Before I begin, I should mention that this critique isn’t going to be like the others. The audio descriptions I tend to consume are in English. I’ve consumed a few in Spanish, but that’s no more than four counting this movie. I won’t lie. I’m a little nervous critiquing it because I have issues with Spanish comprehension and, as I’m writing, I’m not too sure how to critique it for the most part.

All this said, I’m excited to try. I don’t know how it’ll come out, but at least I can say I tried. That’s better than nothing.

This movie is an Amazon Prime original. However, the version I watched is distributed by a company in Spain and has a new audio description. I don’t know why a new audio description was made, but it was. If I find the Amazon Prime one, I’ll write a post on it as well. There, I’ll let you know which is my personal favorite.

For those unaware, audio description is a separate audio track added to visual media. It’s mainly intended for blind and visually impaired audiences, but can be enjoyed by and benefit anyone.

Movie Premise

Based on real events, the movie follows the events leading up to and surrounding the 1985 Trial of the Juntas which prosecuted the leaders of Argentina’s bloodiest dictatorship that took place between 1976 and 1983. We follow the work of young, passionate, and inexperienced youth from the ages of 20 to 28 led by Prosecutors Julio Strassera and Luis Moreno Ocampo on their journey for justice.

Movie Information

Genre: Drama
Category: Adult
Explicit violence: No
Explicit sex: No
Content warnings I noticed: Discussions of torture, kidnapping, sexual assault, and birth

Review

I usually start these critiques by telling you if I think the writing is good, but I don’t feel comfortable doing that this time. As I mentioned in my intro, I don’t really consume a lot of Spanish audio description, so I honestly don’t feel like I have enough experience to offer a judgment.

The descriptions are okay. It reminded me of audio description I used to consume in 2017. I remember the first episode of Jessica Jones having a similar style. It’s minimal, allowing the viewer to appreciate the silence and the music. It’s not a bad style of description. Personally, I like it to an extent, but, most of the time, I prefer more detail. It does work for this movie because it’s very dialogue-heavy, making it easier for viewers not to get lost.

All this said, I watched this movie with a group of people. Some pointed out the fact that there were things that could have been described and weren’t. They also mentioned details that were omitted from the description. From what I gathered, these details were relevant, such as the fact that Julio wore a white jacket at the end of the movie.

Minimal descriptions are good because they don’t overwhelm the viewer, but, at the same time, they lack detail. While it focuses on some relevant details, it discards others. A lot of them lack descriptions of people’s physical features, clothing, and setting. At least in this movie, there’s space to add more descriptions, but they chose to allow the viewer to appreciate the music. It’s good to allow viewers to appreciate music and silence, but, if there’s space to include more relevant details, they definitely should.

The descriptions are also very literal. Honestly, this is my favorite part of this style of audio description. It’s always to the point.

The vocal performance is jarring. There are two describers in the movie. A male voice reads out dates, text, and opening and closing credits while a female voice describes the movie. From my understanding, this is done to distinguish between text and descriptions, but two describers aren’t needed for this.

When I critiqued Too Hot to Handle’s audio description, I talked about the audio describer and host being very active and engaging. I mentioned how this is a lot. While it’s not to the same extent, I’d argue that two describers is a lot because it’s jarring. You’ll have the female voice describing events and, suddenly, you’ll have the male voice jumping in to read text and dates. It took me out of it.

I understand the need for distinction between events being described and text on the screen, but two describers aren’t needed for that. Viewers who are blind and visually impaired can distinguish the difference between the two. The describer doesn’t even need to say “Text” before reading what it says. The describer just needs to read it and move on to the next part. Only one describer is needed and it’s less jarring that way.

Besides this, the describers are good. They don’t interrupt the dialogue and are engaging.

I don’t have Amazon Prime, so I don’t know if this movie is offered in other languages. If they do, I hope they’re offering audio description in all the languages they offer the movie in.

Conclusion

Overall, this audio description is okay. It’s not my favorite, but, in truth, I’ve been spoiled for the last few years. More details could have been added. I rate it two stars.