Apple TV+ 'CODA' in theaters first film to have burned-in captions

AppleInsider

Theater screenings of the Apple TV+ film "CODA" will be as accessible to deaf and hard of hearing cinema-goers, with the theatrical release including captions burned into the film print.

"CODA" follows Ruby, a young girl who is a child of deaf parents, and who acts as an interpreter for them as she is the only hearing member of her family. When Ruby discovers a talent for singing and wants to apply to the Berklee School of Music, it causes friction in her family, which depends on her for their fishing business.

The film, which won an award at the Sundance Film Festival, will be receiving a theatrical release as well as being streamed via Apple TV+. However, Reuters reports the showings in theaters will be a different affair than normal.

Typically, deaf film viewers wanting captions have to wear special glasses to see the text as they watch the film. This equipment is not always available, and in some cases can be damaged or partially unusable.

To counter this, the captions for the film will be burned into the print itself, eliminating the need for the extra equipment in theaters in the U.S. and U.K. It is claimed this will be a first for a feature film released in theaters.

"It is historic. It is huge for all us," according to actor Daniel Durant, who plays Leo in the film. "This is a day we have waited to see for so many years."

Sian Heder, the writer-director of "CODA," wanted to make sure the film would be accessible to practically anyone. "Oftentimes I think deaf people are left out of the movie-going experience because of devices that don't work and lack of devices in theaters," the director said, with the added hope it will encourage other studios to do the same, and for more deaf people to visit theaters.

"CODA" will be available to view on Apple TV+ from Friday, complete with subtitles in 36 languages.

Read on AppleInsider

mike1

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

dcgoo

AppleInsider said:

"CODA" follows Ruby, a young girl who is a child of deaf parents, and who acts as an interpreter for them as she is the only hearing member of her family. When Ruby discovers a talent for singing and wants to apply to the Berkley School of Music, it causes friction in her family, which depends on her for their fishing business. 

It’s actually the Berklee School of Music, in Boston

dcgoo

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

Unless you are fluent in ASL (American Sign Language), I would think subtitles would be required.  The story is about a Child Of Deaf Adults (CODA) and her relationship with her family. All of their dialog is silent (signed).  My fear is that it will be a real tear jerker, hopefully with a happy ending.   

greginprague

Having lived overseas for a number of years where any English language movie is shown with local subtitles in the theater we aren’t bothered by it.  Beyond that we often turn on English subtitles for movies just so we can keep the volume lower and still understand everything.  It’s pretty easy to tune them out if you don’t want to read them.

smiffy31

This sounds remarkably like the 2014 French film « The Bélier Family »

crowley

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

If you weren’t inclined in the first place then what difference does it make?  Stick to your comfortable ableist world.

Beats

Pretty innovative of Apple, though a version without subtitles should be available at home.

”Typically, deaf film viewers wanting captions have to wear special glasses to see the text as they watch the film. ”

Wow. Didn’t know we were this far into the future and yeah with the pandemic I don’t think it would be wise. Innovative of Apple again.

mike1

dcgoo said:

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

Unless you are fluent in ASL (American Sign Language), I would think subtitles would be required.  The story is about a Child Of Deaf Adults (CODA) and her relationship with her family. All of their dialog is silent (signed).  My fear is that it will be a real tear jerker, hopefully with a happy ending.   

Subtitles are different than closed captioning. Subtitles includes the dialog only. CC includes all the additional descriptive details in text. For example, "doorbell ringing", "music playing", "dog barking", "helicopters approaching" etc. Why would anyone who hears want all that additional distraction on the screen.

mike1

crowley said:

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

If you weren’t inclined in the first place then what difference does it make?  Stick to your comfortable ableist world.

It makes a difference because the article stated that the director hoped "it will encourage other studios to do the same".

I get the point with this movie, but since most people can hear, it would seem unnecessary to burden every film like this.

Not going to apologize for being able to hear and preferring not to have the screen cluttered with unnecessary additions.

ArianneFeldry

mike1 said:

crowley said:

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

If you weren’t inclined in the first place then what difference does it make?  Stick to your comfortable ableist world.

It makes a difference because the article stated that the director hoped "it will encourage other studios to do the same".

I get the point with this movie, but since most people can hear, it would seem unnecessary to burden every film like this.

Not going to apologize for being able to hear and preferring not to have the screen cluttered with unnecessary additions.

There are devices so that those who are hard of hearing or unable to hear at all can enjoy the movie. Why not just use those? Invest in those devices? It's like forcing every car to extend the clutch, brake, and accelerator pedals so that those who have lost their legs can drive in any car without needing special accommodations. Why impede the experience of the 99% when the 1% can already be accommodated?

crowley

mike1 said:

crowley said:

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

If you weren’t inclined in the first place then what difference does it make?  Stick to your comfortable ableist world.

It makes a difference because the article stated that the director hoped "it will encourage other studios to do the same".

I get the point with this movie, but since most people can hear, it would seem unnecessary to burden every film like this.

Not going to apologize for being able to hear and preferring not to have the screen cluttered with unnecessary additions.

Since the point of the film is to highlight what it's like to be deaf, then seeing the closed captioning and appreciating all of the auditory cues that deaf people miss out on might add to the experience.

Or you could just ignore them, since you're so blessed.  

How entitled do you have to be to complain that a film that by your own admission you will not watch, contains something that benefits others, fully integrated with the overall spirit of the film, but that you in your infinite wisdom do not want.

Pipe down.  This doesn't concern you.

crowley

ArianneFeldry said:

mike1 said:

crowley said:

mike1 said:

This isn't the type of movie I'd see in a theater, but does that mean everyone would have to see the closed-captions on the screen? That would make it a no-go for me even if I was inclined to see it in a theater.

If you weren’t inclined in the first place then what difference does it make?  Stick to your comfortable ableist world.

It makes a difference because the article stated that the director hoped "it will encourage other studios to do the same".

I get the point with this movie, but since most people can hear, it would seem unnecessary to burden every film like this.

Not going to apologize for being able to hear and preferring not to have the screen cluttered with unnecessary additions.

There are devices so that those who are hard of hearing or unable to hear at all can enjoy the movie. Why not just use those? Invest in those devices? It's like forcing every car to extend the clutch, brake, and accelerator pedals so that those who have lost their legs can drive in any car without needing special accommodations. Why impede the experience of the 99% when the 1% can already be accommodated?

It's more like forcing cars that are built for those who have lost their legs to have an "enabled-mode" where the pedals can be retracted.  Not the point at all.

Why do you hate disabled people so much that you'd inconvenience them in a film about their disability so you can be more comfortable?  Deaf people live with their deafness every day, you can't suffer subtitles for a couple hours?  

Such entitled dickheadedness being displayed here.