Paper short abstract:

Why Jorge Prelorán not subtitle the voice of those protagonists? The objective of this presentation will be to review the works, and denials, of the Argentine ethnographic filmmaker, as an example of a canonic filmmaker deliberately staying out of technological change.

Paper long abstract:

Prelorán paid special attention to the dubbing of his films, generally using his own voice for it. He preferred not to use subtitles, unlike filmmakers like David MacDougall or John Marshall, who often left the original native voice with subtitles. For his part, Jean Rouch did not require the presence of subtitles for his ethnofictions, since his protagonists spoke French and not the language of their ancestors (Henley says that the reason he chose his protagonists was because they spoke French -2009 : 307-). His excuse in this regard was that the subtitles "mutilate the image"; with which many parliaments and dialogues. "This was one of the most significant limitations of his praxis," says Henley (2009: 210-242). The same could be said of Jorge Prelorán and his films, in which there are no protagonists who speak in indigenous languages. David MacDougall makes the caveat that Prelorán, in Imaginero, utters a translation of the words of his protagonist (in the English version), but trying to be spontaneous, taking care not to silence the original speech (1998: 166). But, why not subtitle the voice of those protagonists? The objective of this presentation will be to review the works, and denials, of the Argentine ethnographic filmmaker.