Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!wtm
From: richardd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Sign films
Keywords: subtitles, Sign language, Lassie Syndrome
Message-ID: <18349@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 91 03:41:44 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: richardd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Dallaway)
Distribution: misc
Organization: Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, UK
Lines: 34
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Fidonet: Silent Talk Conference

Index Number: 14182

The other night I watched a film on TV called "Love in never silent."
It tells the story of a girl growing-up with her Deaf parents in 1920s
America.

The thing that bugged me about this film (and also "Children of a
lesser God") was the excessive use of something I've started to call
the "Lassie factor" (or syndrome).

Sometimes film makers find that their characters know something that
the audience doesn't.  Typically this happens on the telephone, and
the character will echo back what they are told for the benefit of the
viewers.  Sometimes this works and seems natural,  but mostly it's
just too contrived.  The funniest case I know is in Lassie films where
you get a dialogue like:

    Lassie: Woof Woof.
       Boy: What's that, Lassie?  You want us to follow you...

True sign films shouldn't suffer from Lassie syndrome (please! A
better name!)  Sign films should be subtitled, just like other foreign
movies are.  Have you seen "Merry Christmas Mr Lawrance"?  There was
an excellent use of subtitling.  Although much of the film was in
English, when the Japanese spoke (amongst themselves) they spoke
Japanese.  Great.

So it looks like the Lassie syndrome is fine for dogs and the Deaf.
I guess the message still hasn't sunk in: Sign is a genuine language.

Or have I got this wrong?  Is there a very good reason why the Lassie
syndrome is rife in Sign films?

Richard