SYNOPSICS
Mockingbird Don't Sing (2001) is a American Sign Language,English movie. Harry Bromley Davenport has directed this movie. Melissa Errico,Michael Lerner,Joe Regalbuto,Sean Young are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2001. Mockingbird Don't Sing (2001) is considered one of the best Biography,Drama movie in India and around the world.
On November 4, 1970 on The CBS Evening News, Walter Cronkite reported on a true, horrific story that was about to rock the country. A 13-year-old girl was discovered in the small Los Angeles suburb of Arcadia who was still in diapers, barely able to walk and unable to speak. Kept in severe isolation by her parents with virtually no human contact for more than 10 years, she was confined to her bedroom, tied to her potty-chair and left to fend for herself. As Cronkite noted, it was one of the most horrendous cases of child abuse ever to surface. Much like an animal, the girl spat, sniffed and clawed. She had none of the traits or characteristics of conventional human behavior, nor could she comprehend such modern societal conveniences as silverware or bathroom etiquette. Her emotional development was practically non-existent, and she could not speak. With this heartbreaking story, the world was being introduced to a fragile, beautiful teenager who seemed and behaved like an infant, or ...
Same Actors
Mockingbird Don't Sing (2001) Reviews
Director/Producer responds to accusation of inaccuracy
8/9/03 Dear Sylvia Marciniak Thank you for looking at our film "Mockingbird Don't Sing". I am the producer director. I am intrigued by your comment that it was not accurate. In what respect, pray tell? We spent two years researching this subject and enlisted the service of Dr Susan Curtiss (named Sandra Tannen in the film) who was, as you will know from your research, present at all but the early stages of Genie/Katie's life starting a few months after she arrived at Children's hospital. We interviewed her for about 40 hours total and she was our primary source. Susie Curtiss, now a linguistics professor at UCLA, signed off on this script as being as accurate a representation as was possible, given the constraints of having to make a drama out of the story. That is to say, we felt that all the lawsuits which followed the child's return to her mother belonged in another story. I used many other sources, including "sealed" records from the Los Angeles courthouses, Dr Rigler, Dr Jay Shurley, John Miner, the child's onelime legal guardian, Dr Kay Natali and a host of others who were actually personally acquainted with the child and her situation for many years in the 1960s 70's and 80's. I suspect that you have read Russ Rymer's book and New Yorker articles -- documents much derided by the actual participants in the true story because of their massive inaccuracies and because his primary contact was the child's mother, Irene (now deceased by the way). Have you read Dr Susan Curtiss' own book on the subject, I wonder: `Genie - A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day `Wild Child' So you see, I simply can't let you get away with the broad statement at the top of your comments "It's not accurate". You may have studied this case in class, but I spent three solid years on this killing myself to do justice to the story and to make it as accurately and elegantly as possible, and -- my God -- to actually manage to get a film made about such a risky and difficult subject. I am saddened that you chose only to respond to the verisimilitude of the film. The names were changed for silly legal reasons beyond my control, but I might have hoped for a more reflective set of comments from a psychology student. Now I'm sorry that I've yelled my head off at you -- you're probably a perfectly decent person. You should understand that this is an important movie for me and I don't respond well to uninformed criticism. You are free to dislike the picture, of course, but don't tell me "It's not accurate". I do hope you will find time to reply and to forgive me for being such a curmudgeon. Sincerely, Harry Bromley-Davenport. (Producer/Director "Mockingbird Don't Sing")
What can I say?
I missed this film, when it was displayed at University by my' Psychology department, but as soon as I stumbled over it in our local Video Store, I rented it and quite honestly, I don't know what to tell you. I really believe, that I can't say this was a good film, because the story is just too sad and too real. What I can say though, is that this is an utmost interesting film, which displays what humans are capable of in a very professional way. I must say this, for I felt this was not so much a dramatized version of a true life event, but rather a documentary on a true life event. This is neither a tear jerker, nor a graphically violent film but maybe that it is also the reason it is twice as memorable as your average psychological drama. This film will leave you sitting shocked and numb in front of your TV. 8 out of 10 (for people who are really interested in the human psyche like psychology students) 7 out of 10 (for the average viewer)
Film That Leaves You Wondering...
This movie kept me glued to the screen. I think it is because of natural human instinct to be inquisitive about terrible & traumatic events that happen to others. Also, the acting was really believable and natural. The storyline was great, except for the ending. At the end of the movie, they had text on the screen telling what happened to each character. But they didn't tell enough of what happened to Katie. I don't like to be left hanging about the main character. It is like missing the end of the movie--what is the point of watching 90% of a movie, if you miss the last 10%? I really wanted to know the outcome, and still do. Maybe if I search online, I can find out some more information. It was definitely worth watching. But, I would have given it a score of 9 instead of 7 if it had more info about the main character and her ending.
Worth watching
This could have been a truly great film. I'll just say that I won't let my wife watch it, because she's too sensitive. It really left me wondering though. What happened to that poor girl? Is she OK? Why on earth would you leave me wondering after making me empathize with her like that? At the end, I was hoping that most of it was fiction, with a poorly written ending. I searched the internet immediately after watching it, looking for answers. The director/producer's comments clarified things a bit. What I got is that it should have never been made into a movie. You see, you never make a movie if you want to tell a story exactly as it was. You make a documentary. A documentary might have left me with the same questions, but it would have been expected. At least, it would have hopefully been more objective. I agree with the comment that the psychology student is portrayed as a saint, though the facts leave you wondering. In movies like these, you really need to explore very deeply each character. There were just too many people involved to do justice to each of them. If that female teacher was really as caring and successful, how come she couldn't get her back? If the psychology student was such a saint, how come she didn't sacrifice her career for the child? There were too many events to fit into a movie too. All in all, watch it by all means. But be prepared for some strong feelings at the end.
Katie a child with so much potential
Mockingbird don't sing. The title of a moving, and informative film we as a group of people recently viewed. The main theme centered on a girl (Katie), and the terrible conditions she was put into early in life, some trauma, and how people tried to help work through her disabilities. An important part we as group saw was how darkly, and dimly lit, it showed the dark atmosphere that was associated with what went on in that room. We also saw an interesting fact that the shades were made out of newspapers ( a source to the outside world) yet Katie was totally isolated, and oblivious to all that was going on outside of that dark dim room. Katie was born with a mental disability. It says this in the movie when it gives the background info onto her earlier life. The question is how different Katie could have been if she had not been put into the abusive conditions she was so early in life. Or even why her father did this to her, and put her through so much early agony. Even though Katie may have had a legitimate mental disability, we believe that given the proper care, treatment, and love Katie could have lived through a different set of variations that were brought to her. It has been proved time, and time again that children do not only need the bare essentials to live, they also need mental, physical, and warm emotional stimulation ( Child Development Institute). Katie was deprived of basically all of these essentials. It was sad how everyone that was supposedly trying to help Katie, were doing it to try and help themselves. We even saw Sandra doing this especially in how she treated Katie during the lesson on forming a correct question. She was working just to make Katie learn as fast as possible, and not caring about the pace or her understanding of what it was she was learning. The title Mockingbird don't sing is a perfect title for this film. I say that because in the song mockingbird don't sing, if the mockingbird does not sing then the person simply moves on to a new gift like the diamond ring. The people in this movie that were working with Katie were like the mother singing. When Katie ( the mockingbird )was not singing they were moving on a bit away from her with getting upset with her, and not going at a pace that would have helped her actually understand what she was doing rather than just mocking or doing what she was doing.