A New Challenge
By Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 27, 2011
I am going to challenge myself to do something different.
I must listen and observe harder. Engage. Move. Apply creativity in a way that is transformational.
Lately, I've been reading articles that talk about "creating your own job." The prospect is both exciting and terrifying. I have seven jobs - all freelance. They relate to film, language, deaf and hard of hearing issues, advocacy, and writing. In all of them, my job is to connect people.
I'm a connector.
To be the best connector that I can be, I must be open to new experiences that deepen my understanding and application of art, pedagogy, and community. Bring on the challenge!
27 December 2011
14 December 2011
The Power of Ed Roberts
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally published for the Hearing Loss Association of California
December 14, 2011
Why should young people care about Ed Roberts?
First of all, do you even know who he is? You probably have a neighbor named Ed Roberts. Even if you do not, I don't need to wonder why you have never heard his name before.
Two years ago, I gave a presentation in several college classrooms that included a slide of three images set next to one another: Martin Luther King Jr, Harvey Milk, and Ed Roberts. I asked them to name the people in the images. I think only one person recognized Ed Roberts. One.
Ed Roberts was a disability rights activist. He went to UC Berkeley and helped launch the Physically Disabled Students Program run by students with disabilities. He changed the way that architecture could be accessed by people with disabilities. He was a pioneer in the independent living movement. He served on various boards, was a vital part of the emergence of the Center for Independent Living, and co-founded the World Institute on Disability. He did this all before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)...because he spoke up. And he didn't do it alone. His actions were part of a nationwide movement that affirmed the dignity and potential of all people with disabilities to make their own decisions about the lives they wanted to live.
Why should students know about Ed Roberts? The same reason why you should know about Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony. They represent movements. Minority groups. You.
In the past year, the newly redesigned Ed Roberts Campus in Berkeley opened. It's a model of universal design - design that is accessible for all. Ed, who died in 1995, would have liked that.
The California Museum recently inducted him into their Hall of Fame.
But is he in your textbooks? On the walls of your classroom? A part of the curriculum? In classroom discussions? If he isn't, he should be - along with countless others who were a vital part of the disability rights movement before and after the ADA, including Justin Dart Jr, Laura Hershey, Paul Longmore, Harriet McBryde Johnson, Leroy Moore, and Kate Gainer. As a young person, you have the power to organize in your hands. You can demand to have disability history in the curriculum. Justin Dart Jr once said "Get into empowerment." Go for it!
The Narrative as Liberation
The Narrative as Liberation
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 14, 2011
I am a storyteller. Narrative is an essential part of my filmmaking, writing, and activism. Part of being a good storyteller is being a good listener and observer. You have to transform that which you've witnessed or experienced into something that is tangible for an audience to experience. If you write about social issues, you must be aware of what's happening in the world. You have to have a goal as to what you'll read, watch, and absorb each day. It's a big world with a lot of information. You have to know how to take it in and transform it into something that engages people. You have to know your audience. The words, images, and actions you choose are dependent upon who is experiencing your story.
This past weekend, I attended a theatrical performance by The Global Theatre Project entitled Especially Now: Create the World Together. Italian and American actors performed the play A Stubborn Woman about slain journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The horror of the events in Chechnya that she reported was manifested in mise en scene that consisted of shades of grey, slivers of newspapers, three perfect wooden chairs, and six wine glasses. The actors used all of these to convey imprisonment, grief, abuse, and death. Their careful movements were paradoxical to the almost volcanic-like stage. The sound of wailing permeated the cold atmosphere. Tension built as the actors whistled and circled their fingers around the rim of their wine glasses to produce this wailing sound. Shades of red, orange, and yellow light appeared, but the landscape was mostly a chilly blue and grey. The three narrators delivered powerful poetic monologues in English and Italian. By the end, I had not processed all the words, but the images remained with me.
James Cromwell (Babe, LA Confidential) was one of the audience members. He raised his hand after the performance and shared various insights - one that struck me in particular: "The thing has been to kill the speaker of the truth to kill the truth. In the theatre, narrative is a dangerous thing." These were not his exact words, but they're pretty close. Anna was reporting real stories that exposed human rights violations in Chechnya. She was giving a voice to the oppressed. By sharing her story, the creators and performers are affirming that her work cannot be silenced even in death.
We have an epidemic in the United States. We feel that we are powerless whether we are in the heart of a crisis or far away from it. Despite having many tools, we don't know how to use them well. In a panel discussion following the play, Kalaya'an Mendoza, a field organizer for Amnesty International, stated: "We are constantly underestimating our power as citizens." He argued that we should find ways to speak up - from using theatre as a tool for transformation to writing letters and calling legislators. His most powerful assertion, however, was that it was the story of a real person experiencing real human rights violations that convinced people in positions of power to stop the atrocities that were being committed. The voices of active and concerned citizens put a human face on a statistic and a crime. The victims were freed when their stories were told and, once freed, they continued to share them to help others. It was the use of narrative that empowered these citizens and created change in their communities.
Each of us is capable of sharing our narrative, but who will listen? That's where it becomes difficult. People do not always want to hear the truth, especially a truth that devastates with its unflinching brutality. We wonder, how can human beings really be like this? We have to be brave to both tell a story and listen to it.
I believe that it takes time. Telling a story first requires patience on the part of the storyteller that the story may not be complete or what it has been dreamt up to be. This is why storytellers need an audience - not to validate their work, but to serve as figures who listen and offer support. It is the audience who will help storytellers grow. They'll make them feel angry, happy, frustrated, and relieved. The beauty of narrative is the ability to connect with another person in the deepest of human ways - sharing. When a person tells a story, s/he is setting it free. It's out in the world to be experienced.
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 14, 2011
I am a storyteller. Narrative is an essential part of my filmmaking, writing, and activism. Part of being a good storyteller is being a good listener and observer. You have to transform that which you've witnessed or experienced into something that is tangible for an audience to experience. If you write about social issues, you must be aware of what's happening in the world. You have to have a goal as to what you'll read, watch, and absorb each day. It's a big world with a lot of information. You have to know how to take it in and transform it into something that engages people. You have to know your audience. The words, images, and actions you choose are dependent upon who is experiencing your story.
 |
| Bad cop, innocent citizen. Directing an interactive theatre workshop at the SilverLake Jubilee utilizing Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed methodology in honor of Voices from Chornobyl's show at the Hollywood Fringe Fest. Photo by Cindy Marie Jenkins. |
This past weekend, I attended a theatrical performance by The Global Theatre Project entitled Especially Now: Create the World Together. Italian and American actors performed the play A Stubborn Woman about slain journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The horror of the events in Chechnya that she reported was manifested in mise en scene that consisted of shades of grey, slivers of newspapers, three perfect wooden chairs, and six wine glasses. The actors used all of these to convey imprisonment, grief, abuse, and death. Their careful movements were paradoxical to the almost volcanic-like stage. The sound of wailing permeated the cold atmosphere. Tension built as the actors whistled and circled their fingers around the rim of their wine glasses to produce this wailing sound. Shades of red, orange, and yellow light appeared, but the landscape was mostly a chilly blue and grey. The three narrators delivered powerful poetic monologues in English and Italian. By the end, I had not processed all the words, but the images remained with me.
 |
| The cleaned up stage for Especially Now: Create the World Together at the Los Angeles Theatre Center. Photo by Rhianon Elan Gutierrez. |
James Cromwell (Babe, LA Confidential) was one of the audience members. He raised his hand after the performance and shared various insights - one that struck me in particular: "The thing has been to kill the speaker of the truth to kill the truth. In the theatre, narrative is a dangerous thing." These were not his exact words, but they're pretty close. Anna was reporting real stories that exposed human rights violations in Chechnya. She was giving a voice to the oppressed. By sharing her story, the creators and performers are affirming that her work cannot be silenced even in death.
We have an epidemic in the United States. We feel that we are powerless whether we are in the heart of a crisis or far away from it. Despite having many tools, we don't know how to use them well. In a panel discussion following the play, Kalaya'an Mendoza, a field organizer for Amnesty International, stated: "We are constantly underestimating our power as citizens." He argued that we should find ways to speak up - from using theatre as a tool for transformation to writing letters and calling legislators. His most powerful assertion, however, was that it was the story of a real person experiencing real human rights violations that convinced people in positions of power to stop the atrocities that were being committed. The voices of active and concerned citizens put a human face on a statistic and a crime. The victims were freed when their stories were told and, once freed, they continued to share them to help others. It was the use of narrative that empowered these citizens and created change in their communities.
Each of us is capable of sharing our narrative, but who will listen? That's where it becomes difficult. People do not always want to hear the truth, especially a truth that devastates with its unflinching brutality. We wonder, how can human beings really be like this? We have to be brave to both tell a story and listen to it.
I believe that it takes time. Telling a story first requires patience on the part of the storyteller that the story may not be complete or what it has been dreamt up to be. This is why storytellers need an audience - not to validate their work, but to serve as figures who listen and offer support. It is the audience who will help storytellers grow. They'll make them feel angry, happy, frustrated, and relieved. The beauty of narrative is the ability to connect with another person in the deepest of human ways - sharing. When a person tells a story, s/he is setting it free. It's out in the world to be experienced.
11 December 2011
It Goes Both Ways
It Goes Both Ways: Lessons in Communication
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 11, 2011
I've noticed that there are active and passive communicators.
Active communicators are engaged when they communicate (whether through aural, visual, gestural, or written means) and when they listen and observe. They listen and look at all possible emotional, physical, and environmental cues. They make it known that they want you to understand them and that they want to understand you. Passive communicators often are disinterested in reciprocity or are terrified of judgment. These feelings strain communication, but they are amendable. The fear of being judged exists in so many deaf and hard of hearing people that I've met - notably about their speech, intellect, and listening and signing abilities.
There's a motto that I've come to live by: "If I am going to listen to you, I need you to face me and speak clearly in order for me to give you my fullest attention. It is only fair for the both of us."
Who wants to communicate with a wall? Be an active communicator. Communication goes both ways. You cannot blame another person for their "ignorance" if you do not make your needs known. I consider eye contact and body language to be important in my interactions but I recognize that everyone has a "comfort zone". Some people cannot look at me in the eye for emotional or psychological reasons, so I make an effort to move my head where I can best see their faces. I tell them this. I do the same thing when I communicate with wheelchair users. As a listener and observer, you should make an effort to make your conversations the best they can be in the circumstances you're given. Use all possible means to make your conversation meaningful. You can do it.
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 11, 2011
I've noticed that there are active and passive communicators.
Active communicators are engaged when they communicate (whether through aural, visual, gestural, or written means) and when they listen and observe. They listen and look at all possible emotional, physical, and environmental cues. They make it known that they want you to understand them and that they want to understand you. Passive communicators often are disinterested in reciprocity or are terrified of judgment. These feelings strain communication, but they are amendable. The fear of being judged exists in so many deaf and hard of hearing people that I've met - notably about their speech, intellect, and listening and signing abilities.
There's a motto that I've come to live by: "If I am going to listen to you, I need you to face me and speak clearly in order for me to give you my fullest attention. It is only fair for the both of us."
Who wants to communicate with a wall? Be an active communicator. Communication goes both ways. You cannot blame another person for their "ignorance" if you do not make your needs known. I consider eye contact and body language to be important in my interactions but I recognize that everyone has a "comfort zone". Some people cannot look at me in the eye for emotional or psychological reasons, so I make an effort to move my head where I can best see their faces. I tell them this. I do the same thing when I communicate with wheelchair users. As a listener and observer, you should make an effort to make your conversations the best they can be in the circumstances you're given. Use all possible means to make your conversation meaningful. You can do it.
10 December 2011
Why I Gave In
Why I Gave In: On Using Closed Captioning Devices in Theatres
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 9, 2011
Tonight, I gave in and finally tried the latest in closed captioning movie theatre technology, CaptiView, to see the film "New Years Eve". I knew that I had to have captions to enjoy the film because it had so many characters in it. I enjoy ensemble films but I have not actually seen one in a movie theatre. I'm glad that I chose to use CaptiView because it gave me access to so many funny lines that I would have missed otherwise. But that is not the major reason why I'm glad that I used it.
My viewing experiences have usually been captions or subtitles on the picture or no captions at all. I have preferred not to use rear window captioning for various reasons, the main one being that it practically screams, "Deaf person here!" With open captions or subtitles, you don't need to worry about that. You're just an audience member. When I watch films, I am an audience member who wants to blend in with the rest of the audience and participate. The first film that I saw with subtitles was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000. I was so excited to see subtitles on the movie screen that I think I may have cried when the film started.
I grew up wanting to be in the movies, then wanting to make movies. I never thought about accessibility in theatres. I loved images and how they made me feel, think, and experience humanity. I did not need words to understand emotion. I enjoyed watching animated films in theatres with my friends because it was about community and imagination. We recreated the animated worlds in our living rooms and backyards and made our own dialogue. At home, I read numerous books and watched captioned television and live action movies. I was happy.
When I went to film school, I encountered a level of exclusion that I had never before felt in my life. I was not only feeling shut out from my peers, but I felt shut out from technology. I faced a battle in college: I used real-time captionists in my classes but still struggled to get my teachers to make sure the films they chose were captioned or were going to get captioned by an outside vendor. Forget it if student films were captioned, including mine! Deadlines needed to be met and college students epitomized the spirit of procrastination. I watched many films with my eyes closed, even the good ones. I was exhausted and probably depressed. My friends couldn't believe I slept through even the foreign films.
When you use captions, you read a lot. Skilled caption users read super fast and still take in the beauty of the image. I want to experience the beauty and the words. Those beautiful, funny, tragic, and shocking words.
As a filmmaker, I naturally have aesthetic preferences. There are certain films that I like - independent, art house, foreign, and documentary - and three of these four are usually not captioned. My routine has been to make sure that I have enough sugar, caffeine, and brainpower to watch these films (and sometimes I research them beforehand). I usually bring a hearing buddy with me to poke when I have questions. My mother, best friend, and boyfriend are the fastest translators for me, but I've come to rely on them less and on my eyes and cochlear implant more. I usually say "no" to comedies and action films because there's too many sounds and quick lines that I miss.
I share my story because it's important to know where I come from. Today, I support accessible media and work to make media accessible as a filmmaker and advocate. I have high expectations for captions - the color, placement, timing, word choice, spacing, punctuation, and grammar - and why shouldn't I? I strongly believe in quality captioning that informs and/or enhances the viewing experience rather than distracts from it.
CaptiView is a small black box with a bendy arm and a lower metal part that swivels to enable you to position it in either one of your cup holders. You can set the box to where you want to view it. The box is about six inches wide and maybe three inches tall and has small corners around the words (which are about size eighteen font and the color of traffic light green) so that others around you cannot view them.
What I liked about using CaptiView was that it allowed me to sit wherever I wanted in the theatre and position the device in the place that was most comfortable for me. Because I have used captions for at least twenty years, I was able to make it a seamless experience to look up and down at the picture and words when I needed to do so. It was also easy to set up - I only had to turn it on, push the "A" button to select the auditorium I was in, and then push the "C" button to turn on the captions. They captioned the music, sound effects, and dialogue. I stayed awake the entire time, but maybe the bag of candy I ate had something to do with that, too!
The negative part of using CaptiView was that I had to use my hand and leg to hold the metal part in place because it would swing towards me if I did not. There were also some words missing from the dialogue, but this might not be true for everyone. I was able to follow the film and enjoy it but a large part of me felt anxious about distracting the people behind me with how much I was moving the device around. I'd like an anxiety-free viewing experience!
Overall, I'm glad that I used CaptiView and I see it as a progress in closed captioning in theatres. I know that we have come a long way, and I'm grateful for those who have developed and continue to develop technologies to make moviegoing a more accessible experience for the widest range of people. I'm grateful that I have support from so many of my deaf and hard of hearing friends. I'm still going to advocate for even better technologies that make the cinematic experience more universally accessible and enjoyable. Stay tuned!
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
December 9, 2011
My viewing experiences have usually been captions or subtitles on the picture or no captions at all. I have preferred not to use rear window captioning for various reasons, the main one being that it practically screams, "Deaf person here!" With open captions or subtitles, you don't need to worry about that. You're just an audience member. When I watch films, I am an audience member who wants to blend in with the rest of the audience and participate. The first film that I saw with subtitles was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000. I was so excited to see subtitles on the movie screen that I think I may have cried when the film started.
I grew up wanting to be in the movies, then wanting to make movies. I never thought about accessibility in theatres. I loved images and how they made me feel, think, and experience humanity. I did not need words to understand emotion. I enjoyed watching animated films in theatres with my friends because it was about community and imagination. We recreated the animated worlds in our living rooms and backyards and made our own dialogue. At home, I read numerous books and watched captioned television and live action movies. I was happy.
When I went to film school, I encountered a level of exclusion that I had never before felt in my life. I was not only feeling shut out from my peers, but I felt shut out from technology. I faced a battle in college: I used real-time captionists in my classes but still struggled to get my teachers to make sure the films they chose were captioned or were going to get captioned by an outside vendor. Forget it if student films were captioned, including mine! Deadlines needed to be met and college students epitomized the spirit of procrastination. I watched many films with my eyes closed, even the good ones. I was exhausted and probably depressed. My friends couldn't believe I slept through even the foreign films.
When you use captions, you read a lot. Skilled caption users read super fast and still take in the beauty of the image. I want to experience the beauty and the words. Those beautiful, funny, tragic, and shocking words.
As a filmmaker, I naturally have aesthetic preferences. There are certain films that I like - independent, art house, foreign, and documentary - and three of these four are usually not captioned. My routine has been to make sure that I have enough sugar, caffeine, and brainpower to watch these films (and sometimes I research them beforehand). I usually bring a hearing buddy with me to poke when I have questions. My mother, best friend, and boyfriend are the fastest translators for me, but I've come to rely on them less and on my eyes and cochlear implant more. I usually say "no" to comedies and action films because there's too many sounds and quick lines that I miss.
I share my story because it's important to know where I come from. Today, I support accessible media and work to make media accessible as a filmmaker and advocate. I have high expectations for captions - the color, placement, timing, word choice, spacing, punctuation, and grammar - and why shouldn't I? I strongly believe in quality captioning that informs and/or enhances the viewing experience rather than distracts from it.
What I liked about using CaptiView was that it allowed me to sit wherever I wanted in the theatre and position the device in the place that was most comfortable for me. Because I have used captions for at least twenty years, I was able to make it a seamless experience to look up and down at the picture and words when I needed to do so. It was also easy to set up - I only had to turn it on, push the "A" button to select the auditorium I was in, and then push the "C" button to turn on the captions. They captioned the music, sound effects, and dialogue. I stayed awake the entire time, but maybe the bag of candy I ate had something to do with that, too!
The negative part of using CaptiView was that I had to use my hand and leg to hold the metal part in place because it would swing towards me if I did not. There were also some words missing from the dialogue, but this might not be true for everyone. I was able to follow the film and enjoy it but a large part of me felt anxious about distracting the people behind me with how much I was moving the device around. I'd like an anxiety-free viewing experience!
Overall, I'm glad that I used CaptiView and I see it as a progress in closed captioning in theatres. I know that we have come a long way, and I'm grateful for those who have developed and continue to develop technologies to make moviegoing a more accessible experience for the widest range of people. I'm grateful that I have support from so many of my deaf and hard of hearing friends. I'm still going to advocate for even better technologies that make the cinematic experience more universally accessible and enjoyable. Stay tuned!
14 November 2011
Redefining disAbility Event: What Was Said
Redefining disAbility Event: What Was Said
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally written and published on the TRANSIENTS film blog
October 11, 2011
Last night, I attended an event at the Creative Artists Agency called "Redefining DisAbility". I interacted with familiar and new faces. I saw people that I hadn't seen since I was a student at Chapman and others that I hadn't seen or spoken to since I buried myself in post-production for Transients. I was glad to see my friends and make new connections and discoveries.
I sat in the front row so that I could lipread and listen to all the panelists. It was wonderful. When my friend tapped my shoulder and pointed to the large white screen behind the panelists, I saw that they also had real-time captioning (CART). I was stunned. This was an event where there was no deaf or hard of hearing panelist. I did not request the captions. Someone somewhere knew that they were important at an inclusion event. Whoever that person was, I like the way that you think. I always tell people that we need people in the disability advocacy field to recognize that discussions on inclusion should include CART and not just interpreters. People should have the freedom to choose which access option they want. Thank you for giving me that freedom to use CART when I missed something a panelist said.
My favorite part of the evening was when the panelists shared their personal stories. They were funny and heartbreaking. People with disabilities are often called "inspirational". Teal Sherer of The Guild and My Gimpy Life (and Sandrine in Transients) shared how she hated being called that because it wasn't earned. Robert David Hall (CSI) spoke of how there were only two types of roles for disabled people in the 1980s: the inspirational disabled person or the angry disabled person. Hall is a series regular on CSI, where he plays a character who is three-dimensional and interesting. He's been on the show for years.
Christopher Thornton (Sympathy for Delicious) was once told that he "wasn't convincing as a disabled person" because he had occasional spasms (from his spinal cord injury) during his audition. He remarked that he wasn't sure whether he should be offended or see it as a compliment. Actor's Studio-trained Eileen Grubba (Hung) told of how she had the door slammed in her face numerous times because she "walked funny". She shared how these experiences have enriched her drive as an actress and an advocate for more inclusion of people with disabilities in the media. Her most important advice was to parents and creators to remind them to continue to be encouraging to young people with disabilities because they deserve a chance in media. She wasn't the only one offering words of encouragement.
"I want to see that percentage of people with disabilities have a shot," said Robert David Hall. "Fight fear and ignorance."
"Bullying hurts and it kills dreams," said Glee's Lauren Potter to much applause.
Danny Woodburn, famous for being on Seinfeld, said "Each of us has to have the courage to speak up." Danny was one of the wittiest and most articulate panelists.
Eileen Grubba concluded, "We need to stand up, write roles for each other, no longer accepting that 20% of our world is shut out of entertainment."
Events like this reinforce my purpose as a writer, director, and producer. I wrote Transients to give a voice to people with disabilities behind and in front of the camera. It's not going to be the last one.
-Rhianon Gutierrez
Writer/Director, Transients
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally written and published on the TRANSIENTS film blog
October 11, 2011
 |
| Photo © Rhianon Gutierrez, taken on the iPhone 3GS, with some help from Instagram. |
I sat in the front row so that I could lipread and listen to all the panelists. It was wonderful. When my friend tapped my shoulder and pointed to the large white screen behind the panelists, I saw that they also had real-time captioning (CART). I was stunned. This was an event where there was no deaf or hard of hearing panelist. I did not request the captions. Someone somewhere knew that they were important at an inclusion event. Whoever that person was, I like the way that you think. I always tell people that we need people in the disability advocacy field to recognize that discussions on inclusion should include CART and not just interpreters. People should have the freedom to choose which access option they want. Thank you for giving me that freedom to use CART when I missed something a panelist said.
My favorite part of the evening was when the panelists shared their personal stories. They were funny and heartbreaking. People with disabilities are often called "inspirational". Teal Sherer of The Guild and My Gimpy Life (and Sandrine in Transients) shared how she hated being called that because it wasn't earned. Robert David Hall (CSI) spoke of how there were only two types of roles for disabled people in the 1980s: the inspirational disabled person or the angry disabled person. Hall is a series regular on CSI, where he plays a character who is three-dimensional and interesting. He's been on the show for years.
Christopher Thornton (Sympathy for Delicious) was once told that he "wasn't convincing as a disabled person" because he had occasional spasms (from his spinal cord injury) during his audition. He remarked that he wasn't sure whether he should be offended or see it as a compliment. Actor's Studio-trained Eileen Grubba (Hung) told of how she had the door slammed in her face numerous times because she "walked funny". She shared how these experiences have enriched her drive as an actress and an advocate for more inclusion of people with disabilities in the media. Her most important advice was to parents and creators to remind them to continue to be encouraging to young people with disabilities because they deserve a chance in media. She wasn't the only one offering words of encouragement.
"I want to see that percentage of people with disabilities have a shot," said Robert David Hall. "Fight fear and ignorance."
"Bullying hurts and it kills dreams," said Glee's Lauren Potter to much applause.
Danny Woodburn, famous for being on Seinfeld, said "Each of us has to have the courage to speak up." Danny was one of the wittiest and most articulate panelists.
Eileen Grubba concluded, "We need to stand up, write roles for each other, no longer accepting that 20% of our world is shut out of entertainment."
Events like this reinforce my purpose as a writer, director, and producer. I wrote Transients to give a voice to people with disabilities behind and in front of the camera. It's not going to be the last one.
-Rhianon Gutierrez
Writer/Director, Transients
28 April 2011
Captions Do Not Ruin the Cinematic Experience
Captions Do Not Ruin the Cinematic Experience
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally written and published on July 26, 2009 for Blogathon Vancouver.
In honor of the inspiring educational promo video above made by media access advocates in Australia, I wanted to re-share my first piece of activist writing. My friend Ganga from Vancouver emailed me to ask if I could contribute an entry about hearing loss for this 24 hour Blogathon that he did on July 26, 2009. Inspired by my educational journey with captioning, I decided to write on the issue. In film school, I watched so many films--and the ones that were the most accessible to me were those that I watched in my film history class that documented the birth of cinema to 1945.
It's no secret about the articles that I have written since 2009, and that the necessity of having educational access to films, especially in film schools, still remains.
When cinema emerged as an art form in the early 1900s with the films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers, moviegoers—both deaf and hearing—were able to experience its images on equal terms. Silent films were enjoyed by all who could see, but when the talkies came in the 1920s, they ushered in a new era of experiencing cinema, where sound and picture were one and title cards fell into oblivion. This radical change created the division that still exists today for the way that people with hearing loss can fully experience cinema. Closed captioning and rear window captioning have, in recent decades, tried to alleviate this barrier by providing words to accompany the sound, but even they come at a price.
My earliest memory is of myself at age two, looking into an encyclopedia and pointing at a picture of the stage actress Maude Adams. A lover of cinema, I always watched actors express themselves onscreen, mimicking their movements and lip motion. I wanted to be an actress, but I changed my focus to writing and directing years later because I realized that what I wanted to do was not only create, but to change. I attended film school at Chapman University for four years, where, as the only profoundly deaf individual in the film program, I experienced the absence of closed captioning in films that were especially prominent as a documentary film student: student films and documentaries.
Student-made films are very tricky to caption. Film students are often really stressed out to meet a deadline, are burning their DVDs at the last minute, running low on money, just plain careless, or all of the above when it comes to captioning an English-language film for anyone, let alone one person. Even I admit to not captioning a few of my films because I had no time and little help–which always puts me a horrible, uninspired mood. I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown in post production on a five-minute film I directed in 2007 because the sound editing process was so grueling for me while I was simultaneously adjusting to my first year hearing sounds with a cochlear implant. Six months later, when I made a documentary about a man with hearing loss and showed it to my deaf/HOH friends, I had to caption it or I’d be a hypocrite. I listened to the footage over and over again and single handedly captioned the entire ten-minute film. It’s hard to convince other film students to physically dedicate the time as I did. I seemed to be good at informing fellow students about the benefits of captioning and getting them inspired to caption their films, but it never materialized. Perhaps I didn’t challenge them enough, or they ran out of time. Of course, there are also those who feel that words on the screen distract from the visual experience. Film students can be pretentious that way, and even I hate it when captions appear over someone’s face, or when they are white captions on a black and white film. I agree that captions shouldn’t distract; they should enhance. If people saw it that way, I’d hope they would be more accepting. It’s important to educate others about the benefits and proper use of closed captions, and especially to advocate for them in an educational setting (because access is required by law). If carelessness persists, then how can we work with current and future technologies to help future film students with hearing loss be on the same playing field as their peers?
Documentaries are considered a progressive, social medium, albeit one that makes little profit. I’m a documentary filmmaker who has yet to see a dime from any of my films, yet I still think that money is a poor excuse for the absence of captions. It really comes down to two things: silence and a lack of accountability. One of my favorite documentaries of all time, Touch the Sound, about the deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie, had closed captions. I loved the film, so I wanted to see Rivers and Tides (by the same director) but saw that it wasn’t captioned. It, like Touch the Sound, was released by Docurama, a major documentary distribution company. Many other documentaries from Docurama and from other distributors are often not captioned unless they are mainstream or are expected to have a large audience of people with disabilities. I understand that Touch the Sound had captions because a large portion of its audience was likely deaf or hard of hearing. If it’s one by Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me), or Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line), then it will likely be captioned because of popular demand, but if it’s Frederic Wiseman (who made Titicut Follies, a verite doc set in a mental institution) or the next controversial subject, it’s not captioned too often. While I watch a variety of films, I find mainstream ones to be limited in their depth, and feel frustrated about not being able to watch films like Rivers and Tides, unless I send it to a real time caption company and get it captioned for me, but even this is costly. To change this situation, it is necessary to “break the silence”—speak up to filmmakers, production companies, and distributors about making sure that the documentaries you care about are captioned. Hold them accountable for not getting the films you care about captioned. Don’t just settle for the mainstream ones or you’ll be missing out on some powerful stories that filmmakers or subjects went through extraordinary lengths to tell.
As an activist filmmaker, I seek to find inclusive solutions that would eliminate the barrier that sound created decades ago. I believe that we have the resources to make films accessible for those with hearing loss, but lack proper awareness and the knowledge of what it means to be advocates.
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally written and published on July 26, 2009 for Blogathon Vancouver.
In honor of the inspiring educational promo video above made by media access advocates in Australia, I wanted to re-share my first piece of activist writing. My friend Ganga from Vancouver emailed me to ask if I could contribute an entry about hearing loss for this 24 hour Blogathon that he did on July 26, 2009. Inspired by my educational journey with captioning, I decided to write on the issue. In film school, I watched so many films--and the ones that were the most accessible to me were those that I watched in my film history class that documented the birth of cinema to 1945.
It's no secret about the articles that I have written since 2009, and that the necessity of having educational access to films, especially in film schools, still remains.
 |
| Still from A Trip to the Moon (1902), a film by Georges Melies. |
When cinema emerged as an art form in the early 1900s with the films of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers, moviegoers—both deaf and hearing—were able to experience its images on equal terms. Silent films were enjoyed by all who could see, but when the talkies came in the 1920s, they ushered in a new era of experiencing cinema, where sound and picture were one and title cards fell into oblivion. This radical change created the division that still exists today for the way that people with hearing loss can fully experience cinema. Closed captioning and rear window captioning have, in recent decades, tried to alleviate this barrier by providing words to accompany the sound, but even they come at a price.
My earliest memory is of myself at age two, looking into an encyclopedia and pointing at a picture of the stage actress Maude Adams. A lover of cinema, I always watched actors express themselves onscreen, mimicking their movements and lip motion. I wanted to be an actress, but I changed my focus to writing and directing years later because I realized that what I wanted to do was not only create, but to change. I attended film school at Chapman University for four years, where, as the only profoundly deaf individual in the film program, I experienced the absence of closed captioning in films that were especially prominent as a documentary film student: student films and documentaries.
Student-made films are very tricky to caption. Film students are often really stressed out to meet a deadline, are burning their DVDs at the last minute, running low on money, just plain careless, or all of the above when it comes to captioning an English-language film for anyone, let alone one person. Even I admit to not captioning a few of my films because I had no time and little help–which always puts me a horrible, uninspired mood. I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown in post production on a five-minute film I directed in 2007 because the sound editing process was so grueling for me while I was simultaneously adjusting to my first year hearing sounds with a cochlear implant. Six months later, when I made a documentary about a man with hearing loss and showed it to my deaf/HOH friends, I had to caption it or I’d be a hypocrite. I listened to the footage over and over again and single handedly captioned the entire ten-minute film. It’s hard to convince other film students to physically dedicate the time as I did. I seemed to be good at informing fellow students about the benefits of captioning and getting them inspired to caption their films, but it never materialized. Perhaps I didn’t challenge them enough, or they ran out of time. Of course, there are also those who feel that words on the screen distract from the visual experience. Film students can be pretentious that way, and even I hate it when captions appear over someone’s face, or when they are white captions on a black and white film. I agree that captions shouldn’t distract; they should enhance. If people saw it that way, I’d hope they would be more accepting. It’s important to educate others about the benefits and proper use of closed captions, and especially to advocate for them in an educational setting (because access is required by law). If carelessness persists, then how can we work with current and future technologies to help future film students with hearing loss be on the same playing field as their peers?
 |
| DVD cover for Docurama's release of Touch the Sound (2004). |
Documentaries are considered a progressive, social medium, albeit one that makes little profit. I’m a documentary filmmaker who has yet to see a dime from any of my films, yet I still think that money is a poor excuse for the absence of captions. It really comes down to two things: silence and a lack of accountability. One of my favorite documentaries of all time, Touch the Sound, about the deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie, had closed captions. I loved the film, so I wanted to see Rivers and Tides (by the same director) but saw that it wasn’t captioned. It, like Touch the Sound, was released by Docurama, a major documentary distribution company. Many other documentaries from Docurama and from other distributors are often not captioned unless they are mainstream or are expected to have a large audience of people with disabilities. I understand that Touch the Sound had captions because a large portion of its audience was likely deaf or hard of hearing. If it’s one by Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me), or Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line), then it will likely be captioned because of popular demand, but if it’s Frederic Wiseman (who made Titicut Follies, a verite doc set in a mental institution) or the next controversial subject, it’s not captioned too often. While I watch a variety of films, I find mainstream ones to be limited in their depth, and feel frustrated about not being able to watch films like Rivers and Tides, unless I send it to a real time caption company and get it captioned for me, but even this is costly. To change this situation, it is necessary to “break the silence”—speak up to filmmakers, production companies, and distributors about making sure that the documentaries you care about are captioned. Hold them accountable for not getting the films you care about captioned. Don’t just settle for the mainstream ones or you’ll be missing out on some powerful stories that filmmakers or subjects went through extraordinary lengths to tell.
As an activist filmmaker, I seek to find inclusive solutions that would eliminate the barrier that sound created decades ago. I believe that we have the resources to make films accessible for those with hearing loss, but lack proper awareness and the knowledge of what it means to be advocates.
25 February 2011
Regal Cinemas Pledge Full Nationwide Captioning
There is a fantastic article written by lawyer and captioning advocate John Waldo on the issue of the movie captioning lawsuit with Regal Cinemas. Read it and enjoy.
Thanks to John Waldo and those who have fought and continue to fight for movie captioning.
Thanks to John Waldo and those who have fought and continue to fight for movie captioning.
08 February 2011
"14 Can Do's": Hiring Performers with a Hearing Loss or Disability
"14 Can Do's": Hiring Performers with a Hearing Loss or Disability
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
February 7, 2011
With the premiere of the latest CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode, The Two Mrs. Grissoms, Deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing audiences saw the mass employment of people with hearing loss as guest stars and extras on an episode about the murder of the fictional scholarship foundation director Dr. Eric Lambert (Anthony Natale) on a college campus. The episode featured notable Deaf performers Marlee Matlin as Julia Holden, a Deaf Studies professor, Phyllis Frelich as Betty Grissom, the mother of one of the show's longtime leads, Gil Grissom (William Peterson), and Tyrone Giordano as the TA of Marlee's character, Julia. There were multiple scenes where extras were in front of the camera at a party and in the dorm rooms, and there were others where they were walking in the background on the campus grounds and in the hallways. It was a great experience for those who were involved, and I have seen many positive reactions to the episode. Deaf and hard of hearing people were proud to be in it and to see their friends in it. I was a background extra in one of the office scenes and found out about the casting call through Deaf Women in Film, who found out about the opportunity through another network. The story of The Two Mrs. Grissoms is one example of how reaching out to members of the Deaf and hearing loss communities produced successful results.
As a director, I've worked with performers with a range of abilities. In my most recent film, Transients, I worked with performers with different types of hearing loss and one with a mobility disability. I not only cast them but I had people on my production team who had varying degrees of hearing loss. However, I continue to recognize that there are some major barriers that performers with hearing loss or a disability face in getting opportunities to work in television, film, or the stage.
I try to focus on the present and the future, so I thought about some "Can Do's" for hiring performers with a hearing loss or disability. Some of these apply to performers, others to casting directors, agents, directors, and studios, and some apply to all of them. I hope that this list will be a useful tool for readers.
1. Encourage directors, studios, and casting directors to seek actors that actually are Deaf, hard of hearing, or with disabilities when casting for roles that are written as such.
2. Encourage writers, studios, directors, and casting directors to open the talent pool to all different abilities.
3. Train new talent with disabilities and those that are Deaf and hard of hearing.
4. Seek roles that are challenging. Don't just look for those that are written as Deaf, hard of hearing, or a person with a disability.
5. Encourage casting agents to really fight for actors and actresses to get interesting roles rather than cliche ones.
6. Challenge others' and your own stereotypical depictions of impairment: work to make characters three-dimensional. For performers: trust your instincts. For writers and directors: consult closely with people who personally understand hearing loss or disability.
7. Train and support more Deaf, hard of hearing, and disabled talent to learn skills behind the camera (directing, cinematography, editing, sound design, graphics, etc) in schools, vocational programs, internships, and paid jobs. Learn about and support their communication needs.
8. Utilize the non-profit sector. Contact and ask non-profits that specialize in serving people with disabilities or the Deaf and hard of hearing for help in finding people who are aspiring performers or even people who have amazing life stories that resemble the role that you are casting.
9. Utilize social media. When you have a role you are casting, post on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Posterous, blog websites, Yahoo Groups, and virtually any website that has dialogue between multiple users.
10. Network. Talk to others who may know of opportunities and tell them that you are interested when there is an opportunity available.
11. Support the work of your fellow performers even if you lost the role to them. It's a competitive business. Representation is important, but so is respect.
12. Show your work. Don't be afraid to show others what you can do, and definitely show your range.
13. Be honest about your communication needs. Communication is one of the most important aspects of a successful production.
14. Support access to your work: advocate for it to be captioned, audio described, or for there to be a transcript made available for other access or translation needs.
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
February 7, 2011
As a director, I've worked with performers with a range of abilities. In my most recent film, Transients, I worked with performers with different types of hearing loss and one with a mobility disability. I not only cast them but I had people on my production team who had varying degrees of hearing loss. However, I continue to recognize that there are some major barriers that performers with hearing loss or a disability face in getting opportunities to work in television, film, or the stage.
I try to focus on the present and the future, so I thought about some "Can Do's" for hiring performers with a hearing loss or disability. Some of these apply to performers, others to casting directors, agents, directors, and studios, and some apply to all of them. I hope that this list will be a useful tool for readers.
1. Encourage directors, studios, and casting directors to seek actors that actually are Deaf, hard of hearing, or with disabilities when casting for roles that are written as such.
2. Encourage writers, studios, directors, and casting directors to open the talent pool to all different abilities.
3. Train new talent with disabilities and those that are Deaf and hard of hearing.
4. Seek roles that are challenging. Don't just look for those that are written as Deaf, hard of hearing, or a person with a disability.
5. Encourage casting agents to really fight for actors and actresses to get interesting roles rather than cliche ones.
6. Challenge others' and your own stereotypical depictions of impairment: work to make characters three-dimensional. For performers: trust your instincts. For writers and directors: consult closely with people who personally understand hearing loss or disability.
7. Train and support more Deaf, hard of hearing, and disabled talent to learn skills behind the camera (directing, cinematography, editing, sound design, graphics, etc) in schools, vocational programs, internships, and paid jobs. Learn about and support their communication needs.
8. Utilize the non-profit sector. Contact and ask non-profits that specialize in serving people with disabilities or the Deaf and hard of hearing for help in finding people who are aspiring performers or even people who have amazing life stories that resemble the role that you are casting.
9. Utilize social media. When you have a role you are casting, post on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Posterous, blog websites, Yahoo Groups, and virtually any website that has dialogue between multiple users.
10. Network. Talk to others who may know of opportunities and tell them that you are interested when there is an opportunity available.
11. Support the work of your fellow performers even if you lost the role to them. It's a competitive business. Representation is important, but so is respect.
12. Show your work. Don't be afraid to show others what you can do, and definitely show your range.
13. Be honest about your communication needs. Communication is one of the most important aspects of a successful production.
14. Support access to your work: advocate for it to be captioned, audio described, or for there to be a transcript made available for other access or translation needs.
06 February 2011
Employment Discrimination Against People with Hearing Loss
Employment Discrimination Against People with Hearing Loss
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally published on Hearing Loss Nation
February 6, 2011
Unemployment has plagued many Americans, and young people and people with disabilities have been greatly affected by the crisis. On February 4th, the ABC TV show What Would You Do? aired a segment that explores what happens when two deaf applicants decide to apply for a job in a coffee shop in New Jersey. The managers (both male and female) and the two deaf applicants (both female) are played by actors, and the goal of this show is to see what bystanders would do in this type of situation. Would they stand up, remain ignorant, or offer advice to the applicants or manager? See for yourself.
In social psychology, there is a concept known as the bystander effect, which states that people won't interfere in an emergency situation if they know that there are others present who can interfere instead. There were a handful of people who DID interfere in the girls' case, but I wonder how many more would interfere if the situation had been different: with men, with people of color, with people with multiple disabilities, or even with more diverse managers. What do you think?
There are some of us on HLN who have experienced this type of public discrimination, but there are others who have experienced discrimination in private. Since this talks specifically about public discrimination, what are some ways that we can challenge public discrimination if a) it happens to us, b) it happens to our friend, or c) we witness it happening from a distance? I have personally found myself to be a stronger advocate in situations of public discrimination.
It's easy to talk about what we did or did not do in the past.
What can we do NOW and in the future?
How can we build a support team who can help us when we encounter this discrimination from people?
And, how can we strengthen our skills in the areas where we seek employment so that we are ready to show future employers our best?
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
Originally published on Hearing Loss Nation
February 6, 2011
Unemployment has plagued many Americans, and young people and people with disabilities have been greatly affected by the crisis. On February 4th, the ABC TV show What Would You Do? aired a segment that explores what happens when two deaf applicants decide to apply for a job in a coffee shop in New Jersey. The managers (both male and female) and the two deaf applicants (both female) are played by actors, and the goal of this show is to see what bystanders would do in this type of situation. Would they stand up, remain ignorant, or offer advice to the applicants or manager? See for yourself.
 |
| Image courtesy ABC's What Would You Do? |
In social psychology, there is a concept known as the bystander effect, which states that people won't interfere in an emergency situation if they know that there are others present who can interfere instead. There were a handful of people who DID interfere in the girls' case, but I wonder how many more would interfere if the situation had been different: with men, with people of color, with people with multiple disabilities, or even with more diverse managers. What do you think?
There are some of us on HLN who have experienced this type of public discrimination, but there are others who have experienced discrimination in private. Since this talks specifically about public discrimination, what are some ways that we can challenge public discrimination if a) it happens to us, b) it happens to our friend, or c) we witness it happening from a distance? I have personally found myself to be a stronger advocate in situations of public discrimination.
It's easy to talk about what we did or did not do in the past.
What can we do NOW and in the future?
How can we build a support team who can help us when we encounter this discrimination from people?
And, how can we strengthen our skills in the areas where we seek employment so that we are ready to show future employers our best?
04 February 2011
Letters to the DOJ
In January, I asked readers to submit comments on the issue of movie captions. There are many ways to talk about the issue and even today I am still learning the intricacies of how captioning really works in various stages of its creation.
My boyfriend Alex and I wrote letters to the Department of Justice about movie captions. I thought I'd share them here, and I'm particularly proud of Alex's. He's captioned a handful of things for me without me even asking him to do so, and I'm grateful for his skills and even more grateful for his advocacy for me and millions of others who use captions.
And now, our letters.
January 23, 2011
Dear The U.S. Department of Justice:
(by Alex)
The technologies for captioning films have come a long way in the decades since the ADA became law, but their implementation has not reached the levels that legislation would imply. My hard-of-hearing girlfriend and I are both filmmakers and well acquainted with what it takes to get a film captioned. This knowledge has added to the frustrations we have felt in attempting to find captioned films to enjoy together.
Those who require captions to comprehend and enjoy the films they pay to see in a theater are limited to a small selection of screenings of a small selection of films each month. A wider selection of films would enrich not only the personal lives of those with hearing loss (as well as the social, cultural, and familial bonds of those connected to them), but could actually see an increase in theater attendance. For one thing, the retired population – which often have more leisure time in which to go to the theater – have a high incidence of hearing loss, and many would find the theater more appealing if they could follow along by reading the dialog instead of straining to hear it. Also, many of the hard-of-hearing film fans I know tell me often how they would love to see a certain film while it is in theaters, but they have to wait for a captioned screening (which never occurs with many films).
They are usually forced to wait for the film to be released in some other way. However, many significant films (such as most of the DVDs released by major documentary distributor Docurama) and the vast majority of titles offered on Netflix Instant Streaming are not available with captions.
Requiring 100% of films to be made available with captions is just as reasonable as requiring all buildings to be accessible to wheelchair users. Distributors certainly have it within their power to caption the films they release, and any major movie theater would benefit from devoting more of their screens to showing film prints and digital projections more often.
(by Rhianon)
I am a filmmaker, activist, and person with a hearing loss. As an emerging filmmaker, I have made it my mission to make films that are artistic, participatory, and inclusive of people with hearing loss. I can see both sides of the issue as a filmmaker and as an audience member. I want people to see my films and those of my peers and not just the larger budget films. The experience of making films is equally exhausting and rewarding. It is a profound experience for filmmakers to watch their work on the big screen. We’ve worked hard to make our films seen and it is through the efforts of many that they do get seen. I have shown my films at numerous theatres to packed audiences who have come up to me afterwards telling me how moved they were by the story and characters. These people have been people with and without a hearing loss. My films have usually been the only captioned ones of many. I’ve struggled to appreciate the films of my peers because they were not captioned. I do not value their work less, but I know that I do not value their work as much as I would if I could access it fully. I’ve been vocal about this because captioning is never just about one person. Captioning benefits many, but for it to matter, many have to speak up about how it helps them and/or those that are close to them.
As theatres transition to the digital age and films are screened with more ease, captioning should be less costly. Captioning files should exist for any film that will play on more than ten screens nationally. Each theatre that has these films should have caption files of each film that plays in it. Moviegoers should be able to access both in print (newspaper, magazine, and theatre printings) and on the Internet (theatre websites and caption search engines like Captionfish) what films will have captions or subtitles in theatres. I am optimistic about the way that technology is progressing and feel that this is a reasonable goal for filmmakers, distributors, exhibitors, and theatre owners to commit to doing, but consumers must also continue to communicate their needs.
There are various ways that moviegoers can access captions. I personally feel that rear window captioning should not be the standard. If we rely on rear window captioning, only select moviegoers will have access to the screens, but in order for the screens to work, the technology must be turned on and the moviegoer has to be seated a comfortable distance from the screen. This is exclusive and does not bring enough awareness to the larger public about captioning. I believe that open captions should become the standard because they can be seen at all times no matter where one sits. However, in order for any screening to have open captions, the captions need to be seamless and not distracting with white over a black and white image, spelling errors, or faces or credits being covered with captions. This is more the responsibility of those that caption the films, but I know that when captioning is done well and is used more often, it becomes a vital and seamless part of the viewing experience and people ask for it.
I thank you for taking the time to read our comments.
My boyfriend Alex and I wrote letters to the Department of Justice about movie captions. I thought I'd share them here, and I'm particularly proud of Alex's. He's captioned a handful of things for me without me even asking him to do so, and I'm grateful for his skills and even more grateful for his advocacy for me and millions of others who use captions.
And now, our letters.
January 23, 2011
Dear The U.S. Department of Justice:
(by Alex)
The technologies for captioning films have come a long way in the decades since the ADA became law, but their implementation has not reached the levels that legislation would imply. My hard-of-hearing girlfriend and I are both filmmakers and well acquainted with what it takes to get a film captioned. This knowledge has added to the frustrations we have felt in attempting to find captioned films to enjoy together.
Those who require captions to comprehend and enjoy the films they pay to see in a theater are limited to a small selection of screenings of a small selection of films each month. A wider selection of films would enrich not only the personal lives of those with hearing loss (as well as the social, cultural, and familial bonds of those connected to them), but could actually see an increase in theater attendance. For one thing, the retired population – which often have more leisure time in which to go to the theater – have a high incidence of hearing loss, and many would find the theater more appealing if they could follow along by reading the dialog instead of straining to hear it. Also, many of the hard-of-hearing film fans I know tell me often how they would love to see a certain film while it is in theaters, but they have to wait for a captioned screening (which never occurs with many films).
They are usually forced to wait for the film to be released in some other way. However, many significant films (such as most of the DVDs released by major documentary distributor Docurama) and the vast majority of titles offered on Netflix Instant Streaming are not available with captions.
Requiring 100% of films to be made available with captions is just as reasonable as requiring all buildings to be accessible to wheelchair users. Distributors certainly have it within their power to caption the films they release, and any major movie theater would benefit from devoting more of their screens to showing film prints and digital projections more often.
(by Rhianon)
I am a filmmaker, activist, and person with a hearing loss. As an emerging filmmaker, I have made it my mission to make films that are artistic, participatory, and inclusive of people with hearing loss. I can see both sides of the issue as a filmmaker and as an audience member. I want people to see my films and those of my peers and not just the larger budget films. The experience of making films is equally exhausting and rewarding. It is a profound experience for filmmakers to watch their work on the big screen. We’ve worked hard to make our films seen and it is through the efforts of many that they do get seen. I have shown my films at numerous theatres to packed audiences who have come up to me afterwards telling me how moved they were by the story and characters. These people have been people with and without a hearing loss. My films have usually been the only captioned ones of many. I’ve struggled to appreciate the films of my peers because they were not captioned. I do not value their work less, but I know that I do not value their work as much as I would if I could access it fully. I’ve been vocal about this because captioning is never just about one person. Captioning benefits many, but for it to matter, many have to speak up about how it helps them and/or those that are close to them.
As theatres transition to the digital age and films are screened with more ease, captioning should be less costly. Captioning files should exist for any film that will play on more than ten screens nationally. Each theatre that has these films should have caption files of each film that plays in it. Moviegoers should be able to access both in print (newspaper, magazine, and theatre printings) and on the Internet (theatre websites and caption search engines like Captionfish) what films will have captions or subtitles in theatres. I am optimistic about the way that technology is progressing and feel that this is a reasonable goal for filmmakers, distributors, exhibitors, and theatre owners to commit to doing, but consumers must also continue to communicate their needs.
There are various ways that moviegoers can access captions. I personally feel that rear window captioning should not be the standard. If we rely on rear window captioning, only select moviegoers will have access to the screens, but in order for the screens to work, the technology must be turned on and the moviegoer has to be seated a comfortable distance from the screen. This is exclusive and does not bring enough awareness to the larger public about captioning. I believe that open captions should become the standard because they can be seen at all times no matter where one sits. However, in order for any screening to have open captions, the captions need to be seamless and not distracting with white over a black and white image, spelling errors, or faces or credits being covered with captions. This is more the responsibility of those that caption the films, but I know that when captioning is done well and is used more often, it becomes a vital and seamless part of the viewing experience and people ask for it.
I thank you for taking the time to read our comments.
06 January 2011
KPFA Berkeley Radio Interview: January 7, 2011
You can listen to the radio interview on Friday, January 7, 2011 at 2:30PM on KPFA 94.1 or stream it live at www.kpfa.org. I will be on towards the end of the show. After it airs, it will go straight into the archives at http://kpfa.org/archive/show/33.
Below is the transcript of the interview.
You can read, listen and read, or listen, whichever works best for YOU!
Transcript from Pushing Limits' Show "Revising the ADA" Interview with Rhianon Gutierrez
Airdate: January 6, 2011, 2:30PM KPFA 94.1 FM
Raphaella: Every Christmas, my family wakes up, unwraps a few presents, and heads off for a walk to the movies. And although attending the movies has got to be one of the most social activities, the theaters are still inaccessible for many members of our communities including people who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing. As you heard earlier in the show, the Department of Justice is considering revising the ADA to regulate how accessible movie theaters are.
Just before the winter holiday, I met up with filmmaker, Rhianon Gutierrez. Rhianon is hard of hearing and I asked her about her experience going to the movies.
Rhianon: I love movies. I grew up wanting to be in the movies as an actress, you know, behind the camera... And, the nice thing about movies for any person with a hearing loss is that they're very visual, and often times, you know, there's a lot that you can get from the story just by the emotions and the movement and the pictures. But then, there's those fine details, like those words, those plot things that are revealed through dialogue that you just don't get. So, if you go with family or friends, they'll be filling in the blanks for you. That's what I do. I will watch the film and if I miss something that happened really fast, I will ask them imediately what happened there? "What did they just say?"
And it's really difficult with comedy because comedy relies so much on those punchlines and those really quick things that you just want to get in the moment. And sometimes you'll laugh with everyone else, but deep down inside it really hurts because you have no idea what's being said and you want to instantly experience that.
For animated films, it can be really difficult becasue they're not live action--you don't see their lips moving. I mean, they have like this feature of just going up and down and maybe just moving around a little bit but you're not gonna get it. As a child I saw a lot of animated movies. You know? I saw those Disney classics like Toy Story, Mulan...Oh what are some other good ones...Just all those films in the 90s that came out--I saw them in theaters. And I loved how they looked, but I'm pretty sure that there were...like I had no idea what they were saying and I don't want the next generation to have to go through that.
Raphaella: Right now, some theaters have different accessibility options, but none of them are clearly required. Rhianon outlined for me four different options for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing if they want to see movies with friends and family.
Rhianon: We want to be able to enjoy the movie-going experience and so either we'll just go without captions, but if we do go with captions, there are rear window captions that are avaialble which is like a little screen that you put into your cup holder so the captions appear as the movie plays. That's one option. Another option is subtitles. If you go to foreign language films that are not in English, then you will see the English captions up there. Now, the good thing about the subtitles is that the English is very clear, but you don't get the sound effects. So, for someone who has no type of hearing at all, when they see this film they're not gonna know about footsteps approaching or whatnot, like you would hear in horror movies. Another option: open captions which are like subtitles, but they also include sound effects. Open captions, I think, are not quite as common, so often times what many people with hearing loss will do is they will just wait because DVDs are so popular and Netflix, they will just wait for movies to come out, and they will just watch them at home.
Raphaella: The Department of Justice seems to be leaning towards requiring theaters to use rear window captions instead of open captions. As Rhianon explained, rear window captions require the moviegoer to request from the usher a small screen they insert near their cup holder. As they watch the movie, the captions appear on the little screen next to them.
Rhianon: I prefer open captions and it's just not practical at all to me. I don't want to look back and forth. I mean, I'm in classrooms watching non-captioned films often. You know, I am seeing the screen up there, then I look at the computer screen, I imagine the rear window captions almost the same experience. You know, it's just back and forth. I don't want that. I just want to look at the picture.
I was reading about having 3D IMAX experience with rear window captions. I've never personally experienced that, but I couldn't imagine the mixing of the rear window--with this little screen like right next to you--and having these things come out and wearing the glasses. That just does not seem very practical at all.
Raphaella: What about, like, having reserved seating in the theater because of where the captioning is and the best angle on it?
Rhianon: If we have open captions, we don't need reserved seating because it doesn't matter where you sit, you're gonna get those captions. Okay? If you have rear window, reserved seating will make more sense because just imagine being super close and having a screen right there by your cup holder. That would be one painful experience for your neck and your back and your head and your eyes--everything! So I think if you're doing rear window, reserved seating might help.
Raphaella: Would you have other things that you would tell somebody who said this takes away from the visual beauty of the film?
Rhianon: As a filmmaker, I mean, I don't want to have all this crap all over the picture, you know? I know there are a lot of filmmakers who probably think that too and you don't want to have all these distractions but I think that if captions are done well, and they're done in a very non-intrusive way, then you would see that it won't be quite as bad to have them there. Captions are bad when the color is wrong, when they're big, when they're over someone's mouth, or when they are misspelled (laughing), you know? If they're not spelled correctly, that's really embarrassing. So, I think that so many movies that we're seeing now you see the black bars, I mean, it's widescreen. And I think that it'll be really good if we would have those captions on the black bars on the bottom so we can see that and the picture will be up there. But there will be time we probably won't see the black bars, and then you'll just have the words on the picture. But I think you really have to be, like, very aware of, like, where you're putting them. Test screenings are necessary for that kind of thing.
Raphaella: If the Department of Justice decides to require any kind of captioning in movie theaters, they'll give the theaters time to make the switch. I asked Rhianon about the proposed plan.
Rhianon: They're proposing that they'll be 50% of films that will be captioned over a period of 5 years so that saying 10% per year. And my own point of view on that and the opinions of my friends who have hearing loss and also the organization which I'm involved with, the Hearing Loss Association of America, we don't think that's right at all. Because if we're talking about universal equality and inclusion and all that, I mean, having 50% is still saying...I mean, it's better than nothing, but it's not enough.
Raphaella: Filmmaker Rhianon Gutierrez' final thoughts.
Rhianon: If you like films, speak up about it. It's important to be vocal about this issue, because why should we be left out? I mean, that's silly.
05 January 2011
Why Captions Now: The Department of Justice and Movie Captioning
Why Captions Now?
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
On December 14th, I saw Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan with my two friends at a theatre in San Francisco. We were celebrating our last week of the semester together at San Francisco State. The film was not captioned, but I still went because I really wanted to see the film. For the most part, my cochlear implant assisted me as I lipread Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis, but the process was equally exhausting and nauseating without the captions. I had to ask my friends to clarify some details for me when the film was over. I’ve been doing this for years. I’ve long made the choice to pay to see films in theatres with or without captions because of my passion for film and my desire to socialize. I’ve gone to the movies less as I’ve gotten older and I’ve tried to restrict myself to foreign films because I know that they will have subtitles.
As a child, I was drawn to the power of an actor’s expression and a film’s overall imagery. I’ve known that I wanted to be in film ever since I was three years old. Today, as a filmmaker, I love the collaborative process of filmmaking and I love seeing how my audience responds. I caption my films so that I can make them accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing, but even while my films have been accessible at film festivals, other films have not. As an advocate for captions, I speak about the benefits of captions not only for those who are deaf or hard of hearing, but for those who are learning English and those who are trying to improve their reading skills. I do this so that people can see the universal benefit of captions. I want to see the films of my peers, not struggle to appreciate and critique their work because I miss the intricacies of the dialogue or because I can’t see the film at all. I should be able to watch a greater selection of quality captioned films, wherever and whenever.
I write about captioning often, but I'm writing about it again because the issue of movie captioning is coming to light with the final Department of Justice hearings on January 10th in San Francisco. The rules are proposing that 50% of theatrical films will be captioned five years from now, with 10% per year over a period of five years. Is this acceptable? Why or why not? In considering our answers to this question, we must be realistic. Captions should be universal with so many technologies and resources that are out there. We have open captions, rear window captions, real time captions, and even iPhone caption apps. On their website, the Department of Justice is asking us to respond to 26 questions; the first question is about the 10% over five years. I urge you all to read the questions carefully and to respond to them as they have affected you or a person you know with a hearing loss. At minimum, respond to the first question, but be detailed. The next questions discuss captions in large theatre chains and smaller independent theatres; the amount of screens that offer captions; and the technologies and training required for operating the necessary equipment. I encourage you to be honest but to also be realistic. Frame your argument well and show the DOJ why captions should be universal.
I spoke on December 14th at a televised meeting of the San Francisco Mayor's Disability Council, which you can access with captions and ASL interpretation here. My part begins at 57:00. I was also interviewed by Raphaella Bennin of KPFA radio in Berkeley; the interview and transcript can be found at this link.
I love watching films as much as I love making them, but I appreciate films and the team behind them more so when they are made accessible with captions. I’m doing my part to let the DOJ know that captions matter to me. I hope you will do the same.
Here's what you can do:
According to the DOJ, written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted ON or BEFORE January 24, 2011. Comments must be identified by RIN 1190–AA63 (or Docket ID No. 112).
To file comments electronically:
1. Check out the Fact Sheet about the Proposed Rule on Movie Captioning.
2. Click on www.regulations.gov.
3. Enter Docket ID: DOJ–CRT–0112 and click "Search".
4. Click on "View by Docket Folder".
5. Click on the little blue "Open Docket Folder" on the right of the orange title of the proposed rulemaking.
6. Click on the blue title of the proposed rule to open the HTML version of the proposed rule with all the 26 questions lined out.
7. At the top of the page, you will see an orange bar saying "Submit a Comment".
To file written comments via Regular U.S. mail:
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 2885
Fairfax, VA 22031–0885
Overnight, courier, or hand delivery:
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 4039
Washington, DC 20005
Attend the PUBLIC HEARING on January 10th, 2011:
Location:
Marriott Marquis
55 Fourth Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Time: 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. PST.
© Rhianon Elan Gutierrez
 |
| Still from Black Swan (2010). Fox Searchlight Pictures. |
On December 14th, I saw Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan with my two friends at a theatre in San Francisco. We were celebrating our last week of the semester together at San Francisco State. The film was not captioned, but I still went because I really wanted to see the film. For the most part, my cochlear implant assisted me as I lipread Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis, but the process was equally exhausting and nauseating without the captions. I had to ask my friends to clarify some details for me when the film was over. I’ve been doing this for years. I’ve long made the choice to pay to see films in theatres with or without captions because of my passion for film and my desire to socialize. I’ve gone to the movies less as I’ve gotten older and I’ve tried to restrict myself to foreign films because I know that they will have subtitles.
As a child, I was drawn to the power of an actor’s expression and a film’s overall imagery. I’ve known that I wanted to be in film ever since I was three years old. Today, as a filmmaker, I love the collaborative process of filmmaking and I love seeing how my audience responds. I caption my films so that I can make them accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing, but even while my films have been accessible at film festivals, other films have not. As an advocate for captions, I speak about the benefits of captions not only for those who are deaf or hard of hearing, but for those who are learning English and those who are trying to improve their reading skills. I do this so that people can see the universal benefit of captions. I want to see the films of my peers, not struggle to appreciate and critique their work because I miss the intricacies of the dialogue or because I can’t see the film at all. I should be able to watch a greater selection of quality captioned films, wherever and whenever.
I write about captioning often, but I'm writing about it again because the issue of movie captioning is coming to light with the final Department of Justice hearings on January 10th in San Francisco. The rules are proposing that 50% of theatrical films will be captioned five years from now, with 10% per year over a period of five years. Is this acceptable? Why or why not? In considering our answers to this question, we must be realistic. Captions should be universal with so many technologies and resources that are out there. We have open captions, rear window captions, real time captions, and even iPhone caption apps. On their website, the Department of Justice is asking us to respond to 26 questions; the first question is about the 10% over five years. I urge you all to read the questions carefully and to respond to them as they have affected you or a person you know with a hearing loss. At minimum, respond to the first question, but be detailed. The next questions discuss captions in large theatre chains and smaller independent theatres; the amount of screens that offer captions; and the technologies and training required for operating the necessary equipment. I encourage you to be honest but to also be realistic. Frame your argument well and show the DOJ why captions should be universal.
I spoke on December 14th at a televised meeting of the San Francisco Mayor's Disability Council, which you can access with captions and ASL interpretation here. My part begins at 57:00. I was also interviewed by Raphaella Bennin of KPFA radio in Berkeley; the interview and transcript can be found at this link.
I love watching films as much as I love making them, but I appreciate films and the team behind them more so when they are made accessible with captions. I’m doing my part to let the DOJ know that captions matter to me. I hope you will do the same.
Here's what you can do:
According to the DOJ, written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted ON or BEFORE January 24, 2011. Comments must be identified by RIN 1190–AA63 (or Docket ID No. 112).
To file comments electronically:
1. Check out the Fact Sheet about the Proposed Rule on Movie Captioning.
2. Click on www.regulations.gov.
3. Enter Docket ID: DOJ–CRT–0112 and click "Search".
4. Click on "View by Docket Folder".
5. Click on the little blue "Open Docket Folder" on the right of the orange title of the proposed rulemaking.
6. Click on the blue title of the proposed rule to open the HTML version of the proposed rule with all the 26 questions lined out.
7. At the top of the page, you will see an orange bar saying "Submit a Comment".
To file written comments via Regular U.S. mail:
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 2885
Fairfax, VA 22031–0885
Overnight, courier, or hand delivery:
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 4039
Washington, DC 20005
Attend the PUBLIC HEARING on January 10th, 2011:
Location:
Marriott Marquis
55 Fourth Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Time: 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. PST.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)