Without a doubt The Silent Child has been hugely successful in promoting deaf awareness – both on and off screen.
As Charlie Swinbourne noted in his article, this Oscar-winning short film, which runs to just 20 minutes, really packs a punch in terms of exploring key issues facing deaf children in contemporary society.
These include: parents assuming deaf children hear better than they really do, or can at least ‘follow really well’; that deaf children can find themselves distant from their own families; that signed languages can make a huge difference to communication, engagement and confidence; that hearing parents can, for a variety of reasons, be resistant to learning and using signed languages; and that there is an assumption made by many, that all deaf children’s needs are the same.
Off screen, the casting of a deaf actress (Maisie Sly), to play the central role of Libby, avoids the kind of cultural appropriation and disenfranchisement fought against by campaigns such as #DeafTalent.
This ethical choice is richly rewarded as Maisie delivers a spectacular performance, from her delight at communicating in BSL with her social worker Joanne, through to her despair in the playground at her hearing school at the end of the film.
Meanwhile, Rachel Shenton, who wrote and starred in the film as social worker Joanne, delivered her Oscar speech in British Sign Language, which further enhanced the impact of the film’s deaf awareness message.
However, for me, there was another intriguing theme nestling within the storyline – that of genetics, inherited deafness, and the associated prejudices.
I personally found it quite striking that, in a film which only had 20 minutes within which to convey the themes and complexities associated with a deaf child born into a hearing family, one of these minutes (5% of the film) is spent discussing a secret regarding Libby’s parentage – with a possible implication about hereditary deafness.
The scene in question begins at about 13 minutes and 37 seconds in, when Joanne walks out of the house and approaches the car where Libby’s grandmother, Nancy (played by Anna Barry), is waiting for Libby’s mother, Sue (played by Rachel Fielding), who is taking her to the hospital.
Joanne introduces herself and a conversation ensues about Libby’s progress and prospects for employment. Nancy seems surprised when Joanne says Libby is ‘bright’ and that she will be able to have any career she likes one day.
The conversation then takes a surprising turn when Nancy states that Libby’s grandad was deaf – from birth, a point which is made clearly and precisely, with a seemingly deliberate choice of words, implying a genetic link.
She adds that he had a job – as a cleaner, with facial mannerisms which I would interpret as being derogatory. Somewhat confusingly, she then adds that she knew him and as Joanne seeks to clarify, Nancy reveals that Libby’s father is not her son, Paul, thus revealing that Sue had an affair which resulted in her pregnancy with Libby.
As the scene ends, the camera pans up to Sue who has reached the driver’s side and shares a meaningful glance with Joanne, revealing perhaps that she has guessed the topic of the conversation.
Obviously, there are many ways in which we as an audience might analyse and interpret this scene, including exploring the ignorance and prejudice displayed by Nancy towards deaf people, their intelligence, and their ability to find work; we might also consider the significance of the fact that she felt the need to raise this issue in the first place, perhaps as her attempt to distance herself from Libby, by asserting the lack of a genetic link between them.
However, there is also the rather more contentious angle of the possibility of Libby’s deafness being genetic and what that means in our contemporary society, both in terms of our increasing awareness of genetics since the progress and completion of the human genome project, and the bioethical issues which have ensued, including the advent of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, clause 14, section 4 (9) and discussions about what this means for people with hereditary deafness in the future.
Genetics and hereditary deafness are sensitive issues. However, we are now living in times where we are set to know more and more about our genes, as decisions within the field of medicine are being made based on this new information – possibly fuelling further prejudice, such as that displayed by Nancy, amongst the general population.
Popular fiction such as films are a good indicator of current knowledge and thinking in each era. I am therefore pleased that Rachel Shenton chose to include this theme in her path-breaking film.
Following the success of the The Silent Child, there have been hints that a feature-length film will follow; I sincerely hope that this will be the case and that the underlying genetic theme will also be fully explored, opening up the debate to a mainstream audience – something which is long-overdue and needed, if we are to avoid ‘sleepwalking into eugenics’.
Dr Sara Louise Wheeler is a social policy lecturer at Bangor university, North Wales, where her post is funded by Y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol (The National Welsh Medium College). Sara has Waardenburg Syndrome Type 1 and was born hearing into a Deafhearing family. Sara has progressive, low-frequency, sensorineural hearing-loss and associated tinnitus and hyperacusis. She is currently adjusting to life as a (pink) hearing-aid user and is learning British Sign Language. Sara therefore has a personal and professional interest in depictions of deafness and Deafhood, especially where these relate to genomics and bioethics.
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: what support is available for deaf students?
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- BID: Deaf services, including advice and support, interpreting, employment and letters
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
Tamsin
May 3, 2018
Raising awareness is amazing however please also remember for hearing parents of deaf children – especially with some genetic causes this could be the first deaf child or person they have had in their life. The process of adjusting to realising your child is deaf can be highly emotional for some families and genetics can get played as a ‘blame card’ within families. Making choices isnt always presented with full information and balanced arguments by the professionals and there are very vocal advocates out there for signing and not signing – as a parent it can be a very confusing place to be. And all the time you are still parenting day in and day out – if you can’t communicate directly with your child and ‘know what they want you can feel inadequate as a parent but there is huge pressure to only follow an auditory verbal route from some corners. So I guess I am saying that we need to keep informing rather than judging parents.
Before anyone judges my input I am the mum to two deaf teenagers who whilst having CI’s signed first and still sign to this day and who are comfortable with both deaf and hearing peers. Our causation was genetic and came from nowhere – I’m a speech therapist and gave our children visuals and sign and always verbal language too but even for me I found the pressure when making decisions and the overbearing judgement people who say not to use sign and those anti ci traumatic. I was told i was making my children look crazy in the street by using sign and cruel for having them assessed for CI’s. I work in this same area and found it daunting- imagine what it’s like for parents where it is all new.
saralouisewheeler
May 5, 2018
Hi Tamsin, I think you raise an interesting point about The Silent Child, in that it portrays a worst-case scenario for a deaf child born into a hearing family. The mother is almost a caricature of a negative response, with no redeeming features. I can see how this might, somewhat unhelpfully, seem like a judgement of all parents who find themselves in this situation. But I don’t think this is the intention, and it wasn’t how I perceived it – I just took it as a portrayal of one kind of response, so that we might explore the consequences of that. However, I am not a parent of a deaf child, which as you say, would probably have given me a different perspective. Something for me to think about.
Meanwhile, it sounds as though you had a completely opposite response to Sue…and perhaps this is what’s next for deafness and signed languages in film? I’m not being glib here, I think The Silent Child has really got people talking – all kinds of people – and has opened up a space for debate on a number of issues. What’s needed now is more films and media/ fictional and non-fictional portrayals to keep the momentum going. A completely different story which shows parents responding positively to signed languages and, as Vera says below, discusses CIs, would be the perfect next step in terms of getting a wide audience of people thinking – and ultimately being less judgemental once they’d done some thinking and reflecting.
I realise it would be a very emotional and challenging thing for you to do, but I am personally already interested in reading/ watching a story about your family’s experiences. Have you read Donna West’s Signs of hope? https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Signs_of_Hope.html?id=I9JRngEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
There are some lovely poems/ vignettes in there, which are like the ones in her article which I cited in my article above. I think if you had a series of scenes which portray what you describe here it would be really powerful: being told your children are deaf; using sign language in the street and being told you’re making them look crazy (did someone actually say such a horrible thing to you?!); and then the CI debate. I think The Silent Child drives home some important messages, but not judging parents isn’t one of them. This needs to be addressed next.
My interest in genetics and deafness is obviously because I carry a gene – the PAX3, which is at the heart of Waardenburg syndrome type 1. There’s no hiding it. I could dye my silver hair, but to be honest, as well as being a boring waste of time, this isn’t conducive to accepting, and learning to live with, my condition. I could have hearing aids that are skin coloured to help them ‘blend’, but I am very much enjoying my pink ones and frankly would rather everyone be aware of my hearing loss – it saves time and awkwardness (i.e. me pretending I’ve heard and then it becomes obvious that I haven’t!)
But my facial features give me away anyway. I am aware of the genetic cause of my hearing loss whenever I look in the mirror or at members of my family. When I first came to understand about WST1 I had a very hard time coming to terms with it. It was an emotional rollercoaster spanning many years. Now I’m pretty much at peace with where I sit in the continuum of human variation; but I still have my moments, particularly in terms of my physical appearance. A staggering amount of people are as ignorant and cruel about having a syndrome and carrying a gene for deafness as they have been to you about sign language/ CIs…and things are getting worse the more genetics are coming into decision-making in medicine.
From Donna West’s book, I learned about The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, clause 14, section 4 (9), and its implications:
(9) Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop—
(a)a serious physical or mental disability,
(b)a serious illness, or
(c)any other serious medical condition,
must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.
The house of Lords debate around this included the following statement by Baroness Deech:
“I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the deliberate choice of an embryo that is, for example, likely to be deaf will be prevented by Clause 14”.
WST1 presents a 50/50 chance of having some degree of hearing loss. As a woman with WST1 I find all of this quite upsetting and confronting. So, as you can imagine, I’d very much like to see this being brought out in the open and discussed by as wide an audience as possible.
As you say, it wouldn’t have made any difference to your choice as a hearing parent. However, under this clause, the choice would not be yours – or mine for that matter; it would be in the hands of the medical profession.
ML
May 3, 2018
Tamsin, I agree one hundred percent! As a hearing parent of a deaf child I have been in the same position. We strive to do our best but we are faced with such strong-held and opposing views from both professionals and also the Deaf community. We are also using sign and are under assessment for CI. We want our daughter to have it all and have friends everywhere. If she is understood and happy then we are happy.
As for genetics, we have undergone testing and our girl has inherited her deafness from both myself and my husband. Connexin 26, the largest cause of non-syndromic deafness.
We were glad to get tested as 30 percent of congenital deafness is connected to other genetic issues and syndromes. We wanted to know what to expect in the future. What to be prepared for. It can be a good thing.
I understand the Deaf community worrying about genetic testing, however, as a hearing person I don’t believe the prospect of a deaf child would have made any difference to our family planning. I’m sure this would be true in most cases.
I do worry, however, that decisions surrounding right to life may be made hastily and without warrant though. I get that. In all cases and disabilities.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is good to get all the information out there regarding genetic testing, both the positive and negative.
saralouisewheeler
May 5, 2018
Hi ML, Ah, this is what is so good about having debates like this – I have just learned something new – Connexin 26 as the most common cause of congenital sensorineural hearing loss. I’ve been pretty focussed on my own condition until now.
I think you’re absolutely right – knowing what to expect for the future can enable us to be prepared. Knowing that I have WST1 and thus there’s a connection between my genes and my hearing loss enabled me to make the connection with my father’s progressive hearing loss. Having considered his journey to being heard of hearing, and how difficult the adjustment has been, I was able to make the decision to go and get hearing aids early on and learn to get comfortable with them, rather than struggling later on. I’m not there yet and am still finding them frustrating.
There’s also the issue that the nature of my hearing loss (low frequency) means that hearing aids aren’t really as affective as they would be if I had high frequency hearing loss. But I am working with my audiologist to try and tune them and find a balance. Meanwhile, I’m trying to learn BSL; as you and Tamsin point out, it’s best to have all the information and options.
So I think that any film or fictional/ non-fictional portrayal that opens up the debate on genetics – all aspects, including as in this film, how prejudiced and cruel people can be, is a positive step. We can then discuss all angles and hopefully reduce prejudice.
Vera
May 3, 2018
A very interesting few words in Tamsin’s comment about CIs and opposition to them. I wondered why there was no discussion of CIs in The Silent Child. It seemed, to me, that it would have been a logical thing to include, given the attitude of the parents. All in all, The Silent Child left me wondering how many hearing parents of deaf children are as completely insensitive as the family shown. Is it really as bad as portrayed? (Genuine question; I don’t know). Second genuine question, surely a school that abandoned a deaf child just to sit in class and not be communicated with at all would be in Special Measures? They certainly should be. Is this attitude common in schools in 2018? I’m writing this in a spirit of genuine enquiry, not from a fixed viewpoint. Enlightenment welcome!
saralouisewheeler
May 5, 2018
Hi Vera, I agree, it did seem to be a missing element – which was why it was even more surprising to me that 1 minute of the 20 was devoted to exploring congenital deafness instead.
I guess there is the scene where Joanne is asking about Libby’s hearing and her mum confirms that she doesn’t have any hearing – so this would be why hearing aids weren’t featured in the film.
I then find myself thinking that this was a missed opportunity and that they could have included a scene about pretty pink (or other nice coloured) hearing aids and ones which are easier to blend – but this then brings us back to the fact that this is just one film, and a 20 minute one at that.
It may be that the genetic deafness and lack of discussion of hearing technologies are linked and will be explored in the feature film?
I think they did well, as Charlie said in his article, to include as many important messages as they did – albeit they did kind of demonised the parents, grandparent and school in order to do this.
So, to some up: The Silent Child raises awareness, but is just the tip of the iceberg. We need more films/ fiction/ non-fiction, raising awareness of all kinds of issues.