S01.E02: Ava's Story

[Cranberry]

Quote

After a married couple discovers their newborn is Deaf, they elect to try a surgical procedure. But when their surrogate - who also happens to be Deaf - learns the news, she feels she has no choice but to intervene.

Original air date: January 24, 2023

[AnimeMania]

Premiere Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023      9pm     FOX
Aaron Ashmore as Max 

Megan Boone as Jenny  
Stephanie Nogueras (deaf) as Ava

Joshua M. Castille (deaf) as KJ
Lauren Ridloff (deaf) as Sari, Ava's public defender 
Jean-Michele Le Gal as Milton, Ava's public defender
Daphne Rubin-Vega as Ava’s mother 
Rong Fu as Prosecutor
Krista Bridges as Detective
Directed by Marlee Matlin (deaf) 

[Spartan Girl]

This episode left no room for nuance. I’ll leave it at that.

[Madding crowd]

I thought it needed more nuance as well. I felt for Ava, but she kidnapped a baby that wasn't hers to take. At the very least she should have had some mandated therapy as she was very attached to Lucie, even before they found out she was deaf. I probably would not have chosen her for a surrogate; not because she was deaf but because she wanted children and so far did not have one of her own.  I am glad they made Lucie's mom as loving and kind and open to doing what was best for her baby. I felt annoyed at the dad, not only for his anger but because even if he had a hearing child the child may not be musically inclined or interested in music. 

I think it is a valuable thing to discuss whether implants are the answer to a deaf child. My husband had a deaf aunt and she worked at Marshall Field's store for over 40 years and got married and owned a house as a deaf person. She was good at reading lips and we all learned some sign language to communicate. I really can't imagine wanting to drill into a baby's skull, but I haven't read up the technology and know very little about it. This was well acted but like the first episode, I was wanting more information. 

[magicdog]

20 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

I thought it needed more nuance as well. I felt for Ava, but she kidnapped a baby that wasn't hers to take. At the very least she should have had some mandated therapy as she was very attached to Lucie, even before they found out she was deaf. I probably would not have chosen her for a surrogate; not because she was deaf but because she wanted children and so far did not have one of her own.  I am glad they made Lucie's mom as loving and kind and open to doing what was best for her baby. I felt annoyed at the dad, not only for his anger but because even if he had a hearing child the child may not be musically inclined or interested in music. 

 

In a way this reminded me of the movie, Mr. Holland's Opus, in which a married couple have a child who turns out to be deaf.  Meanwhile, the father (Mr. Holland) is a music teacher at a local HS and also is writing a grand symphony.  Naturally, he would want his family to be able to hear it and know music as he does, but his son would never know music at all beyond perhaps vibration and maybe bass tones (much of the film takes place in the 60s and 70s before technology improved for the deaf).  Maybe even if his son had normal hearing he wouldn't be the musician Mr. Holland was, but it hurts just the same.  In a way it's like being a doctor (or other profession) and hoping your child will be the next in the family - following in your footsteps as you followed your fathers', only to find out it can't or won't happen.  You'll get over it, but it is disappointing at first.  Doesn't mean he doesn't love his son.

 

26 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

I think it is a valuable thing to discuss whether implants are the answer to a deaf child. My husband had a deaf aunt and she worked at Marshall Field's store for over 40 years and got married and owned a house as a deaf person. She was good at reading lips and we all learned some sign language to communicate. I really can't imagine wanting to drill into a baby's skull, but I haven't read up the technology and know very little about it. This was well acted but like the first episode, I was wanting more information. 

I have learned ASL and briefly studied deaf culture (and spoke to people who were both deaf and CODAs) and to me, it would seem many in the deaf community are very clannish.  They speak a language relatively few people speak and they like it that way.  Your husband's aunt is a notable exception.  To me, if the child were born with a hole in its heart, would the [birth mother] demand the child not have surgery to fix it and live a more normal life?  Or demand the child live about as long as such a defect would allow?  No one would want the child to suffer from a problem that is fixable.  Same with cleft palates and other things.  

Before ASL was common, deaf children were frequently trained orally, so they could fit in better with the majority of society.  They could speak and be understood and be part of the world at large.  ASL to some degree took that away.  Not every deaf person can wear a cochlear implant - there are limits which are evaluated, but who knows what could come down the pike in the future?    

[Court]

I agree with y'all. Ava already wanted that baby prior to finding out about the implants. While that discussion is important, it's no excuse for Ava to kidnap a baby that wasn't hers. I wish there had been more grey in this episode. She should have had to serve time, probation or something. I found the episode prior to this much better because I felt there was nuance. 

I'm surprised she was even allowed to be a surrogate since she had no kids of her own. 

[Badger]

Didn't she have a baby that she gave up for adoption?  Maybe that was considered good enough. ITA that she was not a good candidate for surrogacy.  There's a growing movement among some feminists to ban all adoption and surrogacy because the biological mother/child bond is too strong and giving up a child is traumatic for them.

I don't know if anyone else watches the British soap 'Coronation Street" but they've been doing a recurring storyline about a young couple who have quadruplets, one of whom is deaf.  They were planning on cochlear implants for that child, but a deaf woman kidnapped him and convinced the mother that cochlear implants are abuse and don't work.

[Simba122504]

Having a history of childbirth is just one part of the process. I also thought you had to be an active mother?  A woman busy with her own children wouldn't grow too attached to the one she's carrying?  How is a woman who gave up a child for adoption when she was teenager a great candidate?  Am I evil for being fine with the surgery?  I think all children deserve love, but there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to help your child. 

[eel21788]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:33 PM, Madding crowd said:

I really can't imagine wanting to drill into a baby's skull, but I haven't read up the technology and know very little about it. This was well acted but like the first episode, I was wanting more information. 

I don't know about now, but 30 years ago a cochlear implant never would have been done in an infant. Then it was used only in children who struggled so badly with ASL and lip reading that their quality of life was being affected by it, or someone old enough to legally provide his own consent. 

[eel21788]

On 1/25/2023 at 1:12 PM, magicdog said:

Not every deaf person can wear a cochlear implant - there are limits which are evaluated, but who knows what could come down the pike in the future?    

Again, this is from over 30 years ago: the implant was only done on one side which was the more poorly affected ear. The better ear was spared from surgery on the pretense that something superior (not necessarily a surgical procedure) might me invented later on, and they didn't want to run the risk that having had a previous cochlear implant would interfere with receiving the maximum benefit from the new invention. 

[eel21788]

On 1/25/2023 at 1:12 PM, magicdog said:

 To me, if the child were born with a hole in its heart, would the [birth mother] demand the child not have surgery to fix it and live a more normal life?  Or demand the child live about as long as such a defect would allow?  No one would want the child to suffer from a problem that is fixable.  Same with cleft palates and other things.  

When she kept whining about "cutting into her skull" being barbaric, I was thinking what if it had been something such as placing a shunt for an intraventricular hemorrhage or hydrocephalus? Would she have objected to that as well? What if it had been a brain tumor?

They never really made it clear if her objection was limited to making any attempt to change the fact that she was deaf, or if her objection was to any surgery she considered "barbaric" even if it was necessary for quality of life.

[Madding crowd]

Being deaf is not a life threatening condition though, fluid on the brain or heart defects may be.

[CoyoteBlue]

AVA has cochlear implants herself and just doesn't use them, so her bitching about how "barbaric" it is seems pretty hyperbolic. The kid can just stop using it if it's not helping or gives her splitting headaches. My friend's toddler got her "skull drilled into" for shunts to prevent ear infections - it's a quality of life issue, not life-threatening, but still worth it. Kids get operations all the time to fix things early enough before they become an issue and there are plenty of babies out there in social media that are happy enough with their CCs and have agency to remove the external receiver when it irritates them.

IN ANY CASE, the real issue for her was not the operation but that she felt the parents wouldn't choose to raise Lucie in the manner that she felt best. Honey, the "Supreme Court" is not going to hold that up as the standard for removing children from their parents. She was hella deluded when she started on her mini "life on the run". If she'd really cared about that family, she'd have kept in touch with the mom to encourage her existing desire to support Lucie. If Ava'd shared her experience as a Deaf person rather than freak out about "barbaric skull drilling", she might have gotten somewhere. If she gave testimony about how CCs worked for her (or didn't), they might have tried other things first. And Ava was not in the meetings with the audiologist - maybe Lucie's type of deafness responds better to CC, maybe hearing aids would help - SHE DOESN'T KNOW. And yet she abducted a child.

I've seen enough Law & Order to know that even the most well-meaning person in a child's life cannot just RUN OFF with them and ADOPT THEM in another state. Even if the parents were beating the child. Like, seriously.

[Daff]

5 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

Being deaf is not a life threatening condition though, fluid on the brain or heart defects may be.

I do believe this is Ava’s issue, that simply because the hearing parents are devastated by what they see as an inconceivable “defect”, it’s no reason to put the child through a dangerous, painful surgery. Ava is leading a happy, fulfilled life, interacting just fine with the hearing world (loved the app on the phone, by the way). She sees the baby as “perfect”, and since she’s well adjusted, functioning in a hearing world, considers the baby can be, too. I also loved that she was prepared with a note when parked outside the police station. 

[Starchild]

Yeah I think that was the driver for Ava. That if they tried to use artificial means to force the baby into the hearing world to satisfy her parents' (especially her father's) need for a hearing child, that she would be straddling two worlds and be unhappy in both. Ava felt she would have a better life if allowed to just be deaf, than if she were forced to be deaf but trying to hear.

There actually was nuance, in fact.

[possibilities]

The nuance of this show is the best part of it, in my opinion!

It's not asking us to totally endorse the choices of any of the main players, on the defense or the prosecution's side. It's merely showing us what went into the making of a conflict, how a challenge to the individuals involved had complexity and  ultimately went awry, how people reacted to it along the way, what drove their motivation, and then how the imperfections on all sides drive the results.

I think they are asking us to reflect more deeply than the good guy/bad guy style of most crime shows. Whether or not you agree with any of the characters or endorse their behavior, the interest in the show is in looking at the nuance itself, of how right or wrong choices come to be, and may not be all or nothing.

This was true in the first episode, also, so I'm thinking it's built into the show deliberately and will be the challenge to the audience in every case. I sure hope so!

[Chicago Redshirt]

12 minutes ago, possibilities said:

The nuance of this show is the best part of it, in my opinion!

It's not asking us to totally endorse the choices of any of the main players, on the defense or the prosecution's side. It's merely showing us what went into the making of a conflict, how a challenge to the individuals involved had complexity and  ultimately went awry, how people reacted to it along the way, what drove their motivation, and then how the imperfections on all sides drive the results.

I think they are asking us to reflect more deeply than the good guy/bad guy style of most crime shows. Whether or not you agree with any of the characters or endorse their behavior, the interest in the show is in looking at the nuance itself, of how right or wrong choices come to be, and may not be all or nothing.

This was true in the first episode, also, so I'm thinking it's built into the show deliberately and will be the challenge to the audience in every case. I sure hope so!

I do like that there is more nuance there to be had than the typical courtroom drama, but....

I think that the show very much wants us to say "Ava was justified in what she did." It stacks the deck by making Ava an attractive and loving person, by literally having Aaron Ashmore's character (sorry, it's going to be rare that I remember actual names here, especially when the characters are so thin) be an abusive, deaf-phobic asshole in Ava's presence, by having Aaron's own wife wonder if he is going to be abusive to Lucie, by having Ava have a terrible childhood raised by a cold and nasty single mother, by having an incompetent attorney initially handling her case and then having a deaf attorney show up to take her case and turn things around, and then having the parents, the prosecutor AND the judge all agree that it was the right thing to do to drop the kidnapping charge.

There's enough material in the show to reach an opposite conclusion. Maybe Mama Ava is right and that Ava has the mental problems Mama Ava suggests she does. Maybe it was mostly postpartum depression or her own desire for a child rather than any real concern for Lucie that led to her taking the extreme action that she did. After all, she had a lot of other options short of kidnapping.

Aaron Ashmore's turnaround from "I give zero f's about Ava's hardships" to "I realize I've been such an asshole that I will learn to say 'I'll try' in sign language is hard to swallow.

A better (IMO) show would have maintained the tension over Ava maybe having done the right thing for the wrong reasons, the wrong thing for the right reasons, the wrong thing for the wrong reasons as well as having done the right thing for the right reasons a little better. But I don't imagine such a show being on network TV.

 

[gesundheit]

7 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I do like that there is more nuance there to be had than the typical courtroom drama, but....

I think that the show very much wants us to say "Ava was justified in what she did." It stacks the deck by making Ava an attractive and loving person, by literally having Aaron Ashmore's character (sorry, it's going to be rare that I remember actual names here, especially when the characters are so thin) be an abusive, deaf-phobic asshole in Ava's presence, by having Aaron's own wife wonder if he is going to be abusive to Lucie, by having Ava have a terrible childhood raised by a cold and nasty single mother, by having an incompetent attorney initially handling her case and then having a deaf attorney show up to take her case and turn things around, and then having the parents, the prosecutor AND the judge all agree that it was the right thing to do to drop the kidnapping charge.

 

I'm in full agreement. The deck was stacked to an almost comical degree, and the parents dropping the charges in the middle of the trial due to a few minutes of speechifying was ridiculous. Not just dropping the charges, but inviting their child's kidnapper into her life. Gosh, I wonder what our takeway was supposed to be!

I definitely preferred the first episode, this one just felt cheap. Excellent performances, though! But I hope future episodes are a little more sophisticated.

[possibilities]

Incompetent attorneys are a real thing in the real world, though, and rarely portrayed on TV, where they are usually portrayed as heroes. I liked that they showed that the kind of defense you get can easily determine whether you are convicted or not. It's a game, not an infallible system.

They also left it that the state still wanted to prosecute, but the parents withdrew their support so that weakened the case from a winning it perspective. You can agree or disagree with the parents, but showing that what happens to the accused is as much about the choices of others, whether or not they are guilty, is, again, I think, a refreshingly honest look at the way our system works.

And we all know that people who can buy the best defense get better chances to win it, and the more your case attracts attention the more likely some do-good lawyer will show up and help you for the publicity, so I actually found the highlighting of those elements to be part of the nuance, and not just sloppy writing.

Ava was friends with the parents before the kidnapping. She reacted impulsively and her friends realized that, and took it to heart. Would that happen IRL? I don't know. Probably not. But it's not the biggest tv contrivance I've ever seen, either. 

I think the show also poses the question: is there another way to resolve problems, outside of the all or nothing route our system uses? It's entirely possible to conclude the parents were stupid for forgiving her, and condemn them for that. In both this and the first episode, intentions are being factored into things, as well as actions. Whether that is wise or not, again, is one of the questions the show puts in the laps of the viewers.

[Daff]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

is there another way to resolve problems,

In many states, mediation is ordered by judges. It can only work if there’s “good faith “ on both sides. It can fail miserably. For example, siblings sue the one son who blatantly stole Alzheimer’s mom’s assets-made no attempt to even hide it. Sent to mediation, by the “judgeless” (as we came to call her), came to a settlement, but the attorney for the thief ducked out the back door before signing. The mom passed, and only then did the thieving son get what he deserved in probate-nothing, and was ordered to pay back the estate (too bad there wasn’t a criminal case filed). 

[possibilities]

Yes, I was forced into mediation by a judge before they would hear my case against someone,  but this is not standard in all places. I think the show is trying to raise questions more than answer them. I think it's bold for network tv, which likes to draw a simple line and deliver a firm answer most often.

[Chicago Redshirt]

8 hours ago, possibilities said:

Incompetent attorneys are a real thing in the real world, though, and rarely portrayed on TV, where they are usually portrayed as heroes. I liked that they showed that the kind of defense you get can easily determine whether you are convicted or not. It's a game, not an infallible system.

They also left it that the state still wanted to prosecute, but the parents withdrew their support so that weakened the case from a winning it perspective. You can agree or disagree with the parents, but showing that what happens to the accused is as much about the choices of others, whether or not they are guilty, is, again, I think, a refreshingly honest look at the way our system works.

And we all know that people who can buy the best defense get better chances to win it, and the more your case attracts attention the more likely some do-good lawyer will show up and help you for the publicity, so I actually found the highlighting of those elements to be part of the nuance, and not just sloppy writing.

Ava was friends with the parents before the kidnapping. She reacted impulsively and her friends realized that, and took it to heart. Would that happen IRL? I don't know. Probably not. But it's not the biggest tv contrivance I've ever seen, either. 

I think the show also poses the question: is there another way to resolve problems, outside of the all or nothing route our system uses? It's entirely possible to conclude the parents were stupid for forgiving her, and condemn them for that. In both this and the first episode, intentions are being factored into things, as well as actions. Whether that is wise or not, again, is one of the questions the show puts in the laps of the viewers.

There are incompetent attorneys in real life, sure. But the mistakes this guy made are hard for me to imagine in real life. 

1. Putting on Ava's mom against Ava's advice is bad enough. But apparently he didn't interview or prep her to get a sense of what she might say on the stand.

2. Ava's only path to an acquittal is telling her story and explaining why she did what she did and having a jury say she was justified. I'm not sure how he didn't see that or grab onto the "she 'heard' Aaron basically come just shy of beating his wife while a person is present, what do you think will happen to her or Lucie when no one's around?" (And given that this is on a computer, there's potentially proof of that conversation." 

I bet a real-life case like this would get a lot of coverage and would attract a better-than-rando attorney to take the case. 

The thing about the parents rethinking their support -- if that happened in real life, that wouldn't really matter, especially if it happened at the end of the case. Ava's testimony would only come during the defense case, after the prosecution had already put on all its witnesses. The jury would be unlikely to hear about the change of heart. As the judge in the episode said, the prosecutor represents the people of whatever state they are in, not the parents. 

I don't think Ava was friends with the parents, not really. It seemed like Mom liked Ava's essay and despite being a deaf-ohobic asshole, Aaron didn't go so far as to fear that having his baby in a deaf person might affect his baby. 

[possibilities]

I have heard stories IRL about public defenders who are so overworked that they barely do any prep and are as bad or even worse than the first defense attorney in Ava's case, and people who can't get representation of any kind because it's a civil matter and can't even get a public defender, so I took it as an indication that she didn't have the resources to hire an expensive lawyer and the guy was just in over his head, either because he lacked experience or because he didn't have the time to  spend figuring out the best approach. Unless you have a bomb's worth of money, which Ava did not, I don't know how anyone affords a real defense, to be honest. The hourly rate is astronomical for the average person.

What I like about this show so far is that the motives of the defendants are different from most crime shows. They are not depraved monsters, or motivated by financial gain, sad sack totally innocent victims of circumstance, or the other usual recognizable tropes. The dad in the first episode and Ava in this one, may or may not have been right in what they did, but they were not coming from the usual personality disorder, hate, greed, or otherwise obvious characters we usually see. And the prosecution is not entirely evil, either.

[eel21788]

4 hours ago, possibilities said:

 I don't know how anyone affords a real defense, to be honest. The hourly rate is astronomical for the average person.

In TV land, everyone finds a sympathetic bleeding heart high profile expensive attorney who wants to defend them pro bono out of the goodness of his heart (and a little publicity).

I know that can be a rude awakening to defendants who expect it to happen that way in real life, too. 

[Glade]

This was a great episode; I'm glad Ava wasn't criminally prosecuted, her action was impulsive but her concerns were valid, but I don't put any real faith in the abusive, abelist father changing his mind, and I don't think Ava will be a part of their lives.  All sides need therapy.

[Lady Calypso]

So, I watched the first two episodes over the weekend. I actually did like this episode. I do think the show is going for a more grey area when it comes to the accused (though I hope that's not EVERY time that the accused gets off). And, yeah, the issue is that this is an anthology series AND on network TV, so they have no more than 43 minutes to wrap up a story. Yeah, I do think the case was wrapped up a little too well; Aaron Ashmore's character turned a corner too quickly, for sure. I would have liked more nuance, though not sure where that would have come from. I also think they could have altered some of the moments in the court because I felt like Ava got a bit TOO screwed over with a public defender who didn't ask the right questions.

That being said, the story overall was nice. I love that Marlee Matlin directed it, and loved seeing the varying degrees of hearing loss. I did like that they showed how Ava needed the proper defense who could get her story told properly. The first public defender she had wasn't great because he really never asked the right questions or seemed prepared. But I did like the overall moments of the episode, especially when talking about disability representation in court and showcasing disability in general. Even the small details, such as them having some difficulty with getting an interpreter, was well done.

I think a show like Accused is good, BUT it's hindered by the extremely strict 43 minute time limit. I think, if it was on streaming, that would allow more time to explore the story in more depth. So I think it is a shame we don't get more time with each story. I think that's what will be a hindrance to the show, overall. But the idea and part of the execution IS great. I love the attempted nuance and love exploring the morally grey areas with each accused and the parties involved. 

[circumvent]

I didn't know about this series until the other day and was kind of excited about the theme of the episode - just to get disappointed with the outcome.

The Deaf community can be seriously ableist in the sense that they don't consider themselves disabled, but demand ADA compliance. They often say that they are not like "those people", usually intellectually disabled people, because they are "smart and intelligent". I still think that the issues of implants, culture and sign language are very much worth exploring. 

My problem with the episode, is that they wanted Ava to be this perfect person, someone who is pure on her intentions even when committing a crime. This, to me, is a form of ableism. she tells her story, which was touching and heartbreaking, and she is immediately redeemed. The parents learn a lesson and don't have any doubts anymore about which way to proceed. They MUST follow her wisdom and the baby will not have implants. 

I don't have an opinion either way. I know one person who has implants, and I know a few people who don't. They are fine. I think that it is a hard decision and maybe it will turn out to be the wrong one for that specific baby, but it doesn't mean that people who choose to try the implant for their children are being abusive, no matter what the Deaf community says is the "right thing to do". 

In the case of the episode, a crime was committed because the criminal wouldn't accept that the new parent's were in a journey and maybe not fully accepting the disability of the child, but it is their journey. They were not, in any way, abusive.  A disabled person wants to impose her culture on someone else. Well, there are other disabled community that do have a culture, although not as prominent as the Deaf community. Imagine an autistic person kidnapping an autistic child because the parents are EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY of ABA. Would that be ok? As much as I hate ABA, committing a crime, especially when the allegedly abuse hasn't even happened is not acceptable, excusable or understandable.

Marlee Matlin wasted a great opportunity to have a serious conversation about the whole dilemma.  

[Halting Hex]

Well, after I loved the first episode, they're working very hard on making me not want to watch episode three.

Just for your information, whoever wrote this, being deaf is nothing like being gay.  One is a question of societal acceptance, the other is a physical challenge that affects a child's life in numerous ways.  I couldn't watch the last minute (my downloaded copy kept jamming) so I don't know if the writer finished off her fanfic by having Max and Jenny give Ava full custody of little Luice so that she can live more happily among her own kind because we bad evil hearing people will never understand the "beauty" of deafness blah blah blah, but I'm just wondering if you'd be so sympathetic to hearing people kidnapping CoDAs, because otherwise they'll be crushed by the psychological burdens of feeling guilty for experiencing all the joys their parents can't?  JFC.

(Most ridiculous line was "making decisions about a child's life without her consent" or whatever.  Hey, genius…that's what parenting is. Just so you know.)

The District Attorneys of America should boycott this show.  Last episode, you had a grandstanding D.A. wasting everyone's time with a ridiculous charge, this episode the D.A. doesn't get Ava to shut up about her lousy childhood when she's not pleading diminished capacity (which would make her emotional state relevant) but justification, which hinges on whether implants really are abusive, not Ava's Mommy Didn't Love Her!  The case is either about whether Lucie was "in danger" (and thus Ava had to act) or whether Ava was too traumatized to know what she was doing was wrong.  Ava can either get on her soapbox or tell her sob story, not both.  (The judge failed her job here, too.)

Also, it's ridiculous that KJ wasn't charged, too.  Can he account for his whereabouts during the kidnapping? No.  Why did it take him so long to start calling Ava's phone? (Hours and hours after Max and Jenny called him, remember.) Why is the SIM card missing from his phone, too?  How does he explain that the security cameras in the convenience store show him going into the bathroom less than a minute after Ava bought the candy bar?  No decent police force would let him off the hook.  And he sure af can't claim postpartum depression.  Hope you enjoy getting raped in prison, kid.  But don't feel bad, Big Tony's mom didn't love him so it's totally okay for him to bang your anus every night, right?

I feel sort of bad that I didn't give last episode the praise it deserved, but only came out of lurkdom to blast this one.  But OTOH, it's very hard for me to feel generous to the show right now.  JMO.

To end on a lighter note, I couldn't help thinking it was too bad Ava's SnooperPhone didn't come up with the same word salad that speech-to-text software does in real life:

Quote

JENNY:  I can't believe that you threw something at me!  Did I marry somebody who throws things?

PHONE: I can't bereave fat Jew blew something at knee!  Did I parry some bloody two nose rings?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Halting Hex

[Chicago Redshirt]

12 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

The District Attorneys of America should boycott this show.  Last episode, you had a grandstanding D.A. wasting everyone's time with a ridiculous charge, this episode the D.A. doesn't get Ava to shut up about her lousy childhood when she's not pleading diminished capacity (which would make her emotional state relevant) but justification, which hinges on whether implants really are abusive, not Ava's Mommy Didn't Love Her!  The case is either about whether Lucie was "in danger" (and thus Ava had to act) or whether Ava was too traumatized to know what she was doing was wrong.  Ava can either get on her soapbox or tell her sob story, not both.  (The judge failed her job here, too.)

Also, it's ridiculous that KJ wasn't charged, too.  Can he account for his whereabouts during the kidnapping? No.  Why did it take him so long to start calling Ava's phone? (Hours and hours after Max and Jenny called him, remember.) Why is the SIM card missing from his phone, too?  How does he explain that the security cameras in the convenience store show him going into the bathroom less than a minute after Ava bought the candy bar?  No decent police force would let him off the hook.  And he sure af can't claim postpartum depression.  Hope you enjoy getting raped in prison, kid.  But don't feel bad, Big Tony's mom didn't love him so it's totally okay for him to bang your anus every night, right?

I think that arguably there is some overlap between Ava's lousy childhood and justification/necessity. It is because Ava knows the pain of parents being ashamed of their deaf child and being raised by an abusive single mom after Daddy left that she came to the conclusion that Lucie was in for a similar fate and thus needed rescuing. So even if a reasonable person would not come to the conclusion knowing and "hearing" what Ava "heard" that Lucie was in imminent danger that justified kidnapping Lucie, Ava's reaching that conclusion could -- and as we saw, did -- afford some defense for her actions.

We know a lot of stuff that K.J. did that the authorities would not naturally, and might not bother to find out once Lucie is safe. But yes, it seems like a base level of competence of investigation would look at Ava's phone records and see that she contacted someone minutes after the kidnapping, and determine that it was in fact KJ's phone. Then he would have some 'splaining to do. The actual content of the communication would (I presume) not be preserved, so he can lie about it and say Yes, Ava called me but she just said something cryptic. But lying about it in the "I was never there" way looks to blow up in their face further if the authorities retrace Ava's steps and see that she was at the convenience store and that he was there too. 

[possibilities]

I think it helps her case that Ava returned the child unharmed within 24 hours. Again, not saying she would be unambiguously in the right. But just that there were complexities to the situation, and mitigating factors in how harshly she'd be punished.

If the episode had gone another way, and when dad threw something at mom it sailed past and hit the baby, for example, the story would look tilted toward "wow, dad's terrible! the baby is in danger! someone had to act!"

There is a way that situations can change a lot based on small changes to the narrative. One left turn here, a sudden blip there, and we're on another side of the line.

[circumvent]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:53 PM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Ava's reaching that conclusion could -- and as we saw, did -- afford some defense for her actions

Defense attorney's would use that but it is still ableism - she is deaf, and deaf people need "special protection" and more understanding because they "suffer". Remember when a black woman lied about her address (or something like that) to enroll her child in a better school? She didn't get the benefit of the justification that she wanted the best for her child. She served time. 

I will say it again: Marlee Matlin threw away an opportunity to make her mark by appealing to a sob story that does't really address the issue of acceptance/culture versus implants - not that I buy the dichotomy either. Hearing parent's can opt for implants for a lot of reasons and not necessarily lack of acceptance or lack of love. 

[possibilities]

I didn't think the show at all was saying Deaf people are special and need special protection! I didn't think it was a sob story, either.

 

[SunnyBeBe]

I think the show was trying to say the Defendant was justified in committing her crimes.  I disagree.  The writing was not successful in bringing me to that conclusion.  I didn’t buy the outcome either.  
 

The surrogate was very deluded and had no boundaries.  Her justification could be compared to immunizations.  What if Ava disapproved of them?  Would she have taken off with the baby?   The new defense attorney seemed to be operating more toward jury nullification, than a legal defense, which would have been made very early before the trial started.  And, that is  not legal. Nonetheless, the last minute decision to drop charges by the parents was unrealistic.  Prosecutors don’t just drop charges like that.  In the very least they’d ironed out a plea for a reduced charge with requirements the defendant get mental health treatment and stay on probation for a period of time.  And, NOT go near the child.  The parents are playing with fire.  A person who gets so confused they think they can make decisions for another’s child has serious issues.  That reconciliation at the end was silly.
 

I’ve seen other shows and documentaries about the anti implant position amongst the deaf.  It’s really perplexing, though I have tried to understand it.  For a super in-depth look at it, you can see it in the award winning movie Sound Of Metal.  
 

I didn’t find Ava’s husband very responsible either.  He’s lucky he wasn’t also charged.  

[tvfanatic13]

On 2/5/2023 at 3:58 PM, circumvent said:

Defense attorney's would use that but it is still ableism - she is deaf, and deaf people need "special protection" and more understanding because they "suffer". Remember when a black woman lied about her address (or something like that) to enroll her child in a better school? She didn't get the benefit of the justification that she wanted the best for her child. She served time. 

I will say it again: Marlee Matlin threw away an opportunity to make her mark by appealing to a sob story that does't really address the issue of acceptance/culture versus implants - not that I buy the dichotomy either. Hearing parent's can opt for implants for a lot of reasons and not necessarily lack of acceptance or lack of love. 

I thought Marlee directed the episode. Did she also write it? If not, I am not sure how she would have had that opportunity. 

[circumvent]

3 hours ago, tvfanatic13 said:

I thought Marlee directed the episode. Did she also write it? If not, I am not sure how she would have had that opportunity. 

She directed it but I assume she saw the script before, so she could have said something, or refused. TV is about the writing more than anything, so maybe she didn't feel like she could have done something. I would not accept the job though

[possibilities]

Actually, it's not the same as immunizations. The recommended minimum age for the implant is 2 years. The dad wanted to do it to her as an infant. 

[circumvent]

7 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think the show was trying to say the Defendant was justified in committing her crimes.  I disagree.  The writing was not successful in bringing me to that conclusion.  I didn’t buy the outcome either.  

I can sympathize with Deaf people who reject implants because they want their culture to be valued. I can understand what it means when you say that something can be harmful for people (as children) who have the same disability you have but parents don't seem to listen. It happens a lot in the autism community and it is frustrating. I also have many issues with deaf people who refuse to say they are disabled, that people should learn their culture to understand them, that deafness is not a disability (at the same time they demand - rightfully - closed captioning in videos so they all of a sudden are disabled, but still don't use the word). I do think that sign language should be encouraged in schools. It would benefit a lot of people. My issue with the community is that many, if not most of them reject the label of disabled not because of culture, or at least not only for this reason, but because they don't want to be part of a community that also includes people with intellectual disabilities. I have seen it several times, in person and online, the ableism.

The episode was a representation of the attitude I described. Ava wanted to impose her beliefs on the parents. Maybe she was right, I don't know much about implants to have an opinion. I mentioned before that I know people who do have them, and people who reject them. As far as I can tell, they are perfectly content with their choices, and they are also activists. But Ava wouldn't accept that new parents need to go through a process. Was the baby too young? maybe. But even if it is a grave mistake, kidnapping the baby is still a crime and the excuse was bullshit. A real case that excuses the crime because of a perception of a possibility of something that is some people deem to be abuse would open a terrible precedent for excuses that deal with all kinds of controversial decisions made by parents that have children that don't look exactly like them. Slippery slope. Besides, the parents were debating the implant, it is not like they were forcing a doctor to perform a surgery before the appropriate age (which I don't think was mentioned in the episode. They only said the earlier the better but not when it would be advisable to have the surgery)

 

[possibilities]

The Deaf people I have personally known have not been dogmatic jerks. However, even among those who reject the affiliation with the disabled community, you have to understand the context. For a long time, Deaf people were denied effective communication and considered intellectually impaired, so there is an element of reflexive reaction against that. I'm not saying it's right, but it all hinges on context. When people have been painted with a false narrative, sometimes people will react against anything that reminds them of it.

Who is disabled and how that label is viewed depends on how you define disability. There is a medical model, which says a disabled person is defined by a problem that makes them damaged. The social model of disability says that there are a variety of abilities among people, and how the society is structured will determine which people are able to function, so we should develop a society that works for everyone. I'm not really explaining this all that well, but here's an article that goes into more depth, with practical examples:
https://odpc.ucsf.edu/clinical/patient-centered-care/medical-and-social-models-of-disability

But, either way, I didn't view this story as ableist. I don't understand why you are making that claim. 

I think the strength of this show is that it is trying to make people understand motivation and consider the complexity of how people get to where they are. It's not just this story that did that. It also happened with the other two episodes so far. Nobody was perfect in any of them. But you see how they were struggling and failing, and that it wasn't really solving anything to lock them up, how various people along the way went wrong. It's messy! Life is messy! Most crime stories IRL as well on on TV are hard lines drawn between "the person who messed up" and "the victim" but the scenarios on this show don't paint anyone as totally right, even when others are totally wrong

 

the dad in ep1 handled things very badly but he also tried a lot of things before it got to that point, and the son in ep3 was off-putting but he was ultimately right about the serial killer. in those eps, the dad and the son were imperfect, and struggling with tough situations. they were not evil. locking them up would not have helped to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. There are personal failures and systemic failures in both cases.

It's more complex than "the accused was at fault". That's what I like about this show.

Usually we see crime narratives that hinge on the satisfaction of punishing someone, or sometimes on the outrage over the wrong person being punished or no one being punished. But is punishment always the answer? Or is it the best answer?

This episode asked people to look at another possibility-- forgiving someone. They did not give the child to Ava. They did not celebrate her behavior. They decided that, in the end, the child is safe, she is back with her parents, Ava didn't mean to hurt her and in fact did not hurt her, and the parents came to understand that and decided to let it go, and the dad decided to at least get over his defensiveness against Ava's point of view. We don't know whether or not he changed his mind about the implant, and the show doesn't hinge on demonizing the parents or Ava. 

Imagine if we had a criminal justice system that looked at things this way! There could be fewer incarcerated people, fewer lives ruined, and it would at least try to understand the other person's point of view. It wouldn't mean no consequences-- Ava did not get to keep the baby. She was not told that the child would not get an implant. But everybody got to heal rather than just punish and throw someone away.

Sometimes maybe locking people up is necessary. Is it always? That is the question the show asks.

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by possibilities
typos! no matter how many times I proofread, there are still typos!

[circumvent]

I do know deaf people who are not jerks. Coincidence or not, they also don't mind the label "disabled". The ones I know that are jerks, when someone mentions things like: the disable community should unite against oppression, blind, deaf, intellectually, physically and developmentally disabled people need to demand rights", deaf people, in a higher proportion than any other group, excuse themselves and say, in these words "I am not disabled, society disables me" - which is true but they don't do this becasue of accuracy. As many have also said, they are not like "those very disabled people who cannot take care of themselves", or "I don't need help with eating and toileting, I am not disabled like those who do"

I am talking about disability as in the social model of disability and as impairment (or medical model). Some people are disabled and nothing that society does will change that. In the case of deaf people, they do need interpreters because they cannot hear. It would be great if sign language was universal, but it isn't and it will likely not be for a long time. They need captions. That's the medical model in play. Nothing bad about needing support or accommodations, just how things are. They do have a culture that maybe is growing as more people demand inclusion. And society doesn't really help much, which disables them. 

In the case of the episode, Ava was disabled by her upbringing, then found her community. But that doesn't mean she has the right to demand that every other person doesn't act like her mother, or else. 

I say it is ableist because even though she committed a crime - kidnapping - she was let go because she told her story, which may be heartbreaking but no more heartbreaking than so many other stories that don't get anyone freed. She was excused because she "knew more than the hearing parents", which may also be true but the parents did have custody and the right to make the decisions for the baby. That's ableism because she got special treatment because she is disabled and she "suffered". But people who do "wrong" things because of good intentions can claim the same thing. They will not be excused

As I mentioned before, the black woman that lied about where she lived so her daughter could have a better education had to serve time. She also wanted the best for the kid. She knows how the school district she was assigned to functions (or doesn't function). But good intentions didn't excuse her and the "crime" wasn't even comparable to kidnapping. 

It is good to see the issue on TV but the writing was bad and pointless to spread the knowledge about what most deaf people think (I assume that's the majority, but I might be wrong). Ava came across as entitled. She was excused, so maybe now she will go on a crusade to "save deaf babies from clueless hearing parents".

I also think that in the case of kidnapping, the parents would have little say on continue the trial or dismiss the case. It is a serious crime, specially if it involves children. She would at minimum get some sort of probation where she would not be able to get at a certain distance of any child. But I don't know laws and the specifics statutes of each state.

 

[Madding crowd]

I think she should have been given mandatory therapy and community service. I believe she is overly attached to the baby and at risk of kidnapping again. The idea that all is well because she told her story is a fairytale.

[Chicago Redshirt]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

It's more complex than "the accused was at fault". That's what I like about this show.

Usually we see crime narratives that hinge on the satisfaction of punishing someone, or sometimes on the outrage over the wrong person being punished or no one being punished. But is punishment always the answer? Or is it the best answer?

This episode asked people to look at another possibility-- forgiving someone. They did not give the child to Ava. They did not celebrate her behavior. They decided that, in the end, the child is safe, she is back with her parents, Ava didn't mean to hurt her and in fact did not hurt her, and the parents came to understand that and decided to let it go, and the dad decided to at least get over his defensiveness against Ava's point of view. We don't know whether or not he changed his mind about the implant, and the show doesn't hinge on demonizing the parents or Ava. 

Imagine if we had a criminal justice system that looked at things this way! There could be fewer incarcerated people, fewer lives ruined, and it would at least try to understand the other person's point of view. It wouldn't mean no consequences-- Ava did not get to keep the baby. She was not told that the child would not get an implant. But everybody got to heal rather than just punish and throw someone away.

Sometimes maybe locking people up is necessary. Is it always? That is the question the show asks.

 

To dovetail from what you say here, one of the show's strengths is that it breaks out of the mold of most of TV where either someone is clearly guilty and gets what they "deserve" or someone is clearly innocent and also gets what they "deserve." (Very rarely do court shows depict someone factually/legally innocent getting and staying wrongly convicted or someone factually guilty getting acquitted).

But the show could be better/stronger/more nuanced as to why the alternative routes would be better. Ava doing 3-5 (or whatever) for kidnapping may not do the parents or Lucie any good, but it hypothetically sends a message to the next would-be savior of a child that maybe you should look at alternatives before kidnapping if you think there's a risk of parents becoming abusive.

A show that depicted the criminal/civil justice system as having any of its actual flaws would be interesting.

[possibilities]

2 hours ago

Quote

I say it is ableist because even though she committed a crime - kidnapping - she was let go because she told her story, which may be heartbreaking but no more heartbreaking than so many other stories that don't get anyone freed. She was excused because she "knew more than the hearing parents", which may also be true but the parents did have custody and the right to make the decisions for the baby. That's ableism because she got special treatment because she is disabled and she "suffered". But people who do "wrong" things because of good intentions can claim the same thing. They will not be excused

As I mentioned before, the black woman that lied about where she lived so her daughter could have a better education had to serve time. She also wanted the best for the kid. She knows how the school district she was assigned to functions (or doesn't function). But good intentions didn't excuse her and the "crime" wasn't even comparable to kidnapping.[/quote]

This show is fiction. I think the woman who lied to get her kid a better education is exactly the kind of person this show WOULD focus an episode on, and give it similar treatment to what Ava got. In the real world, Ava would not be given a pass. But on this show, that is the whole point-- that the accused has a story to tell, and it's worth hearing. Just because the real world is racist and unjust doesn't mean the show has to promote that same narrative. I guess it again goes back to context. It seems like you're assuming the show "gave Ava a pass" because of her being Deaf. I think they showed her mercy because that's the central premise of the show-- that mitigating circumstances ought to be considered, and taking the humanity of the accused into consideration is a good idea.

So far, all 3 episodes have shown how the accused's story influenced their behavior, and has attempted to generate a sympathetic point of view towards them because of it. I don't think it's ableism. I think it's a global philosophy.

 

2 hours ago, circumvent said:

I say it is ableist because even though she committed a crime - kidnapping - she was let go because she told her story, which may be heartbreaking but no more heartbreaking than so many other stories that don't get anyone freed. She was excused because she "knew more than the hearing parents", which may also be true but the parents did have custody and the right to make the decisions for the baby. That's ableism because she got special treatment because she is disabled and she "suffered". But people who do "wrong" things because of good intentions can claim the same thing. They will not be excused

As I mentioned before, the black woman that lied about where she lived so her daughter could have a better education had to serve time. She also wanted the best for the kid. She knows how the school district she was assigned to functions (or doesn't function). But good intentions didn't excuse her and the "crime" wasn't even comparable to kidnapping. 

 

This show is fiction. I think the woman who lied to get her kid a better education is exactly the kind of person this show WOULD focus an episode on, and give it similar treatment to what Ava got. In the real world, Ava would not be given a pass. But on this show, that is the whole point-- that the accused has a story to tell, and it's worth hearing. Just because the real world is racist and unjust doesn't mean the show has to promote that same narrative. I guess it again goes back to context. It seems like you're assuming the show "gave Ava a pass" because of her being Deaf. I think they showed her mercy because that's the central premise of the show-- that mitigating circumstances ought to be considered, and taking the humanity of the accused into consideration is a good idea.

So far, all 3 episodes have shown how the accused's story influenced their behavior, and has attempted to generate a sympathetic point of view towards them because of it. I don't think it's ableism. I think it's a global philosophy.

I don't know what went wrong with the formatting but I tried and failed to fix it.

Edited February 8, 2023 by possibilities

[circumvent]

11 hours ago, possibilities said:

It seems like you're assuming the show "gave Ava a pass" because of her being Deaf. I think they showed her mercy because that's the central premise of the show-- that mitigating circumstances ought to be considered, and taking the humanity of the accused into consideration is a good idea.

I do think they gave her a pass because she is Deaf. I guess the show could keep its premise without ignoring a crime. Or ignoring the law - I think they were ignoring the law but like I said, maybe not. They could allowed her to not serve time but still face the consequences - as suggested, community service, probation. 

The show is fiction but if they want to mix the reality of people's lives in the stories, then they need to do a better job at conveying the compassion part, the perspective aspect of it, either by disclaimer or, better yet, good writing. This episode showed very little conflict from the part of the accused. The first episode did a better job with that, the father really trying to do the right things, then failing and then baffled that he was being blamed. I didn't see any sort of conflict with Ava, the character. She decided that an abuse was about to happen and took action. I think they also showed the parents forgiving her too fast. I would be scared and bitter for much longer, even if wishing the kidnapper of my child would not serve time and have a record after hearing the story. Again, it is a nice concept, tho forgive and have compassion but the way the episode was written, it was too much of a fantasy. To me, at least

[Cotypubby]

There was zero nuance in this episode compared to the first one. Zero. It was very clear that we the viewers are supposed to agree with everything Ava did and feel so sorry for her and think that cochlear implants are akin to “de-gay camps.” Gross. The parents immediately dropping the charges because she gave a speech was ludicrous, especially the judge then saying that going any further would be “a miscarriage of Justice.” And then they ask her to be part of their life!? Gee wow I wonder on what sides the writers of this episode fall. 🙄 Surgeries are done on infants and babies all the time to correct all kinds of problems. No one waits until a baby is old enough to decide for itself if they want to fix its cleft palate or heart issues.