I love this movie so much

Am I Missing Something?

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I found the following comment on a popular deaf message board run by Amy Cohen, "Deaf World As Eye See It, Bittersweet History of Sweet Nothing In My Ear" and couldn't agree more:"The choice to voice-over the signing in the Hallmark Production reminded me of old Disney movies in which you would hear the interior monologue of what the pet dog was thinking. Really, what a poor choice on so many levels. Aside from the insult to the Deaf Community, it just didn't work dramatically at all. It was laughable and it made deaf people feel like lesser people. Wow."What a shame. 20 years ago CBS, the same network, subtitled an episode of "Beauty and the Beast" which starred Terrylene, a deaf actress, along with nine other deaf actors. It worked wonderfully and received a lot of attention and respect for doing so. How far have we regressed since then? How did the deaf who were involved in this production allow this to happen?The whole point of the movie is lost when the remarkable beauty of sign language, which arises out of its SILENT- VISUALITY is shamefully undercut by SOUND-VOICES and camera frames that chop off the hands. How much longer will the ignorance continue?

Adam is eight years old. He gradually lost his hearing when he was four, and he has not spoken in years. His father Dan is in public relations and about to be promoted to vice president, and his mother Laura, who is deaf, teaches math at a school for the deaf.The movie begins in a courtroom. We later learn the parents are in court to determine who will get custody of Adam. Through flashbacks we learn what led to the dispute. After an introduction to the world Adam and his mother live in--a performance of "The Wizard of Oz" at their school, with parents applauding differently than those of us who hear would--Adam has an accident while playing outside and ends up in the emergency room. The doctor informs Dan that Adam might be a candidate for a cochlear implant, which would give him some hearing.Laura resists the idea of letting Adam hear. She does not consider herself disabled, and unlike Adam, she has no memory of actually hearing. Laura and her parents--also deaf--accept the way they are and have no desire to change, and they don't like the idea of Adam being alienated from them. They don't even like it when he starts speaking instead of using sign language like they do.Reluctantly, Laura goes along with the idea of investigating the procedure for Adam. But she never really accepts the idea, and the dispute eventually threatens the couple's future together.I had a hard time understanding what was going on. Marlee Matlin cannot talk like people who can hear, and yet her words are spoken perfectly. I later realized, when her character was signing but not talking as the couple ate with hearing friends, that we were hearing an "interpreter for the hearing." I suppose that was better than having subtitles, which I prefer not to have to read. But the actress who speaks Laura's words has the stiffness characteristic of celebrities or experts playing themselves, at least at first. The interpreters for Noah Valencia (Adam), and Ed Waterstreet and Phyllis Frelich (Laura's parents), do a much better job.Matlin herself does a fine job. I have to evaluate her on her facial expressions, and she has such a pretty face to look at anyway. Noah speaks a couple of times and does a very good job; after researching the movie I found he is actually deaf, as are Waterstreet and Frelich, who also do well. Waterstreet particularly excels in communicating the pain Laura's father feels about the prejudice the hearing world seems to feel toward his culture, the pain of feeling like this might hurt his relationship with Adam if Adam can hear.Jeff Daniels also does a good job, and so do the actors playing the lawyers for both sides, and the judge. There is a hearing-impaired psychologist whose voice we actually hear; she talks like Matlin does but enunciates quite well. Notice I said hearing-impaired: when the term "deaf" is used in this movie, it refers to those who have no hearing at all.The movie teaches a lot about how the deaf regard their culture, a lot I didn't know. I would have assumed people would want to improve their situation if they could. But this movie presents the point of view that the deaf don't want to be "cured." They have ways of compensating for what they can't find out in the ways that we who hear can. They can do anything, this movie tells us. I don't know that I would agree, but I certainly have a better understanding now.The fact that interpreters rather than subtitles were used means a person would not have to know how to read to watch this movie. So that brings up this point: is it appropriate for kids? There's nothing offensive about it, though the themes and discussions are a little intense. Perhaps older children can watch it. Kids Adam's age could probably watch it.

I half expected the ending to be just as it was, which was why I gave it a nine instead of a ten, just because I found it a bit predictable. I figured that Marlee wouldn't want to be in a movie where the character actually went through with the cochlear implant surgery, but at least it was left open for the viewer to wonder about whether or not the boy ended up having the surgery.One thing I found interesting was that they used the "snake bite" sign for cochlear implant instead of signing "c" "i" - which some people who have chosen the CI route find offensive. I found that interesting but in no way did I find they slanted things for either side. Both sides really were equally portrayed; I could detect no bias whatsoever. The most important thing to me was ultimately displayed in this film - that this is an intensely personal decision a family must make, one that is right for them. It is not for the deaf community, or the hearing world, or a judge to decide - it is the family, and that was, to me, the message of this film.As the parent of a child with a profound hearing loss, I appreciated the way this movie was done. Great job!

**SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW**Did I just watch "Children of a Lesser God - Part Deux"? Because I could have sworn I saw a very similar theme when I saw CoaLG 20 years ago. Only then (mid-1980s) it was about the idea of "talking", rather than cochlear implants, which were still being developed and tested at that time. But it was still kind of the same movie, only 20 years later. And guess who the deaf woman was in CoaLG? Yep--Marlee Matlin.Anyway, regarding tonight's offering...Nothing we haven't seen before. A number of movies and TV series episodes in recent years have been devoted to the issue of cochlear implants, and they covered pretty much the same ground shown tonight.I watched the movie anyway, knowing early on that Hallmark would never be so politically incorrect as to choose a side. I knew that we would never find out if Adam got the implant, or how well it did or didn't work out for him. Unfortunately, in not picking a side--in an effort to give us as "happy" an ending as possible while not offending any viewers in the pro- or anti-cochlear implant camps--Hallmark drained the movie of whatever impact it might have had on viewers like me.In fact, I find it highly unsatisfying to lay this enormous issue (of a family divided over the idea of a cochlear implant) on the table and then to cop out at the end by suggesting that "love will find a way". Come on--does anyone really think that the husband won't end up resentful in some way if the son does not have a cochlear implant? Are we supposed to believe that all will be well because apparently the mother and father are "BFFs" (Best Friends Forever)? I found it interesting that at no time did we get to hear Adam's feelings on getting a CI or on "hearing again". I wonder if, in real life, they don't ask this question of a child who heard previously. Isn't there supposed to be a psychological evaluation of the *child* and his needs as part of the CI candidate selection process? I'm not suggesting that an 8-year-old knows what's best for himself or should be the decision maker here. It's just that we know that Adam no longer speaks, and usually refuses to when asked. Is it because he can't hear himself talk any more,there's no longer that auditory feedback, and it's all strange, confusing, and somewhat stressful, so he doesn't try? Or is it that when he tried to talk after losing his hearing, his speech deteriorated, and folks looked at him funny, or asked him to repeat, or teased him, or didn't understand him, so that it no longer seemed worthwhile to try talking? If any of these things are true, are they not worthy of consideration in choosing whether or not to go with a cochlear implant? (I also wondered if another thing contributing to Adam's reluctance to speak was that his school was primarily a signing school. Why bother to try speaking when it's safer and easier to sign? Where's the motivation to really try to develop the desire to talk and to really improve one's speech skills, if everyone's signing? And what does this attitude portend about Adam's future opportunities in a predominantly hearing/speaking world?)Also - Marlee Matlin's character was too confusing for me at times. For example, she learns that her own parents had chosen not to give her hearing aids as a child. They had taken away from her the option of developing any sort of residual hearing. When she finds this out, she is highly upset. Yet the next thing we know, she doing the same thing to her child--remove a choice that might allow the child to have an easier time of negotiating the hearing world. Why? Whatever she was selling, I wasn't buying it, so to speak.The interesting thing is that, while Hallmark seemed to be attempting to be "fair and balanced"--and make no final judgment--I found that as the pros and cons of the situation unfolded, the case seemed to favor cochlear implantation. I thought there was relatively little negative said about the CI. (Of course, I come from a hearing perspective.)On the other hand, we learned that the deaf father had gone through life bullied, struggling, etc., for being deaf. We also learned that a significant number of deaf adults are likely to do poorly in school (not because they themselves are innately poor learners, BTW, but for other reasons) or require government assistance. Adam's mother has to rely on the father to interpret for her everywhere, because she has limited ability to speak or understand spoken English.So the final message to me seemed to be that the chief benefit of *not* having a cochlear implant is that it reinforces for the deaf child that it's okay to be deaf--there's nothing that needs fixing. And that's a worthy message, certainly. But it seems to me to be a pretty weak argument, when pitted against the "pro CI" benefits, which include more social and job opportunity, and less likelihood of isolation, struggle, etc. And I suspect that there are ways to introduce a child to a CI without implying that the child is "broken" or unworthy and needs "fixing" in order to be acceptable.I can see situations where one might reject the idea of a CI - both parents are deaf and the family all signs and is functioning fine, or maybe there are medical or other reasons that make the child a poor candidate for a CI. But that was not the case in this movie.