goodgl_007 Hollywood does tend to bend the facts. In his book "Dummy" Tidyman has case details that are not present in the movie. Lang literally admits to both murders, in the only way he knows how, by showing police the location of the murders and the even one of the weapons that he used. In the case with Ernestine Williams, Lang was not convicted due several errors in the justice systems; which are more common than you think for minorities. Read the book "Dummy" if you want better case information. In addition, I believe the point of the Movie is to question the policies of law enforcement when it relates to suspects that have physical disabilities that hinder their ability to communicate. How can you validate a confession by a deaf mute? The original intentions of "Dummy" was to agitate readers/viewers in order to make them think about the moral implications of a criminal system that discriminates against minorities and people with special needs.This movie can in "no way" validate the fact that Donald Lang was guilty of his crimes. He was tried twice and released once on error (Williams) then finally convicted, when months later he convicted the same crime. Lang was a serial killer and well known in "his" neighborhood for having sinister motives when it came to "women of the night." My family knew Lang intimately because he was finally convicted of murdering my grandmother Earline Brown. Earline would probably still be alive to this day if Lang's case with Ernestine Williams had been handled effectively; however, it was not. Maybe because Ernestine and Earline had been prostitutes. Or, it might have been handled poorly because they were black women. Would there have even been a question of Lang's guilt or innocence if Ernestine or Earline had been white, upstanding, citizens? Lang never served his time appropriately for their murders, thanks to Hollywood. My grandmother was a struggling single parent. She had no education, nor any support system. She often took care of her children without welfare benefits, using the only skill she had been trained in; prostitution. Everyone, in that neighborhood that new her, loved her. She was kind and often gave to women that were less fortunate, like my father's mother who had twelve children. The unfortunate part of crime is always the victims. My mother lost her mother at seventeen, and my uncle was only twelve. Hollywood does not show the victims, only the sensational murderer. It is what people want to pay to see that matters. Isn't it?? Ann Brown

Bert Taras This was an excellent film in so many ways. The acting, the directing, the use of actual facts regarding the legal system and the obstacles faced by handicapped persons (in the form of the deaf characters portrayed by LeVar Burton and Paul Sorvino). I saw the movie when it first appeared on television several years back and then a few years ago it was broadcast again late at night and I taped it. When I watched it again I was once more moved close to tears by the things which Burton's character was forced to endure.On a side note, one of the things this film did unintentionally was to give me the ability to learn how to communicate better with my family members who were hard of hearing. Watching Sorvino as Lowell Myers I paid close attention to how he would carefully form each word and feel the words vibrate along the back of his ears and through his throat and lips. I had an aunt with whom communication for me had been very difficult until I learned to do this, along with looking directly at a person when speaking. Admittedly to speak in such a manner, since it is slower and each word is carefully formed can at times sound mechanical but I cannot argue with the positive results. I have also used a similar method with communicating with people who are just beginning to learn the English language and again it is successful.

dtucker86 I remember watching this film twice as a kid, I haven't seen it since. Ernest Tidyman wrote the screenplay for it (he is the same guy who wrote The French Connection). LeVar Burton made his debut as Kunta Kinte in Roots (what a great way to start your career). He said at the time that this was the most challenging role imaginable, playing a deaf and dumb young man accused of murder. Donald Lang is a 20 year old who lives with his siblings and works on the loading docks, he is charged with murdering a prostitue. Lowell Myers is a deaf lawyer who takes on his case. Paul Sorvino is an excellent actor who always delivers and he takes on this challenging role as well. This movie makes it out like there is evidence that Donald Lang was innocent and didn't kill the hooker Ernestine Myers. A woman tells his lawyer that she heard Myers having an argument in the alley where she was murdered with another man and she heard his voice! Lang is taken back to the alley where she was killed and "acts out" a scene where he fights with another man who was the real killer. Sorvino makes an excellent speech at the conclusion where he talks about how a deaf mute is still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. He points out how Charlie Chaplin could make an audience laugh and cry and not use one single word. Its a great speech that tugs at your heartstrings its true, but folks I need to point out something. Every time Hollywood makes a film about a real life murder case, they always make it out like the criminal in question was INNOCENT! Why in the hell do they do this? Is Hollywood full of bleeding heart liberals who pee their pants every time someone is accused of a crime and God forbid if they are poor or African American! Evil comes in all colors and Donald Lang was evil and he was GUILTY! Five years after the murder of Ernestine Myers he was released from the asylum. Shortly afterwards, there was another woman who was murdered and he was seen leaving a bar with her. This time, there was overwhelming physical evidence that Lang was the killer and he was sent to prison for the rest of his life. If our legal system worked the way it should, this woman needn't have died. Donald Lang really was a killer and no amount of moralizing by Hollywood can change that cold hard fact. This film sort of reminded me of The Hurricane about Rubin Carter. It is a well made film with fine actors, but at the same time you have to take it with a grain of salt folks because the murdering son of a bitch really did it! CASE CLOSED!!!!!

lizannprice i saw this film a very long time ago and its impact was tremendous. so much so that although i had long forgotten the title i had not forgotten the film. only since i have been on the internet have i been able to trace the name of the film and subsequently look out for it on british tv or sky. so far though i have not come across it again. this film is more than worthy of a reshowing and i, for one, would be very pleased to see it again. i would go as far as to say that this film has haunted me for all this time.