Why won't Americans read subtitles?

There is a problem with that question that is encountered immediately upon having asked it. There is no hit in Google for that. 'Why can't Americans read subtitles?' appears to be a valid question. This is a problem. If we go around thinking that the reason why fantastic 'foreign' films get subjected to Hollywood remakes is because Americans can't read subtitles, then it becomes wrong to harrass them over it. It becomes akin to berating a man with no legs for being unable to walk. Even I know, that is wrong.
But wait, this is all nonsense. This is not a shared disability that we're talking about. This is not legtimate. My question stands. The problem is irrelevant. So, I ask again. Why won't Americans read subtitles? If the Washington Post was to be believed, we could easily shorten that to 'why won't Americans read? But again. I think we're some way off the target here.
That a poll revealled in 2007 that more than a quarter of Americans hadn't read a book the entire previous year, and a quick extrapolation suggests that's almost ninety million people. But these numbers are baffling. And worse, they blind us to the key issues at hand. Perhaps nowhere else in the world has the corporate media machine so cynically deployed the perceived stupidity of its own audience and they have in America. And when I say 'stupidity' you can read racism, sexism, homophobia, communist paranoia and good old fashioned fear. And why? There are clear political ends that have been used to rationalise the often troubling means. The links between Fox News and the Republican Party are well documented.
So, we can address the issue of Hollywood remakes having taken out of the equation the idea that, if left to their own devices, most Americans would gladly watch subtitled films. This leaves us with one, far more appealing (or should that be appalling?) conclusion. It's the stars of these films that are the problem. They're just not box office. What Hollywood needs is a star name (or in terms of generating interest before shooting begins, at least three names) to whom a project can be attached. Witness the usual names (Clooney, Pitt, Depp) who were in the running for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The role eventually went to Daniel Craig. Or let's look at Let Me In. Chloe Moretz got the lead in that. Moretz is clearly, post Kick-Ass, a name on the rise and is perfect for a project such as this. She's being branded as the 'out-there', 'left-field' choice for a child actor and consequently makes a lot of sense for this role. Which brings me back to cynicism and, ultimately, to money. I pity the actors (not that much given the scale of their paychecks) who must suffer their own delusions of artistry in the name of sleeping at night knowing that they're very much part of the problem. I pity the American people who are being used as excuses for this whole abominable process. I pity the makers of the original films who have to stand by and witness the Hollywood machine eat up and shit out their original work. But most of all, I feel no pity, only revulsion at the vapid idea-vacuum that is Hollywood and at its life's work: the total homogenisation of culture, the extension to its hideous conclusion of the lowest possible common denominator and at its unswerving devotion to its own advancement in the world.


P.S. If you're reading this over there at Universal, I have a script and I think that Brad Pitt would be ideal for the leading man. Call me. My number is 1-800-FUCK OFF!