Through MY Eyes: A Not-So-Brief Critique of “Through Deaf Eyes”
By David Evans on Thu 22 Mar 2007 |
Email This Post
I attended one of the preview sessions for “Through Deaf Eyes,” which meant that I, along with a number of other people nationwide, saw about half of the entire program before it was broadcast nationally yesterday. Afterwards, I saw someone use the phrase, “Through Hearing Eyes” to describe the film.
Now that I’ve watched the program in its entirety, I’m not sure it should be called “Through Deaf Eyes” or “Through Hearing Eyes;” perhaps “Through Deaf Filmmakers’ Eyes”? “Through Deaf Educators’ Eyes”? “Through Critical Deaf Bloggers/Vloggers’ Eyes”? Given the rapidity of vlogs/blogs/commenters in the blogosphere, this last one is probably true, today and in the next few days.
But I digress.
Overall, I thought it was an enjoyable film, although flawed. I won’t do a blow-by-blow account (although given the notes I took during the show, I probably could give a fairly verbatim outline of the program!); for one thing, most of you who are reading this either have seen it, or will see it, or are in it (extra points to whoever spots ME in there!), or want to be in it, or might be in the sequel (after all, at the very end, just as the credits started, a message flashed on the screen that was comprehended only by those who have taperecorders masquerading as eyes, to the effect that the program didn’t cover the recent protests of 2006. The film was most likely already in post-production by the time any rumblings emerged that all might not be serene at 800 Florida Avenue NE. So look down the road a few years from now for “Through Protester’s Eyes: The Sequel”).
How “Through Deaf Eyes” is interpreted will depend largely on the individual audience; for most of us here at DeafDC, we are deaf, and whether we are culturally deaf or not, the program didn’t really impart anything new overall– most, if not all of us, have lived the experiences presented in the film. For our hearing friends, relatives, or anyone out there tuning in to some or all of the two-hour presentation probably learned something new about the deaf experience, even if it was just a glimpse.
In the end, that’s all this show was, really: a glimpse. The makers of this show had an unenviable task, to cram more than 200 years of historical, cultural, linguistic, medical, social, and psychological information into a relatively concise, informative, and most of all, entertaining package for consumption. This wasn’t a Ken Burns series, spread over several nights with major funding from the MacArthur Foundation, and shiny, glossy PR pieces in magazines, newspapers and on television programs for months beforehand– this was a show that was largely marketed to and heavily advertised within the deaf community itself. Thus it’s my feeling that most likely a good number of us walked away with a sense of, “Ok, that was great… but…”
It’s that “but” that I think will cause the most buzz so far. I’m already seeing it happen on a couple of blogs, where the reaction ranges from “what a nice show, they did a great job!” to “too much emphasis on non-culturally deaf people! Clarke School, blah blah blah, cochlear implants, blah blah blah…” But you know what? That’s part of the problem here. The program wasn’t long enough to do justice to any one segment of our community; it wasn’t long enough to fully explore the complexities of deaf history; and it certainly isn’t intended to satisfy everyone. I think quite a few people involved with the making of this program (and I sense quite a few people in the audience wanted it this way) tried to encompass every element of deafness and deaf history, and to have the film be everything to everyone. There was no one position staked out, there was no clarity when it came to educational viewpoints or communication methods. In one sense, this was a flaw; within such a limited time, editing, narrative, and continuity are all-important, and I felt the film didn’t live up to this goal. But on the other hand, the film did try to show the broad range of deaf experience, and I think it did, whether it was featuring David James, the deHahns, or the Garretsons. From the oral deaf to the signing deaf to the mainstreamed deaf, the program portrayed the community as a diverse one, which it is. I thought this was good, because it showed that deaf people, whether within the deaf community itself or within society at large, are normal, that they have a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives.
Now that I’ve had some time to reflect, I’d say the major flaw of the film for me was the fact that the people chosen to speak were a mixture of academics, from Carolyn McCaskill to Ben Bahan to Brian Greenwald; a number of showbiz folks, from Marlee Matlin to CJ Jones to Bernard Bragg; and a representative sprinkling of past and present educators, from James Tucker to Robert Panara to Kevin Nolan. The rare exceptions to this were Robert Weitbrecht (a physicist) and John Taylor (an engineer). To the casual viewer, it would seem the deaf community is populated by academics, educators, and artistic types, from actors to filmmakers. Following this logic, every deaf person I meet from now on is going to be employed in academia, education or the entertainment industry. But of course, that’s not true. The one moment where we glimpse a number of deaf people not in highly educated or trained occupations is when the film takes us to a church for the deaf, and we are introduced to a couple parishioners.
There was also a heavy emphasis on short clips, outtakes, and films made by deaf filmmakers. I wasn’t sure at times if I was watching a program on deaf history and culture, or a film festival composed entirely of submissions from deaf directors and cinematographers. I suppose in the wake of last night’s showing, it’s probably a good time to be an owner of Mosdeux, or a similar film company. I think the producers of “Through Deaf Eyes’ should be commended for recognizing and showcasing deaf film, but I probably would have pared the number of offerings a bit, and showed one or two films, not four, five, or six.
While these and other shortcomings were present, I thought overall “Through Deaf Eyes” accomplished quite a bit. The one objective I thought succeeded for both deaf and hearing audiences alike was the demonstration, whether through the historical/cultural narratives of Douglas Baynton, John VanCleve, and John Schuchman, or the anecdotes of the Gannons and Garretsons, that you cannot separate deaf history from American history. The overarching themes of religion, nativism, civil rights, and education are all parts of the American story. I think too often people see American history and don’t know anything about Deaf history, or they know quite a bit about Deaf history, but fail to see the connections to the bigger picture. Whether it’s AG Bell and his involvement with education, eugenics, and the 19th century backlash against immigration (which probably will come as a big surprise for hearing viewers who only know Bell as the father of the telephone), or Lindbergh taking people on “deaf rides,” or the segregation and linguistic differences between blacks and whites (whether the language is English or ASL), Deaf history is American history, and vice versa.
The other interesting aspect of last night’s show was the fact that in the history of our community, we have always had to work harder to try to achieve parity with the hearing world. This determination for equal access has led, I think, to deafness actually at times drawing parallel to, or ahead of the curve, in the realm of technology. While we had to bear the injustices of the barrier created by telephones, the modification of the old Western Union teletypes and development of the TTY presaged (in my opinion) the cultural shift of the last ten years; once it was only deaf people typing to each other over distances and using abbreviated terms. Now it’s everyone using e-mail, IM, and texting. Closed-captions were developed as a means to provide access for deaf audiences, and where films are concerned, segregated deaf audiences within certain dates and times of the weeks, all for the opportunity to watch the latest blockbuster. But if you walk into the average bar nowadays, chances are at least one TV will have the captions on, and hearing people will use it, to be able to comprehend and follow the programs despite the noisy environment of their local watering hole. Even with videophones, hearing people are now using programs such as Skype; it won’t be long now, I think, before everyone’s using a videophone or its equivalent.
Whether we speak English, ASL, PSE, Spanish, French, Greek, Cantonese, Hmong, Swahili, Bantu, Quechua, or another language, in the end, it’s all about being a human being. Daniel Fava’s parents, as well as Patrick deHahn’s parents, acknowledge as much– regardless of technology, language, and other factors, Fava and deHahn will always be deaf, and that is who they are. To try to change that is to change them as people. What’s far more important is the sum of who they are, and their abilities, not whether they can hear or not. To me, that was the best message from “Through Deaf Eyes.”
As CJ Jones sums it up at the close of the program, it’s knowledge that counts, not whether you can hear or speak. His statement brought to my mind the well-known statement by Victor Hugo to Ferdinand Berthier: “What matters deafness of the ear, when the mind hears. The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind.”
© 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.
58 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis and critique of the PBS program last night. Very good points and very well written.
Thank you for such a thoughtful summary.
~ LaRonda
http://www.earofmyheart.com
“Through Hearing Eyes”??? Well, of course.
The point of the film was to try to explain Deaf History and Deaf Culture to Hearing people. And to that end, I think they did a MAGNIFICENT job. Of course, most Deaf people will find all this stuff old hat. You KNOW Deaf History and Deaf Culture. Hearing people do NOT.
It’s NEVER been talked about in the Main-Stream Media. Hearing people don’t know about the cruel imposition of Oralism, what it actually entails to go through AVT, the persecution of Sign, the validity of ASL as a true language, the vibrancy and richness of the Deaf Community. That’s NEVER been televised before. EVER!!!
Ken, I agree– I don’t have a problem with the program overall, and I think it’s an excellent opportunity for the general population to be exposed to our history and culture. I foresee the DVD will be bought and put to use in ASL and Deaf culture classes nationwide.
“Through Hearing Eyes”, indeed. I think a better title would be:
“Through Hearing Eyes and an audist’s mind”.
While it did have a nice dab of ASL oriented stuff here and there, it was more of a PR film for cyborgs and blabbermouths. “Let’s go to Clllllllaaarke School!”
Honestly, I was very embarassed when I saw that documentary. Those oralists looked mentally retarded. Honestly. It made Deaf people look bad, in my opinion.
Erick Ketcham
I take offense to that comment. Please do not call CIers or oral deaf people “retarded” or deaf people with CIs “cyborgs.”
Noelle, but it is true.
According to dictionary:
Cyborg is: a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.
Erick IS right on the target — Deaf people with CIs are INDEED cyborg — why do you think I coined it in the first place?!
R-
Actually, Ridor…
ALL of us can be considered cyborgs - you and I included.
Most cyborgologists agree that as our lives become increasingly connected to techology, our everyday functioning is in fact aided by and perhaps to a certain extent dependent upon that device.
Think about how we as Deaf individuals have grown increasingly reliant on such devices as pagers, videophones, webcams, and yes - computers.
Yours is but one view, one definition…and it is relatively narrow in its focus. Cyborgology goes much further than the Borgs of Star Trek…or the cochlear implant users of the deaf community.
That depends on others’ perceptions — I have yet to get a pager of my own.
But humanity can live without technology — just ask folks AFTER the Nuclear wars. ;-)
R-
That would mean people with HA’s are cyborgs too, (since HA’s are electronic devices.)
I believe Michael Chorost said in his book, REBUILT “When you become a cyborg, you are no less human than you were before.”
As a CI recipient, I don’t find being called a cyborg offensive. Its simple fact *smile*
Erick–
I am totally offended by your comments on this blog. These comments do a total disservice to the deaf community at large. For the record, I am an oralist and I do sign as well–and I never went to Clarke school at all although I do know quite a few deaf people who have gone there. I don’t even view them as cyborgs or blabbermouths. Your insults was really uncalled for, really. Additionally, just because I am an oralist doesn’t make me look mentally retarded at all. I think its both your mind and eyes that are screwed up, not the rest of us.
If you are so embarrassed, why watch it? I have watched this documentary and I found NOTHING in it to cause anyone embarrassment. I think your words are more of an embarrassment to the rest of us than the movie ever will be.
I thought it was actually fairly balanced, given the amount of time the filmmakers had. My main criticism is the chunk of time devoted to deaf film and filmmakers– some of that time could have been used to explore the different communication methods in more detail. The fact that nearly all of the interviewees, with the exception of James, deHahn, and VanCleve (if I remember correctly) used sign/ASL was positive.
I must agree with Noelle and Aquafina– oralism may not be the most effective educational or communicative method, but that fact doesn’t mean oralists themselves are bad.
With all due respect, Mr. Ketcham ~
I can’t help but notice that you’ve been popping up on practically every site in the Deaf Blogosphere that discusses this program - including my own blog - performing this same song and dance each and every time.
When you did so at my blog, I chose to give you a little leeway…after all, while I might not agree with all of your points, I do respect your right to express your own opinion.
But when I see your name over and over again, spouting the same old rhetoric and taking cheap potshots at certain groups of people simply because you disagree with what you saw in this program, your words start to lose a lot of creditability, and I start to lose a lot of respect for you.
For all that you claim in several of your comments to have been royally pissed off with the film, you must not have been TOO upset, since you obviously sat and watched it for the entire two hours - at least, I’ve never seen you say you turned it off and walked away.
Frankly, I’m left to wonder what the true issue is here - are you really that disgusted with “Through Deaf Eyes”…or are you just using this program as a platform for promoting your own personal propoganda?
I vote for the personal propoganda.
Nah, Erick’s just trying to establish his street cred here in Indiana. He recently moved here after finding his ‘deafhood’ through the birth of his deaf son, and now he feels compelled to be ‘pure’ deaf, whatever that means…
If establishing your “street cred” in the state of Indiana involves insulting others and making offensive comments, then I’m embarrassed to call myself a native Hoosier.
Good thing that you’re not from Virginia Beach — that’d be embarrassing to call myself a native Virginian — but wait a minute, I hate Virginia anyway!
R-
The phrase ’street cred’ just cracks me up. It gives me this image of a gangsta you would see on one of MTV’s rap videos.
Hmm. Maybe someone should shoot a gangsta deaf video. I can just picture it. Erik and Ridor wearing white tank tops, in a bouncing low-rider and rapping to the camera, ‘I’m deaf of deaf! I sign ASL and I hate CI cyborgs! Got that?! Yeah! D-E-A-F for life!’
*smirks*
Erick:
First, I think the “History Through Deaf Eyes” was one of the best things that ever happened in our society for the public to view. I say about time! A lot was finally out in the open that were suppressed in the past. Like everything else, this documentary does have a room to improve for future showing.
Whether or not we like it, oralism will be part of the history although it’s painful for some people. Calling those oralists mentally retarded is simply distasteful and disrespectful. That would also include my late relatives. They didn’t ask to be an oralist.
I understand that you were a former oralist and that you’re angry about what they have done to you. I am not saying your anger is not valid. Have you thought about channeling your energy positively and share your experience? I do know that you are not alone in this.
My late grandparents were a product of an oral education. They defied against oralism with my grandma dropping out of school after being repeatedly tortured over her speech imperfections. It hurts listening to my grandma’s experience although I’ve never been in their shoes. I was very close to her and was always her strongest advocate when growing up.
Without pointing fingers at anyone, as theyre entitled to their opinion, but after seeing all these various blogs and vlogs commenting on this program, it hit me that not once (unless I overlooked it) the word “deafhood” was not used in any of these blogs or vlogs.
Now I may not have the full 100% meaning of the word deafhood, (and different people may have different definitions for it) but as I understand it, it basically means accepting your own deafness and other deaf people that accept their deafness too, regardless of their communication modes.
Not once in this program (unless it happened when I had to releive myself as there were no commercials) did I see where people that were deaf were not acceting their own deafness. What I saw here is everyone in this program accepting their own deafness, regardless of their communication mode.
Now this brings up the question, would you say that the word deafhood strongly applies to this program?
I see people in blogs and vlogs whining about oral methods, and myself personally, I have absolutely no problem with the oral method, primarily because it is the mode that they use when it comes to communicating with hearing people, so why would these whiners even care how these deaf oral people communicate with hearing people? I would imagine that a good number of these oral deaf that accept their deafness, do know sign language or make attempts to learn sign language. I, myself, am one of those types. If they are not willing to hang out with deaf people or learn sign language, then I would imagine it is fair to say that they do not accept their own deafness, which brings up another question.
If deaf people do not accept their own deafness, then why should we care?
Let them miss out on the wonderful deaf culture. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make the horse drink it. Let’s stay focussed on the deaf people that accept their deafness, regardless of their primary communication mode, if we all banded together, we would become a much more powerful force as a deaf culture.
well said, deafhood! :)
I didn’t comment on any reviews because I have not yet seen the show yet.
I hope a family member has recorded it for me so I can watch it over the weekend!
Great blog, David.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Erick - but that is the reality of various deaf people, whether they are within or outside of the deaf culture.
No one is perfect like you, I guess…
“Deafhood” is a term that is just now circulating in our dialogues, but the concept of self-acceptance isn’t new, or unique to the Deaf community. So yes, I agree with you; those interviewed seemed comfortable with themselves and accepting of their deafness.
However, I don’t think that the intent of the film, or our interpretation, should focus on “accepting” deaf culture, or “miss out.” I think the film, as Ken Rose notes, is primarily aimed at a hearing audience, and as such, it serves as a good general introduction. Those who are interested or exposed to ASL/Deafness for the first time can then, if they choose to do so, explore further on their own. *THAT* is when we will need to espouse the concepts you listed– a willingness to welcome people, regardless of where they started from.
Nice commentary!
Hi David ~
I thought you did a great job of critiquing this program, and I agree with your comments.
I think it is fairly obvious that this was a program developed predominately to provide a basic foundation for hearing viewers to gain a better understanding of the Deaf Community and the diversity of that community.
I agree that it is virtually impossible to cram everything about deafness into a two hour presentation. When I stop and think about all the “Deaf Culture” presentations I have done over the years, many of them were in fact two hours in length, and even after being given such a generous amount of time, I always left feeling like I’d just barely scratched the surface of “what it means to be Deaf.”
But for the hearing members of my family, and the hearing friends in my life, and the hearing co-workers, colleagues, etc. whom I interact with, and for the hearing world in general…if this program helped them to gain a little more understanding, then it will have served its purpose.
Nice commentary indeed!
What’s wrong with title: Through Deaf Eyes? It is perfect for the hearing society.
Every Deafie have viewed the audists’ abnormal behavoirs treating horrible to the Deaf society.
None of the Deafie does need to understand the audism world. Moreover, they have already experienced Through Views of Audisms…
David, if you think Mosdeux can do better than Through Deaf Eyes production, you surely made me laughing. BTW, I have watched first of six A Permanent Grave mini-series that I would give 7 of 10 points….
Mookie
Mookie, never said Mosdeux could do a better job. My point in my critique is that the exposure Mosdeux got (among other filmmakers as well!), is good for them.
The title itself is fine– I really don’t have a problem with the title, but I played around with it, because different people have different interpretations of what the film is about, what it means, who it’s aimed at, etc., etc. and my poking fun at the title just reflects that. :)
My professor, whom I carry out research for, had seen the movie himself, and to hear a hearing person marvel at the history behind deafness made me glad this movie was made.
“Children of a Lesser God” was a piece of fiction grounded with some truths, yet it didn’t provide the overall perspective of the entire deaf community which can still be seen in the misconceptions that hearing people have as a result of their exposure to this movie.
Consider this. I know that the movie has reached out to at least one hearing individual and changed his perspective of the deaf community. That’s a sign of success for me.
I haven’t seen it yet - my local PBS station was doing a fund-raiser. Bah.
Anyway, I think we all have to keep in mind that the target audience is hearing, and 99.9% of them have absolutely no clue about us. So, from people’s descriptions so far, I don’t feel uncomfortable saying that I think this is a very good start at exposing ourselves to the ‘mainstream’ culture.
We have to ease into this, then we’ll be able to showcase in-depth documentaries about ourselves, and have a large audience (not just the deaf community and its allies) be genuinely interested in it.
Just my two cents on this, without even seeing it first. :p
Will look forward to your four cents then, when you’ve watched it. ;-)
LOL. Ok. Scratch my previous comment - make it one cent. ;)
“The program wasn’t long enough to do justice to any one segment of our community; it wasn’t long enough to fully explore the complexities of deaf history; and it certainly isn’t intended to satisfy everyone.”
Beautifully said, David — in fact, I like your entire take — the encapsulation attempt is the number one flaw of the film. But at least it’s a starting point, and from now on I’d love to see a diaspora of other films — through deaf gay eyes, through deaf asian eyes, through deaf whatever eyes.
In any case, even though I came away feeling as if the film had just monolithically portrayed the Deaf community as this big bicameral oral vs. sign insular THING, I’m still happy it got out there, because it DID start to scratch the surface and shake up the same ol same ol misconceptions the hearing community at large still nurtures about Deaf people in general.
My favorite aspect was that everyone had their occupation listed after their name - and though you pan that, and probably rightfully, in saying they weren’t representative enough - it was still a big signifier of accomplishment on behalf of both the deaf community and the individual.
If I could have crammed a couple more things in there I would have delved more into the diversity of the community; mentioned the invention of Cued Speech; and included the Deaf blind community.
But there wasn’t one thing that I wish the filmmakers had left out.
Alison, thanks. :) I agree– what was included, was good; there wasn’t anything I wish the filmmakers had left out. I do think they could have cut the number of deaf films/filmmakers, and used some of that time to expand more on the diversity, delve deeper into communication issues, etc. You bring up a good point about the deaf-blind community– in fact, going into a viewing, the average hearing person will probably know about Helen Keller, if at least vaguely. But is Keller representative of the community? She’s not even the first deaf-blind person to receive an education (Hello, Laura Bridgman!).
But yes, I agree- it’s a good starting point. :)
Oh, I’m reading again and things are jumping out at me:
“The overarching themes of religion, nativism, civil rights, and education are all parts of the American story. I think too often people see American history and don’t know anything about Deaf history, or they know quite a bit about Deaf history, but fail to see the connections to the bigger picture.”
“The other interesting aspect of last night’s show was the fact that in the history of our community, we have always had to work harder to try to achieve parity with the hearing world.”
“…it’s all about being a human being. …To try to change that is to change them as people. What’s far more important is the sum of who they are, and their abilities, not whether they can hear or not. To me, that was the best message from “Through Deaf Eyes.”
As CJ Jones sums it up at the close of the program, it’s knowledge that counts, not whether you can hear or speak.”
1. The interconnectedness of Deaf history with American history
2. the need for parity with the hearing community (which should set off a colonialism discussion, btw)
3. uh…
Anyway, just wanted to reiterate that I thought you did well in picking out the salient and beneficial aspects while noting the weaknesses.
You can thank my grad school training for that. ;) As you no doubt know by now, learning to deconstruct is the major permanent change people face in grad school, regardless of how long they attend. *grin*
So, what did everybody think about the deaf films shown at the end? Usually, when watching a movie, I can only think about how fake everything is — and recognizing some of the actors in these films sure didn’t help.
That aside, I was surprised that, with the vast number of deaf filmmakers out there, we only could give PBS these particular films. Why is that?
Do you want to explain to us what you mean by “I can only think about how fake everything is-? What is fake about this movie?
Have you thought about how difficult it is to market and distribute films to the general public –not to mention the expense of doing so. It is rather VERY costly and time consuming to try to sell the movie to distributors to studios to show it to the mass public.
I noticed that it took them over a year to get it to the market. I am sure that PBS took the movies because these films generally usually reach a smaller target audience than the larger budget studios usually target. Let’s face the truth, most of the public isn’t going to be interested in movies that are deaf-focused. (Again, I could be wrong here–but that is what it looks like to me.)
That’s what I believe….
Hm… for me, it was the opposite reaction. I was surprised at the fact that there were more independent filmmakers than I thought. I know a few here in L.A., but some of the names that jumped out at me– I’ve never heard of Caplan or Mangiardi before– it just made me realize we have a lot of ambitious people out there!
I do agree that there’s a lot of potential that is unrealized in film, but hopefully by the time someone’s ready to do another documentary, we’ll have some very good examples to submit.
I didn’t see any additional films beyond what was in the documentary though– I understand that in DC, you guys saw quite a bit more. If that’s the case, then I can’t really comment on that…
Aquafina, I think what Jt is saying is that even with the magic of films, often today’s audiences know how stunts are done, how special effects are created, etc., etc. So for anyone to suspend belief nowadays, the effects have to be *that* much better than they were in the past.
At least that’s what I *think* Jt means…
Oh, my apologies! David is on the right track - I was really thinking more about Hollywood movies. Call me weird, but I can rarely sit through a movie without searching for errors or wondering about what the actors themselves are really thinking as they speak these lines.. or what the crew is doing behind the camera. It’s just so fake sometimes that I have to laugh. Make sense?
Aquafina- I agree with you, it can be a bitch getting a movie out - but that doesn’t mean quality should go down, does it? And whether you like it or not, the hearing audience will view these movies and deem their quality representative of the entire deaf community’s mind/creativity at its best.
David, they showed us a full thirty minutes of various films made by Deaf amateurs.
Jt…
Interesting thought you posed here about hearing audiences will rate these movies quality-wise and attribute it to the entire deaf community’s mind/creativity at is best as you put it. If they want to think that way, that’s their perogative but they *NEED* to understand that deaf filmmakers today don’t have the kind of budgets that the more well established filmmakers have at their disposal, no?
I agree that quality doesn’t have to go down but where can these filmmakers find the moohlah in order to get top-rated film equipment and special effects professionals to make it happen?
Food for thought here…
mosdeux is already making it happen. ive seen some excellent low-budget short flicks by other deaf filmmakers as well.
By the way, apologies accepted and it wasn’t needed too! :) I thought your blog was thought provoking as well. (Otherwise, I wouldn’t have spoken up, right?)
the plm is, they didn’t show the cream of the crop. they seemed to choose films almost at random. i was surprised to learn that the movie i was in was shown. it was just a class project, for god’s sake. there were much better deaf flicks, esp those produced by mosdeux, light kitchen, etc.
Ben- you were terrific :) I agree- I would’ve really liked to see something by Mosdeux.
There *was* something by mosdeux. Vital Signs?
I completely missed that. Thanks for the heads-up.
Ok, 30 extra minutes– we definitely didn’t see that. *grin* You DC folks can do a blog on that, and discuss it to death. ;-)
That is why I am asking JT what JT means by “fake”. Im curious what the blogger perceives fake being…whether its the special effects aspect of the movie or another thing. It’ll be interesting to read his perception in that regard.
I know that special effects in any movie today requires sophisticated equipment and a lot of $$$ to make it happen–both of which not many independent deaf filmmakers have in hand to make this happen. I hope some major studio will accept some deaf filmmakers as directors of some of their movies that they wish to be produced. Now that would really make history, if that happens!!!
It will happen - a deaf filmmaker will eventually gain notoriety, but only in this order:
(1) Hard-of-hearing filmmaker who can function / pass as a hearing person
(2) Deaf filmmaker who can speak well with hearing aids and/or CIs
(3) ASL-signing, no-voice Deaf filmmaker
Sad, but true.
by “fake”, i think u meant bad acting?
not just acting- but everything. the setting and plot.
I don’t know about that, JT. I think Mosdeux is doing a pretty darn good job with their films. And Wayne Betts is ASL-signing no-voice Deaf.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hollywood sat up and took notice of Mosdeux soon.
I’m not disputing his talent- but to get into Hollywood production, he’d have to do a great deal of networking.. and .. well, you know how Hollywood is, don’t you?
I hope I’m proven wrong. I really do.
That is certainly true. There IS networking to do. But those days with the internet and access to public information, Wayne just might be able to get his foot in the door. It worked for Marlee, didn’t it? Yes, I know she can speak, but… back then people wouldn’t even give deaf people a second look.. so we’re getting there.
There are a few places where deaf filmmakers can go to network with other mainstream film studios: Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival (I do know that Robert Redford who happens to be a fraternity brother is focusing on unique filmmakers who are looking to make a mark with major film studios.
Another place to make your mark is in Monaco if you do have a film to shop around but Monaco is a very expensive proposition to take up if you want to aggressively market your movies if you are getting awards, etc for your movies. These two are just a way of getting your movies out there to be noticed. These two places are great for networking if you want to break into the industry.
Just my .02
Film is such a visual medium, I’m surprised we haven’t had someone break through long before this. I think it’ll happen, but I think it’ll be as Jt predicts, more likely than not. I could be wrong though– there’s quite a few talented/ambitious people out there. In the relatively short time I’ve lived in L.A., I’ve met Wayne Betts, Brian Cole, Onisha Blagdon, and Julia Dameron, just to name a few. Right now, Who knows where these people (and others) will be, ten years from now? This is why I jokingly said that the title could be “Through Deaf Filmmakers’ Eyes”– the exposure these people got through this documentary is immeasurable, I’m sure.
LaRonda, Karen, IamMine, and Virginia– thanks for the kind words regarding my post! I enjoyed writing it, and I’ll be looking forward to the in-depth discussion on the documentary at the “150 Years at Kendall Green” conference at Gallaudet next month. It’ll be interesting to see what all the scholars have to say about this!
It may be just me but I was thrilled that they included clips from deaf filmakers. For too long, they have told our story. It’s about time we started telling it ourselves, and this was an important step. I feel that PBS was trying to give us the opportunity to speak for ourselves.
In that sense, I loved the clips, especially that I am familiar with those filmakers, and now I can buy it for my ASL class and get my students to go hunting on the web for this information. It has always been my goal to make my students understand that there is a strong, vibrant visual culture that underlies the deaf community. I’ve always felt that was our strength as deaf people, and I was delighted to see it showcased.
p.s. which film were you in, Ben? Maybe I was tired but I totally missed it!
BTW
does anybody know about getting a copy of Audism? I haven’t seen it, I haven’t been able to buy it. It’s frustrating for me. I’m a huge film bluff and have been dying to add it to my collection.
So…… where is it?