> Without adapting the translation the natives will immediately understand the reference while you, the non-native with no sense of who they're talking about are left wondering what's the real message. Calling someone a "Mother Teresa" might miss the mark somewhere in China. Same if an Italian movie made references to food like Casu Marzo and the average American would probably miss a lot of the context.
Right, but isn't that why the American is watching this Italian movie anyways, to get a wider understanding of Italian culture? I don't watch foreign movies with the expectation that they're adapted to my local culture, then there wouldn't be much point in watching it.
> isn't that why the American is watching this Italian movie anyways
I don't know. I always though people would prefer to hear the original voice of the actor, since speech is a big part of the acting. But movies are dubbed in a lot of countries. And most people from those countries I spoke to said that they find the idea of subtitles very odd because it's distracting them from the movie.
I am sure many if not most people simply want to understand what's the message behind the conversation on the screen first and foremost. Learning something new only works if while you try to keep up with the dialogue, you also keep track of all the expressions you heard for the first time, to look them up later.
This is why I think it's the translator's job to balance translation and adaptation. Directly translate the original where context helps you understand the meaning so you get the "original" experience, and adapt where leaving just the 1:1 translation will make you lose the thread or miss some details.
Right, but isn't that why the American is watching this Italian movie anyways, to get a wider understanding of Italian culture? I don't watch foreign movies with the expectation that they're adapted to my local culture, then there wouldn't be much point in watching it.