Yahoo! Accessibility

Research

When Medium Awareness Extends to Subtitles

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

http://yaccessibilityblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/medium-awareness-640-290x290.jpg

The first time I saw the guy in the Dairy Queen commercial hop on the subtitles and hilariously ride them as they chugged off the screen, I began searching for other examples in which characters showed an awareness of the subtitles. The examples I subsequently found, while not strictly accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers without the support of an additional caption track, nevertheless have the potential to increase awareness of subtitles and subtitling practices.

Subtitling practices occasionally break through to become a topic of discussion among mainstream audiences. For example, when the Papyrus typeface was used for the subtitles in Avatar, it was universally panned by designers and typophiles. Three quick examples:

The Dairy Queen commercial is compelling to me for the way it similarly elevates subtitles to a topic of discussion. Subtitles become integral, meaningful elements of the text in their own right. They don’t support or translate the primary meaning of the text, or try to sit unobtrusively at the bottom of the screen. Instead, they make their own meaning. We are asked to look at them, not merely look through them.

The examples that follow elevate subtitles by breaking through the so-called fourth wall. The imaginary fourth wall separates the audience from the action on screen or stage. When the audience suspends its disbelief, the events are taken as real and believable. When fictional characters show an awareness of the medium (e.g. by talking directly into the camera, commenting on the soundtrack, bumping into or referring to the subtitles, etc.), they break through the fourth wall that enables the audience’s suspension of disbelief.

Put simply, fictional characters are not supposed to see subtitles. When they can, it’s usually in the service of a joke.

Loaded Weapon (1993)

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

Warning: Content may be offensive.

The Man with Two Brains (1983)

Fatal Instinct (1993)

Bugsy Malone (1976)

Wayne’s World (1992)

Portlandia, “Baseball” (Season 1, Ep 6, 2011)

Warning: Content may be offensive.

Closed Captions, Setting the Site (Vimeo)

Subtitled Arab (YouTube)

Warning: Content may be offensive.

As you can see, medium awareness of subtitles is often channeled through comedy, especially the screwball variety. This isn’t surprising, since breaks in the fourth wall are often used for comedic effect. When a movie threatens the presumed sanctity of the fourth wall, viewers are moved out of the real and into the absurd.

Because subtitles in these examples share the same space on the screen with the closed captions, designers and captioners must strive to avoid conflict and overlap (e.g. see the Portlandia and Goldmember examples). It’s important to remember that some viewers will be trying to process two text streams at the same time: the on-screen subtitles and the closed captions.

What additional examples of medium awareness (involving subtitles) are you aware of?

[A note on method: A number of these examples were found on TVtropes.org, which is an excellent repository for all kinds of examples of medium awareness.]

[Fair use notice: The videos on this site are transformative works used in good faith, in keeping with Section 107 of U.S. copyright law, and as such constitute fair use of copyrighted material. Read this site's full fair use notice.]

Captioning names in The Fifth Element

Friday, January 13th, 2012

One of my favorite scenes in The Fifth Element (1997) is the formal introduction between Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich. Willis’ comedic timing is, as always, delightful. Jovovich’s quick, monotone delivery is hilarious. Seeing the full name spelled out in all its hyphenated glory is one of the highlights of the captioned viewing experience: Leeloo Minai Lekarariba-Laminai-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat.

The official DVD of The Fifth Element contains two caption streams: a bitmap stream of speech-only subtitles (the video example above), and a text stream of full closed captions (in which all significant sounds are supposed to be captioned, both speech and non-speech). While the closed captioned version below includes verbatim speech (unlike the subtitled version above), it cops out on Leeloo’s full name, opting instead for an unhelpful non-speech caption: [Speaking Unknown Language]. But that’s her name, not an unknown language!

Would anything short of the fully captioned name work in this case? Probably not. Major characters’ names are always important, regardless of length and familiarity. Willis puts special emphasis on Leeloo’s full name when he refers to it colorfully as “that whole thing.” (In the subtitled version, this is unfortunately summarized as “All that’s your name?”) Caption viewers deserve access to “that whole thing” so they can experience it for themselves. (The full name is surprisingly popular, which is one more reason why it should have been captioned fully.)

Put simply, the scene is an introduction and introductions need names. Edited captions and short descriptions make little sense here.

I find the contrasts between these two versions of the official captions puzzling: The speech-only version doesn’t present speech verbatim, while the full version (speech + non-speech) — i.e. the stream intended for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers — doesn’t caption Leeloo’s full name. Because there doesn’t appear to be a good reason to edit speech in this case, and because caption viewers deserve access to characters’ full names, both streams should have included verbatim speech and spelled out Leeloo’s full name.

Verbatim speech Leeloo’s full name
Speech-only version No Yes
Closed captioned version Yes No

Putting both streams together into the same video helps to illustrate the differences. (I moved the closed caption stream to the top of the video so it wouldn’t overlap with the subtitle stream.)

So how do we explain these differences? Well, it’s hard to know for sure from this removed vantage point. I’d welcome input from professional closed captioners on this. Given the marked differences in timecodes for individual captions and my own recent conversations with professional closed captioners, I think it’s safe to say that these two caption files were produced by different captioners, at the very least. Each captioner had no knowledge of the other’s work. The two caption streams may have also been produced at different times by different companies. My own experience with multiple caption streams for the same show (e.g. one made for TV, another for the DVD) has prepared me to expect more than one official version of the captions, regardless of type (closed captions or subtitles).

But rather than try to explain the differences, we need to focus our attention on the importance of verbatim captioning, especially when names are involved and those names are hilariously long and alien.

Related Posts:

Originally Posted on Accessible Rhetoric

[Fair use notice: The videos on this site are transformative works used in good faith, in keeping with Section 107 of U.S. copyright law, and as such constitute fair use of copyrighted material. Read this site's full fair use notice.]

Captioned Hypnosis

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

The Hypnotoad: A large toad with pulsating, multicolored eyes which emits a loud noise.

What the Hypnotoad can teach us about closed captioning

Recurring sounds on TV shows present us with an opportunity to explore questions of consistency and accuracy in closed captioning. When a sound recurs in the same context or originates repeatedly from the same character, should it be captioned consistently? Moreover, given a number of different, presumably viable options for captioning the same recurring sound/character, which option is best?
Continue reading Captioned Hypnosis

Busy signal or engaged tone? Captions, language variety, and localized accessibility

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Screen shot from The Adjustment Bureau featuring a NYC taxi
How would you caption this phone sound? If it can be captioned in more than one way, how do you choose the way that is best? What if the option you prefer depends on the variety of English you speak?

Differences between American and British English can pose problems for some users of closed captions. Quite a few British words are not commonly used in the United States, or have different meanings for American viewers. (Follow these links for entries on the British “engaged tone” vs. the American “busy signal.”) While speech sounds should always be captioned verbatim, non-speech sounds offer greater freedom and present new challenges for the captioner. At times, non-speech sounds need to be considered from the perspective of the language variety typically spoken or signed in the DVD region in question. While it may not be feasible to localize English captions for both British and American caption users, captioners should remember that less common British terms may cause confusion for some American DVD caption users (and vice versa). Continue reading Busy signal or engaged tone? Captions, language variety, and localized accessibility