Anexis Matos

This documentary series is similar to How to Build a Sex Room. Maybe I’ll rewatch it and talk about the audio description, but it has a similar format. When it comes to the audio description, I’m not impressed. It’s the same standard, boring style. There’s only one thing I liked. For those unaware, audio description is a separate audio track added to visual media that describes visual aspects. It’s mainly intended for blind and visually impaired audiences, but can be enjoyed by and benefit anyone.

Series Premise

Finance expert Ramit Sethi travels to different locations to help people with their finance issues.

Series Information

Genre: Documentary
Category: Adult
Explicit violence: No
Explicit sex: No
Content warnings I noticed: None

Review

The audio description writing is fine. The language is good for the audience it targets. The word choice is similar to many Netflix documentaries and reality shows.

The descriptions are delivered in a minimal style. The best part about this style of description is that it doesn’t overwhelm viewers. However, it tends to lack detail, such as descriptions of people and setting. The audio descriptions assumes you know who everyone is and doesn’t bother to give you any description. At least offer age category. I know some people’s ages because they mention it.

The only interesting part of this audio description is what they did with subtitles. In the audio descriptions I’ve critiqued, I haven’t had to talk about that, so this is going to be interesting. I’d love to discuss this in the comments with you. First, though, we need to take a step back and talk about something I complained about in my critique of the Spanish audio description of Argentina 1985. Check it out below.

Spanish Audio Description of Argentina 1985

One of my complaints was the performance. There were two describers. One read opening and closing credits, dates, and text on the screen. The second person did the audio description. I didn’t like this because it was very distracting. I believe that one describer was sufficient. The viewer can distinguish the difference between description and everything.

This documentary did something similar with subtitles. If the conversation was between a man and a woman, the audio describer read the woman’s lines and a male voice read the man’s lines. I really like this. That was the most creative part of this audio description. This makes it easier to distinguish who is talking.

In my experience, when there are subtitles, audio description doesn’t always make it clear who is speaking. If there’s a conversation, it doesn’t always specify who is saying what in the subtitles. That’s been experience, but I also haven’t been heavily exposed to subtitles in the media I watch.

In Argentina 1985, there was no need to distinguish what was being read by different describers. The female audio describer is perfectly capable of making that distinction if it was truly necessary. The distinction would have been made obvious if the describer simply said “text” before reading out what’s on the screen. The other option is simply to say the text without telling the viewer it’s text. Viewers are able to determine the difference. In my opinion, using two describers to distinguish between regular audio description and text and credits makes it so that the audio description is holding the viewer’s hand throughout it. Viewers should be able to use their own media literacy to know the difference.

Subtitles are a different story. It’s not always easy to tell who’s talking. There’s a good reason to make a distinction. I hope more audio descriptions use this option when it comes to subtitles.

The describer’s performance is engaging. Their voice falls between neutral and excited. I like this combination. It fits the neutral, yet excited tone Sethi uses in the series when it came to finance.

For the most part, the audio description is well edited. The describer doesn’t interrupt commentary and dialogue. They also allow viewers to appreciate music and silence. However, there are instances of choppy editing where the describer appears to be cut off when saying the words “A Netflix series.” It almost sounds like there were two takes and both were kept.

The series is currently audio described in English. It’s offered in several other languages. Netflix once again excludes viewers who are blind and visually impaired who don’t speak English.

Conclusion

Overall, this audio description is like every other Netflix does for documentaries and reality shows. It’s standard and boring, but I appreciated how they did the subtitles. That, at least, caught my interest. I rate it three stars. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Author’s Note

Hey, everybody. I wanted to mention my support for the current strike going on. From the video I saw, one of the demands include audio describers. Reviews seem to be helpful, so I’ll be doing these critiques. Here’s the video in question.

I’ll be back next week with a new audio description critique. Thanks for reading.