Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

40/100

Another film that I originally bailed on (at TIFF '19, in this case) but felt obligated to rewatch in full when it landed among last year's consensus critical favorites. Sure enough, both of the aspects that bugged me during its first 47 minutes—running time back then was listed as a whopping 140; Marder subsequently trimmed it, though reports suggest that it actually ran only 130 or so at TIFF—turned out to be dealbreakers. One of them is sort of personal and will likely inspire a lot of tangentially related philosophizing, so let's tackle the movie's formal cowardice first.

Actually, before I get to the main issue, here's an equally emblematic moment that doesn't involve sound design. When Ruben first arrives at the shelter, Joe instructs him to arise at 5am and sit alone in a small room furnished with nothing except a desk, a chair, and writing materials. He's to sit in complete stillness for as long as he can manage, furiously write whenever he can't. A real challenge for this guy, whose first impulse is always to take some sort of action, even if it's self-destructive. I happen to consider Joe's approach to Ruben's problem ridiculous (perhaps because I'm a similar personality type to Ruben), but ignore that for the moment. The movie counsels stillness—it's clearly on Joe's side—but Marder himself can't be still, even for the duration of one scene. He's terrified of alienating a potential mainstream-arthouse audience, so we spend barely any time at all trapped with Ruben as he struggles to do nothing. Instead, Ruben immediately pounds a donut into fragments, freaks out for roughly one minute, and then we're off to the school he sometimes visits. Any halfway-decent filmmaker would have sought to make this experience at least slightly uncomfortable for the viewer, rather than serving up visual shorthand and speedily moving on. 

Similarly, a potentially great movie about this subject would have shifted permanently into Ruben's soundscape—and without subtitles, either (until he learns to sign, at least). Force us to fully inhabit his new, disorienting world, rather than merely providing us with an occasional brief reminder. Let us be as initially confused as he is when Lou suddenly gets up in the middle of a strained conversation, because we, too, can't hear her phone ringing from across the RV. This is more or less the same complaint that I lodged against Room, in which Abrahamson whiffed the opportunity to make Jack's first view of the outside world overpowering; here, Ruben's cochlear implants, when finally activated, should register as a shock to us as well as to him, with the distortion supplanting an hour of maddeningly muffled noises and complete silence. Instead, we just think "Ooo, that's not right." (I'm also 99% confident that people who get implants are warned that they won't regain their full former auditory range or anything close to it. Ruben being caught off guard by that is patent screenwriter's bullshit.) Indeed, the best thing in the movie—apart from Amalric, who makes a ruefully compassionate meal of his tiny role—is Ruben "drumming" on the metal slide, sending rhythmic vibrations to the kid up at the top. Even in that instance, Marder makes sure to provide us with the actual sound as an unnecessary contrast. I felt constantly coddled.

So that's one reason I made my exit at TIFF—it was already quite clear, 47 minutes in, that Sound of Metal would be too formally timid for my taste. But I also sensed a therapy movie emerging, even though I saw only the first scene at the shelter (before Lou leaves). Sure enough, we eventually get a heapin' helpin' of what I consider to be self-help nonsense, e.g. Joe firmly telling Ruben "You don't need to fix anything here." ("Except for yourself" is left implicit, but that's the smallest of favors.) Again, I'm willing to concede that this is mostly me being unreceptive to the ostensibly life-affirming message on offer—I spent pretty much the whole middle hour rooting for Ruben to get the hell out of that nightmare, which is clearly not the intended reaction. So I was surprised and pleased when he ultimately chooses to get the implants, rejects Joe's offer to stay on at the shelter, and seeks to resume some semblance of his previous life. An ending that suggests this won't be remotely easy is dandy by me, and I appreciate the ambiguity of the film's final moment, which sees Ruben choose silence without necessarily implying that it's a permanent decision (though I suspect that's the inference many people will make). Better that than a Hollywood-cheesy shot of Joe looking up to see Ruben standing across the road, ready to be welcomed back where he belongs.

Still, the whole "deafness is not a handicap" stance (explored at length in the terrific 2000 documentary Sound and Fury) has me once again wrestling with where I believe hearing loss does or should fall on what I now recognize as a continuum of norm-deviance. What I think doesn't matter, since I'm not deaf (yet!). But the debate fascinates me, because I am colorblind, and embracing that deficiency, or arguing that it's not a deficiency at all—just a different way of perceiving the spectrum, no less valid than the standard way—would never in a million years occur to me. Give me a cheap and painless means of fixing my defective cone and I'll do it at the first opportunity; there are few things I'd love more than to see red and pink and purple as most humans do (even though the world looks totally normal to me unless I invert colors on an Ishihara plate and see the number pop out of nowhere). So deaf people who have no desire to hear used to seem crazy to me. The difference, I now recognize, is that being colorblind rarely if ever becomes a crucial part of one's identity. I subscribe to r/colorblind on Reddit, just because it's sometimes fun to commiserate with fellow protans about maps we can't read or whatever, but that's pretty much the extent of my investment in any sort of community. It's just not something I dwell on. Most days I forget, to be honest. I've never seen colors any other way and can't imagine an alternative.

Told ya I was gonna wander well astray of the movie if I launched into this. Anyway, point is, my personal experience with a very minor (if occasionally irritating) genetic anomaly colors, shall we ironically say, my perception of other anomalies that aren't actually comparable. At one time, I'd have assumed that anyone with autism (this would have been prior to the concept of an autistic spectrum—one that I may very well be on the high-functioning end of!; I have some mild Asperger-ish traits) would welcome having that "affliction" "cured"; today, I recognize that making someone neurotypical, should we ever know how to do so, would arguably alter them to such a degree that they'd scarcely be the same person. A frightening thought that I certainly never entertain vis–à-vis my color vision. I have a harder time getting there with deafness (and blindness), which to some degree still strike me as a straightforward...well, handicap, I guess. Ruben removing his implants because he's repulsed by the harsh, discordant simulacrum of sound they provide seems tantamount to me wearing special contact lenses that show the world in greyscale, rather than enjoying the colors I can see. It's not quite the same, admittedly, since I have no memory of what colors are supposed to look like. But I still involuntarily recoiled a bit at what's clearly meant to be a choice that we'll applaud, or at least understand. I kind of understand. But there's also a first-reel-Ruben part of me that sees it as giving up. 

Files

Comments

Anonymous

I liked this a little more than you did, but I still chuckled with anticipation when you ended your first paragraph with "so let's tackle the movie's formal cowardice first." Never change, Mike.

Anonymous

As always, this is immaculately articulated.

Anonymous

Wonderful example of why I’m happy to pay for your thoughts.

Anonymous

Thanks for getting into all this. I find myself of two minds on all this. I am glancingly aware of Disability Studies and understand that Deafness, in particular, has become a culture, with its own language (of course) but also its own norms and values. I respect that many Deaf people (big-D) don't want deafness (little-d) eradicated because it would represent the destruction of that culture, the way assimilation or colonialism have destroyed small ethnic populations. At the same time, I think that anyone who desires implants should be able to get them. A Deafness advocate might well argue that this is the same as being able to take a hypothetical melanin pill to "cure" being Black. And I would not have an easy answer for this challenge. I think about this a lot because my son is deaf in one ear. He got a hearing aid, but he found he could not adjust to it. The sound was too harsh and mechanical, plus it picked up all manner of tiny noises that cluttered his hearing and thinking. He does fine with his one hearing ear, but he does speak very loudly, and an attentive listener would discern that he's partially deaf. I don't know. I can't imagine life without music (or art), but that's clearly ableist privilege. I can't imagine life with or without something I never had. It's simply not there.

Anonymous

"Similarly, a potentially great movie about this subject would have shifted permanently into Ruben's soundscape—and without subtitles, either (until he learns to sign, at least)" With much respect (love your writing), I understand this sentiment but that seems more than a little unreasonable from an audience accessibility stand-point. Aren't you alienating the very group this film portrays by not allowing them the same sensory means to understand all of what's being conveyed on screen as ableist viewers? The entire film was deliberately shown with subtitles at festivals, but from what I read the Amazon Prime release only included what was perceived as "necessary" ones, and I saw this draw much ire in deaf circles (I saw a festival cut so can't speak to the validity of the subtitle change). But calling this film out for "formal cowardice" for aiming to make it more straightforwardly viewable for the under-represented group it spotlights seems like a pretty heedless complaint. I know you preface the piece saying it would get personal, but this really read to me as someone whose thoughts are so occupied with their own preconceived notions of what the film "should be" they start dismissing what the film is aiming to communicate - kind of making the point of the sitting/stillness exercise bit you seemed to take offense to, no offense; I found that sentiment/activity quite mindful, in dealing with my own racing thought anxiety issues.

Anonymous

Haven’t seen the movie yet, but I glanced at this review and I just wanted to say that as someone with decently bad OCD and high-functioning autism, some of the stories you posted on twitter about your childhood (like grading other students’ papers) were very familiar to me.

gemko

I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m advocating. There would be no spoken dialogue, essentially. (At best it would be heard as indecipherably muffled; I’m not opposed to captioning that sort of thing.) I’m saying don’t subtitle the sign language for hearing viewers. Deaf viewers would have more access, not less.

Anonymous

Mike, were you not also bothered by the completely pointless third act? I found it cliched to a fault

gemko

In hindsight, I worded the part about subtitles in a confusing way. The film as is (on Amazon, at least) leaves sign language unsubtitled until Ruben learns it. I meant “Remove the audible spoken dialogue (and don’t help hearing viewers out by adding subs, either).” Not “take out any subs that are there now.”

gemko

Can something be clichéd not to a fault? I think those last three words only work if they’re modifying something that at least potentially could be good (but isn’t because it’s been overdone). Anyway, the third act was actually my favorite part, though that’s not saying much. Partly because it looked for a while as if the film were deviating from its inspirational path, but mostly because Amalric, who’s superb.

Anonymous

I don't know, I wasn't bowled over by the two acts before but they were engaging. Once we get to the third act, it just feels like another "heres another White Rich Girl returing to her bourgeois life and leaving behind her former rebelleion etc.", which just made everything between her and Riz's relationship just not interesting. But I guess we won't agree since I thought the parts before were not that bad to be honest (not as amazing as everyone makes it to be though)

Anonymous

Thank you for this review, Mike, as it shares most of the issues I had with the film. However I (in my own timidness) thought that I was somehow off-base because I didn't find anyone else expressing these thoughts. I still love the whole part when Ruben comes to his gf's family home (and the ending was decent), but the whole first half or so felt just so one-dimensional and feel-goody bland without (like you said) any formal risks that would lend themselves to the story. I also agree with your position on deafness-is-not-a-handicap (me also being color deficient in sight, no less), and the latter was the only criticism of the movie I've seen elsewhere.

Anonymous

I haven't watched this yet, and tbh not sure if I could take it--about 2.5 years ago, I suddenly lost the high frequency hearing in my left ear from SSHL, and I've played in loud rock bands for ~20 years and had to learn how to adjust playing/watching music and dealing with partial hearing loss (which wasn't a result of exposure to playing/listening to live music). My right ear is perfect, and I still have some hearing in my left ear, but I'm completely terrified of losing all my hearing now.