Sweet Nothing in My Ear

Fabulous film dealing with the problems of the deaf.

A family is almost destroyed by the conflicting parents of a deaf child. The father, who can hear, wants his son to have a cochlear implant and the mother, who is deaf, is against this.

Jeff Daniels is absolutely fantastic as the father. I have followed his career and am always amazed that this fine actor has been relegated to such miserable parts and films since playing Shirley MacLaine's ill-fated son-in-law in the memorable "Terms of Endearment."

Marlee Matlin is a terrific actress and she is in fine form as the mother.

We learn that deaf people have a culture of their own and we see how other children can be cruel to a deaf child.

Many of our deaf people wish to cling to this culture that they feel will be threatened by these implants.

This is definitely a mesmerizing film which is not to be missed.

I was laying in bed last night, scanning channels and came across 'Sweet Nothing in My Ear'. I hit info and up came that Jeff Daniels was starring, so I figured what the hell--five minutes and I had to see it through to the end regardless of how late at night it was.

The portrayal of deaf communication for hearing listeners is fantastic, I loved the voice-over approach because personally I find subtitles distracting and obviously not everyone who watched the film would be able to understand sign language on it's own, so I loved how they tackled that problem, it really broke the barrier, and got across exactly what the characters themselves were trying to say; deaf people are no different nor less able than hearing people!

The acting is great, I was impressed with Jeff Daniels portraying emotion over his son and wife, especially since the last time I had seen him was when he was hanging out with Jim Carrey and driving a Dog-Van!

In conclusion (to my first ever review on here, so be gentle!) I would definitely recommend checking this movie out as it's heart-warming and very eye-opening. 4/5.

Thanks for reading :)

"Sweet nothing in my ear" is the story (told in retrospect) about a hearing man, his deaf wife and his deaf son and the controversial debate over what is normal and acceptable for all involved.

To tell you the truth, I had not planned to watch this film. Just as a fluke the channel ended up on Hallmark when the program began and as it progressed I was compelled and drawn into the story of hearing and deafness and family and differences and likeness.

I was impressed and appreciative of the way it was handled... with voices being heard for those signing instead of "speaking" as they sign- true to life.

The story was freshly told in a way that allowed the viewer to see all sides of the issue of hearing versus deafness. I also frankly was mesmerized by how those who are deaf can be included and participate in so many experiences that I hadn't realized they could be included in such as going to the movies. The whole telephone set/video was so "Jetson's like" and the trivia of all of those in history who accomplished great and every-day things who were deaf.

At the same time allowing to see the side of the hearing father who mostly was immersed in the deaf world (i.e. his wife, son, in-laws...) and how it excluded him at times.

Truly, I think that if you enjoy family drama- you will enjoy this movie. If you enjoy Hallmark movies as a rule- you will enjoy this movie. If you enjoy films with emotional conflict and human struggle- you will enjoy this movie.

"Sweet nothing in my ear" is a great movie. I gave it a 9 because it not only dealt with such an issue we don't always get to see from every side and did it in a way that all sides can enjoy and appreciate.

I found the following comment on a popular deaf message board run by Amy Cohen, "Deaf World As Eye See It, Bittersweet History of Sweet Nothing In My Ear" and couldn't agree more:

"The choice to voice-over the signing in the Hallmark Production reminded me of old Disney movies in which you would hear the interior monologue of what the pet dog was thinking. Really, what a poor choice on so many levels. Aside from the insult to the Deaf Community, it just didn't work dramatically at all. It was laughable and it made deaf people feel like lesser people. Wow."

What a shame. 20 years ago CBS, the same network, subtitled an episode of "Beauty and the Beast" which starred Terrylene, a deaf actress, along with nine other deaf actors. It worked wonderfully and received a lot of attention and respect for doing so. How far have we regressed since then? How did the deaf who were involved in this production allow this to happen?

The whole point of the movie is lost when the remarkable beauty of sign language, which arises out of its SILENT- VISUALITY is shamefully undercut by SOUND-VOICES and camera frames that chop off the hands. How much longer will the ignorance continue?

We get nice close-ups of people's faces for minutes at a time. Every once in a while you can see a finger or hand flit by. For a film in which the standard mode of communication is American Sign Language, shouldn't you keep the signed conversation on-screen? Also, were the actors specifically directed to act deadpan? I have seen Marlee Matlin act very expressively before, so some other force must have been at work. During scenes of intense argument and emotion, even depicting a turning point for some of the characters, we have minutes of camera switches between characters' faces. No signing visible on screen. No facial expression to tell you who's angry, who's hurt, who's sympathetic, who cares.