Sweet Nothing in My Ear

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 was laying in bed last night, scanning channels and came across 'Sweet Nothing in My Ear'. I hit info and up came that Jeff Daniels was starring, so I figured what the hell--five minutes and I had to see it through to the end regardless of how late at night it was.

The portrayal of deaf communication for hearing listeners is fantastic, I loved the voice-over approach because personally I find subtitles distracting and obviously not everyone who watched the film would be able to understand sign language on it's own, so I loved how they tackled that problem, it really broke the barrier, and got across exactly what the characters themselves were trying to say; deaf people are no different nor less able than hearing people!

The acting is great, I was impressed with Jeff Daniels portraying emotion over his son and wife, especially since the last time I had seen him was when he was hanging out with Jim Carrey and driving a Dog-Van!

In conclusion (to my first ever review on here, so be gentle!) I would definitely recommend checking this movie out as it's heart-warming and very eye-opening. 4/5.

Thanks for reading :)

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?

We get nice close-ups of people's faces for minutes at a time. Every once in a while you can see a finger or hand flit by. For a film in which the standard mode of communication is American Sign Language, shouldn't you keep the signed conversation on-screen? Also, were the actors specifically directed to act deadpan? I have seen Marlee Matlin act very expressively before, so some other force must have been at work. During scenes of intense argument and emotion, even depicting a turning point for some of the characters, we have minutes of camera switches between characters' faces. No signing visible on screen. No facial expression to tell you who's angry, who's hurt, who's sympathetic, who cares.

Loved this movie about Deaf and Hearing in the family and the love that flowed throughout. Have watched it several times and have determined this to be one of my classic Hallmark movies, along with the 1985 movie, Love is Never Silent. The storyline was well thought out and the acting was great. In addition to the voicing and speaking, I am glad they also included the reality of using American Sign Language in this movie. I thought the voice overs for the deaf characters in the movie were very smooth with their tonality for age and inflections. You know a movie is good when it ends nicely and then you start wanting to expand it more. It was nice to see how the actors who played the maternal grandparents in this movie had gracefully aged from when they were younger in the movie, Love is Never Silent.". Loved it James Welch Henderson Arkansas. 5/8/21.