Preservation of the Sign Language

Plot

In this groundbreaking 1913 silent film, George Veditz, former president of the National Association of the Deaf, delivers a passionate address directly to the camera using American Sign Language. Veditz argues forcefully for the preservation and recognition of sign language as the natural language of deaf people, challenging the growing dominance of oralism in deaf education. He explains how sign language represents the unique culture and identity of the Deaf community, warning that its loss would be an irreversible tragedy. Without any subtitles or intertitles, the film demonstrates the power and expressiveness of sign language as a complete linguistic system. Veditz's message transcends the silent medium, conveying urgency and conviction through his signing, making a powerful case for linguistic diversity and Deaf rights.

Historical Background

The film was created during a critical period in Deaf history following the 1880 Milan Conference, where educators declared oralism superior to manualism (sign language) in deaf education. This decision led to the systematic removal of sign language from schools worldwide, with teachers forbidden from signing and students punished for using it. By 1913, an entire generation of deaf children had been deprived of their natural language, and many Deaf adults feared that American Sign Language would disappear entirely. The early 20th century also saw the rise of eugenics movements that viewed deafness as a defect to be cured rather than a cultural identity. Against this backdrop, Veditz's film represented both an act of cultural preservation and political resistance. The film emerged just as motion pictures were becoming a mass medium, allowing the Deaf community to use this new technology to preserve and disseminate their language and culture in ways never before possible.

Making Of

The making of 'Preservation of the Sign Language' was part of a broader cultural resistance movement within the Deaf community against the oralist philosophy that had dominated deaf education since the 1880 Milan Conference. George Veditz, recognizing that sign language was being systematically eliminated from schools and that native signers were aging without passing their language to younger generations, proposed that the NAD use the new technology of motion pictures to create a permanent record. The filming process was challenging due to the technical limitations of early cinema - cameras required cranking by hand, lighting was harsh, and film stock was expensive. Veditz had to sign slowly and deliberately to ensure his movements would be clearly captured on film. The production was funded by Deaf community members who understood the urgency of preserving their language. The film was distributed to Deaf clubs and schools across the country, serving both as a teaching tool and as political advocacy material.

Visual Style

The cinematography is straightforward and functional, typical of early documentary films. A stationary camera captures Veditz from approximately the waist up, positioned to clearly capture his hand movements, facial expressions, and body language - all essential components of sign language communication. The lighting is bright and even, necessary for the slow film stock of the era but also serving to highlight the clarity of Veditz's signing. The composition places Veditz centrally in the frame, creating an intimate direct address to the viewer. Despite the technical limitations of the time, the camera work effectively demonstrates the visual nature of sign language, with careful attention paid to ensuring that hand positions and movements remain clearly visible throughout. The simplicity of the cinematography serves the film's purpose perfectly - nothing distracts from Veditz's powerful signing, making the language itself the star of the show.

Innovations

The film represents several important technical achievements for its time. It was among the first films to recognize and demonstrate that motion pictures could effectively capture and preserve a visual language, establishing film as a crucial tool for linguistic documentation. The production overcame significant technical challenges of early cinema to clearly record the rapid hand movements and subtle facial expressions essential to sign language. The film pioneered the use of direct address to camera in a non-English language, creating an intimate connection between signer and viewer despite the lack of shared spoken language. The decision to forgo intertitles or subtitles was technically and conceptually innovative, demonstrating that visual language could stand alone as cinematic communication. The film also represents an early example of community-based filmmaking, created by and for a specific cultural community rather than for commercial entertainment.

Music

As a silent film from 1913, 'Preservation of the Sign Language' had no original soundtrack or musical score. In its original presentations, the film would have been accompanied by live music typical of the era - often a pianist or organist playing appropriate mood music. Modern screenings and digital versions sometimes include period-appropriate music or remain completely silent to emphasize the visual nature of the communication. The absence of sound is thematically significant, as it forces hearing viewers to experience communication through visual means alone, giving them a small taste of the Deaf visual experience. The silence also underscores Veditz's message that sign language is complete and expressive without any auditory component.

Memorable Scenes

• The opening sequence where Veditz introduces himself and states the film's purpose with passionate signing
• The moment when Veditz demonstrates the beauty and complexity of sign language through elaborate poetic signing
• Veditz's emotional conclusion where he appeals directly to future generations to preserve their linguistic heritage
• The powerful sequence where Veditz signs about the importance of Deaf culture and identity
• The climactic moment when Veditz emphatically signs about sign language being a gift from God

What Critics Said

Contemporary critical reception is difficult to document as the film was primarily distributed within the Deaf community rather than to mainstream cinema audiences. However, within Deaf publications and organizations, the film was received as a vital cultural document and a powerful statement of linguistic pride. Modern critics and scholars universally recognize the film as historically invaluable. Film historians consider it a pioneering work of documentary cinema and an early example of identity-based filmmaking. Deaf studies scholars view it as foundational to understanding Deaf resistance to oralism and the development of Deaf consciousness. Linguists cite it as crucial evidence for the historical development of American Sign Language. The film is now studied in courses on documentary film, disability studies, and linguistic anthropology, and is celebrated for its artistic simplicity and profound cultural message.

What Audiences Thought

The primary intended audience - members of the American Deaf community - received the film with enthusiasm and gratitude. Deaf clubs and organizations across the country screened the film, recognizing it as validation of their language and culture. Many older Deaf viewers reportedly wept seeing their language preserved on film, as it represented hope that future generations would have access to ASL despite oralist educational policies. Younger deaf people who had been deprived of sign language in school found the film revelatory, often learning ASL from watching Veditz and other NAD films repeatedly. The film also served as a powerful tool for Deaf activists advocating for the return of sign language to schools. Modern audiences, both Deaf and hearing, continue to be moved by the film's directness and passion, with many describing it as surprisingly contemporary in its message about linguistic rights and cultural preservation.

You Might Also Like