MovieChat Forums > The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter (1968) Discussion > The ASL

The ASL

posted 14 years ago by Shmeep
8 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this for the first time in years and it was very uncomfortable for me to watch it with my Deaf husband. I cringed every time someone said "deaf mute" and especially "dummy," but those expressions are from a certain era and were true to the times. The moment that made my husband cringe the most was when Mick was being asked out while Mr. Singer was with her and, when she was asked to talk alone, she said, "He can't hear. Just go where he can't read your lips."

Here's my beef with the movie: the signing. I'm an interpreter and I didn't for a moment buy that Alan Arkin was Deaf. His expressions were okay and the way he watched people, but his signing was basic at best and half of it seemed to be either incorrectly formed or was flat-out made up. This was very disappointing. I read the book a few years ago (I read it in high school, but re-read it as an interpreter with a Deaf husband so my take was different) and I thought the deafness was handled well in writing. It was very clear that the only time Singer expressed himself was with Antonapoulos, although he knew very little of it was understood. Still, he would sign with him, telling him all about his life and his deepest thoughts. In the movie, he used the most basic of signs and only said things he thought Antonapoulos would understand. Most of his conversations with him were things like, "Be a good boy...you're a silly boy...eat it, it's good for you...we have to go, the doctor is cranky..." That was just the stuff I was able to understand. Sometimes I swear Singer was just signing gibberish and then Antonapoulos was mimicking it back. This makes sense, since Antonapoulos was so low functioning, but it's not the way it was written in the book and it's clear that Alan Arkin was incapable of signing much of anything. When he went with the doctor to help translate for the Deaf patient, the signing was a little better. I got the impression the patient was possibly really deaf--or at least he was fluent in ASL. It made a huge difference. When Singer signed to him, his interpretations looked awkward, but at least the signs were real so that was a relief.

Being alone almost had to have been a choice for Singer's character. Deaf people are attracted to areas where other Deaf people live and there have historically been Deaf clubs and other ways they got together regularly. The book made it clear that Singer attended a Deaf school for his education which automatically means he was part of a Deaf social circle that was broken up when people graduated and went their separate ways. Still, he had to have had friends from that time who could have been his equal in conversation and he could easily have kept up with them and moved close to some of them, so it never made sense to me that he moved to such an isolated location. His family didn't seem to be there.

Overall, I like what the movie tried to do, but it would have benefitted by having a real Deaf person playing the lead. I'm not someone who believes all disabled roles should be played by people with those specific disabilities. Many talented able-bodied actors are brilliant at being paralyzed or blind or autistic and the casting makes sense. This is almost never true with Deaf characters. To the untrained eye, a hearing actor might pass for Deaf, but anyone who knows the language would be able to spot a non-native signer. Deaf people can spot my interpreter accent and I'm fluent and use ASL as my language at home so imagine how Alan Arkin's awkward signing and gestures look to a Deaf person. Many Deaf people are naturally gifted actors, since they spend their lives being expressive enough to make their feelings known to hearing non signers, so finding one to fit that role would not have been very difficult.

I'm not in love with Children of a Lesser God or Mr. Holland's Opus, but both are very realistic and have real Deaf people playing the Deaf roles. Both movies are full of legitimate ASL. It's refreshing.

[–] jconn426 14 years ago

To be fair, this movie was not intended as a documentary, nor was it even marketed to the deaf community, otherwise it would have been presented with onscreen subtitles throughout. It was a "message" movie based on a best-selling 1940 novel and set in turbulent 1968. Alan Arkin was cast as Singer when he was still fresh from his 1966 Academy Award nomination for his very first motion picture. If you can name one deaf and/or mute actor in 1968 that had any sort of name recognition, I'll personally post an apology here.

Movies then, as now, make all sorts of gaffes when it comes to details. Arkin learned enough ASL to do his lines. You may complain about his form, but at least it was real. Had he just ad-libbed the whole thing you would have a legitimate argument. Personally, I have more of a problem with the black doctor's attitude towards helping an obviously injured white man. Not only was he fully prepared to violate his Hippocratic oath (he actually walked away until Singer put a guilt trip on him), but the first aid he rendered was not properly followed up with an ambulance call. (Stacey Keach was seen ramming his head into a wall repeatedly before collapsing on the street. Concussion/contusion, anyone?)

[–] Shmeep 14 years ago

Marlee Matlin was unknown when she was cast in Children of a Lesser God, which led to an Oscar for her.

[–] jconn426 14 years ago

Yes, twenty years later, opposite an established star of that era.

[–] Shmeep 14 years ago

Rather than explaining why a Deaf actor would have been a really good thing in this film, I should have responded to the part about this movie not being a documentary marketed to the Deaf community. No one would expect such a thing, but a little preparation and research would have gone a long way.

I just saw Black Swan over the weekend. Natalie Portman lost twenty pounds and spent ten months doing intensive ballet training just so she could be believable--and she did this despite having a body double doing the more complex moves for her. The movie wasn't marketed to ballerinas, but if one were to watch, I'm certain all the preparation would be appreciated.

In The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, my guess would be they didn't even have a Deaf consultant there showing everyone what Deaf people are even like. Alan Arken signs like someone told him, half an hour before the shoot, "Just sign those sentences we showed you from that book over and over and make up the rest. No one will notice." No one showed him how to watch hearing people while trying to understand what they're saying and no one showed the hearing cast how to speak while having their lips read. Only 30% of the English language is visible on the lips so the rest is put together from context and body language and lots of guessing. Hearing people instinctively start gesturing and pointing when they're not sure they're being understood. I see it all the time. People often think I'm Deaf when I'm out with my husband and I see what they do to try to be understood by us. The movie occasionally has Singer asking for repetition, but he understands far too much with far too little gesturing from the hearing people. The silliest thing I saw was when Singer and the doctor were driving together and Singer was sitting completely sideways in his seat so he could lipread the doctor as he drove and talked.

I'm not saying this isn't a good movie. It is. It's just not authentic from a Deaf perspective--at least not the way it was acted here. The book makes it clear Singer doesn't understand nearly as much as people think he does, but the author displays her own ignorance at times by writing inaccurate things about ASL. She says, in the first chapter, that Singer had learned to sign one-handed in the American way and two-handed in the European way. ASL is two handed with a one-handed alphabet and she obviously didn't know this. England has a two-handed alphabet, but we got our alphabet from France so I really don't know what she was talking about.

Anyway, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from enjoying this movie, I just don't want people to think it's a well-researched and believable depiction of deafness--even in that era. Deaf people are far more sociable than that and it's very unlikely an orphan raised by a Deaf institution would have strayed so far from his own community in the first place.

[–] jconn426 14 years ago

Once again, it was not intended as a documentary or an educational film. It was a rather low-budget "message" movie about tolerance and loneliness. Consider its treatment of sign language and casting of a non-hearing-impaired lead actor as about as "technically correct" as the workings of a spaceship or alien/human interbreeding in a typical Star Trek or Lost In Space TV script of that era.

[–] Alfriend 14 years ago

"I have more of a problem with the black doctor's attitude towards helping an obviously injured white man. Not only was he fully prepared to violate his Hippocratic oath (he actually walked away until Singer put a guilt trip on him), but the first aid he rendered was not properly followed up with an ambulance call."

You must not be familiar at all with the struggles that African Americans had down south at that time. His unwillingness to treat Keach was not only about his feelings towards white people, but also his own safety and well-being. He clearly explained later to Singer that had a white person seen this who took exception to it, he would have been perceived as being "uppity". An act like this seen by the wrong people could have easily incited a lynching for him and even his daughter and son-in-law. The doctor also could not call an ambulance for the same reason

The whole ramifications of the episode that occurs with Willie and the white people at the fair as well all started because Willie goes out of his way to be human and help the white woman by catching her before she fell off the merry-go-round. As you well know the consequences of Willie's kind act causes all sorts of trauma. This was an effect of African Americans who had crossed the line by touching a white person-- even worse a white woman.

[–] Alfriend 14 years ago

Wow, thanks for this information. I am a great fan of the film and saw it in the movies when it opened. It's sad to note that the director and actors were not able to do a better job at getting the ASL more correct and fluent. What is often lost on mainstream audiences are that there are hearing impaired people out there who would also see the film. As it is a rare event in film for hearing impaired people to be portrayed you would have hoped that they would have gotten it right. Were I fluent in ASL and/or hearing impaired, I too would be disappointed and offended.

Ironically there was a lot of Oscar press about how Alan Arkin and Chuck McCann worked long and hard to study ASL and the whole experience that hearing impaired people deal with on a daily basis. Perhaps it was that, just pr.

Arkin did this role on the heels of another film (The Russians Are Coming...") that required alot of research. He had to not only learn Russian but also sound like a person from Russia. Now to my American ears, Arkin, Theodore Bikel, John Phillip Law and the other actors playing Russians got it right-- but perhaps to a real Russian they too would have sounded laughable.

As far as the why's and wherefore's of Singer not having someone to share himself with, I believe the book and the film was a metaphor for how people often sleep walk through each others' lives without really understanding one another. Carson McCullers had a terrible life having struggled with life-long illness, strokes, being paralyzed and suicide. My sense is that the isolation of Singer was a metaphor for all that she saw and experienced in her own struggle.

But you are right. Having two real hearing impaired actors in those roles would have been better and far more respectful to the hearing impaired people of the world.

May I ask one question? Do you recall the scene toward the end of the film where Singer is stressed out and walking to see Antonopolis (he later finds out he is dead)and Singer is signing to himself with one hand. Was he actually saying anything that made sense?

Thanks again.

[–] agape3636 13 years ago

People who have special knowledge of a subject are often unhappy with the way that area is portrayed or written. Many times I've watched movies and picked the details apart. Usually southern accents. English friends of mine hate the way Americans do a British accent and when I watch something with an English person playing an American, I can almost always spot it. Military demeanor (they rarely carry themselves as a soldier/sailor/Marine would). The lousy salutes drive my husband crazy. Ad infinitum.

That's why it's acting a part rather than hiring non-professionals and making a documentary (as another commenter noted).

My grandson has speech disabilities and we learned some sign language so we could communicate with him. My skills are very poor, and Alan Arkin was good enough that I couldn't keep up with him.

Movies can always be improved, because they just don't make perfect ones. At least they haven't yet.

Considering all the slop that Hollywood is making now, I feel that The Heart is a Lonely Hunter stands up very well.

And Alan Arkin was fantastic.