I might have lost my damn mind. But, I don’t think I’ve ever had the chance to line up two versions of the same track for the same movie. I don’t know how Netflix will react, so let me just say, Cover Up is an amazing documentary and one of the best of the year. Seymour Hirsch is featured, finally, getting his flowers. He’s like a Woodward and Bernstein, but didn’t get All The President’s Men made about him. Maybe someday, someone will turn his real life crusade for the truth into a narrative feature.

Interestingly, Cover Up premiered at Cannes. It gained an audio description track early on, and you may be wondering… with all of the shows out there and movies that still have no audio description, why on earth would anyone dare change it? I mean, Netflix still has never added audio description to Best Picture Nominee Roma. Still. I did make sure to watch Cover Up in the way Netflix intended, and no matter what happens here, my grade will not change. I already have a video on my YouTube channel with a grade assigned, and an upload date. But I noticed someone was credited for editing the script, which was written by someone, and I’ve never seen that. Today, we plunge into a very different kind of quality check, one that answers the question, why are there two tracks to this film?

Unlike my previous entries, I’ve seen this before, and I’m also diving in to two tracks at the same time. It is sheer madness. Getting things to line up will be difficult, so if I don’t comment on every little thing, it probably wasn’t a big deal.

Would you prefer “mountains in the distance” or “mountains like before”? it seems like such a small change, but it is one. It is such a weird choice, because the first version was “like before”, and the second was “in the distance”, either because they felt the mountains weren’t as they were before… or someone just didn’t like it. It is an odd change.

Lobs or tosses? This is just a choice. Honestly, I feel like I would choose tosses more naturally, but lobs makes the track more interesting because it isn’t the obvious word. You know, that’s what a thesaurus is for. So we can not constantly hear “pensive” and “thrusts”.

Wow. they removed definition of race/ethnicity. The original mentioned a room full of white and black men working, and the final version just goes with men. That is a choice. I’ve seen this, and it isn’t a civil rights doc, or explicitly about race, but just removing diversity because you can also gives an odd taste. Like, why? It clearly fit the first time, why did you remove it?

Ack. They did it again! instead of white servicemen waiting for haircuts, it just became servicemen. As someone who once had 20/20 vision, I can tell you with utmost certainty, the “I don’t see race” thing isn’t real, it is in whether or not you allow that to somehow alter how you see that person, often before you ever meet them. the desire to neuter all audio description is so baffling to me. This does not bridge any gaps.

Why did we take out the direction the men, women, and children were facing? What even are these nitpicky choices? If you want to edit something, actually make it better. this section is really full of description, and probably felt busy so some editor chopped out a few words so Roy could have a smoother run. but the fallacy here is in believing less audio description is somehow better, Like, “the big tall man” reduced to “the big man” or “the tall man” because it somehow ebbs and flows better. I mean, does it? And at the expense of what?

I think they use an algorithm to remove any mention of “blac or white”, because there’s this riot and protest footage, where they remove a few mentions of white and black, but then they also remove an indicator that we see a black and white photo of Seymour. Like, it is a photo. It doesn’t have a race. Do you believe blind people to be that easily triggered? This is actually both really sad and kind of funny. OK. The first time I’m going to tip my hat to the new track. the photo of Liz and a baby wins. it kind of drives me a little nuts when there should be an A, An, or The, and it isn’t there. The original track just had baby, not a baby. One point to Slytherin. Actually, the editor is more of a Hufflepuff since they have to find all the mentions of race, and Hufflepuffs are excellent finders.

Ha. Another removal of “black and white” photo.

For some reason we decided to not spell the name of the soldier. I’m not sure I care, but maybe someone else would have looked the guy up and read about this thing. Or, maybe that was the point? Though, sighted people can see it, so unless there’s a reasonable fear of specifically blind and low vision people seeking vigilante justice, it is just unnecessary to cut out.

This is going to drive me crazy. they change a description of a map, which I didn’t really care about. I didn’t really understand or process the description fully in the original version, but the original lets you know the first photo is this Cally that Hirsch has been looking for, and describes the first photo as him in plain clothes. That’s a valid description, then they cut plain clothes, and change it to “A photo of a man”. WHY? These changes make no sense. Nothing was gained here. We can infer the man is cally, but who the fuck knows in the new version. The original just straight up confirms it for you AND does a better job describing him.

Hey! They kept a mention of a black and white photo! Albeit, a mugshot, but still. We are making progress.

Dropped the reference to “red brick” row houses for some reason.

A typewriter page lists names with Eli at the top, versus Typewritten lists of names, me Eli and a date top right. Wow. This is going to slowly drive me insane isn’t it? A typewriter page? like.. what does that mean to you? We put paper in the typewriter, so the page would be paper, not a page, so if it is page, shouldn’t it remain typewritten? Even if you drop the part about the date, shouldn’t it be typewritten page? Am I crazy?

I can’t just do little nitpicky things all the time, but the original track had more description at Bernhardt’s arrival. Senior officers for one. Were they not Senior officers?

Rural versus Country? I think this was done to dumb it down again, like the previous entry. Remember tossed versus lobbed? Except, Cover Up is about as highbrow of a documentary as they come. So, I don’t get it. Now, there’s another side of that, where I actually think the statement of “playing basketball” somehow makes sense over the dribbling and shooting, because it really does rope in the whole thing. And here’s why… I have reasons, and I’m always right. Technically, dribbling is also a soccer term. And while you mention the hoop for basketball, it doesn’t mean someone couldn’t infer an entirely different sport. theretofore, Hufflepuff got their second house point. the second change I understand and agree with. After a half hour of the film.

Another point for adding the color of the barn, and rephrasing it to accommodate that detail. Hufflepuff, 3 points.

OMG. Did they add “A red barn sits in a field”? “A photo of Paul with his parents. Archival footage of Paul’s mother and father plays” is what they changed it to, from “The young man stands next to his parents in a published photo, his mother looks away wearily”. The first one is simplified, and mentions the archival footage of mom and dad following the photo, the first one just focuses on the photo. So the original did a better job of describing the photo, but not the transition, while the second sacrificed the photo description for the transition. I would call this an even trade. the newer version is a compromise, because we get two things for the price of one, while the first just did one thing and did it better.

The new version gave Obst a dark beard. Another case where they give this excellent description of a cityscape sidewalk, and the newer version cuts down the description, so it can fit in a transition. Hufflepuff is picking up points, though I’m sure some more mentions of black and white are looming around a corner.

The newer description added “Paul’s jaw tightens”. Wallace also grimaces in the new version, but the old one points out the following headline is from a British rag, and the newer one just goes with headline. it is kinda cool to know that this little thing became a global WTF moment, so I would have kept the original descriptor.

Hufflepuff loses all points. Back at zero.Hirsch directly makes a point to talk about a war photographer using black and white cameras versus color The original AD noted the following shots, letting us know which were from the black and white collection, and which was in color. Considering that is the literal emphasis Hirsch just placed, I gotta deduct points from Hufflepuff. Knowing another writer actually understood the assignment, and someone did the “hold my beer” thing and messed it up is frustrating. Unless the original AD was straight up lying, this was a bad decision.

The whole conglomeration of photos lost descriptors. Oh. My. God. House Cup to Gryffindor. So, I fucking love Roy as a narrator, but the original AD team actually used a gaggle of voices for the subtitle translation section, not just one other person which is what Roy has. He has to read the narration while a female joins for some translation. The other one sounds like three different voices in that scene.

So the original AD did “helicopter flying away” while the new track says “a nearby helicopter flying away into the clear blue sky”, I mean… one of those is more. Clearly.

They also swapped antique for sepia toned. For a track that has chosen to swap lobbed for tossed, and rural for country, do more people understand sepia over antique?

The photos of Hirsch’s mother, and him with his brother are better described in the original version. Far more detail.

Shockingly, when Hirsch mentions living amongst the black population on the south side, the new AD actually kept the mentions of racial identity.

Photo around a young woman? that’s odd, because the original track seemed to know it was his future wife Liz. The new track just made it seem like some totally random chick he took a photo with.

The newer version dropped neat and tidy from a headshot description, and I concur. Clothing would be a better descriptor, or a hairstyle. Neat and tidy suggests that most of the time he isn’t.

OK. So the original AD team decided to… dub someone speaking in English? What an odd choice. Luckily, that was one of the cuts, and I approve. I can totally understand Hirsch’s agent.

The original audio description mentioned some cars as being boxy, but not the color, but then did land notes about ethnicity during Watergate footage. The new track said fuck that noise, and instead decided to racially profile… the cars. So the cars got color description, and everyone else got neutralized. I suppose the fun thing about not describing people is that we can imagine them as Na’vi from the Avatar franchise. What is to stop us. Damn those blue people for causing Watergate. No wonder we travel across space and time to rid them of their natural resources.

The Pinochet/Kissinger conversation in the original had two narrators reading back and forth, the new one has Roy doing it all, but listing it as P and K before he says a line. My interpretation is that this scene is being read from a call log, and therefore I would go with the new version. I like multiple narrators when translating to another language in a quasi-dubbing format, but not here.

The newer track throws in a couple names, like a quick Kissinger, but they also, once again make the choice to not dub someone speaking in English. What an odd choice that is. I can understand if they have some affliction that makes their speech unintelligible. But… being old is not a valid reason, or the footage being archival. This isn’t film from the early 20th century.

The original mentioned that the photo is of Frank Olsen, and it is black and white. The newer version says it is a man, and drops the black and white reference. An odd choice.

The newer track fixes my pet peeve, as the original had Hirsch carrying briefcase, and the newer version now has Hirsch carrying a briefcase. They also do this “words appear” thing, which I hear a lot, to explain text on screen in less words. I lean toward the newer version here.

the newer version also opts for holding a phone, over phone handset, which feels unnecessary. Like, He’s either holding a corded phone, a wireless handset, or a cell phone. No one actually thinks he’s holding the base of a rotary dial unit to his ear. Of course it is that part of the phone. If you want to win, corded, wireless, or cell are the descriptors to go, since we are sliding through periods. And within cell, you even have the ability to say flip phone, or talk about an antenna extended. there are choices here, I’m not sure the OG track made the best one, and the newer track simplified it accordingly, but even they could have paid more attention to how the phone’s handset is connected or not.

The old track mentioned carbon paper, the new version doesn’t. The older version name checks some celebrities during the Gulf and Western narration, namely Streisand and Eastwood, and the newer track doesn’t. I would say… I get it. It might be a different Streisand. it might be a different Eastwood. The famous Bartholemew Streisand and Scott Eastwood. Wait… the first doesn’t exist, and the second wasn’t born yet.

The new track dropped “testy” as a descriptor, and I’m OK with that. I wouldn’t have cared if there weren’t two options, but hearing it, I would choose without.

The new track does Hirsch stares intently, resting his chin in his hand, while the old track just did rests chin in hand. Obviously, as someone who almost always chooses more, I pick the new version, because we don’t lose anything. The older track has had some great description throughout, so it’s odd that here, the newer track actually goes further. Most of the time, the older track has more to offer, and the newer version cuts or streamlines. here, we get a facial expression. He stares intently. Why wouldn’t I pick that?

See, like it is followed by “while a crew member watches over his shoulder”, which used to be “a member of the film crew watches over his shoulder”. Like, that’s the kind of who gives a shit level change that I’ve mostly skipped over. it’s something where the first one was fine, and then someone came and just restructured the same block of words… for some reason. there’s been a few of those, but this six hour endeavor just is hitting specific marks.

After Hirsch has his tantrum, the whole following chunk of description is just wildly different. the original is “Entering a yellow lit car tunnel and emerging up an incline onto a wide city street at night. The shadow street of multi story apartment overlook a cityscape” which became “A car enters a yellow brick tunnel at night and emerges onto a wide city street at night flanked by the shadows of multi story apartment and office buildings.” Like, they both say the same thing, essentially. It’s so weird. I’m sorry if I mixed up a word, trying to transcribe it.

A framed photo on Hirsch’s wall shows he and a young boy on the stairs while his wife holds a toddler below” (ish) is the new version, changed from “A framed candid photo Dad leaving for work with mom and the kids when they were young.” The first one seems to just be a family photo, the other one captures a moment… candidly. Like, they aren’t posing for it. There are two different implications.

the photos of his family are all described slightly differently. I think, if this was my AD script, and someone chopped it up this much, I’d be upset. But at the same time, not every change is bad, so, you have to reflect that another opinion can make something better. At the same time, the same can be said of the editor, who seems to just make some changes.. because they can? There are lateral moves here that really don’t make a huge difference either way. these are just some of the big examples, or really just some examples. I know different people would notice different things, but we so rarely get two different versions of English Audio Description to really compare. Sometimes, you can get the updated track for a film, and find the older one on the internet, but this was a very interesting experience.

That being said, this is one of the most interesting men, and a journalist who has been everywhere, met everyone, and done everything. regardless of which AD track I had gotten, cover Up is still an exceptional film, it is just this interesting opportunity to compare things side by side. I will probably never do this again, as it is the most time consuming review I’ve ever done. stopping, starting, rewinding, and essentially needing to get through two versions of a two hour film in the same day, while also writing about it, and analyzing it. I’m literally insane. Clinically. But a rare opportunity presented itself. What can i say?

Seymour Hirsch is a name everyone should know, and his compelling life story unfolds in Cover Up, a staggering documentary that puts truth and accountability center stage at a time when it is so sorely needed. We need a hundred more Hirsch’s.

Fresh: Final Grade: 9.1/10