Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
12
↓
I Create Audio Description -- How Can The Service Be Improved? #2 (self.Blind)
submitted by WadjetAD
Hello, my name’s John.
I create audio description for film, television and other visual media. By asking stylistic questions on this forum I hope to create a better audio description experience by understanding the wants, needs and frustrations of normal people who simply enjoy watching movies and television.
My question this week focuses on force-naming:
By convention, describers wait to refer to a character by their name until dialogue, context or words onscreen reveal it. Until a character’s name has been identified by one of these, the voiceover will refer to them by a descriptive placeholder -- a brief visual or characteristic description. For instance, ‘The Tall Man’ or ‘The Cutthroat’, respectively. This practice adheres to an important principle in audio description: the non-sighted audience should receive information as close to the moment a sighted audience receives it as possible.
While this convention works reasonably well, many scenarios can make it unwieldy. First, since a descriptive placeholder is inevitably longer than a character’s name it reduces the descriptive potential of a narration that must fit in the precious little time between dialogue and effects. This isn’t a huge problem with minor characters, but in cases where a character who appears in a large percentage of the descriptions is not named until well over half the story has been told, these wasted syllables add up to a ton of lost information that could have been described if the character had been force-named.
Force-naming is a convention in which a describer makes the decision to give the listener a character’s name before the sighted audience would know it for the sake of more economic descriptions, as I’ve described above, and familiarity. By familiarity, I mean knowing a main character by their name instead of a descriptive placeholder. It seems to me that an audience would follow a character’s story more closely if they knew them as ‘Jack’ rather than ‘the tall man’. Since both these options are just a label for everything we hear the character say and do, a name seems to define a character better than a placeholder which can, by its brief nature, only describe one aspect.
Force-naming should only be employed when a character's name or identity has no baring on the story. A character whose role is defined by mystery should never be force-named. For example, in a horror film where a ghost appears regularly, but their name is only revealed later after the main characters do some investigating, description would use a placeholder because the mystery of the ghost's identity is vital to the story. The same would be true in a spy thriller, where an operative is assisting the main character but their allegiances and identity are unknown.
There are many circumstances in which giving the audio description audience a character’s name before a sighted audience knows it does not alter their experience of the story and offers enough benefits to bend the rules. Professional describers should have the proper training to discern circumstances in which force-naming is appropriate and those in which it would alter the story. What do you think?
I will continue this series of fine-tuning questions to constantly improve audio description's quality and the audience's experience. If you have ideas to improve description's quality or want to point out conventions in description that bug the heck out of you, reach out and let me know -- you have a direct line to the source.
Thank you for enjoying film and television, and being a part of this community.
Sincerely,
John Gray
I create audio description for film, television and other visual media. By asking stylistic questions on this forum I hope to create a better audio description experience by understanding the wants, needs and frustrations of normal people who simply enjoy watching movies and television.
My question this week focuses on force-naming:
By convention, describers wait to refer to a character by their name until dialogue, context or words onscreen reveal it. Until a character’s name has been identified by one of these, the voiceover will refer to them by a descriptive placeholder -- a brief visual or characteristic description. For instance, ‘The Tall Man’ or ‘The Cutthroat’, respectively. This practice adheres to an important principle in audio description: the non-sighted audience should receive information as close to the moment a sighted audience receives it as possible.
While this convention works reasonably well, many scenarios can make it unwieldy. First, since a descriptive placeholder is inevitably longer than a character’s name it reduces the descriptive potential of a narration that must fit in the precious little time between dialogue and effects. This isn’t a huge problem with minor characters, but in cases where a character who appears in a large percentage of the descriptions is not named until well over half the story has been told, these wasted syllables add up to a ton of lost information that could have been described if the character had been force-named.
Force-naming is a convention in which a describer makes the decision to give the listener a character’s name before the sighted audience would know it for the sake of more economic descriptions, as I’ve described above, and familiarity. By familiarity, I mean knowing a main character by their name instead of a descriptive placeholder. It seems to me that an audience would follow a character’s story more closely if they knew them as ‘Jack’ rather than ‘the tall man’. Since both these options are just a label for everything we hear the character say and do, a name seems to define a character better than a placeholder which can, by its brief nature, only describe one aspect.
Force-naming should only be employed when a character's name or identity has no baring on the story. A character whose role is defined by mystery should never be force-named. For example, in a horror film where a ghost appears regularly, but their name is only revealed later after the main characters do some investigating, description would use a placeholder because the mystery of the ghost's identity is vital to the story. The same would be true in a spy thriller, where an operative is assisting the main character but their allegiances and identity are unknown.
There are many circumstances in which giving the audio description audience a character’s name before a sighted audience knows it does not alter their experience of the story and offers enough benefits to bend the rules. Professional describers should have the proper training to discern circumstances in which force-naming is appropriate and those in which it would alter the story. What do you think?
I will continue this series of fine-tuning questions to constantly improve audio description's quality and the audience's experience. If you have ideas to improve description's quality or want to point out conventions in description that bug the heck out of you, reach out and let me know -- you have a direct line to the source.
Thank you for enjoying film and television, and being a part of this community.
Sincerely,
John Gray
mashington14 5 points 2y ago
Funny that this was posted now. I just saw A Quiet Place 2, and the main character of the movie was referred to as "the girl" until the very end of the movie. It wasn't a secret who she was or anything, plus this was part 2 of the series. I think this may be the only time I've even thought about this problem, but when we were half way through and the narrator still wasn't using her name, I suddenly noticed it, and then kept noticing it.
WadjetAD [OP] 3 points 2y ago
You'd be surprised how often this is an issue. But when you write on hundreds of movies, you notice it. Thanks for relating your experience and confirming my suspicions that such a practice could be incredibly distracting!
poochbrah 3 points 2y ago
Hi John. Love the post and I will be contacting you shortly as I'm a big fan of audio description!
Regarding this post, I completely agree with all your points especially movies where you are not supposed to know the characters name when it's vital to the story.
I have a bad memory and during long scenes where its following the same person, the describer will keep using 'he' rather than the characters name. This often makes me lose track of whose currently on screen as no name is given. Sighted folk won't have this issue as they'll be able to see the person. I've noticed a couple of audio describers will always use the name rather than he or she which works perfectly for me and I hope more description is done this way.
Regarding this post, I completely agree with all your points especially movies where you are not supposed to know the characters name when it's vital to the story.
I have a bad memory and during long scenes where its following the same person, the describer will keep using 'he' rather than the characters name. This often makes me lose track of whose currently on screen as no name is given. Sighted folk won't have this issue as they'll be able to see the person. I've noticed a couple of audio describers will always use the name rather than he or she which works perfectly for me and I hope more description is done this way.
SightlessBastard 2 points 2y ago
Hi John,
You raise an interesting point here. Personally, I think, a narrated description should always be as close to the sighted experience as possible. Force-naming it’s a difficult thing, and should always be considered very carefully. It might work in some movies, especially with minor characters. But it should never be done in movies, where the name of the character is an essential part of the story. I recently watched the kill Bill movies with description. It would have completely ruined the immersion and the movie, if the narrator would have dropped the name of the main character prematurely.
I think, what I’m trying to say is, that there is no clear answer to that question. It probably would be best, if the decision is made on a case by case basis.
You raise an interesting point here. Personally, I think, a narrated description should always be as close to the sighted experience as possible. Force-naming it’s a difficult thing, and should always be considered very carefully. It might work in some movies, especially with minor characters. But it should never be done in movies, where the name of the character is an essential part of the story. I recently watched the kill Bill movies with description. It would have completely ruined the immersion and the movie, if the narrator would have dropped the name of the main character prematurely.
I think, what I’m trying to say is, that there is no clear answer to that question. It probably would be best, if the decision is made on a case by case basis.
rp-turtle 1 points 2y ago
I agree, I think, with your view on force naming. That is, for main characters, force naming should only ever be done as an absolute last resort in instances where the AD can’t refer to them by anything other than their name due to time constraints. In contrast, for less central characters, force naming may be done a bit more liberally if the benefits of force naming clearly out way any drawbacks of spoiling their name reveal. In the few instances where I have seen force naming done for a main character, I still don’t think it damaged the plot of the content which is good. I wish I could recall a specific example but I only remember AD telling me a name, later having the content confirm that characters name by it being said in dialog for the first time, and thinking to myself that AD should’ve waited until after that moment to use their name.
Perhaps a bit of a compromise can be the convention adopting one or two word place holders instead of force naming and AD explicitly stating that character x will be referred to as blank. This does then require AD to make it clear later though that character x is in fact *character name*. This could turn out to be a pretty good option if the content itself has big enough gaps early on for AD to make those labels clear and then also make clear later who is who so I suppose it comes down to the specific piece of content. Here’s an example of how this could work. “A thin tall blonde woman, who we will refer to as blondie, smokes a cigarette outside her car”…”blondie pushes the man off the motorcycle before jumping on and riding away”…”Clare, formally referred to as blondie, hands the man the backpack before shooting the two men on either side of him”. In this option, I think it’s very important that AD make it clear that AD is the one bestowing these shorthand labels and that the labels are not related to the film. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that we are calling her blondie because another character refers to her that way, anything appeared on screen, or that her label is indicative of her character or anything regarding the plot of the content. That does make coming up with one or two word labels tricky because characters aren’t always wearing the same stuff nor do they look the same in terms of style across scenes. For these reasons, in this approach, I think AD would have to focus on something less variable like height, hair color, or eye color if necessary.
Hope my random thoughts made any sense. I love this series of posts and look forward to the next one!
Perhaps a bit of a compromise can be the convention adopting one or two word place holders instead of force naming and AD explicitly stating that character x will be referred to as blank. This does then require AD to make it clear later though that character x is in fact *character name*. This could turn out to be a pretty good option if the content itself has big enough gaps early on for AD to make those labels clear and then also make clear later who is who so I suppose it comes down to the specific piece of content. Here’s an example of how this could work. “A thin tall blonde woman, who we will refer to as blondie, smokes a cigarette outside her car”…”blondie pushes the man off the motorcycle before jumping on and riding away”…”Clare, formally referred to as blondie, hands the man the backpack before shooting the two men on either side of him”. In this option, I think it’s very important that AD make it clear that AD is the one bestowing these shorthand labels and that the labels are not related to the film. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that we are calling her blondie because another character refers to her that way, anything appeared on screen, or that her label is indicative of her character or anything regarding the plot of the content. That does make coming up with one or two word labels tricky because characters aren’t always wearing the same stuff nor do they look the same in terms of style across scenes. For these reasons, in this approach, I think AD would have to focus on something less variable like height, hair color, or eye color if necessary.
Hope my random thoughts made any sense. I love this series of posts and look forward to the next one!
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 2y ago
Hey, thanks for your reply! I appreciate how much care and detail you put into your suggestion. I think your instincts are good and I have used a similar style in the past. However, I believe 'who we will refer to' is a bridge too far and breaks immersion. In instances where I have created shorthand names for characters I rely on context to indicate who the character is. Going off your example, I'd say:
'A thin tall blond woman smokes a cigarette outside her car.'
Then, assuming the motorcycle action happens directly after.
'Blondie pushes the man off the motorcycle ...'
Later...
'Blondie carries the backpack into the hideout.'
Thug (dialog): 'Give me the backpack, Claire.'
'Claire hands the thug the backpack then shoots the two men on either side of him'
'A thin tall blond woman smokes a cigarette outside her car.'
Then, assuming the motorcycle action happens directly after.
'Blondie pushes the man off the motorcycle ...'
Later...
'Blondie carries the backpack into the hideout.'
Thug (dialog): 'Give me the backpack, Claire.'
'Claire hands the thug the backpack then shoots the two men on either side of him'
CloudyBeep 1 points 2y ago
I recently heard the word "pudgy" used as a placeholder in this way and thought it an interesting decision that perhaps not all users would be comfortable with.
WadjetAD [OP] 2 points 2y ago
Yes, that is a questionable choice. I rarely call attention to someone's weight unless it's referenced by other characters/relevant to the story. So to define a character that way is overkill in my view -- the poor actor!
rp-turtle 1 points 2y ago
I like and agree with your approach. To me, “who we will refer to as” doesn’t break emersion but I can see how it could for others. Also, I think I misunderstood your original post. I thought it was asking more what to do when context couldn’t be used in the designation of a label for a character. Like in the example we are using, the content allows you to rely on context to indicate a character. What would you do in an instance where that’s not quite possible because there was no time before hand to describe characters for whom such descriptions can then be used to create shorthand names? Would you just designate them for efficiency or go out of your way to describe them enough for the shorthand label to make sense/be justified?
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 2y ago
In the case you're describing I would look for something in dialog or context to label them, were I to use a shorthand. Naming from dialog is relatively straightforward; does someone describe their appearance? As for context, characters are rarely introduced in a vacuum. For instance, if a character comes up behind another and says 'give me all your money', he could be 'the thug' or 'the mugger'. If the characters go to the store to buy some tasty steaks, the clerk could be 'the butcher'. We don't always need physical characteristics to create a tag for a character. We lose a bit of economy with the article 'the', but these tags aren't any longer than a name with several syllables ('Cassandra', 'Damian', etc). I am especially careful to be accurate in these instances, though. To tag someone as 'the butcher' I'd have to be completely sure she was the butcher, and not a cashier working for the butcher.
Arinvar 1 points 2y ago
As a sighted watcher I find force-naming pretty irrelevant in most movies. As you've stated if the characters name is somehow important to the story then it has to wait, but otherwise it just means my wife won't keep asking me "who's that?".
Completely off topic... audio descriptions need to be better done in a lot of musicals. Actually it's probably more noticeable in movies that aren't "musicals" but have a decent musical number. I think it was a Disney film that had a big romantic dance/song at the end. None of the song or music could be heard because the audio description kept going and going, describing the dance... like for the sake of the story and "movie moments" they should've just shut up and let the music number go. Annoyed my wife quite a lot because it was supposed to be a romantic dance moment.
I don't know where else to complain about this stuff, sorry. :P
Completely off topic... audio descriptions need to be better done in a lot of musicals. Actually it's probably more noticeable in movies that aren't "musicals" but have a decent musical number. I think it was a Disney film that had a big romantic dance/song at the end. None of the song or music could be heard because the audio description kept going and going, describing the dance... like for the sake of the story and "movie moments" they should've just shut up and let the music number go. Annoyed my wife quite a lot because it was supposed to be a romantic dance moment.
I don't know where else to complain about this stuff, sorry. :P
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 2y ago
Complain here! Thanks for your insightful comment. There are so many different specific situations that come up in description; it helps to hear real people's issues.
[deleted] 1 points 2y ago
[deleted]
ThisBlindChickReads 1 points 2y ago
John, I agree with your thinking on this. Its is impossible to describe every detail and your insight to assume that it is more important to just call them tall man "jack" as long as it doesn't interfere with a reveal makes complete sense. I would much more prefer a force-naming, than to miss other details because the character description is too clunky or even unnecessary to the plot. I can see this easily being true in a romcom ... Boy meets girl, doesn't get her name right away, bumps into her again and then her name is revealed to the audience ... I would see no issue in the audience being let in on her name from the start instead of her being called "mystery girl" ... I am sure that by movie dialog we would know that we were given "inside information" but that the immersive experience would not be at risk. For me personally, it would help me follow along more easily to not have to catalog "mystery girl" and "Beth" as the same person.
PrincessDie123 1 points 2y ago
Yes force naming can create confusion and break immersion if done too soon but so too can the overuse of descriptors instead of a name and as you stated that can limit the time to describe the rest of the scene.
A bit off topic but I’ve not ever talked with someone who does this, I find the audio description in action movies sometimes overlaps with really cool musical scores during fight sequences or really emotionally charged moments and kind of drowns out the music that adds to the feeling of the moment, I prefer the descriptions that can be heard alongside the music rather than instead of the music though this is a problem specific to each individual film. Also I find that sometimes descriptions don’t catch a text message or note being shown on screen, sometimes this is resolved later in the dialogue but not always. I don’t really know how to fix any of this I’m pretty new to using audio descriptions and I’m just interested in how it all works.
A bit off topic but I’ve not ever talked with someone who does this, I find the audio description in action movies sometimes overlaps with really cool musical scores during fight sequences or really emotionally charged moments and kind of drowns out the music that adds to the feeling of the moment, I prefer the descriptions that can be heard alongside the music rather than instead of the music though this is a problem specific to each individual film. Also I find that sometimes descriptions don’t catch a text message or note being shown on screen, sometimes this is resolved later in the dialogue but not always. I don’t really know how to fix any of this I’m pretty new to using audio descriptions and I’m just interested in how it all works.
WadjetAD [OP] 3 points 2y ago
Thanks for your comment.
I think that leaving space for the original sound to carry the story is one of the trickier aspects of description since it isn't something that most people teach new describers. It was something I definitely learned to finesse properly through experience. There is also a camp of people who use description whose mantra is 'Describe as much as possible!' We obviously can't please everybody since everyone has different tastes.
Personally, I am more in your camp and like to let the sound breathe rather than pack the movie as full of description as possible. I think the best description synthesizes with the original media and becomes subconscious as you watch.
Perhaps there is a golden ratio in mixing that will allow the description to be understood and the music heard at the same time. Do you have a film that exemplifies your preference of description being heard alongside the music? Examining something specific would help me recreate the effect you're describing.
If there is a space for description, missing text on screen is either carelessness on the part of the writer or a calculated decision to abandon it in favor of something more critical to understanding the story. But sometimes, there simply isn't time to include it because there are no dialogue breaks. In those cases I try to find a break either further along or earlier to fit it in.
I think that leaving space for the original sound to carry the story is one of the trickier aspects of description since it isn't something that most people teach new describers. It was something I definitely learned to finesse properly through experience. There is also a camp of people who use description whose mantra is 'Describe as much as possible!' We obviously can't please everybody since everyone has different tastes.
Personally, I am more in your camp and like to let the sound breathe rather than pack the movie as full of description as possible. I think the best description synthesizes with the original media and becomes subconscious as you watch.
Perhaps there is a golden ratio in mixing that will allow the description to be understood and the music heard at the same time. Do you have a film that exemplifies your preference of description being heard alongside the music? Examining something specific would help me recreate the effect you're describing.
If there is a space for description, missing text on screen is either carelessness on the part of the writer or a calculated decision to abandon it in favor of something more critical to understanding the story. But sometimes, there simply isn't time to include it because there are no dialogue breaks. In those cases I try to find a break either further along or earlier to fit it in.
PrincessDie123 1 points 2y ago
Yeah it’s tricky, I don’t have a specific example of a movie but horror seems extra tricky because you’ve got to describe everything and try to encompass the right level of suspense somehow.
As for a tv show though, I was recently rewatching Avatar: The Legend Of Korra with audio descriptions and most of the time it worked very well but during the fight scenes where the sounds of objects flying and hitting things alongside intense music set the audience on edge was really dampened by muting the sounds to say very monotonously “the other bender threw something at Korra’s head” sound returns to full volume for a second then mutes again “Korra throws punch countered by her opponent who tosses her to the ground” and it goes on like that for large portions of an episode constant changes in volume which for me made the fight seem kind of bland although as the series went on I heard the descriptors voice change as they started to get more into it and they started sounding a little more like a sports radio announcer who cared about who was going to win which made up for a lot of the lost sound effects.
The biggest issue I’ve faced with in-theater descriptions isn’t with the descriptions themselves it’s just the device they use is either tuned to the wrong movie or just shuts the audio off partway through and I find that my local theaters don’t seem to know how to work them very well, though I don’t know why that issue is happening.
As for a tv show though, I was recently rewatching Avatar: The Legend Of Korra with audio descriptions and most of the time it worked very well but during the fight scenes where the sounds of objects flying and hitting things alongside intense music set the audience on edge was really dampened by muting the sounds to say very monotonously “the other bender threw something at Korra’s head” sound returns to full volume for a second then mutes again “Korra throws punch countered by her opponent who tosses her to the ground” and it goes on like that for large portions of an episode constant changes in volume which for me made the fight seem kind of bland although as the series went on I heard the descriptors voice change as they started to get more into it and they started sounding a little more like a sports radio announcer who cared about who was going to win which made up for a lot of the lost sound effects.
The biggest issue I’ve faced with in-theater descriptions isn’t with the descriptions themselves it’s just the device they use is either tuned to the wrong movie or just shuts the audio off partway through and I find that my local theaters don’t seem to know how to work them very well, though I don’t know why that issue is happening.
snimminycricket 1 points 2y ago
I don't have a lot of thoughts on this as I'm only just starting to lose significant portions of my vision and only recently even learned about audio description as a service! Despite working in broadcast television for the last ten years. So although I can't contribute suggestions at the moment, I wanted to say I find it fascinating to learn about what you do as an audio describer. It must be so subjective, and when I first learned this was a thing I immediately wondered how it's done, who decides what to describe, etc. I think all aspects of media production are interesting, even closed captioning which I've been working with a little bit recently and which may seem boring to some. Anyway, thank you for coming here and seeking input directly from the people who use your service!
WadjetAD [OP] 3 points 2y ago
Part of the reason I'm asking these questions and having this dialog is to give folks insight into what describers consider when we write. I think that knowledge will help people ask for what they want. Keep checking back here to learn more. Also, feel free to PM me if you have any questions!
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.