Information:
First, we need to address some foundational and informational things. "CODA" as a concept used within the Deaf community defines a [hearing] Child Of Deaf Adults and was introduced by Millie Brother as part of her graduate research with Gallaudet University in 1983. She would establish "CODA International" as an organization to serve and enrich this subcommuniy of a subcommunity. The organization continues to operate and grow to this day. As other organizations, services, summer camps, and establishments have emerge over the past 30+ years, aligning, identifying, and welcoming "Codas" (and subsequently "Kodas" or "Kids (under the age of 18) Of Deaf Adults"), we can see how things can become confusing, fractionated, and mired in the minutiae of details. Largely, the concept of a hearing child with one or more deaf parent is the heart of what a "coda" has come to be known as. With that, we approach our 2021 film "CODA".
Non-Spoiler review/critique:
"CODA" is a light-hearted feature film which showcases a 'slice of life' view of a fishing family in Gloucester, Massachusetts. The intriguing hook is that this family is predominately Deaf, where 3 out of the 4 family members are deaf (Mother, Father, and older brother, played by Marlee Matlin, Troy Kotsur and Daniel Durant respectively). The story centers around the last member of the family, Ruby (played by Emilia Jones), who is the only hearing daughter of the family (a CODA, or [hearing] "Child Of Deaf Adult") and her struggles to live a high-school life while tending to the needs of her blue-collar family.
The central tension of the story is between the responsibilities of her family life and the demands of her young adolescent life, revolving around her stellar ability to sing, and the attempt to harness this skill in order to achieve a college-bound life. This drama comes with an opportunity to showcase the 'unique' struggles of a person in a unique situation, presenting some of the trials and tribulations a hearing member of a deaf family could face. From interpreting in comically uncomfortable situations in a doctors office, to a noisy home environment with a flatulent fragranced dinner table, to the taunting and bullying of peers at school, all while trying to keep the family 'afloat' with her language brokering between fishmarket-family business relationships and wrestle with a domineering, hard-nosed choir teacher that has made it his personal pet project to make this rags to college-riches story a reality. (See my spoiler review for more details on these scenes)
While the film does a great job of gently depicting this New England fishing town in both technical and visual terms, it does little to invigorate the imagination in terms of expanding cinema's breadth and depth of original stories for the world, especially empowering deaf and/or sign language related stories. CODA is an English remake of a 2014 film, "La Famillie Bélier", lifting and repurposing the very similar model of 'hearing child of deaf parents has a musical talent that tears at her heart to pursue'. Where the original French film's family ran a farm, CODA has its New England fishery, but the heart, soul and plot of the film are nearly identical. This begins to give way to the cracks in this otherwise 'solid' film. The film garners overwhelming positive reviews, and critical praise for this 'heartwarming' film, which is not a surprise, since the same praise was given to its 2014 origin film, but perhaps, as a French film, it limited the 'mainstream' global appeal its English counterpart now experiences in Hollywood. It seems like the (hearing) creators knew what they were doing when seeking 'the next project' to leverage. You'll note the addition of hearing status related to the creators. When discussing a film's production, hearing status is a distinction that 99.3% of the time would never be addressed, yet, identifying the distinctions of hearing/deaf or spoken/sign language status is inescapable when entering the domain of the deaf. CODA's production team is largely 'hearing' and this requires us to think about... intentions, understandings, beliefs, values, dreams, desires, myths, etc. Should a film that includes sign language, deaf characters, and in turn, deaf people's hearing children, have a goal or aim to deliver the Deaf world from its 'oppression'? Films are a powerful medium, and if 'done right' should correct the perils of the past and set things right. Right? Does having a 'hearing production team' warrant alarm from those within the Deaf World when these hearing people point their hearing lens at the Deaf world? Does this film serve any world other than the financial world of its backers? Or does its existence and acclaim create more hurdles than opportunities?
It is a wonderful thing to have deafness and sign language depicted on the big screen (we need more of that!). The story is a 'safe' bet to back. It worked once before. I can understand the risk-adverse nature of the film-business. In an age of remakes, reboots (and even more troubling 'soft-reboots), hedging a studio bet only makes sense when big books are under scrutiny. Consider that Apple bought CODA for a record smashing $25 million dollars and the film's producers have declined to comment on the film's budget you can probably guess that the stars were right for this 'small budget deaf film' to make a splash. Coupled with 'tapping into untapped communities' (like the Deaf community) that underpins many large-scale efforts, why not leverage the 'Deaf economy' and sell a film that is tried and true in the past?
Unfortunately, these underpinnings leave us with many of the tried and tired tropes of a 'hearing-deaf' struggle which pervades many Hollywood films that involve deafness. These images and tropes continue to propagate corrupted myths, damaging beliefs, or at worse, crippling psychological frameworks for hearing, deaf, and sign language users alike. "Hollywood Speaks: Deafness and the Film Entertainment Industry" by John S. Schuchman is a 1999 academic compilation and critique of Hollywood films throughout the 20th century. Schuchman's work is a cornerstone of my thinking, and yet, it too, is limited in scope since so much has added to the world since 1999 and yet, very little has progressed. Both 2014 and 2021 films feel like a platform to insert "woke Deaf Culture 101" broad statements in some sort of "virtue-signaling educational moment" without ever really seeing these statements in action in the 'real' (read: cinematic) world. We're left to take these statements as some sort of 'truth', delivered from spoken mouths and move on. Thank goodness we've got these statements to show that the hearing production team is 'in the know'. (See my spoiler review for details). Additionally, the moments we do see deaf folks in action, or sign language in use, tend to be deprecatingly comical, stereotypically helpless, or ignorantly eye-rolling, haven't we gotten past these things yet? We lack moments that defy these themes or empower the communities these characters embody. I expect this sort of voyeuristic enjoyment from a predominately hearing industry and director. This isn't an attack on the field, artist or the accomplishment, just an acknowledgment of the details that went into the film's creation. Ironically, we can still enjoy these moments as well. As long as we can identify the underlying effects it has on one's thinking, we can override an internalization of any messaging. I will defend the artistic right to convey any 'understanding' and expression, even if it leaves a sour taste to those 'in the know'.
On that note, the film answers the criticism of its 2014 origin film by casting deaf actors in leading deaf roles. Yet the film cannot escape the current critical climate of casting a 'hearing actress' (as opposed to a 'coda actress') for the lead 'CODA' role. There is also a concern with the lack of 'Coda' influence on the production as a whole. Again, there must be the artistic right to convey any message from any creator. That is the purpose of art. I'm not saying it's 'right' or that's how I'd do it. There is no 'correct' art. It allows us to react, reflect, and dare I say, create our own replies. To cancel an artistic statement because it lacks 'authentic expression' is counter-intuitive to the act of making art in general. I would also argue that the film has touches of 'Coda influences', with or without a Coda there. The presence of two notable Deaf actors who have Coda kids, Coda friends, and Coda colleagues impact their understanding of Codas in their own way. The filmmaker's supposed questioning and research and engagement with the source material must have picked up some Coda influence, at least in some distilled way. Devolving into identity politics and 'lived experiences' as a demand for a fiction film walks a dangerous creative line. This is a fictional film, not a documentary, so the amalgamation of creative action should have no limit set upon it, or else the future of creative films is bound by its creative intent. Would you like to make a film about teenage bank robbers? You better cast some ex-convicts. Care to travel the stars? Better get an astronaut actor to really show you how it's done. Don't even think about casting a landlubber, or air breather in the next Aquaman Summer Blockbuster... It should also be worth noting that these performers are also not actually fishermen, from Massachusetts, nor would I place a bet that Emilia Jones is actually a high-school student. This isn't an attempt to dismiss the desires to have 'true' representation, and, I would argue, that Emilia did a pretty dang good job at representation. There is no 'ONE CODA experience', and the skill of sign language use varies across all people, deaf, hearing, and codas alike. If you're interested in seeing part of the mosaic of "Coda Experiences", watch this handful of Codas here. While watching Ruby might 'tinge' a native signer's eyes, seeing signs from an 'obviously hearing actress', one can easily reframe their understanding of "That is how Ruby signs." I've seen rockier and smoother signs from Codas across the lands. What's to say her attempt to express one isn't the result we see? I applaud the performance and acknowledge its strengths for signing without voice (usually a hearing Kryptonite, especially when actors yearn for more spoken lines, etc.) and I am glad to see another hearing person, in the film industry, adopt the use and understanding of American Sign Language. To me, that is a win and creates a larger opportunity down the road. If there is a backlash against the effort, it makes any film with deafness or sign language a hot button issue and a risky endeavor. A film like CODA allows for more films that incorporate sign language, deaf actors/characters, and a larger 'Signed Cinema' world. What kind of OTHER stories can we tell with this beautiful language? A love story, perhaps? There is now more understanding of the potential (both creative and financial) on the industry side, there is piqued curiosity and hunger on the audience side, and opportunity for directors and producers to deliver in order to meet these needs. This closes the gap between Hollywood and Deaf-ywood, and to those critics who balk at how Hollywood is profiting from deaf/sign language films, I would ask: are you in support of your Deaf produced films? Perhaps there's one film out there that fills your Coda Actor, Deaf Produced desires, ripe for Hollywood harvesting.
I am just disappointed CODA treads on familiar ground. Perhaps it is what the English Speaking world needs right now. Perhaps this popularity, harvested from the French Cinema world, will allow for more films that further the lines of appreciation, understanding, and dare I say, desire, to have more sign language for all of humanity. I would hold 2017's Best Picture film "Shape of Water" at higher esteem for advancing the lines of "Signed Cinema" since that film presents many notions of sign language, communication, drama, and discovery without tired deaf troupes. But I digress.
CODA plays for a 'Hearing' audience, leveraging the use of music and singing, subtly underscoring the sympathetic notion that "aww, her family is deaf and can't understand or enjoy this". I would like to go further into specific aspects of the film that I questioned, enjoyed, applauded, cried at, felt betrayed by, or wanted to see more of, but I will save them for the spoiler part of this review. Without saying anything specific, I felt the film's messaging has a sugarcoated donut result. While we may think we want the donut and love the taste of that sugar, it actually is not good for us. Focusing on the dramatic elements of the film, and the resulting character arc, through Ruby we learn that "By defying your familial responsibilities and pursuing what YOU want, you'll be able to achieve the American Dream: "kiss your downtrodden blue collar family goodbye and head to COLLEGE, baby!" This is the glistening sugar that gleams in the summer twilight, beckoning all of us to share a slice with each other and smile at the gooeyness of the warm pastry. I mean, isn't college a pathway to the American Dream? Who would argue against that? I feel like this message is also in line with the current "iGeneration" who is so accustomed to customizing every aspect and detail of their life. It's about what ' "i" want and "i" want that leopard print "iDevice" with the iCandy sticker and the icing on top, no matter what! YOLO!' There is little dialogue or messaging around the duties and responsibilities life gives us, requiring our time and attention here and now, beyond our dreams and desires. Little do we realize that this sugar donut is making us fat and financially diabetic. Perhaps my critique is the recourse of a generation now 'post-college', still reeling from the impact of the "Go to College, no matter what, no matter what the ¢o$t" messaging that my age group (30+) is dealing with; debts, degrees, disappointments and all. I just felt that this story and Ruby's character arc plays into the hearing, mainstream value system that does a disservice to empower both deaf/coda communities, falling short in illuminating the glory of sign language for humanity, and lagging in progressing cinematic lines in the direction of new, bold, rich films and stories that take all of us into realms unheard of. In my spoiler review, I'll propose my thoughts on a dramatic arc that I think more satisfying for the character, given the circumstances.
The shortcomings of the film to me are:
failing to tell an original and progressive story with 3 amazing Deaf talents
failing to showcase sign language in an empowering and unique way
selling a disenfranchising notion of 'success' and 'accomplishment' in the face of duty, responsibility, and internal growth
Bonus shortcoming: I'm a Massachusetts kid and I didn't see 1 Dunkin' Donuts or hear someone say "Bahston" ;)
The merits of the film to me are:
demonstrating the skills, talents and emotions of true Deaf actors (They're all great and I want to see more from them)
seeing scenes with hearing signers completely in silence
paving the way for larger films to incorporate sign language and deaf characters
In summary, CODA brings a 'deaf' story to the English speaking world, albeit an unoriginal and rather monochromatic one. The attention and financial investment the film has received hopefully alleviates industry resistance, allowing for truly original film stories and projects to make their way to the big screen. This would allow for a visual language to appear in the most visually expressive storytelling medium of film and depict other ways sign culture and deafness can be showcased in the multitude human experience. Unfortunately, CODA plays to 'Hearing ideals', leveraging the 'power of voice' at the cost of a potentially unique and enriching character arc. It feels as if the film is fishing for attention, catching the hearts and minds of many with tired bait. While it leverages the tropes effectively, and has a sweet, appealing taste, we cannot forget it's a donut and the donut's effect on us as we continue to search for real ambrosia this wonderful Deaf world has to offer us.
Also, if you want to see Coda talent, in a Coda production, in a Coda story like no other... we've got a seat at the table for you.
Spoiler review/critique:
Right from the start, we get a sense of values the film will portray. A silent ocean, broken by the sweet sounds of song of the radio and sung by our main character Ruby. There is an interesting choice of songs and their lyrics throughout the film, and they gave me wonder, starting with the opening song "Something's Got a Hold on Me" by Etta James (as detailed by the captions I used on Apple TV+)
The lyrics "I get a feeling that I never, never, never had before." to me, refers to Ruby's feelings about singing and its 'freedom' it gives her from the drudgery of fishing work. As the lyrics continue "Something's got a hold on me, yeah, oh it must be love." has this dual nature to it. Are the feelings of freedom she has singing held back by the hold on her? The hold of love for her family? That would be a strong theme to run with, presented in the first minute of the film. Yet, I am a little thrown off:
With all the love for her singing and the 'love' for her family, she certainly doesn't merge the two in this moment, signing the songs (the exact lyrics, or with a 'Coda' twist in the signed interpretation). Spoiler in the spoiler- she's going to sign her song in the end, which, to me, is very out of the blue since we do not see her do that AT ALL throughout the film.
So, with these hearing values presented: pure, unencumbered singing, the drudgery of blue-collar fishing work, and uncaptioned signs we have a sense of what we're in for. That's right, at least with my Apple TV+ captions, the sibling interplay was not captioned in this initial scene, maybe to underscore to the audience "her family is deaf" (if they're perceptive of this cute interaction between the two at all). But I suppose a captioned scene of sign language would underscore the moment even more. This is just another value worth presenting, the signs do not receive captions in this initial scene, which sets the underlying themes of the film. Yes, the sign language is captioned later on, but I thought it was odd that it was not in this introductory scene, no matter how small at least for Leo, her brother who is deaf.
At the dock, we learn that Ruby takes charge and handles the selling negotiations while setting up the fishery drama. We learn that Leo is ambitious enough to want to sell fish on their own, directly to the customers, circumventing the auction-bid process and the monopoly of the established system. His father is doubtful and fearful of the idea, having seen other attempts fail. But Leo is an ambitious... you know how those "CODAs" can be...
What's that? You're confused? Leo isn't a "CODA"? Well, isn't he a "Child of Deaf Adults"? I'm confused too, especially since the film fails to really address this chosen-acronym-title. Culturally, the "CODA" experience relates to the hearing children of deaf adults, as depicted by Ruby in the film. Even more-so, 'coda' is an operative term musically as well, defined as a concluding section of music that is unlike the sections before it. Which has a nice, metaphorical layer when used in the Deaf world. A hearing child section that is unlike the deaf parent sections before it. We are not informed of this definition within the film, nor does the film remark on its use, maybe some of us even wonder why the film is even called "CODA" at all. For those who are musically inclined, perhaps they think it's related to her singing. Obviously a film can be titled whatever it wants to be. It could have been titled "Song of the Sea", "Fish out of Water", or any other 'silent', 'sound', or other deaf-trope related title that films have historically used. To call it "CODA" feels like an extraction of a cultural concept, only really explained in the marketing interviews, or press releases, as a snazzy concept to 'explore'. But it seems like a misnomer for the film, especially if you take into consideration the character of Leo, a young Deaf millennial, faced with overcoming the previous generation of Deaf attitudes, beliefs, limitations etc. He, too, could be perceived to have a (mislabeled) 'coda' story as well, especially without the distinction and explanation that CODA is for hearing children. I was VERY compelled by Leo and his desire to strike out on his own to make a successful business (which happens in the margins of the film) but no thanks to any Deaf ingenuity, Deaf ecosystem, Deaf values, etc. I suppose it is more of those initial values that were established early on in the film. This is about singing and getting free from this life.
Next are three distinct scenes which get a lot of attention for their 'CODA-ness'. We'll call them "Sleep Signing", "Rap Music", and "Doctor's Office".
Sleep Signing - this is a subtle moment in which Ruby wakes and signs in her sleep. This suggests to me that she internalizes sign language as a part of her being. It's subtle, but it's a nice nod to the deaf parts that make up a coda. It isn't really explored throughout the film and it could have been strengthened in the 'musical talent' plot arc the film delivers. i.e. by channeling both sides, her hearing vocal side, and deaf signing side, only then can she find true peace and success.
Rap Music - I'm not so sure about this one, I understand that there is a classic trope of parents embarrassing their kids outside of school, but, to me, this helps defy the stereotype that "deaf people don't listen/like music". I suppose it's embarrassing to Ruby when her parents drive up with such loud music, but, I can imagine a group of adolescent high schoolers actually praising and admiring the bad-ass nature of this family rolling into the parking lot blasting a fat beat. It just seems like the story goes out of its way to make it seem like the general public looks down on, or ridicules this family.
Doctor's office - There's a lot of nuance here as well, especially in regards to information flow and expressive signing. I wonder if it is as impactful to a non-signing audience as it is to one that can see the wonderful, and gross, depiction of the condition. This scene is one that I feel would be the most 'memorable', and yet go unrecognized at the same time. Meaning, this scene continues to drive the unpleasant nature it must be for a coda to interpret their parents' doctor's appointments, and all the embarrassment it must instill in the general public when encountering a coda. Yet, at the same time, does it help to eradicate this unfortunate circumstance from society? This instance seems 'acceptable' given the events, but without going into the legality of the healthcare facility for utilizing the child of the family (multiple times, from the sound of it), or the state of the modern world and the decreasing instances of these moments, it does instill a 'oh yeah, me too' type of bonding between children of all different backgrounds who have found themselves in language brokering moments, but does our mainstream films have to keep showcasing them for cheap, graphic laughs?
Deaf culture dinner table - from the noisy environment, to the recanting of memories from yesteryear, to the physical and visual nature of dad's crass jokes, the dinner table adds to the blue-collar fabric that this working class family portrays. From 'expensive $15 wine', to an overbearing mother who has nothing but criticisms and physical concerns to be mindful of, and having the family involve themselves in their son's on-line hook-ups just brings to light a whole host of concerns. Is this a family that we're supposed to love? Or want our hero to hold on to?
While I'm not trying to scrub clean the image of a salt-of-the-earth family, or the real nature of crude physical deaf humor, I just wonder from a storytelling perspective how we're supposed to feel for this family and recognize their bond if it's not even appreciated by our protagonist.
Hearing-gaze- This one really tapped into a deep nerve. The film explores this lightly, barely bringing to light the underlying feeling that the masses of 'hearing people' out in the world can induce, especially when they know of one's 'unfortunate' circumstance. I could imagine the pent up fear and hesitation Ruby could have, like everything is riding on the line, and not only will she be judged when she opens her mouth to sing, but her parents and family will be judged as well since they are the makers of this product on the line. Little does she realize that Mr. V hits the nail on the head - "They're not going to help you."
How do you feel when you sing? - Later in the film, after some training and improved confidence, Mr. V ask's Ruby how she feels when she sings, and the film teeters on the signing-singing dichotomy with Ruby's answer. This potentially deep character moment is powerful, Ruby is more confident answering in sign, to a hearing person that has gained her trust, in order to communicate her emotions related to her singing. Note, that this moment does not have Closed Captioning as well, perhaps encouraging non-signers to be 'elevated' by her lofty and iconic response? In an alternative world, I would have keyed in on this moment and channeled it as her 'super-power', perhaps showcasing how great of a singer she is when she utilizes the two (it happens at the end... just because? I guess.) But this would be a pivotal moment for our heroine, when prodded by her mentor and put to the trials and tribulations. Why isn't this explored more?
Always about you- More so, in the sign/voice divide, Ruby begins a discussion with her mother in sign, but when her egocentric mother has a disconnect with her music interest, she begins to sim-com ("simultaneous communication", or sign and speak at the same time). Which brings up interesting character analysis moments: when does Ruby speak, when does she sign, and when does she do both at the same time? I'd imagine this could be a wonderful "Coda" theme to explore, the one of "hearing voice", "deaf voice" and "coda voice". Especially if the film is to culminate in the expression of her (coda?) voice. She's comfortable signing to her hearing teacher and would rather sim-com with her mother when things get emotional? It might be a slight point, but it's one worth mentioning if we are to look at the moments spoken, signed or sim-commed.
We should organize a business- I'm actually more fascinated (and hoped) the film would pivot into the youthful Leo and his modern-day aspiration and motivation to start a business, challenging by his older-generation Deaf dad and giving rise to an educated and capable Deaf youth. I thought this was fodder for a perfect opportunity for Ruby to find her place in the family, bringing success to all. While the film does have aspects of this entrepreneurial endeavor, it didn't go in the direction I thought it would have, empowering the youthful offspring, and giving them their own platform to grow and develop on.
The business aspiration becomes more of a conflict and hindrance to Ruby's greater (hearing) aspirations of going to college and pursuing her music. The Leo side story seems like an afterthought and pregnant with ideas and story, but it never reaches full maturity in my eyes.
We need to discuss this- here's a moment to upset a budding romantic moment with a graphical and uncouth event by our Deaf couple. At least we get the very illustrative instructional use of contraception out in the world. Deaf culture is all about discussing things to its fullest, and ultimate end, no matter how 'uncomfortable' or 'inappropriate' it may be in 'hearing culture.
I talked like a deaf person- Here is a vital scene that I feel is a missed opportunity to be a pivot point in Ruby's character and self discovery. Where we realize that Ruby considers her deaf parents voices to be 'ugly' and 'different', we do not leverage the 'voice' she gains by signing to her deaf family. While remaining more audio focused (certainly for the sake of singing), there is an undertone of 'anger management' in the yelling exercise, perhaps releasing her pent up frustration towards her family and life situation. While not apparent in dialogue, I certainly get that feeling once she's 'released the ugliest sound she can imagine' and her singing improves.
I feel that the missed opportunity, especially when coupled with the climactic audition scene in which she SIGNS during her performance, would have been the realization and utilization of her sign language and 'deaf voice'. Not the audio-centric 'deaf voice', but the soulful, silent, perhaps even supportive signing voice she demonstrated to Mr. V. The bend towards singing and sound is the obvious hearing choice, but one stronger choice that this film could have made for its 'coda' character would have been to showcase the duality in her ability, developing her truly unique voice (the one we'll see at the end out of nowhere).
Business, training, montage and more- The conflict between singing goals for college and 'the family business' has a lot packed into it, and yet, seems like it's focused on the wrong things. I still feel there is a missed opportunity to explore more of Leo as a young, capable and savvy Deaf-youth, where in this story he is pushed to the side without much exploration or resolve. The alternative story could be furthered supported by the inclusion of the 'Deaf Community' that is mentioned in passing. When Ruby's mother is working along side hearing ladies in the warehouse, I thought that showing the larger deaf community come together around a deaf entrepreneur would have shown the strength in numbers, work ethic, and ingenuity this community can have. More-so, watching Ruby further lean into her burgeoning family responsibilities and thrive while utilizing them would have been more of a fulfilling internal growth for the character. Instead, the story we are presented showcases her constant struggle and resentment towards her family, especially at the cost of her private training. And we're supposed to feel for her familial love? It seems like she can't wait to get away.
I'm constantly torn between the dynamic between Ruby and her desires and Ruby and her family. The nature of the conflict feels a bit forced, and when the two deaf fisherman are set up by the hearing inspector, it furthers the distrust I have as an audience member for the larger hearing world. I just couldn't believe that these two generational fishermen didn't have some sort of contingency for the situation, or that the local area knew of this specific boat, or that the inspector didn't know these two very specific men were deaf. Then, on top of it all, Ruby feels that she's the family's free interpreter and her interest in the family is waning. These instances, while 'typical' among people in the world, just continue to feel forced for the sake of showcasing how 'troublesome' it is to be deaf, or to be a coda. Coupled with the fact that the family says they never expected her to stay forever, yet constantly rely on her becomes tedious to watch. The 'heart to heart' in her bedroom further illustrates that her mother was shocked to find out her new born daughter was hearing and that she wouldn't connect with her. There are just many factors that make loving this family hard to do, so I'm not sure how culminating to the climax the film is supposed to have the 'feel good' impact it's trying to have, it certainly isn't presenting a lot of heart wrenching and endearing moments for our 'Coda'. Even Leo remarks "Our family was fine until you were born."
And now I have a special treat- To propose an alternative story structure, the choir scene could be the perfect moment to culminate Ruby's conflict and character choice. In support of the 'empowering character moment', here is where Ruby could unleash her singing and signing powers she's been honing throughout the whole film! In this alternative story, could see that the choir is struggling, they lack the support of their star singing who is holding back during this performance for some reason. As we would learn, Ruby is timid and torn during this concert because she's in-between the hearing demands of her choir and the feelings of her deaf responsibilities with her family left out of this whole situation. The scene could elude to this in the subtle emotion and facial expressions of our star. Perhaps, in our alternative story, she's been shown to really sing profoundly when she signs along with it. "It is just who I am" for instance, but the hearing world demands to sing without signing. This concert moment would be the convergence of these two worlds and Ruby has make a choice Instead, one that may seem to be doomed for her 'hearing success' in singing, but perhaps when she does so, the audience is amazed, enthralled, and the choir regains their star singer and the performance is remarkable! Both audiences (hearing and deaf) are complete.
But instead, the scene we get here is the classically painful 'deaf audience member sits in silence scene' to remind us 'these poor deaf people can't hear this'. Which, hopefully, underscores Ruby's tug-of-war nature and divide between the two worlds, yet, as its presented, doesn't seem like an issue to anyone but the family we haven't really felt for to this point. This conflict isn't really highlighted or bolstered, which is why I think the "Coda Voice" reveal at the audition is out of left field and unfulfilling. ("You could do this the whole time?? Thaaaanks... wish we had that at your choir performance.") The film really is persistent in reminding us how the fish fails at climbing the tree. Meaning, to borrow a quote from Einstein "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."So films which utilize these deaf tropes, which continuously depict our deaf fish out of water, never really show how fast or far they can swim if in their element. Nor does the amphibian (coda) do a good job at representing, or connecting with the fish, nor does that amphibian (coda) have a desire to swim in their ocean(deaf world). (Ok, that's enough fish metaphors for now.) But the point is, we're feeling the element of pity and sorrow for the family and their plight, versus brilliance, virtue, or strength. I just think we could bolster all parties better without succumbing to hearing demands and desires.
You were my destiny- This scene rocked me in a way that I am not sure if it was the intention or not. With the very audio centric act of Ruby's very deaf father trying to feel his daughter sing aside, the idea that what Ruby is singing 'you were my destiny' to her family and family at large has a very powerful double meaning. To me, this identified the missed opportunity of the film. The story in which Ruby embraces her destiny as a coda, and as exemplified in our alternative storyline, showcases her developing talents of singing and signing at the same time. And in this scene, by sim-comming privately with her father, the act could illuminate the night with her voice AND signs for her father. If in the choir scene prior, she didn't make the choice to sim-com, for fear of rejection from her hearing peers, this could be the moment where Ruby gains validation, perhaps even permission from her father to go forth and use this unique blending of singing and signing to achieve her goals, for that is truly Ruby. Instead, we get exactly what Leo describes as 'helpless deaf people seeking access into the hearing world' as the father gropes for the feel of her daughters voice.
Every fairy tale comes real- So, what we have to this point is a struggling, budding singer, that has toiled with her family (who happen to be deaf) and they have mixed feelings about their hearing family member and her musical interests. There's a young deaf brother who is trying to show he's capable and get out of the hearing dominance, a blue collar dad who is just trying to make his way in the world, and a semi-self-centered mother who has admitted she was disconnected from her daughter since birth. They all question Ruby's singing ability and pursuit of it against their deaf values. When this young singer has her audition to college, someway, somehow, this aspiring artist decides to sing and sign her song at the same time? Because her family is there? I understand the sentiment, but I feel the build to this point has not dictated this result. Don't get me wrong, the power of the sweet sounding voice and decent signing did bring a tear to my eye (I'm sure that's what they were hoping for), but upon gathering my thoughts and looking back on the journey did I realize that I was fed that sugar coated donut. It didn't resonate with the underlying story structure, nor was I really made aware of such a character's capability. (Yes, Ruby does speak and sign at the same time. Yes, I'm aware of the Coda Culture quality of singing and signing songs.) But the story did not utilize these elements in a character building way. The story pulled the rabbit out of its hat at the end for the 'big finish', and while I was 'dazzled', upon reflection did I realize I was hoodwinked. It's almost as if it was another one of those pity moments, versus a powerful moment of understanding or acceptance. (Why didn't she sign at the choir? Too many hearing eyes to judge?) If the story used this device in this way, even as an opponent to the singing goal. (I could see Mr. V or some other outside hearing pressure to warn her 'not to sign while she sings, it's not "proper."') Perhaps she attempts to do so at the choir to embarrassing results. Thus, if Ruby makes the personal choice to implement this 'taboo power', against all odds, and actually elevate her game and clinch the audition, we have more reason and understanding in her character growth! And realize that she doesn't care about the outcomes but loves her family, that would be more touching than just 'finger service' we're given to give us 'the feels' at the end. The elements are here, just disconnected, or underplayed, or misconstrued. Close, but no cigar, and we still get a stuffed animal prize anyway (and if this wins an Oscar, I can't wait to see what the prize is for.)
So, every fairy tale comes real, even those down and out 'codas' who have oppressive and burdensome lives CAN go to college... if they forego their familial responsibilities, ignore the entrepreneurial endeavors, and disavow their deaf values (until it's application time, then, sprinkle some of that in for that 'wow' factor which will really set your application apart.) I still think this story can be told if one recognizes the minutiae of deaf/hearing values, carefully synthesizes them together for a unique 'coda' result, and provides a proper 'heroes journey' to challenge our protagonist. She can rise up to face it, fall from it, and then resurrect into her new self, forging stronger bonds along the way. I still think the story of that 'singing girl with deaf parents' can succeed, without the need to disavow the family fishery, disregard the familial duties, or disempowering siblings or systems alike. Imagine a role where this singing-signing girl on a fishing boat/deaf owned fishery goes viral and her commitment to the family business, foregoing her 'dreams' of singing actually come true and both win in the end. Instead, we have a spectacle to behold for the hearing eye.
I love you really much - To further reinforce the malformed story structure and sensationalist hearing storytelling, we end on a vocalization of Ruby's father saying "Go" (validating her by the power of voice, I suppose, instead of the knowing eye, nodding head, or holding hand as she knows him by), telling her to go off to college, pursue her successful, hearing dreams, and worry not about 'the poor deaf family'.
Even more-so, I did a triple take with the films' final image, and what I initially named upon conclusion of the film as "I love you really much" or "I really love you". Now, probably one of the most iconic and successful American Sign Languages hand shapes to travel into mainstream mind is the "I Love You" or "ILY" hand shape consisting of the pinky, index and thumb extended (the thumb is critical here, we're not at a rock concert). You may have seen it in other various successful films or television, or maybe even in promotional material like his one:
But I was baffled at seeing the mutation of the sign. I couldn't believe it. I was flabbergasted and my ASL brain started racing. What is this? Why is this? Is this "I love you as a friend"? Fingers crossed, like best friends, like I love you, but not romantic love, so it's kind of a lighter,"I love you, bro!" type thing? No, couldn't be. Google would confirm "I really love you" since ILY has the hand shapes "i", "L", and "y", wonderfully beautiful, and just feels right, but "I really love you", "i", "r" "L" y" just feels 'wrong', and looks like such an English/hearing thing to do. Sure, I admit that ILY has the letter connotation as well, but it doesn't feel jumbled, or like a fist full of fingers. Perhaps this is a personal bias. Perhaps it's the final indication that this film has been hearing hijacked and attempted to add their own 'spin' on the matter for the sake of being cute... but the promotional poster certainly doesn't present us with this 'cute' take. The story doesn't even elude to, or extrapolate on either signs at all, and it left me triple taking at the end "Did I see that??". How did it come across to the general hearing audience? Did people think "Aw, it's that deaf I Love You.. I think" because there are no captions here. Confounding.
Ruby, out. - And then, upon the extended viewings for this review did I catch and realize that this sign is used by the family as Ruby's name sign! Okay, name signs are unique for the families that create them and are an integral part of Deaf culture, so, why would this sign be used as her departing sign to the family? Because she's on her way out and wants to leave her mark? "Remember me, byeee, Ruby out." Is it because the underlying structure and messaging is one of a self-centered desire so the only thing we should end on is a declarative "Ruby!" for the world and family to know? I will even grant my wife's suggestion of "Maybe she's saying: Ruby Loves you really much". At least this one is passible. Or, could it be the silent smoking gun in the hearing hands of our commandeered deaf culture for the sake of making a sensationalist story? At the very least, this certainly is one coda film.
UPDATE: Confirmed.
Don't get me wrong, I obviously cannot rewind time, intervene, or change anything about this film's existence other than pointing out structural integrity, providing creative alternatives or solutions and just be 'grateful' something like this exists. To me, films are one of the most monumental, herculean, complex, and chaos-conforming things a human, never-mind a whole bunch of humans can undertake together. Should any amount of light shown on the deaf community be worth basking in, no matter how rocky the foundation? In a way, yes. Should this film continue to roll on and pave way for other deaf culture films, we can open up the world of signed cinema and begin to really expand and illuminate what's possible, powerful, and soulful about these pockets of reality that may never have had their close-ups otherwise. So, from one Coda to the world, I say- sing on.
Comments