The Missed Opportunity of "Hush" and Other Movies Like it

Hush (2016)(Dir. Mike Flanagan)) is a recluse and woodsy slasher movie, staring Kate Siegel, who co-wrote Hush with her husband/director and plays a very private, deaf-mute thriller author, interested in finishing her latest novel in peace. Eventually, she is hunted by a predatory, dangerous man who finds her being unable to hear his footsteps rather alluring and tries to use her deafness for his sick purposes; to torture her in a glass box home.

The movie is objectively not bad; I am a fan of both Mike Flanagan's other works (i.e. Doctor Sleep, Midnight Mass, Oculus, etc.) and Kate Siegel's character work, especially her portrayal of Theo in The Haunting of Hill House, but there were moments in Hush where I felt like there was an informal gap. A believableness, that I'm already pretty loose with, when I engage with horror and comply with the fear-struck logic presented in "Home Intrusion" movies. And truthfully, something just felt missing.

I think some of the reasons why Hush didn't fully land with me is obviously their choice to cast a non-deaf person and then portray the character's "thoughts" in Siegel's voice, but also the incompleteness I felt in the plot. Decisions and behaviors that left me wondering "How would a deaf-mute writer, actor, or director, interrupt this situation? Would the character's choices be the same and if not, what creative opportunities are missed by positioning inaccessible casting and certain plot choices over them instead?"

The last question is one we should all be asking when examining every disabled character written by a group of able-bodied people; though I think Hush does a good job not metaphorically making the character's deaf-mute identity an exasperated expression, paired inhumanly with super-power-like qualities (a common trope for disabled characters written in horror or magical movies and books) but in the end, it was apparent that Hush had missed an opportunity to call in deaf, mute, and other co-existing disabled identities into the writer's room. A chance to go much farther than just having a consultant on set.

I guess I just don't understand why Mike Flanagan and Kate Siegel felt the need to spearhead this project on their own; It's not enough to just be grateful that famous able-bodied directors and actors are taking on disabled-centered stories. It's not enough to just be relieved when they don't write them in a pitiful or lack integral way. Why? because that's something you never need to worry about with disabled writers. We don't need to call in experts, because we are the experts. Especially the ones who experience an intersectional set of marginalized identities and are in tune with their creative communities, inviting a collaborative effort of work: Scripts and art that stimulate and arouse all minds.

Just because you have a good idea for a movie, and you feel like your intentions are noble, doesn't mean it's your story to make. For example, I am neither deaf nor mute. Even If I had big bags of money, would I write a script whose whole foundation (and to be honest the most interesting part of the story) be based on an identity I've never experienced, even though the board thinks it's a great and "sellable" idea? No! Do you know why? Because I would do a crappy job showing the nuances of the deaf-mute experience and could invite a whole new slew of misinformation, stereotypes, etc into the mix of an already misunderstood group of people that I highly respect and care about. And yes, Hush did avoid some of the more trip-ware traps, but why risk it? Why not funnel the money over to a deaf-mute creator eager to write the script? Or pursue their projects instead of Hush?

I think I just found myself distracted the whole time because I was busy with the What Ifs? I was preoccupied with my own criticism, and the meaningless of it when thinking about what Hush could have been in the right hands - I truthfully just want more disabled writers to have the same opportunities as famous horror writers/directors. I want our experiences and insights to be more valuable than broad-approved budgets, a name slapped on the cover. For movie companies to be begging, pleading for our richly-lived/written works and do away with the whole exclusionary who-knows-who-from-what-film-school practice. Equalizing every opportunity for quality, protected from persistent and harmful standards.