UPDATE: To Caption Or Not To Caption A Movie About Autism?

An update to this article I wrote yesterday: Gerardine Wurzburg, the director of "Wretches & Jabberers," a film about two autistic men traveling to three foreign countries, announced that its premiere at the Vermont International Film Festival on October 22nd "will be open captioned to insure full access to the film."  The two other showings of the movie at the film festival will continue to be open captioned as previously scheduled.

To Caption Or Not To Caption A Movie About Autism?

  Historically, people with autism were usually excluded from society, and even today this is an unfortunate fact of life in different cultures around the world. "Wretches & Jabberers," a film by Gerardine Wurzburg about two autistic men traveling to different countries, challenges long-standing assumptions people harbor about autistic people in general. In this film, Larry Bissonnette and Tracy Thresher, who are autistic, visit three countries with vastly different cultures -- Sri Lanka, Japan and Finland -- and fight prevailing attitudes in these countries about their own disability.Sounds like a fantastic movie and I plan to see it soon. Which is why the decision not to caption the movie's premiere at the Vermont International Film Festival in late October is very puzzling. I first heard about this movie from a deaf friend in Vermont who was excited to attend the premiere. However, when she inquired about captioning for this film, the associate producer of "Wretches and Jabberers," Dan Curl, replied to her:

"I apologize but the festival organizers would like the film to premiere in its original format as envisioned by the director. I have requested that the two additional screenings in the festival be open captioned: Oct. 24th at 1:15pm & Oct. 26th at 3:30pm . They are happy to oblige. I hope you can make it to one of these showings and enjoy the film. Thank you for your support!"

I previewed the "Wretches & Jabberers" trailer -- which is captioned -- and it is not clear why the festival organizers would like the film to go without captions at its premiere. What is meant by "original format as envisioned by the director?" Do they not want deaf and hard-of-hearing people to attend the festival premiere of the movie? So much for the inclusion which the two autistic men in the film are fighting for.International film festivals, such as the one in Vermont, usually have foreign films in their native languages that come with English subtitles, so there should be no arbitrary decision on what specific screening times a film should be captioned. The premiere will be shown at 6:30 on a Friday evening, which is usually a social evening and the most convenient time to see a movie. The captioned versions will be shown during the day on Sunday and Tuesday, when some people have day jobs and other commitments.But even then, that is not the point. Elaine Morse, a deaf Vermont resident, said, "The organizers are essentially saying, yes, we will allow you to see the film with captions, but you have to go at another time. We don't want the captions during the premiere. In other words, we don't want people with disabilities attending our premiere."If the associate producer of a movie -- the same movie which challenges cultural beliefs that exclude a whole disability group -- listens to the wishes of organizers of a local festival and removes captions for its premiere, this defeats the purpose of the movie which is to educate the general public about the experiences of two men with a disability who were excluded from society for much of their early lives.After all, on the aforementioned trailer, there are open captions which are part of the film. On some scenes, the men use a communication device -- which spells words out on a screen -- to communicate. One of the men says, "People all want communication."People all want communication. The festival organizers want the film to premiere without captions. How is it considered "communication?"

Is It Better To Call Someone "Stupid"?

One night, as a young kid learning about the deafness I was born with, I asked my mother how I became deaf. She explained that she got German measles when she was pregnant with me. Confused, I went to the World Book Encyclopedia in the family’s living room to look up the term “German measles.” In a pregnant mother, the encyclopedia said, it can cause “deafness, blindness, or mental retardation” in the unborn baby.So I had the answer to the cause of my deafness. But, still curious, I asked my mother what “mental retardation” meant. In the simplest terms she could explain to a 6-year-old boy, she said it meant people who had a hard time thinking.Over the years, in my uninitiated view of the disability world, I always viewed “mental retardation” as a clinical term that described a variety of conditions, including Down syndrome, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), even autism. Now as an adult, I know this term is very muddily defined. For example, autism is not always indicative of mental retardation, as there are autistic individuals who demonstrate extremely high intellectual functioning.  But how is "mental retardation" clearly defined, per se?I noticed, over the past 10 to 15 years, an increased use of the word “retarded” as a way to insult someone, typically one who made a stupid comment or a not well-thought-out decision. Knowing what it felt like to be insulted as a deaf child, the indiscriminate use of the word “retarded” to describe stupidity did not sit well with me. On the other hand, as far as I could tell over the years, there was little noticeable effort to publicize the inappropriate use of the word “retarded” until recently.Now, prompted in part by Rahm Emanuel’s unfortunate use of this term to refer to some activist members of his own political party, and the publicity surrounding Sarah Palin’s son Trig, who has Down syndrome, a bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate to remove the term “mental retardation” from all references in federal law and replace it with “intellectual disability." Unofficially named Rosa’s Law in recognition of a Maryland girl with an intellectual disability, it will be marked up to a Senate committee on Wednesday and is expected to pass the full Senate.Making a determination as to what words are both socially acceptable and respectful of a certain group is always a messy affair which takes time to sort out.  However, as long as efforts are continually made to describe certain people with disabilities (PwDs) in more progressive and socially acceptable terms, they always redound toward building mutual respect and trust between PwDs and the community at large. This is a much better option than maintaining the status quo where unthinking people bandy around words describing certain groups of people, as a way to insult others.If, in a fit of anger, you have to, have to, HAVE TO insult someone, it is far more appropriate to call that person "stupid," not "retarded."  At least in Rahm Emanuel's case, calling some liberal activists "stupid" would have kept the debate squarely on President Obama's health care bill, which was what the fight was originally all about.But, ideally, no insults would be even better.Disclosure:  I am not affiliated in any way with the "End the Word" campaign at www.r-word.org.