Sound and Fury DVD

[TWA]

CI is not cure for deafness.

My point exactly. While the movie certainly didn't push this idea the whole time, there were many parts where the pro-CI half of the family made comments to that effect, like when the grandmother says "New life for this child" after the CI is implanted in baby Peter. Quite dramatic and rhetorically misleading.

I don't see any problem with the Cochlear logo appearing in the video. It's no different than AB or anyone else doing the same thing in their promotional videos.

No? So you don't see it as a conflict of interest whenever a controversial subject is discussed and the person/entity controlling the discussion just so happens to have a very strong financial/political position at stake? The problem here is that this movie is not supposed to be a promotional document for the company--that's called advertising, and it is legitimate--the problem is that this was supposed to be a documentary film exposing a very complex issue that can be viewed from multiple viewpoints each with their own valid and invalid components, and it certainly favored one viewpoint over the other.

By the way, there was an AB video that I thought was unrealistic. I won't name what it is, but I was very disappointed at the way it portrayed CIs. It featured someone who was a "top performer" with their implant which encouraged new CI candidates to have high expectations for their CI. I think any video regardless of who makes it should express the pros and cons of implants. Don't just talk about all of the wonderful sounds a person can hear and make it appear as if the moment they turn on their CI, they can understand 100%. I'm referring to all 3 companies -- not one in particular.

I agree 100%, although keep in mind that this promotional video is clearly advertising material (albeit false advertising in some cases, as you point out), which should provide the viewer with a healthy sense of skepticism before even watching it. However, it becomes much more difficult to find the false advertising when it is hidden in a "documentary" nominated for an Academy Award.

 

[Hear Again]

Alex,

To answer your question, no I don't.

 

[Hear Again]

Cochlear is not "controlling" anything by displaying their logo. People are free to feel however they wish when watching this video.

Furthermore, Cochlear is not forcing people to be pro-CI nor are they forcing them to receive a CI.

 

[Hear Again]

The end result of this video was that the child received an implant. Therefore, it makes sense that Cochlear's logo would be included. It would be no different if the NAD flashed their logo in the final few minutes of the video displaying their motto about equality for the deaf. There was no harm done by Cochlear's logo appearing in the video. If one disagrees with the actions of Cochlear, all they have to do is ignore it or better yet, express their disapproval to Cochlear.

 

[Hear Again]

Saying that a CI represents a "new life for a child" is certainly not misleading. Many children benefit from having implants. Some don't, but the majority do, so this comment is valid and very true in most cases.

 

[shel90]

Saying that a CI represents a "new life for a child" is certainly not misleading. Many children benefit from having implants. Some don't, but the majority do, so this comment is valid and very true in most cases.

Why would a represent a new life for a child? Parents complain about deaf people saying that CI change people but yet would accept this "new life for a child". Isnt that hypocritical? It either changes one's life therefore changing the person, or it doesnt.

 

[Pinky]

I haven't watch the movie yet. I want to see it. Anyway, Yes Hear again is right. Because the child is being bad behave and not understand in communicate with hearing family. The implant is help child to be improve with child's life. If I were a kid. I could be FIT, temper tantrum and frustrate. When I don't understand or can't hear. It's common to deaf children who don't know ASL. It was happen to me so often when I was kid. If I receive my CI when I was kid. I would be improve with my life change with attitude. And also I could be success with my High School Diploma and go to University.

I used to be Anti-CI when I was teen. I had regret in my past. I moved on my new life. I am looking forward to get hook on next 2 weeks. I will answer the question however is my attitude improve. CI will change my life. But CI is not make me hearing person. I am still deaf. I want to find an experience with CI. My recommend for deaf babies and children to learn ASL before receive CI. I disagree with my cousin's decide for her son not use ASL. It's their problem not mine. Her son is not my child. I can't do anything. Let them experience themselves

My point exactly. While the movie certainly didn't push this idea the whole time, there were many parts where the pro-CI half of the family made comments to that effect, like when the grandmother says "New life for this child" after the CI is implanted in baby Peter. Quite dramatic and rhetorically misleading.

 

[TWA]

You're right, it would have been no different if it were the NAD's logo that appeared. But the point I'm trying to make here is not that Cochlear was wrong to display their logo; they are free to do whatever they want, and yes, people can think whatever they want after watching the video. (I would hope, though, that they are more familiar about the subject than this one video so that they can make an informed opinion.) What I am saying is that it gave a clue as to what biases might be in the video. Do you think Cochlear would have put their logo in the movie if it had ended up being overtly against CIs? Of course not. They have a financial interest in seeing that CIs are portrayed in a positive light. So, unfortunately that simple little appearance of the Cochlear logo compromises the movie's whole objectivity.

Personally, I am definitely pro-CI. I'll be a candidate for one in the near future, if I'm not already (whether I will get one or not is an entirely different matter). I don't think they are the end of the Deaf world (CIs have been around for 20 years, but the Deaf community has only grown stronger in that time), nor are they a "cure" for something that does not necessarily need a cure. But, I think the world is changing very rapidly in all areas of technology--communication, computational, transportation, etc.--and the Deaf community is just as affected and should embrace that change, which I think it already is. There are many types of deafness, and people with CIs are but one of many kinds of Deaf people--yes, they are still Deaf.

However, we do not need movies with biased views sending wrong messages to a hearing world that does not even understand the issues in the first place. That's my main problem with the movie. Hearing people will see it and think, "Jeeze, what's wrong with those Deaf people? They are so ignorant and closed-minded. Why don't they want to "fix" their hearing?"

There's a point in the movie where the parents who get the CI for their child actually say that the other parents are "abusing" their children by not getting the CI for them. Do we really want hearing people to go around thinking that any Deaf person who doesn't get their child a CI is abusive to their children?

The end result of this video was that the child received an implant. Therefore, it makes sense that Cochlear's logo would be included. It would be no different if the NAD flashed their logo in the final few minutes of the video displaying their motto about equality for the deaf. There was no harm done by Cochlear's logo appearing in the video. If one disagrees with the actions of Cochlear, all they have to do is ignore it or better yet, express their disapproval to Cochlear.

 

[shel90]

You're right, it would have been no different if it were the NAD's logo that appeared. But the point I'm trying to make here is not that Cochlear was wrong to display their logo; they are free to do whatever they want, and yes, people can think whatever they want after watching the video. (I would hope, though, that they are more familiar about the subject than this one video so that they can make an informed opinion.) What I am saying is that it gave a clue as to what biases might be in the video. Do you think Cochlear would have put their logo in the movie if it had ended up being overtly against CIs? Of course not. They have a financial interest in seeing that CIs are portrayed in a positive light. So, unfortunately that simple little appearance of the Cochlear logo compromises the movie's whole objectivity.

Personally, I am definitely pro-CI. I'll be a candidate for one in the near future, if I'm not already (whether I will get one or not is an entirely different matter). I don't think they are the end of the Deaf world (CIs have been around for 20 years, but the Deaf community has only grown stronger in that time), nor are they a "cure" for something that does not necessarily need a cure. But, I think the world is changing very rapidly in all areas of technology--communication, computational, transportation, etc.--and the Deaf community is just as affected and should embrace that change, which I think it already is. There are many types of deafness, and people with CIs are but one of many kinds of Deaf people--yes, they are still Deaf.

However, we do not need movies with biased views sending wrong messages to a hearing world that does not even understand the issues in the first place. That's my main problem with the movie. Hearing people will see it and think, "Jeeze, what's wrong with those Deaf people? They are so ignorant and closed-minded. Why don't they want to "fix" their hearing?"
There's a point in the movie where the parents who get the CI for their child actually say that the other parents are "abusing" their children by not getting the CI for them. Do we really want hearing people to go around thinking that any Deaf person who doesn't get their child a CI is abusive to their children?

I have encountered several hearing people with that incorrect view. Even one lady told me that that all deaf people need to get a CI and that we need to improve ourselves. Improve ourselves to please who? Ourselves or to hearing strangers who dont give a flying f**ck about all the issues we have to face and endure? :roll:

 

[Pinky]

I have encountered several hearing people with that incorrect view. Even one lady told me that that all deaf people need to get a CI and that we need to improve ourselves. Improve ourselves to please who? Ourselves or to hearing strangers who dont give a flying f**ck about all the issues we have to face and endure? :roll:

I haven't watch the movie yet. I was behind news until I saw on youtube's through on comments. I need to rent the movie. Can I ask you?? I'm curious about the lady does know ASL or not??

 

[shel90]

I haven't watch the movie yet. I was behind news until I saw on youtube's through on comments. I need to rent the movie. Can I ask you?? I'm curious about the lady does know ASL or not??

That was my own personal experience. It happened at my husband's work picnic and no, she didnt know ASL. She thinks ASL keeps deaf people from achieving success. I cant stand her. She works with my hubby. Ugh!

 

[Hear Again]

Shel,

Does she honestly believe that??

 

[Pinky]

That was my own personal experience. It happened at my husband's work picnic and no, she didnt know ASL. She thinks ASL keeps deaf people from achieving success. I cant stand her. She works with my hubby. Ugh!

She didn't understand ASL. My question is the movie that you watched. She and her son with CI. Is the child know sign language?

 

[Hear Again]

I think debating the reason behind Cochlear putting their logo on the video is moot. After all, it was a video about CIs, no?

 

[shel90]

She didn't understand ASL. My question is the movie that you watched. She and her son with CI. Is the child know sign language?

What are u talking about? What happened with me has nothing to do with the movie. I was adding my experience from WriteAlex's comments about heairng people getting the wrong view about deafness and CIs.

The child is fluent in ASL...the mother of that show is an ADer. I prefer her to answer any questions pertaining to her family.

 

[Hear Again]

I really wish the ADer Shel spoke of could comment further. I'd be interested in reading her thoughts.

 

[shel90]

Exactly....but it does make me wonder how many other hearing people really believe that especially those who set policies for the education of deaf children.

 

[Hear Again]

Exactly....but it does make me wonder how many other hearing people really believe that especially those who set policies for the education of deaf children.

Therein lies the problem. I don't know alot about Deaf education (I'm far more familiar with the education of the blind), but what we need are more Deaf educators and role models.

 

[shel90]

Therein lies the problem. I don't know alot about Deaf education (I'm far more familiar with the education of the blind), but what we need are more Deaf educators and role models.

Right, but the problem is that lately hearing parents of children with CIs are demanding that their teachers be hearing. It is happening where I work and I have spoke with some of my friends who work at other deaf schools or programs...they are reporting the same thing.

 

[Hear Again]

It obvious she isn't real Christian. She shouldn't judge on deaf people and ASL. :roll:

Exactly.

(deleted remainder of post since religion is not permitted on AD)