There are two types of people in the world: those who use subtitles and those who do not. OK, perhaps there are more insightful metrics that define us, but subtitles represent a generational divide. Given that older people are more prone to hearing difficulties, you might expect them to use subtitles more than the younger population. Counterintuitively, four out of five 18-25 year olds report using subtitles all or part of the time, whilst less than a quarter of those aged between 56 and 75 said the same, despite being nearly twice as likely to experience hearing difficulties. Subtitles have historically been viewed as a means of accessibility for those hard of hearing or deaf, or to translate foreign language TV and film into the native language. However, these statistics suggest a broader appeal of subtitles, fuelling a paradigm shift in the way we consume TV and film.

Subtitles certainly aren’t a modern invention. In fact, they predate audio on screen, with their precursor being intertitles, which conveyed speech and narration during the silent film era of the early 20th century. ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ (1903) is thought to be the first example of this. It was in 1909 that director M. N. Tropp designed the intertitles to be at the bottom of the screen, hence the creation of subtitles. With the US the dominant player in the film industry, foreign language subtitles were necessary to widen films’ markets. Dubbing was, and still is, more difficult and often less effective, allowing subtitles to become the preferred method of translation. Recent advances in auto-subtitling using speech recognition have made the tool ubiquitous, particularly across streaming services. And they are no longer consigned to the TV screen. Social media content is more often than not captioned, allowing us to silently watch ‘get ready with me’ videos without judgmental views from strangers on the bus. As well as saving you red-faced embarrassment, it has further normalised the presence of subtitles and the world is better for it.

But why are we increasingly reaching for the subtitles option? One hypothesis is that TV and film dialogue has become harder to understand. Whether this simply reflects us becoming used to subtitles and struggling without them, or is in fact a tangible change in production, is a point of contention. It has been suggested that music and sound effects are being prioritised over dialogue, and, for film, sound mixers often design audio with the surround sound of the cinema in mind, not your five-year-old Panasonic TV set or glitching iPad. And these production teams aren’t stupid; they are aware of our growing receptivity to subtitles so why not go wild with the sound effects and music for dramatic purposes, at the expense of coherent dialogue?

It is times when subtitles have been unavailable that have highlighted my own reliance on subtitles. I had been looking forward to Mark Gatiss’ Bookish, but I gave up after two episodes due to the absence of subtitles*. In 2023, a fire at a broadcast centre led to no subtitles in hundreds of hours of Channel 4 programming- I recall watching the Great British Bake Off in despair (and not just about the soggy bottoms for once). For me, this was a mere inconvenience; I just had to concentrate a bit harder. But those hard of hearing, or deaf, were excluded completely. Charities, including RNID and the National Deaf Children’s Society, were understandably critical and called for Ofcom to intervene.

*Frustrating but interesting trivia: content from U channels streaming on Now is missing subtitles, but it is available if you watch through U’s own free streaming service. However Bookish is on U&Alibi, a paid channel that can only be viewed on Sky, Virgin and Now.

Inevitably, subtitles can pose a moral minefield. Some accents are less familiar to a particular audience, and upon editing, it isn’t uncommon to see certain lines of English language contributions accompanied by onscreen translations, usually reserved for foreign languages. Who decides which accents are acceptable? Should subtitles be the default for all speech beyond the M25? Or should we trust the viewer to be cultured enough to cope? Such a predicament left director Alfonso Cuarón fuming when his Spanish-language film Roma was subtitled for a Spanish audience. The reason? Roma is set in Mexico and the actors largely speak Mexican-Spanish, so there were concerns audiences in Spain would not understand. After describing the decision as ‘parochial, ignorant and offensive’, film distributors caved to his ire and removed the subtitles from cinema screenings.

Whilst I have sympathy for the decisions surrounding accents, I most certainly take umbrage with the liberties taken by subtitle writers who deviate from the dialogue by censoring or abbreviating. Deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers deserve to experience the full script as intended by the scriptwriters, just like everyone else, and needn’t be patronised. If you’ve got too much time on your hands, see if you can spot the differences between dialogue and subtitles: unwarranted creative licence in this area is more frequent than you might expect.

Despite the occasional metaphorical landmine, the prevalence of subtitles has pushed the boundaries of our watchlist.  Once inured to words at the bottom of the screen, why not cross the Rubicon to the paradise of international TV and film? It’s a move large swathes of the population are taking, demonstrated by the astonishing success of shows like Squid Game, Netflix’s most-watched show ever. It begs the question: if subtitles held the same kudos in 2011 as they do today, would The Killing have been made twice, a Danish version from 2007 and an American one in 2011? The former is generally viewed as superior so slapping on some subtitles might have been more economical than making a whole new series.

I can’t help but feel that creatures of habit who scoff at the suggestion of subtitles are missing out. But could it be that, paradoxically, older people’s association between subtitles and hearing loss explain their reluctance to use them? Whilst younger generations have grown up with the little speech bubble ever present or default captions on TikTok, it wasn’t too long ago that subtitles were confined to access viewings at the cinema. For some without social media or who rely on linear television, using subtitles is seen as an admission that their hearing is no longer what it once was. Anecdotally, I can attest to this; my grandparents would rather deafen us all by cranking up the volume of Dad’s Army than simply click the subtitle button. That, or they don’t know where the button is. Perhaps it’s just what they are used to. Memories of clunky, distracting subtitles can put people off. Thankfully, the new reality is that they are sleek, discrete and (mostly) in sync. It’s telling that only recently, when there has been popular demand-have subtitles found their place as an integral part of TV, despite decades of calls from the hard of hearing and deaf community. It’s taken over 100 years but subtitling is finally being recognised for the transformative tool it is.