Marlee Matlin's performance was certainly deserving of an Oscar, notwithstanding her then-boyfriend William Hurt's odious remark asking her why she thought she was deserving of the award against so many older and more experienced nominees. Otherwise I was disappointed in the treatment this subject received. There is a powerful story to be told from Sarah (Matlin's) perspective but it is buried under a very standard rom-dram treatment and is unfortunately related from the point of view of the teacher, James (William Hurt), who in essence tries to break the wild mare Sarah represents. Of course this approach at the time was dictated by the constraints on making a commercially successful Hollywood film, but today it seems a bit disrespectful of the point of view of the hearing-impaired (for the record I am not hearing-impaired, so perhaps I am not even in a position to make this judgment). But to me it did seem to somehow trivialize the story and make it less impactful than it might have been.
Having a deaf central character was not novel at the time; Johnny Belinda comes immediately to mind. Having a deaf actor play the part, I believe, was novel and worthy of recognition all the way around.
The plot is otherwise quite formulaic and undramatic in that sense. Other commenters have made this point so I won't belabor it with my own examples. I will also agree that having William Hurt repeat vocally everything that Matlin signed (so the audience could understand it) quickly became tedious. Maybe subtitles wouldn't have worked either, but much of what Matlin's character was "saying" was obvious from the context or could have been gleaned from Hurt's responses. Certainly by the halfway point I knew the signs for "I love you" and this, at least, didn't have to be vocalized by Hurt every time Maitlan or Hurt said it (which is often). Imagine making this film in such a way that the audience could better appreciate the silent world of the deaf and in which the audience had to make an effort to understand what Matlin was saying, or to grasp what she meant or was feeling (at least some of the time). Now that would be a moving experience, and one closer to emotional reality. I wonder if it could be done?
Count me also as deploring the score; those synths which were maybe novel (and probably cheap) in the 1980s sound cheap and superficially plasticine today. The diegetic music, perhaps other than the Staples Singers, is also typically awful of some of the pop sounds of the era.
Having a deaf central character was not novel at the time; Johnny Belinda comes immediately to mind. Having a deaf actor play the part, I believe, was novel and worthy of recognition all the way around.
The plot is otherwise quite formulaic and undramatic in that sense. Other commenters have made this point so I won't belabor it with my own examples. I will also agree that having William Hurt repeat vocally everything that Matlin signed (so the audience could understand it) quickly became tedious. Maybe subtitles wouldn't have worked either, but much of what Matlin's character was "saying" was obvious from the context or could have been gleaned from Hurt's responses. Certainly by the halfway point I knew the signs for "I love you" and this, at least, didn't have to be vocalized by Hurt every time Maitlan or Hurt said it (which is often). Imagine making this film in such a way that the audience could better appreciate the silent world of the deaf and in which the audience had to make an effort to understand what Matlin was saying, or to grasp what she meant or was feeling (at least some of the time). Now that would be a moving experience, and one closer to emotional reality. I wonder if it could be done?
Count me also as deploring the score; those synths which were maybe novel (and probably cheap) in the 1980s sound cheap and superficially plasticine today. The diegetic music, perhaps other than the Staples Singers, is also typically awful of some of the pop sounds of the era.