Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Sound and Fury More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 17 reviews in total |
18 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Heartbreaking, 18 November 2002
Author:
Carina (carinaelf@yahoo.com) from Ohio
This documentary was excellently done, and completely heartbreaking.
Mostly this was hard for me because my mother, deaf from birth, had a
cochlear implant over four years ago, with wildly successful results. She
did not have the implant because people were pressuring her to do so, nor
did she do it because she did not like herself the way she was, she did it
in order to experience sound.
She was warned that it was very unlikely for her to develop speech
recognition, and that the most she could hope for were recognition of
environmental sounds. She asked me what I thought about it, and I said,
"Go
for it! It's worth a shot!" To me, and most of my family, the chance to
hear music seemed worth it alone. So what she never becomes a "hearing
person"- truly that's not the goal anyway. The point is that hearing sound
is a tremendous experience most of the hearing world takes for granted,
and
if you have the opportunity to hear even some of the world of sound, why
not
take it?
My mother has never really been part of the deaf culture as defined by
this
film, she learned to lipread and speak excellently and was able to
function
very successfully without the ability to hear, as many deaf individuals
do.
After she got the implant, my mother worked incredibly hard to develop
speech recognition, astounding her audiologists. She truly proves that if
you are highly motivated you can do it. She was also amazed at the things
that made sound, plastic bags crinkling, dry autumn leaves under your
feet,
and the buzz of street lamps.
My mom would be the first to tell you that it's worth the risk, recovery
and
work required. Not because you become part of "the hearing world" but
because you gain a sense. You can hear a child cry, a dog bark, a bird
sing.
Personally, I feel really disgusted with parents of children who are
eligible for the surgery and don't go for it. It's not a question of deaf
culture or not- it's a question of knowingly depriving a child of the
chance
to develop their sense of hearing.
I object strongly to the deaf community's feeling that hearing people
can't
accept them the way they are. That may be some people's thinking, but it's
not everyone's. I certainly didn't think that when my mother decided
against
the implant years ago, then for it four years ago. It was up to her at
that
point. With children, the chance for developing speech and speech
recognition is so great, and so much slimmer if they were to wait- that
deciding against it for a child is really taking away an opportunity that
is
once in a life time.
Is development of speech and the sense of hearing necessary for a child?
Hearing people would say yes, many deaf people would say no. Fair enough.
I
agree that it's not necessary, but rather a luxury? Why not allow a person
the opportunity to do it if the technology exists? Sign language and deaf
culture will never be extinct, because the cochlear implant is not for
every
kind of hearing loss. It is also not a cure-all- an implant patient only
hears when his or her implant is turned on. They are still deaf.
And in all honesty- does it really matter? If you have the chance to make
your child's life easier and fuller by giving him or her the ability to
hear
sounds that perhaps you as a deaf parent never heard, it is selfish to
stop
them just because you yourself may never have the opportunity. A hearing
child will still be a part of your family, hearing or not.
This film was a more than fair look at both sides of the issue, and
produced
in me a myriad of emotions and thoughts.
10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
To see and also hear . . . that is the question, 28 March 2000
Author:
Timothy Damon (thd@cwru.edu) from Cleveland, Ohio
If your child were born with a disability which medical technology could
cure, would you use it? Stupid question, you might say. But it might depend
on your definition of "disability" and your environment.
SOUND AND FURY deals with the questions raised by the development of
cochlear implants which can restore hearing for those with congenital
deafness. Very few (if any) people in the hearing world would think this to
be a bad thing, but within the deaf community some see this as encroaching
technology which will eventually obliterate deaf culture and sign
language.
This is one of the best documentaries I've seen in some time - partly
because it really made me think (reminding me of the statement 'If you make
people think they're thinking - they'll love you. If you *really* make them
think, they'll hate you.')
I didn't feel hate - but I experienced some very strong emotions. Not
nearly
as much as those on screen, though. I was exposed to a situation in which I
didn't think there could be more than one side - and was brought to the
realization that there was. A very provocative film.
There was a forum after the screening of the film I attended with Josh
Aronson (the director), a local pediatric surgeon who's done a number of
implants, the mother of a young girl who'd had an implant operation by this
surgeon, and a person from the Theatre for the Deaf in the area. I was best
able to appreciate the feeling of some of those in the deaf community when
the theatre director made an analogy to the Borg in STAR TREK (I
paraphrase): A lot of people in the deaf community see cochlear implants
like the Borg - instead of going through the eye, the implants go through
the skull by the ear. It seems like hearing society is saying to the deaf
society "You will be assimilated - resistance is futile."
How important is deaf culture? Whose responsibility is it to choose whether
a child should get an implant? To delay and "let the child make the choice
later" can very much be like choosing no, as the window for brain
plasticity
for language narrows with every passing year. Are parents who don't get an
implant for their child, thereby keeping them in the deaf community
"abusive"?
An interesting film raising intriguing questions.
10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Another worthwhile documentary, 30 September 2006
Author:
Bill (darling137@aol.com) from Kabul, Afghanistan
I really enjoy documentaries, especially ones that don't have an axe to
grind. Though I have no particular interest in the "deaf culture" (my
exposure has been limited to a bunch of deaf folks who are in a dart
league at the local sports pub), I was drawn into this documentary.
Like another reviewer noted, I found myself getting a little emotional
at the end. In fact, throughout the movie I was emotionally involved
with a subject matter I would never thought I would.
I was struck by the elitist nature of a certain element of the deaf
community. Many of the deaf people in the film were extremely
antagonistic toward anything that would remove deafness or a deaf
person from their community. While this is understandable, I found it
extremely selfish. Not only were many in complete denial that deafness
inhibited their quality of life whatsoever (are we still allowed to use
the word handicapped???), some considered it superior to the "hearing
world." I noted with irony that many of the deaf family members at the
picnic who were so repulsed by the idea of a cocklear implant were
wearing glasses; obviously they considered being born with or having
deteriorating eyesight something in need of fixing. Their attitude
reminded me of other defensive groups such as un(der)educated parents
(hey, I did OK, why does my son need to go to college) or racial
minorities (oh, you just want to make her "white").
Even without the controversial subject of the cocklear implant this is
a great study in generations as it is the old story of parents either
wanting their kids (adult kids) wanting them to either be like them or
to have it better than they had it.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
The positive in negativity, 3 January 2002
Author:
joelpt (jpt@mindless.com) from Seattle WA
Every so often, a movie comes along which disturbs me -- not because it is
graphical or offensive in nature, but because it is genuinely upsetting to
watch. This is one such movie.
And these are the movies I value highest, because they cause you to
*think*
-- whereas most movies intend to produce the exactly opposite effect.
Although I would not describe this movie as leaving one with a warm fuzzy
feeling afterward, I will say that I am better for having watched it. It
was a powerful reminder of the real danger that ignorance and pride pose
to
each of us in this world -- a danger that, both ironically and fittingly,
we
may never come to realize because of circumstances outside of our
control.
11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Deaf World vs CI, 7 November 2005
Author:
cheriesnow from United States
I have been involved with the Deaf world for about 20 years and when I
saw this film I was deeply moved, but not the way most of the viewers
who commented were. I see the Deaf world as a minority and this film,
though showing that Deaf Culture is precious to Deaf people, seemed to
leave that part out. If we had a pill that would turn African Americans
or other racial groups white, would we want them to take it so their
lives would be made easier? I don't think so. It is the same with Deaf
people. They do not see themselves as handicapped. They can do
everything that hearing people can do, except hear. It is we, the
hearing community, not the Deaf themselves, that limit them. With the
CI, not one mentioned that that boy would be limited in the choices he
would be able to make in school, that he would not be able to
participate in sports for the most part. That choice was taken away
from him. I have seen this before and I have seen how hurt the deaf boy
was. So hurt in fact that he stopped using the CI and entered the Deaf
world while he was still in high school. But it was too late for him to
experience basketball, football, swimming, baseball. He could only sit
on the sidelines and watch as his friends, both deaf and hearing,
played. As with the deaf girl with the CI in the deaf family, her
speech was not that clear, but the deaf father said that her
grandmother said it was perfect. How ironic. Do you think the hearing
children she played with thought so?
It also did not talk about the dangers of the CI surgery. It is brain
surgery and it is seldom that the dangers of infections to the brain
and the resulting consequences are spoken of. It didn't talk of the
paralysis that sometimes occurs or the fact that it might not work. The
surgeon told the parents that their son would hear. He didn't tell them
any negatives. Personally, I would not want to have surgery until I
could understand all of the ramifications and risks involved.
I felt that this film leaned heavily on the promotion of CI surgery as
a cure-all for deafness. It left many issues untouched. The Deaf
parents were called abusive by several of the people in the film. I
don't see it as abuse. They were willing to allow their child to make
the decision at a later date. The girl was learning language, it just
wasn't spoken. The CI by it's very nature turns a deaf child away from
the culture by emphasizing speech and hearing and de-emphasizing sign
language. The hearing mother of the deaf son was making sure that it
would be difficult for her son to communicate with her Deaf parents.
She is content to take from the Deaf world as an interpreter, but she
is also willing to insult it when her own child is born deaf. The film
was interesting, but it did not come close to looking at many of the
important issues of the Deaf World and CI.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Solid, emotionally complex documentary, 28 April 2011
Author:
runamokprods from US
Moving, emotionally and morally complex documentary about a family with
both hearing and deaf members, including two sets of parents of deaf
children. One set of parents are hearing, the other deaf themselves.
The fathers are brothers.
The hearing parents want a cochlear implant for their deaf baby,
angering and alienating the deaf relatives who see the operation as a
threat to deaf culture. The even more complex story is that of the 5
year old deaf daughter of the deaf parents. The little girl wants the
implant, and that creates an awful emotional dilemma for the parents
who have to question whether denying their daughter the operation is
the right thing to do.
There are a few minor annoyances. The families try to act like the
camera isn't there, but it clearly is awkwardly affecting their
behavior. Also, I wish the film had subtitled the sign language, rather
than having less-than-great actors give their own inflection and
emotional interpretation to what'™s being said, which may or may not be
accurate.
But these are minor problems for a film that tackles a complex issue
with intelligence and even-handedness.
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
I found several moments quite telling in this documentary, 8 January 2007
Author:
Robert Reynolds (minniemato@hotmail.com) from Tucson AZ
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Let me state at the outset that I come to this film with a different
viewpoint than most people. I can understand, to a degree, what it is
to be an "other", as I am disabled (I have Cerebral Palsy and I use
crutches), though the advocates of the concept of a "deaf culture"
would probably say that the two situations aren't at all analogous, as
their world view largely rests on the presumption that deafness isn't a
"disability", but rather provides a sense of community to them. I beg
to differ with that position, as they are limited by the inability to
hear, whether they like that truth or not. While there is a modicum of
accuracy in the proposition that it is the hearing who create some of
those limitations, it must also be understood that the world will be
designed to the specifications of the majority and the majority can
hear. The whole conceit of there being a "deaf culture" in the first
place is simply a shield against acknowledging that their deafness is a
hindrance to them in a world managed, by and large, for those who can
hear. What's happened is that an artificial and insular bubble has been
created so that those who created it can pretend that they aren't
disadvantaged or limited at all. This documentary is very instructive
on this premise, as I will show in my comments below. As I have to use
the documentary to illustrate my point, there will be spoilers:
Throughout this documentary, the advocates of the importance of
maintaining "deaf culture" maintain a hostility towards anyone seeking
to do or say anything which they perceive as being in any way an
indication that deafness is not a desirable characteristic. The father
whose daughter is at the center of one of the two debates openly says
that he was happy when he found out his daughter was deaf, because she
was just like him. He is opposed to the CI procedure almost every
moment from the beginning and he seems more resigned than accepting
when his wife says she thinks their daughter should have the operation.
When the final decision not to have his daughter undergo the CI
procedure is made, he takes the step of moving to a largely deaf
community which is truly a kind of enclave, an escape from a hearing
world he'd rather shun than deal with.
I find it most fascinating that when Heather says she wants the
procedure, whenever she's asked why, she has any number of reasons. As
things progress and her parents clearly and vehemently argue against
their daughter getting the implant, you can see the reaction of her
parents is not lost on their daughter. There's a conversation between
the mother (who was at first interested in the procedure, but starts
turning against the idea when she learns that her daughter will be
encouraged to drop using sign in favor of using speech-the mother then
worries that she'll drop out of the "deaf culture" in doing so) and her
daughter where the daughter says, after her mother asks her for her
feelings on having an implant, that she doesn't want one. When asked
for reasons,the daughter gives none, just restates that she doesn't
want one. Having gotten the answer she wanted, the mother doesn't
press, instead suggesting that it was her decision, after all, at which
point the daughter looks at her and makes it clear that she understood
that her parents had made the decision (which, of course, they did) and
the mother infers that it was a mutual decision.
All through this, those deaf people who are unhappy with any suggestion
that the CI procedure could be a positive thing react as though it was
a personal affront, as if the person making the suggestion didn't think
that they were "good enough". One woman, a grandmother to the baby
whose parents opted to have a CI done, openly laments being made fun of
by a once deaf and now hearing grandchild. Can anyone tell me that a
person can make that kind of a statement and still claim with a
straight face (and be believable) that they only have the child's best
interests at heart? Let me also state, for the record, that I don't
know if I would opt for the CI procedure for myself, though for
different reasons-it's a major invasive procedure and I'd have to weigh
the risks independently.
I probably wouldn't be making a comment on this had it not been
glaringly obvious that most of the adults behaved more like children
than the children did. The parents of the two children who were the
focus of the debate are, after all, the parents and have the right (but
also the obligation) to make the decisions respectively, but I would
have been far more sympathetic to the parents of Heather when they were
complaining that everyone was trying to gang up on them for their
decision not to go with an implant for their daughter (the scene with
the mother bursting into tears near the end) had they and the other
proponents of "deaf culture" not been ganging up on the parents who
opted to have the CI procedure for their son. They expected to be
accorded a respect for their decision which did not see fit to extend
and they were far more vehement in their comments to the other parents
in opposition than the other couple was to them. Any courtesy you
demand for yourself you should immediately give to others without any
hesitation or qualification.
Thought-provoking and generally excellent documentary and well worth
seeing. Recommended.
Sound and Fury, 10 May 2012
Author:
mikiah-sigmen
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The film Sound and Fury, since it is based on a very controversial
topic, is bound to be controversial. Also, as the title indicates,
there is a lot of "fury" and intense emotions involved with the story.
Overall, I didn't like the movie because I felt that it was overly
melodramatic and left the viewer with even fewer options than they had
at the beginning.
While it may not be true in all situations or with all individuals,
people in general tend to have a hard time accepting alternative
viewpoints, especially when emotions are involved. This movie was a
great example of how stubborn, unreasonable, and base people can become
when they don't get their way. Essentially, both sides resorted to
personal insults when they couldn't get the other group to agree.
Instead of rationally discussing the issue, all they did was say, "You
don't understand!" or "They are abusive parents!" It was apparent that,
as a family group, they did not have good communication skills. It
really bothered me that the majority of the movie didn't talk about the
pros and cons of the issue of cochlear implants, but instead focused on
the opposing camps insulting each other. I understand that this is a
very emotional subject, but there has to be a better way of handling
the situation.
After I watched the movie, I found myself wondering "What would I do?"
Because of the way that the movie presented the information, I really
don't know. I felt that they made both sides out as being the
antagonist, and I didn't like that. Both families were different and
they were each trying to do what they felt was right – I think that
they both made the right decision for their families – but because
those stands are in opposition to each other, they can never be
reconciled. For me, perhaps because I don't like conflict, it left me
feeling confused and upset. Essentially, there is no right answer.
Whatever someone decides to do, they will make one world angry.
Despite all of the video's shortcomings, I did learn a lot about
cochlear implants and the options that are available to parents with
deaf children. It definitely demonstrated that deaf people have a voice
– they are not in any way inferior human beings just because they can't
hear. I think that it would have been best for the children to have
parts of both worlds, but when I read the reviews of the movie, I found
an interesting point-of-view. One viewer said:
As a hearing person, I was all for the implant, until a thought struck
me: what if my child came to me and said, "Mom, I want to have surgery
to make me a white person?" (for the record, I'm Afr.-American). My kid
would be able to make a lot of the arguments for such a surgery as
people in the movie make for the implant: be able to take advantage of
all the opportunities out there, not be discriminated against/made fun
of by others, etc. My reaction would be a lot like the reaction many of
the deaf/ASL people in the movie have to the implant--I would be
enraged by the mere suggestion.
That comment opened up a whole new dimension to the argument. When it
comes down to it, being deaf is not really different than speaking a
foreign language and being part of a different culture. Hearing
children (or children with cochlear implants) of deaf adults are kind
of like the English-speaking children of immigrants – they are part of
two communities and they might be comfortable in both, or they might
feel like they don't belong to either one. There is no magic solution.
Sometimes, it may not be possible to have the "best of both worlds". I
really don't know, and this movie left me with a lot of questions and
not very many answers. If that was the filmmakers' intention, then they
did a good job.
Works Cited
Rev. of Sound and Fury. Netflix. Netflix, Inc. Web. 9 May 2012.
http://movies.netflix.com.
Sound and Fury. Dir. Josh Aronson. Perf. Chris Artinian, Mari Artinian,
Peter Artinian, Nita Artinian. Artistic License, 2001. DVD.
How scientific progress might not always be progressive..., 12 February 2012
Author:
TheDocHierarchy from United Kingdom
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If you had a deaf child, but treatment existed to return their hearing,
would you go ahead with the surgery?
Seems simple, right. Not.
Long Island, circa 2000.
Peter Artinian and his wife Nita are deaf, as are their three children.
Proud members of a wider deaf community, the couple view the deficiency
as a blessing - one they are happy to share with their offspring.
However, when their five-year old daughter Heather - a clearly bright
young girl - relates her desire to have a cochlear implant, they are
forced to reluctantly investigate the then-revolutionary treatment.
Chris Artinian, Peter's brother, is not deaf, nor is his wife. However
with deafness in both their families, it comes as only a minor shock
when one of their new-born twins is diagnosed as deaf. Four years
younger than cousin Heather, cochlear surgery for the baby would be
slightly safer and offer a greater prospect of success (defined as
keeping up academically with mainstream 'hearers').
The heart and beauty of 'Sound and Fury' is the apparent simplicity of
the initial dilemma, and the manner in which it is slowly and
systematically undermined by Aronson. We are taken inside a proud, but
insular, deaf community that has largely usurped the difficulties we
may wantonly have considered insurmountable; a memorable exchange at a
deaf school barbecue ends with Artinian family friends describing their
own professions and responsibilities, all achieved with their supposed
'disability' (not 'despite' it).
Peter Artinian is the real bulldog to this end however. With his heart
worn passionately on his sleeve, the translation of his sign language
is almost unnecessary - we know how much he cares for his daughter; we
get how concerned he is that the surgery may prove unsuccessful and
leave Heather stranded between communities; we understand how much he
wants his family to not see their deafness as a disability. Yet the
nagging suspicion that he would be denying her certain opportunities
persists.
For Chris and his wife Mari, as a family of hearers, the decision
appears simpler - despite the opposition of his brother and his wife's
deaf parents. Supported by his own parents, their journey is less
whether they desire the implant than whether the surgery is worth the
risk - does it offer everything they have been told?
The results are never clear; as one might naturally expect, Chris and
Mari focus on those who have been successes, Peter manages to find
those who have struggled. Ironically, as each brother affirms his
decision, we only grow more conflicted.
Heart-wrenching.
Concluding Thought: I hope sign language never dies out. It is so very
raw and human.
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Told by an idiot signifying nothing, 6 February 2001
Author:
plaster from las vegas
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And
then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
MacBeth, v. iii.
Sound and fury is as robust a movie as I can recall having ever seen. It
speaks heartily of life and of the dilemmas and difficult decisions we all
face. It confronts modernity and the extinction of culture. This film
speaks of decisions made that are incomprehensible to other members of the
same family. It speaks of steps that are superficially modest but whose
consequences are mammoth. These are the decisions that we make daily and
may eventually destroy human life on this rock. Sound and fury asks each
of us in a soft voice if we are part of the problem or the solution. It
is
a moving picture.
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
Related Links
| Amazon.com summary | Ratings | Awards |
| Newsgroup reviews | External reviews | Official site |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.