I loved that movie, but when I reflect back on it, I hear the English dialogue, I don't see it. The way that my mind has substituted voices for the written subtitles intrgues and fascinates me, especially because I would love to know whose voices I used!

I find this an interesting remark, and one reflecting an experience unlike my own. Having seen the subtitled release, do even those who can spell her name substitute Jacqueline Deneuve's voice with one of their own invention?

It seems plain that an occidental viewer might substitute imagined voices because of the unassimilated intonations of the dialect (A former stranger here has forbidden me to use "Chinese" to refer to the spoken languages of China). I wonder if the experience of those who do for "Tiger" is unique to that movie, or if is similar to their experience with some of the films exported from the People's Republic over the past ten years or so. How about Bruce Lee films?

No PC concern, here. I ask, because I wonder if Tiger in a special class that lends itself to this kind of experience. I sent my mother, who is legally blind, to see the film because the story can be followed without understanding a word of the script. She loved it, and wants to see it again.

My goddaughter, a grad student in anthropology/archeology tells me the movie is another telling of a story that's been told and retold in various forms for at least 3,000 years.

So I wonder, apart from its brilliant execution in "Tiger," is it because the story is so profoundly archetypal that a blind woman can follow it and an occidental viewer can substitute voices, intonations, dialogue of their own, or is it for some other reason? Or, perhaps, these aren't unique qualities, at all.