"Touch the Sound" : about deaf people, not for deaf people
matrushkaka has been looking forward to seeing Touch The Sound, a documentary about deaf drummer Evelyn Glennie. It's showing at the Nuart Theater starting this weekend. I called the theater at (310) 473-8530 to make sure that they would be showing it subtitled, and had the following conversation:
Me: Is the movie subtitled?
Theater: It's not.
Me: That's too bad, I have a deaf girlfriend who was really looking forward to seeing this movie.
Theater: We anticipated that, but the filmmaker and distributor didn't like the aesthetic of words on the screen.
Me: You realize that you're saying "the filmmaker and distributor don't like the aesthetic of deaf people in your theater"?
Theater: They considered this. If it's any consolation it'll eventually have subtitles on DVD.
This is what we do almost all the time because very few movies are captioned, but this hurt especially much because it's a movie about deaf people. It smacked of deafsploitation: we're gonna show an inspiring movie about disabled people to able-bodied people - the actual disabled people this film is about can go sit in the back of the bus and wait for the DVD release.
Fuck that.
matrushkaka got in touch with Shadow Distribution and sent them a letter asking them why they didn't want to subtitle a movie with massive appeal for deaf people. "Ken" answered:
Thanks so much for your interest. I'm sorry, but it will not. We made the decision not to subtitle the prints for two reasons: the visual aspect of the film is as important as the aural, and the director felt (and we agreed) that the subtitles would be hurtful; and because much of the movie deals with sounds that subtitles cannot deal with. Since the film will be available in closed caption format when it is released on DVD, we settled for that as the way to go, though we know we are disappointing some people, such as yourself, for which we truly are sorry.
Thanks-
Ken
If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's bullshit answers to straight questions. matrushkaka and I wrote the following response to their email:
We made the decision not to subtitle the prints for two reasons: the visual aspect of the film is as important as the aural, and the director felt (and we agreed) that the subtitles would be hurtful;
You're saying that subtitles are "visually hurtful" to a theatrical print, and you know that deaf people need subtitles. What are you saying - that a deaf audience is hurtful to film? That I should just get used to not watching movies in theaters? That every film I watch is somehow "hurt" or otherwise inferior because it has subtitles? If you're concerned about altering the frame, "rear window captioning" is availiable in many theaters, and is an alternative to burned-in captions.
and because much of the movie deals with sounds that subtitles cannot deal with.
The movie deals with sounds that *I* cannot deal with. Again, what are you saying - that I shouldn't watch your movie? That you've decided that your movie about a deaf person isn't "for me" or other deaf people and will not be made availiable to us in general release?
If you think that subtitles "cannot deal with" sounds I suggest you try watching a few movies or TV shows with subtitles or captioning on. There are well-established conventions for subtitles to "deal with" relevant diagetic sound without mentioning nondiagetic, irrelevant, or obvious sounds.
Since the film will be available in closed caption format when it is released on DVD, we settled for that as the way to go, though we know we are disappointing some people, such as yourself, for which we truly are sorry.
Spielberg wouldn't have made "Schindler's List" and only shown it on Saturdays when Jews couldn't attend. Henry Rubin and Dana Shapiro probably made sure that a few of the theaters that showed "Murderball" were wheelchair-accessable. Michael Mann wouldn't have made "Ali" to be shown in white-only theaters. And yet you're content to release a film about deaf people that deaf people can't watch.
Whether or not to include subtitles is your director's creative vision, and if the director's creative vision excludes the subjects of this film then your director's creative vision offends me. I would call for a deaf boycott of your film, but you've already effectively done that.
We're not happy about this.
Me: Is the movie subtitled?
Theater: It's not.
Me: That's too bad, I have a deaf girlfriend who was really looking forward to seeing this movie.
Theater: We anticipated that, but the filmmaker and distributor didn't like the aesthetic of words on the screen.
Me: You realize that you're saying "the filmmaker and distributor don't like the aesthetic of deaf people in your theater"?
Theater: They considered this. If it's any consolation it'll eventually have subtitles on DVD.
This is what we do almost all the time because very few movies are captioned, but this hurt especially much because it's a movie about deaf people. It smacked of deafsploitation: we're gonna show an inspiring movie about disabled people to able-bodied people - the actual disabled people this film is about can go sit in the back of the bus and wait for the DVD release.
Fuck that.
matrushkaka got in touch with Shadow Distribution and sent them a letter asking them why they didn't want to subtitle a movie with massive appeal for deaf people. "Ken" answered:
Thanks so much for your interest. I'm sorry, but it will not. We made the decision not to subtitle the prints for two reasons: the visual aspect of the film is as important as the aural, and the director felt (and we agreed) that the subtitles would be hurtful; and because much of the movie deals with sounds that subtitles cannot deal with. Since the film will be available in closed caption format when it is released on DVD, we settled for that as the way to go, though we know we are disappointing some people, such as yourself, for which we truly are sorry.
Thanks-
Ken
If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's bullshit answers to straight questions. matrushkaka and I wrote the following response to their email:
We made the decision not to subtitle the prints for two reasons: the visual aspect of the film is as important as the aural, and the director felt (and we agreed) that the subtitles would be hurtful;
You're saying that subtitles are "visually hurtful" to a theatrical print, and you know that deaf people need subtitles. What are you saying - that a deaf audience is hurtful to film? That I should just get used to not watching movies in theaters? That every film I watch is somehow "hurt" or otherwise inferior because it has subtitles? If you're concerned about altering the frame, "rear window captioning" is availiable in many theaters, and is an alternative to burned-in captions.
and because much of the movie deals with sounds that subtitles cannot deal with.
The movie deals with sounds that *I* cannot deal with. Again, what are you saying - that I shouldn't watch your movie? That you've decided that your movie about a deaf person isn't "for me" or other deaf people and will not be made availiable to us in general release?
If you think that subtitles "cannot deal with" sounds I suggest you try watching a few movies or TV shows with subtitles or captioning on. There are well-established conventions for subtitles to "deal with" relevant diagetic sound without mentioning nondiagetic, irrelevant, or obvious sounds.
Since the film will be available in closed caption format when it is released on DVD, we settled for that as the way to go, though we know we are disappointing some people, such as yourself, for which we truly are sorry.
Spielberg wouldn't have made "Schindler's List" and only shown it on Saturdays when Jews couldn't attend. Henry Rubin and Dana Shapiro probably made sure that a few of the theaters that showed "Murderball" were wheelchair-accessable. Michael Mann wouldn't have made "Ali" to be shown in white-only theaters. And yet you're content to release a film about deaf people that deaf people can't watch.
Whether or not to include subtitles is your director's creative vision, and if the director's creative vision excludes the subjects of this film then your director's creative vision offends me. I would call for a deaf boycott of your film, but you've already effectively done that.
We're not happy about this.