Does Hollywood Prefer Deaf Actors Who Can Speak?
By Chris Kaftan on Mon 25 Feb 2008 |
Email This Post
Based on recent movie and television shows, there is an inclination that Hollywood prefers deaf actors and actresses who speak.
Regardless of talent or experience, there is an obvious preference for actors who can vocalize. Ever since the deaf acting profession lost equal ground in 1929 with the first talkie The Jazz Singer, there has been a clear preference for actors who can speak (and of course, sign).
Aside from Marlee Matlin’s portrayal of Sarah in Children of a Lesser God in 1986, there has been very few scenes with deaf actors who don’t speak throughout their appearance. I’ll give you a good example: Mr. Holland’s Opus. Anthony Natale, who acted as the adult version of Cole Holland in the aforementioned film did not speak in his role. From looking at his filmography, he has had only cameo appearances throughout his career.
Tyrone Giordano burst onto the Hollywood scene three years ago in A Lot Like Love and The Family Stone. In both films, Giordano has signed and used his voice.
Sho Stern has also been a regular on television shows such as Threat Matrix, Weeds, and Jericho. I’ve only seen her in Weeds. In her role as Megan, she signed and spoke.
Is all of this fair? No.
We have talented actors and actresses who could blossom in the movie and television industry. Russell Harvard did an excellent job portraying Cole Rowan in Law & Order: CI last year. So did Alexandria Wailes in her role as Malia on that same episode. Even Darren Frazier as Larry did an outstanding job. To the best of my recollection, none of these actors spoke throughout their appearances. However, I have to argue that up to this point, this episode of Law & Order was the most “deaf-friendly” episode ever made, with deaf extras, a strong deaf supporting cast, and full camera-view of the actors signing their lines (for the post part).
While writing this piece, I spoke with Ty Giordano on AIM, and he had this to say about the whole perspective into deaf actors:
As far as preferring to hire actors who are able to use speech, I cannot speak for the entertainment industry and its hiring practices. What I have noticed is that the deaf characters that Hollywood uses in their films and television shows tend to have some command of speech, so naturally, it makes sense to hire actors with the same ability. If there are to be more stories with actors who choose not to use their voice, then there must be more support of this idea with the writers of these shows.
So, after my conversation with Ty, I was left thinking about a multitude of things.
Whether this is something we, as a deaf community, should address, it is definitely food for thought.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
16 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Russell Harvard surely could speak well from what I have seen him speaking to various people at the bar(s). *stratching my head* I haven’t seen Russell Harvard’s performance in “There Is To Be Blood” with Daniel Day-Lewis yet.
Althought, Russell Harvard is the DODA (Deaf of Deaf Adults) himself.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Yea, Chris!
I would be not really surprised that the world of Hollywood filmaking to be audistic in many ways.
Hollywood is no different from the rest of America in regard to the preferrential treatment of deaf people, who could speak their own language as compared to deaf people chose not to do the “seal’s entertainment performance” to please the hearing people.
I wish no ill toward the current deaf performers anyway. Those performers are kinda a victim of systematic prejudice toward “no lip movement” deaf people. They need $$ and resume to climb up the ladder of success in the filmaking world or will be not hired at all.
RLM
It seems that to reach the broadest range of viewers, the programmers of the nation-wide networks feel they must employ the use of voice or sound to make Deaf-themed stories more accessible to mainstream audiences. It’s been historically shown, as with the NTD, Deaf West Theatre and their experiments with forms of Deaf theatre and sign-language theatre, that the less use of speech and sound a production has, the less accessible it becomes to mainstream audiences, effectively narrowing the target market. There have been recent successes on television, such as the Law & Order episode which push these boundaries. It is the responsibility of the Deaf community to make their appreciation known for the shows we feel are representative of the diversity within our community, and offer constructive criticism for those we feel may contribute to stereotypical views of the Deaf community. With this very sensitive and complicated issue, I pray that organized proactive strategies and cooler heads may prevail over anger and reactionary political action.
I wrote a little bit about how deaf professionals could face “glass ceilings” in the workplace a couple of years ago: http://www.deafdc.com/blog/gue.....al-rights/
The civil rights movement advanced so much for the African Americans but nowadays, they have taken a different approach to what they want - educating and breaking down cultural barriers (look at Barack Obama and successful black executives). I do believe the deaf people have to do the same thing so I agree with Tyrone here. It’s up to us to develop proactive strategies to educate the hearing community about our talents and how much we could contribute. “How” is the question still remaining on my mind.
In light of the fact that Mel Gibson produced The Passion of the Christ (2004) and Apocalypto (2006) in esoteric languages, namely Latin and Aramaic for the first and Yucatec Maya for the latter, would it be within the realm of possibility to see a convincingly strong movie exclusively in ASL?
A single movie, of course, would not solve the long-standing question of opening doors to signing deaf actors in Hollywood. But the counterintuitive success of Gibson’s linguistic exoticism suggests that there might be greater room for ASL than one might initially anticipate.
I understand that the speaking of Aramaic and Maya in those movies ultimately became entangled in critiques over the accuracy, or lack thereof, in the respective depictions of the Jewish and Maya protagonists. Presumably, any movie in ASL would likely spur comments, even polemics, about whether its representation of the Deaf is legitimate or merely stereotypical. Such comments could come either from the culturally Deaf or, as with the myth allegedly perpetuated by the Pepsi commercial, from AGB.
It makes me wonder whether ASL, as politicized as it is, constitutes an unviable language for mainstream media and entertainment.
Remember that Mel was a very successful actor before he made these movies, so he had the clout to make the types of movies that had not been made before. It didn’t hurt that his fame also lent itself to making these movies successful. If we had someone equally successful backing up a movie in ASL, that may work, but then again we would have to depend on a person with little familiarity with ASL and deaf issues to make such a movie and the accuracy may not necessarily be perfect.
I must also add that instead of blaming the entertainment industry for whatever’s wrong with these shows, or expecting Hollywood to change its ways–we must recognize the business model behind it all. Stories that “capture the imagination” of mainstream audiences will continue to be the norm as long as they remain profitable and draw viewers. The problem with the majority of these stories is that they perpetuate the status quo and stereotypical views of the Deaf community. This means we cannot depend on the industry to change quickly enough for us, and that it falls to us to create our own works. If the quality of our works is high, then viewers outside of the Deaf community may be drawn to it. Consider that a book written in English, if successful, may be translated into another language. This can be the case with works done in ASL, that may later be “translated” into spoken/written English for the benefit of mainstream American audiences and maybe even go international. So, before we point fingers and blame anyone for the problems with deafness and Hollywood, we must ask ourselves if we have done everything we can for our own empowerment. Pointing fingers implies that we are somehow victims of an injustice or ignorance, which is not empowering at all.
Where’s our Spike Lee?!?!?!
Correction, Anthony Natale (if this is the very oldest incarnation of Cole) spoke at the end of the movie. The teenage Cole did not.
I might be confusing the two actors?
You may be correct. It’s been a while since I saw Mr. Holland’s Opus.
I believe he did speak at the end of the movie, but I don’t remember for sure. However, the actor who played Cole as a teenager (Joseph Anderson, according to IMDB) can actually speak very well. It’s a great example of an actor who can voice, but plays a role where he doesn’t.
Anthony Natale actually played a leading role in a very cheesy made-for-tv movie. I forget the entire plot, but it’s similar to Children of a Lesser God. Deaf man refuses to speak. Meets and falls in love with his hearing body guard. Arguments and danger ensue. Deaf man learns the beauty of spoken language and the hearing people are happy. The end.
How can we really change the mentality of casting directors in Hollywood and Broadway to cast any qualified deaf actors/actresses without expecting them to speak orally for the purpose of crew/technical/directing access?
How??? Should the Hollywood/Broadway hire the deaf consulting firm to navigate thru the aspect of casting deaf performers without any expectation for oral-speaking ability?
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Can you tell me what firm is qualified to do this? I can’t think of one.
I think Vikee Waltrip has a company called Deafcasting…
http://www.deafcasting.com/
I never forgot my former off-campus university roomate, Mike Dick of Kansas that he ranted against Marlee Maltin every time she appeared on TV. I don’t have any problems with Marlee Maltin’s performances. Dick himself grew up in the mainstream education.
The real question of how much the deaf performer should carry the burden of societal and political expectation of the given community (deaf community) and the dominant society?
Any linguisitic and racial minorities surely have the similar problems how they definitely represent their own communities while the dominant society have different perspectives of what and who we should be all about.
Any solutions? Any ideas? There is a professional organization like “Deaf Artists of America”. What about the support group to fight on the behalf of deaf performers in motion picture and television?
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
What does it matter whether they cast deaf actors that are able to speak or not? As long as the actor is deaf, it doesn’t bother me. The TV audience gets exposed to a deaf character either way. To me, I get that it is never going to be enough for some people. They are always going to want more and more. I’m all for opening the boundaries for deaf actors, giving them the chance to make a living the way they want. Do you remember how much grief Heather Whitestone got for her ability to talk…she had understandable speech…I remember some people were saying that she wasn’t deaf enough and she did not respresent the deaf world. Please. I mean, there are a wide range of deafness and not all of us fall in just one. There are some that can speak and some that can’t. The world we live in isn’t perfect…nor should you expect everything to be doable for the deaf popluation. After all, there are just some things that are beyond our ablilities, like being a NFL coach or a police officer. It’s not necessary to fight/boycott everything that comes our way that doesn’t meet someone’s ’standards’. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing that this or that isn’t good enough for us. Who gets to decide that? Whatever changes that may happen, it’s going to be gradual, not overnight. Unless it has something to do with a constitutional right, oh like the right to drive a car, then I would understand.