Alternatives to Audio Description
I have to admit that the audio description (AD) - the film description for blind persons from the off - has not really convinced me so far. To me, it's like someone telling a joke and telling me the punchline in the same breath. I was inspired to write this post by a small discussion on Facebook.
For me, television is the medium of the 90s. I've watched less and less TV since middle school, that was until the mid 90's. At that time there were almost no programs with AD, especially with the American programs that we preferred to watch at the time. I haven't owned a TV for many years, I'm not interested in the series on Netflix. I have the few programs that interest me recorded using an online service and then listen to them on my cell phone. My media are the internet and audio books.
So I'm not up to date when it comes to the latest television technology and television aesthetics. And blind persons who have grown up with audio description from an early age may find it easier to accept.
The audio description is a foreign body
In my opinion, the AD is a foreign body in the film. usually, the silent parts of the film are accompanied by atmospheric music. Music is very subconscious and yet suggestive. The AD interrupts this mood to a certain extent. In terms of communication theory, one would say that communication is interrupted by meta-communication. Or more vividly: Imagine that your partner would comment on the color of the candle and the quality of the candle wax during a romantic get-together.
Another problem is that the AD can never satisfy all blind viewers: it either reports too much and is sometimes superfluous. Or she reports too little, so that one could manage without her. In principle, each scene contains thousands of pieces of information that the viewer can take in at a glance. Naturally, AD can only convey a fraction of this.
And I don't think it can convey a mood like the actual film. The current rule is that the AD voice should be monotonous like a newscaster. This makes sense in general, but a neutral voice is not good at triggering emotions. It would be better to let the music work.
Conceptually, it would definitely be smarter to include the AD in the making of the film. The directors, screenwriters or whoever should give more weight to the non-visual layer from the beginning and the production of the AD should be done in the film team, then some problems would take care of themselves.
The audio description as part of the film
And of course there is another way. One possibility is that the presenter in a program or the off-voice takes over the task of description. Of course, it cannot provide as much information as a full-blown AD. But a good copywriter can provide enough information so that even the blind viewer gets a little more fodder.
In films, this task can be performed by a first-person narrator. We know that from series like Magnum, Scrubs or Malcolm in the Middle. Nobody there finds the interjections disturbing because they are simply part of the film.
A hybrid of radio play and film
And of course everyone knows the film that gets by without pictures - the radio play. A good radio play - there aren't that many of them - uses the right medium for every message: voice, music, noises, silence.
In our outrageously expensive Hollywood blockbusters, however, these factors are rarely used: Of course, in addition to the visuals, the voices and the music are also used. But noises are used very sparingly compared to radio plays. So how about making the foley artists more prominent in movies? This would allow you to transport much more information without anyone having to chat.
Incidentally, the whole thing would have the advantage that the AD would also be more widely accepted by the visually impaired - who would also benefit. Either they don't even know they exist. Or they reject them because they find them annoying.