I chanced to watch a short film (oscar winning,apparently) recently on youtube (the Silent Child). And that has given me a reason to return to my blog sooner than I had expected.
For all the thought and effort that might have gone into making this one, the film is heavily one-sided in its narration. Did the makers intend to suggest that there are parents who are in the oblivion about sign language in the present day and age of technological advancements?
It is praise worthy that the young makers came up with a storyline that caters to bringing aforth the lives of differently abled. However by binding that to the more popular themes of sin(extra marital affairs) the film unknowingly drops its worth tremendously.
On the one hand is the protagonist who cycles her way, to work with the child and is tearful when the child is abruptly put in a school where she doess not receive necessary support, we are introduced to the mother who is clearly a personification of all that a parent must not be- guilty, closed and partial (towards her other children) on the other.
Do the makers suggest that family and schools are failures as institutions when it comes to understanding the needs of the less able?
Did they want to portray through the short film the protagonist's empathy or the parents' apathy?
I find I am more inclined towards documentaries than films, as I age.....
Came across one about the same topic- parents of a son who is growing increasingly deaf...
There certainly was more depth and empathy and love in that documentary (in case my blog raises your curisity about it.)
And no I am not promoting the documentary- just struck how different versions of the same story there exist for an audience (Oscars?!) to choose from.
No comments:
Post a Comment