Movies

These movies fall within the “human interest” category and, therefore, are not evidence-based. On the surface, many of these are feel-good stories that, rightfully, portray individuals with disabilities as valuable members of society. However, these movies do a disservice to individuals with disabilities and their families and mislead the public by portraying FC (falsely) as a legitimate form of communication. Unfortunately, many have received international acclaim without the critical analysis.

Understanding Autism (2024)

This documentary, available on the PBS website, features director Scott Steindorff, diagnosed as an adult as autistic, interviewing a variety of individuals with autism. Only one of them, Elizabeth Bonker, is an FC user, but Steindorff gives Bonker and her mother quite a bit of air time and enthusiastic commentary.

See this blog post for our critique.

Spellers (2023), Director Pat Notaro

IMDB lists spellers as a movie “challenging conventional wisdom regarding a group relegated to society’s margins: non speakers with autism, who most “experts” believe are cognitively disabled.

Critiques:

1. The movie features a variant of FC called Spelling to Communicate, in which a letter board is held in the air, while the client extends a finger or a pencil toward it. To date, there is no reliably controlled evidence to rule out facilitator influence in messages generated using this technique.

2. The movie misrepresents autism as a motor planning problem. The National Institute on Mental Health defines Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a “neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn, and behave. Among the characteristics of ASD are the following: difficulty with communication and interaction with other people, restricted interests and repetitive behaviors, and symptoms that affect their ability to function in school, work and other areas of life.

3. The movie misrepresents “experts” and “scientists” as being against researching or testing S2C (or any FC-like variant), but proponents are taught to “presume competence” and not test for authorship where the facilitator is blinded to test protocols. Critics of FC/S2C/RPM have been calling for reliably controlled tests for 30+ years. The issue is not whether individuals with severe communication difficulties have the potential to learn, but whether facilitators are the ones controlling the messages obtained using these techniques.

4. The America Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the America Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) have statements opposing S2C, citing concerns about facilitator influence, prompt dependency, lack of scientific evidence, lost opportunity costs, similarities to FC, and other potential harms as reasons for cautioning their members not to adopt the technique.

Video Critique:

Critiques:

Beals, Katharine (2023). A Review of the Movie Spellers: a Documercial for Spelling to Communicate.

London, William (ed.). (2023, June 11) Autism expert slams movie promoting facilitated communication technique. Consumer Health Digest, Issue #23-24. National Council Against Health Fraud Archive.

Lutz, Amy (2023, May 24). Call on Researchers, Not Filmmakers, to Test Facilitated Communication: A Commentary on Spellers. NCSA.

Tell Them You Love Me (2023), Director Nick August-Perna

IMDB describes this documentary as:

“A professor has a relationship with a nonverbal man with cerebral palsy. Their affair leads to a criminal trial over disability and consent. The film shows interviews and footage presenting both perspectives.”

Critiques:

1. Along with Anna Stubblefield, the film also includes commentary from three prominent individuals in the pro-FC movement: first generation facilitator, Sandra McClennen (Stubblefield’s mother), Devva Kasnitz (friend of Stubblefield’s and disability advocate), and Rosemary Crossley (founder of “FC” in Australia). McClennen, Crossley, and Kasnitz all support the use of FC to broker intimate, sexual relationships without questioning authorship.

2. Although FC is mentioned in the film, it, perhaps, does not play a prominent enough role for those who are unfamiliar with the technique. By the time Stubblefield was using and promoting FC in her classroom at Rutgers University, many organizations opposed its use due to lack of scientific evidence, concerns regarding facilitator cueing and control over letter selection, prompt dependency, and potential harms (including false allegations of abuse). (See Opposition Statements) Stubblefield knew—or should have known—that reliably controlled studies into authorship consistently revealed that facilitators—and not their clients or loved ones—were influencing and/or controlling letter selection. (See Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews). If she did know the concerns about FC and/or its lack of scientific evidence, she chose to ignore that information. (See: At what point was Anna Stubblefield culpable for her criminal actions?)

3. Stubblefield was an ethics professor and chairperson of the Philosophy department at Rutgers Newark. To the best of our knowledge, she was not a licensed speech/language pathologist, occupational therapist, physical therapist or expert in treating individuals with cerebral palsy or developmental disabilities. She did take a two-day FC training at Syracuse University, according to news reports, but, even by Syracuse standards (implemented around 1993, when the Frontline documentary Prisoners of Silence was released), taking a two-day workshop does not “qualify” an individual to be a facilitator. Purportedly, it takes more training than that, although to date there are no national standards to regulate the use of FC nor has it been proven that messages produced using this technique are free from facilitator control.

Reviews:

Batey, Eve. (2024, June 15). Tell Them You Love Me tells a complicated and painful story with grace. Reality Blurred.

Kennedy, Julian. (2024, June 23). Tell Them You Love Me (2023) Review. Cinematic Diversions.

Latif, Leila. (2024, February 5). Tell Them You Love Me review - this chilling documentary is vital, challenging TV. The Guardian (Online)

Mercuri, Monica. (2024, June 19). The Bizarre True Story Behind Netflix’s ‘Tell Them You Love Me’—Where is Anna Stubblefield now? Forbes.

Phillipson, Daisy (2024, June 18). True crime fans struggle through “hard to stomach” Netflix documentary. Dexterto.

Schager, Nick. (2024, June 13). Did a white professor sexually abuse her disabled black patient - or was it love? Daily Beast.

Shane, Howard. (2024, July 7). Netflix’s hit documentary ‘Tell Them You Love Me’ highlights a misleading promise. MSNBC.

Vyse, Stuart. (2024, June, 24). When Silence Speaks: The Harmful Pseudoscience of Facilitated Communication. Reality’s Last Stand.

Wallace, Lindsay Lee. (2024, June 17). The chilling story behind the documentary Tell Them You Love Me. Time.

YouTube Video Review

Grande, Todd. (2024, Jun3 19). ‘Diaper-Dodging’ Professor Arrested After Sex with Disabled Man | Anna Stubblefield Case Analysis.

Reporting Live From My Sofa (2024, June 27). Reviewing and Reacting to, “Tell Them You Love Me,”…Absolute Cringe Fest

Van der Vaart, Andrew. (2024, June 22). Anna Stubblefield and the Pygmalion Delusion.

The Reason I Jump (2020), Director Jerry Rothwell

IMDB lists “The Reason I Jump” as an “immersive film” that “explores the explores the experiences of nonspeaking autistic people around the world."

Critiques:

1. The film is based on a book of the same name. Authorship is credited to a 13-year-old boy with autism. However, the main form of communication used to write the book was FC, raising doubts about whose thoughts are actually represented: the boy’s or those of his parents and/or facilitators.

2. The film presents FC as a viable option for accessing independent communication, a claim that is not backed up by evidence. No critical analysis of the technique is presented.

3. Facilitators in the film are shown holding the letter boards instead of using a table or stand, increasing the chance of facilitator cuing through small muscle movements (e.g., the ideomotor effect). Facilitators are often unaware of the degree to which they influence and control messages during facilitated sessions.

4. The individuals in the film are closely controlled and, through editing, appear to be functioning at higher levels than perhaps is occurring in real life.

See the following for more information about questions of authorship and FC:

Saloviita, T. and Sariola, H. (2003, November). Authorship in Facilitated Communication: A Re-Analysis of a Case of Assumed Representative Authentic Writing. Mental Retardation. 41 (5); 374-379; Discussion 380-385. DOI: 10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<374:AIFCAR>2.0.CO;2

Sturmey, P. (2003, October). Typing in Tongues: Interesting Observations on Facilitated Communication Do Not Establish Authorship. Mental Retardation. 41 (5), 386-387. DOI: 10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<386:TITIOO>2.0.CO;2

Video Critique:

Reviews:

Boynton, Janyce. (2022, July 13). One Big Thought Experiment: Review of “The Reason I Jump.” FacilitatedCommunication.org

Beals, Katharine. (2021, October 6). “No more! No more!” FacilitatedCommunication.org

Boynton, Janyce. (2021, August 22). Behind the slick production values of “The Reason I Jump”, lies Facilitated Communication. The Skeptic.

Beals, Katharine (2021, August 5). The Reason I Jump: self promotion trumps intellectual honesty. Part II. FacilitatedCommunication.org

Beals, Katharine (2021, July 26). The Reason I Jump: self promotion trumps intellectual honesty. Part 1. FacilitatedCommunication.org

Escher, Jill. (2021, January 5). The Reason I Jump: D- Documentary, A+ Propaganda. National Counsel on Severe Autism.

Mulholland, Paddy. (2021). The Reason I Jump. Spectrum Culture.

Correction:

The following article was misidentified as involving Naoki Higashida. Instead, the article focuses on another child subjected to facilitated communication, Runa Hiki. Issues of facilitator influence and control over FC-authored messages remain.

Nakajima, S. (2003, May-June). The ‘Miracle Poet’ case: Japanese media fooled by the Doman method and Facilitated Communication (Special Report). Skeptical Inquirer. 27 (3), 12-13.

Influence (2018), Director Michael Bergman

IMDB lists “Influence” as a film about the exploration of “young love” with two autistic teenagers who “communicate mainly by spelling on a letter board from assisted communication, through the help of the their parents.

Critiques:

1. The “assisted communication” used in the film is a hybrid form of touch-based Facilitated Communication (FC) and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), which is also known as Spelling to Communication (S2C). To date, there is no reliably controlled evidence proving proponent claims that “spelled” messages obtained using FC/S2C/RPM is independent and free from facilitator control. (See Systematic Reviews).

2. The movie explores adult themes of entering an intimate relationship (e.g. dating, first kiss) using FC as the sole form of “consent.” Organizations opposing FC/S2C/RPM warn against using these techniques for major life decisions due to unresolved issues of facilitator influence and control over the “spelled” messages. (See Opposition Statements).

3. The parent/facilitators in the film physically manipulate their children into a physical embrace (presumably to kiss). This behavior raises concerns for facilitators (even the parents of children being subjected to FC) and potential harms as seen through court cases addressing False Allegations of Abuse and Facilitator Crimes. At no point in the movie was reliably controlled testing done to rule out facilitator control over facilitated messages or to confirm that the expressed desires of the minimally speaking individuals with profound autism were their own and not those of the parents.

Video Critique:

Review:

Boynton, Janyce. (2023, July 26). Are individuals with profound autism “real?”: Bermann’s “Influence”. facilitatedcommunication.org

Deej (2017), Director Robert Rooy

IMDB lists “Deej” as a film about a non-speaking young man with autism and his “transition to college life and the difficulties and growth that Deej pursues at Oberlin.”

Critiques:

1. The use of facilitated communication in this film brings into question any of the thoughts and words attributed to Deej.

2. The producer of the film left out the fact that Deej was introduced to facilitated communication at the University of Northern Iowa, about the same time his understanding of reading and written language structures “clicked” in place. (See "Kilen, Mike. (2007, October 7). ‘Fresh start’ begins for a life with autism. Des Moines, Iowa). This omission raises questions about what other vital information about Deej was purposefully or inadvertently left out of the film.

3. There is an animated scene where childhood abuses are disclosed. However, if these were obtained using facilitated communication, none of the details should be taken at face value. Unfounded allegations of abuse have plagued FC from its inception.

4. One reason proponents give for not testing FC is the stress it causes individuals with disabilities. However, the young man in the film is shown addressing conference attendees and taking college classes, all while facilitating. Surely, a test situation in which the facilitator is blinded to test protocols but calls on the existing knowledge of the young woman with disabilities is less stressful than either of these two activities.

5. By 2017, Facilitated Communication was debunked, good quality studies had demonstrated facilitator control over FC-generated messages, and organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Psychological Association (APA), among others, had position statements opposing its use and warning of its harms.

Reviews:

Boynton, Janyce. (2021 March/April). Fresh Thinking or Exploitation? Skeptical Inquirer. Vol 45 (2), 60-61.

Foster, Craig A., (2019) Deej-a Vu: Documentary revisits facilitated communication pseudoscience. Behavioral Interventions. Vol 34 (4); 577-586.

Far From the Tree (2017), Directors Rachel Dretzin and Jamila Ephron.

The movie “Far From the Tree” is based on a book by the same name by Andrew Solomon. The IMDB describes it as “examin[ing] the experiences of families in which parents and children are profoundly different from one another in a variety of ways.”

1. The one child representing autism, as seen in the official trailer, purportedly learns to communicates via a held-up letterboard. The movie thus promotes the discredited method of Rapid Prompting/Spelling to Communicate as a legitimate intervention, along with the discredited notion of autism as a movement/motor planning/initiation disorder that purportedly justifies this intervention.

2. The keyboard is clearly moving around when the child types on it, raising the possibility that his communication is not authentic, but is being guided by the person holding up the keyboard.

Review:

Boynton, Janyce. (2022, August 17) Coping with RPM: Review of “Far from the Tree”

My Secret Forest (2017), Director Niina Brandt

IMDB lists My Secret Forest as “A plunge into the mind of an autistic young man.”

The Board of the Finnish Autism Spectrum Association wrote an opinion regarding the Secret forest film in December 31, 2017. In the letter, board members expressed concerns that the filmmakers did not disclose the use of Facilitated Communication (aka “supported communication). While the group supported the right of severely disabled autistic persons to be heard in society, they did not support the use of a “questionable method to promote the credibility of it.”They stated further that FC:

…is a method that has been found to be ineffective and harmful in numerous countries by numerous expert bodies. The uncritical use of facilitation, without carefully investigating the origin of messages, is considered a risk for the human rights of disabled persons, so its use is often completely prohibited in connection with public healthcare, education or disability services.”

Opinion Paper: Kannanotto koskien Salainen metsäni- elokuvaa ja sen vaikuttavuuskampanjaan osallistumista

Google Translated Version (English): Opinion regarding the Secret forest film and its participation in the influence campaign

Axel (2012), Dan Habib

This short film follows Axel Cortes, a fifth grader, and the staff at Idelhurst Elementary School in Somersworth, NH while they implement a full-inclusion plan which includes the use of Facilitated Communication.

Critiques:

1. By 2012, controlled studies had shown that FC-generated messages were likely controlled by facilitators and not their clients.

2. Many organizations, including the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the American Psychological Association, and the Association for Behavioral Analysis International opposed the use of FC, citing concerns regarding facilitator control, prompt dependency, lack of scientific evidence, financial and opportunity costs, and potential harms (including false allegations of abuse).

3. Throughout the film, Axel is seen bolting from the classroom, wandering around the room, and “stimming” as educators admit that the classroom may be overstimulating for the student. “Least Restrictive Environment” (LRE) does not always mean full inclusion for every student.

4. The parents expressed concerns regarding FC use and Axel’s behavior, but their concerns appeared to be overridden by school staff.

5. Despite claims by proponents that becoming a facilitator takes a lot of time and training, students in the classroom are shown using FC with Axel.

Review:

Boynton, Janyce. (2021, September 1). “Axel” raises questions about FC in the classroom. Facilitatedcommunication.org

Wretches and Jabberers (2011), Director Gerardine Wurzburg

IMDB lists “Wretches and Jabberers” as a tale of two men with autism who “embark on a global quest to change prevailing attitudes about disability and intelligence.”

Critiques:

1. Throughout the film, individuals with autism are subjected to facilitated communication. Doubts are raised about authorship when facilitators are focused on the keyboards while their clients or loved ones have their eyes closed, look away, resist the activity (e.g., getting up, screaming). At one point, one of the facilitators actually uses two hands to force his client to touch the keyboard.

2. Some of the individuals subjected to facilitated communication have basic spoken and written language skills, begging the question as to why these skills are not being encouraged and developed. These skills are ignored or minimized as the written, facilitated, messages are given priority by the assistants.

3. Proponents claim support is needed because individuals with autism lack the motor skills to type on their own. This claim is unfounded and, in the case of the individuals featured in the film, untrue as scene after scene shows them painting, pouring coffee, taking pictures, shaving, using utensils, and other activities that require both gross and fine motor skills. This raises the question of why the individuals are not being provided with communication technologies that allow them to interact with devices independently and without the interference of a facilitator.

4. The Healy (2011) review includes comments from skeptics who point out that FC is discredited. Proponents claim the film is not about facilitated communication but about trying to change attitudes about autism. However, since the insightful comments come only as a result of facilitation, the question arises about whose thoughts are being expressed..

Reviews:

Boynton, Janyce. (2021, April 1). Questions about “Wretches and Jabberers.” FacilitatedCommunication.org

Healy, M. (2011, April 6). New film gives voice to a nearly silent minority. USA Today., pp. ARC.

Wombles, K. (2011, April 4). Facilitated Communication: Bandwagon Endorsements; It All Feels Good. Science2.0.

A Mother’s Courage: Talking Back to Autism (2009), Director Friðrik Þór Friðriksson

IMDB lists “A Mother’s Courage: Talking Back to Autism: as the journey of the mother of an autistic child who is “determined not to accept the pessimistic prognosis for her son.”

Critiques:

1. While the film appears to take a critical look at treatments available for non-speaking individuals with autism, it downplays evidence-based treatments (Applied Behavior Analysis) and emphasizes non-evidence-based treatments (Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method).

2. The last half of the film is focuses almost exclusively on Rapid Prompting Method without disclosing to viewers that the practice has no evidence of its efficacy or the close ties it has to Facilitated Communication.

3. Speakers in the film espouse learning styles and sensory motor theories that have been debunked (e.g., that individuals with autism are only visual or auditory learners).

4. Even with expert facilitators, the individuals being subjected to Facilitated Communication or Rapid Prompting Method consistently fail to look at the keyboard. Known concerns about facilitator influence (e.g., the ideomotor phenomenon) are not addressed, even though cuing by the facilitators are visible while watching the typing sessions.

5. Throughout the film, the non-verbal and limited verbal abilities of the individuals being facilitated are minimized or ignored.

Reviews:

Beals, Katharine (February, 2021). Talking back to Talking Back to Autism.

A New Kind of Listening (2009), Director: Kenny Dalsheimer

IMDB lists “A New Kind of Listening” as a “story of a visionary director, a one-of-a-kind theater group, and a young man who couldn’t not speak, yet found the voice he had been looking for all his life.”

Critiques:

1. This movie shows a non-speaking individual being facilitated by an assistant who holds his hand at the wrist as they type on a keyboard or letter board. A voice activation device reads out the words that are spelled, but since the individual with disabilities is sometimes not looking while they type and relies heavily on the assistant for physical support and cuing, doubts are raised about who is actually controlling the communications.

2. In the Shestak review, the reporter wrote: “This form of communication is the subject of debate, because there is often no measurable way to verify how much the facilitator affects the results.” Had the reporter done due diligence, that statement could, resoundingly, be negated by the controlled tests that preceded it. By 2009, Facilitated Communication was debunked, good quality studies had demonstrated facilitator control over FC-generated messages, and organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Psychological Association (APA), among others, had position statements opposing its use and warning of its harms. The Community Inclusive Theater Group involved in the film should be commended for its practice of being inclusive. However, the message of basic human rights for individuals with disabilities is tainted by the use of a discredited technique on an individual whose unique voices was substituted for the thoughts and words of his facilitator.

Reviews:

Shestak, E. (2009, December 27). Potential Unleashed: A new film, ‘A New Kind of Listening,’ reveals a son’s transformation. The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C., pp. D.1.

My Classic Life as an Artist: A Portrait of Larry Bissonnette (2005), Directed by Douglas Biklen and Zach Rossetti

My Classic Life is a film featured Larry Bissonnette, an artist from Vermont who has been subjected to Facilitated Communication (FC) since 1991.

Critiques:

1. Bissonnette has some spoken (and perhaps, written) communication abilities. He is also able to complete many fine and gross motor tasks independently (e.g., painting, sawing, nailing, feeding himself, making pancakes), his facilitators claim he needs physical support to select letters on a keyboard.

2. Bissonnette’s facilitator(s) have not faded support. They still provide physical cues by holding onto his shirt sleeve or arm, even after years of practicing FC.

3. Reliably controlled studies show that facilitators, and not their clients, control FC-generated messages.

4. Many organizations oppose the use of FC, citing prompt dependency, facilitator control, lack of scientific evidence, lost financial and opportunity costs, and potential harms (including false allegations of abuse).

Video Critique:

Review:

Boynton, Janyce. (2023, January 25). No need for FC; Bissonnette’s artwork stands on its own. Facilitatedcommunication.org

Autism is a World· (2004), Director Gerardine Wurzburg

IMDB lists “Autism is a World” as a “documentary on an autistic woman’s inner world, her writing, and the friends she made while in college.

Critique:

1. The use of FC as the primary form of communication recognized by the facilitators and caregivers in this documentary call into question the “inner thoughts” and academic achievements of the young woman featured in the film.

2. One reason proponents give for not testing FC is the stress it causes individuals with disabilities. However, the young woman in the film is shown addressing conference attendees and taking college classes, all while facilitating. Surely, a test situation in which the facilitator is blinded to test protocols but calls on the existing knowledge of the young woman with disabilities is less stressful than either of these two activities.

3. The mother/facilitator describes when she began believing in FC when her daughter spelled out the word “kale,” a word she (the mother) knew, but her daughter, purportedly, did not. This transformative moment changed the mother’s thoughts about FC and sent her on a journey of higher expectations. The analysis of written output (e.g, unique spellings, disclosure of seemingly unknown information) is a poor indicator of authorship, which can only be determined in controlled settings.

4. Facilitators holding the keyboard in the air increases the chances of facilitator influence through the ideomotor phenomenon. Cuing is often inadvertent and facilitators are generally not fully aware of the extent to which they are controlling the typed messages.

5. Psychologists in the movie allowed the young woman to retake standard I.Q. testing using a facilitator. Test scores revealed a significant different with and without facilitation, calling into question the amount of control the facilitator had over the tested answers. Presumably, the facilitator was not blinded to test protocols while the I.Q. test was being given.

6. By 2005, Facilitated Communication was debunked, good quality studies had demonstrated facilitator control over FC-generated messages, and organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Psychological Association (APA), among others, had position statements opposing its use and warning of its harms. The Murray (2005) review fails to mention any of this.

7. While there are aspects of “Autism is a World” that add important information to the challenges and rewards of supporting young adults with disabilities, the reliance on FC, and the built-in dependency on the facilitator this technique creates, calls into question who actually earned the degree at Whittier College.

Reviews:

Mann, L.B. (2005, February 22). Oscar Nominee: Documentary or Fiction?; Film resurrects discredited autism tactic. The Washington Post (Final Edition); pp. F01.

Murray, Steve. (2005, May 21). The world of autism as seen from the inside. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Saturday Home Edition), Living, pp. 3C.