, the walk that Bergman and Grant take around London on their first date is a bit long. There is hardly any dialogue that advances the story, so that might have been an option, but, no.
Did they change anything in translation? I always thought they mistranslated the word “soda” as “Natron” – a common mistake – but it turns out the character isn’t actually drinking a whisky and soda in the original, as I had assumed, but something he concocted himself to help his acid reflux, bourbon and bisodol.
There are some awkward translations maybe, but this is a film from the late Fifties, after all. Some choices might be dated, but the translation into German doesn’t enhance comedy or add jokes.
The difference lies somewhere else. It’s more subtle. To understand it, you need to know something about the film. So either go and watch it now, and then skip the next two paragraphs, or read on.
In “Indiscreet”, a celebrated actress, Anna (Bergman), meets a banker, Philip (Grant), and they enter into a happy long-distance relationship, as she lives in London and he has just accepted a NATO post in Paris. Philip makes it clear from the beginning that he is married, but can’t have a divorce. But this isn’t true. Philip is a confirmed bachelor, and, as he explains to Anna’s brother-in-law, Alfred, if a man tells a woman that he has no intention of marrying, she will only see this as a challenge. Alfred is sworn to secrecy and the relationship continues until Philip is offered a post in New York.
Unhappy at the thought of not seeing him for the next five months, Anna plans to fly ahead to New York to surprise her lover. When Alfred hears of this, he decides to tell Anna that Philip has been lying to her, that he is, in fact, single, and not worthy of her love. He also reveals that Philip is planning to surprise Anna on her birthday at midnight to spend an extra few days with her before leaving for New York. This doesn’t lessen Anna’s outrage at Philip’s deception and she comes up with an elaborate revenge scheme. She invites a former lover to be with her at midnight when Philip plans to come through the door. But at the last moment, this lover bows out with a sports injury, and Carl the chauffeur is roped in as a substitute. When Philip does appear, surprisingly asking Anna to marry him, Carl has a hilarious short appearance, delaying the happy end for a moment.
If this all sounds rather complicated that’s because it is. If it sounds inconsequential, that’s also true. And that’s precisely the point. The German dubbers understood something that the makers of “Indiscreet” may have also understood, but couldn’t deliver.
What the Germans had was an idea of what’s called “Boulevardtheater” as a genre. It’s a popular theater that valued surprise, mix-ups, and mistaken identities over characterization or literary value. Love affairs, comedic effect. The term has a slightly negative ring in German today, but think Alan Ayckburn or Neil Simon, think something like “Sonny Boys”. “Boulevardtheater” is what they undoubtedly had in mind when they dubbed “Indiscreet”.
Bergman and Grant are amazing actors, two of my favorites. Stanley Donen is one of the great directors of Hollywood musicals. But they just can’t get “Indiscreet” fully off the ground because they are too serious about their characters. This is especially unfortunate for Bergman’s Anna.
When she hears that Philip has betrayed her by not being married, she flies into a comic rage. Everything after that is over-the-top theatrics. She is an actress, after all. In the original, this comes out of thin air because everything before that moment is Anna being down to earth, pragmatic, understanding.
When Anna comes home in the beginning of the film to her empty apartment after being away on a holiday, we see Ingrid Bergman almost literally rolling up her sleeves and eating a bit of packaged cheese. When her maid comes home and offers to make her a proper dinner, she refuses – “go away, I’m a practical housewife, I’ll be fine.” In the dub, the dialogue is translated very faithfully, only that it sounds ever so slightly over the top, as in, “I can deal on my own, but of course I would allow you to stay if you decide to.”
When her sister tries to persuade her to come along to a banquet that sounds exquisitely boring, the original sounds like Anna really doesn’t want to come, while the German makes her refusal sound just a bit like she is playing hard to get.
So, when Anna does react with a full diva fit to the betrayal, it feels out of tune with her character.
A similar thing is true for Grant’s Philip. He seems to think that he needs to convince us as an audience that even though he lied to Anna, he’s not really such a bad guy after all. This comes to a head when he proposes marriage and she refuses, and he goes into a little moment of whining about how hard it is to be a man. In the original, Grant is honestly confused. In the dub, a hint of self-consciousness makes him sound slightly foolish, and turns his performance into something farcical and funny. Interestingly, Grant’s German voiced here, Peter Pasetti, only dubbed him one other time, and that was in another “Boulevardtheater”-type material, “Arsenic and Old Lace.”
The German dub doesn’t rewrite the film. Other than a few interesting translation choices – the Dutch ambassador who so bored Anna at a previous banquet is a Japanese ambassador in the dub – it’s quite a faithful translation. It doesn’t turn “Indiscreet” into something that it’s not. It understands what the film wants to be and helps it flourish.
That’s what a good dub does. It takes care of its original. It acts responsibly toward the original actors. I’m huge fan of Ingrid Bergman. I wanted to grow up to be as tall as her (missed it by about half an inch). I read everything there was to read about her. When she died, I was 15, and I cried. She did her thing, refused to have her teeth fixed, and loved whom she wanted to love. I would have defended her with my life.
I will be forever grateful for what the dubbers did for her in “Indiscreet”. It’s a bright, breezy little farce that shows off Bergman lighter side (and Grant’s silly side; apparently, he had to be persuaded to do the Scottish dance, but you wouldn’t know that from watching him do it). The film has meaning in Bergman’s career – it was the first film after she had returned to Hollywood with “Anastasia” and it’s obvious that she is beyond caring what people think of her, and I mean this in the best of ways. She is loose and funny and very real. Marianne Kehlau only voiced her a few times, but it’s the voice I have in my head when I think of Ingrid Bergman.
Would I want to hear her real voice instead? Would it be German with a tiny Swedish accent? Or would I want to hear Cary Grant’s real voice here? How would that sound? Would it be German with an English accent? Or with that inimitable accent that Tony Curtis parodied to brilliantly in “Some Like It Hot?” How would one add those Cary Grant things to a German delivery and pronunciation?
Would that be authentic? If “authentic” means being true to a character or their spirit, then Kehlau’s performance couldn’t be more authentic. And what’s more, the choices that Kehlau makes, whether they came from her or from the dubbing director (whose name I couldn’t find out), those choices are authentic. They are personal and individual, informed by instinct, intellect and craft, made by someone who is accountable for their actions. Someone who understands the role and the character, absorbs it, and gives it back. Acting – and dubbing – are a gift to the audience. This is what automated translation and synthetic voice will never be able to do, no matter how good they might sound. Dubbing isn’t about voice matches and bilabials. Machines don’t make presents.
