Last night, I had the good fortune to accompany friends to see “Adam." I loved, loved, loved every second of this film and heartily congratulate the writers, actors, director and most of all, the consultants who nailed the socio-emotional and communication aspects of Asperger’s, without the usual syrup and other-worldliness that so many often mistakenly associate with this condition that falls on the Autistic Spectrum. This morning, as I read an online review of the film, I was shocked to realize that this particular critic failed to capture the meaning of the film. He described it as a love story. The love story in this film was merely the framework in which to hang an informative and pragmatic expose of Asperger’s, or high level autism. (There is a controversy regarding nomenclature in my field of speech/language pathology – does Asperger’s Syndrome merit a separate diagnostic category in and of itself, or rather merely reflect symptoms of high functioning autism - but that is a discussion for another time.)
And so, if I discard the love story as the mere framework, what then lies inside the frame? Where to start? I believe that this film is rich in a plethora of ways: humanistic, linguistic, socio-communicative, and more; it would take a book to adequately discuss each so I mention only the most obvious. Regarding the human issue: many of us, both professionals and lay persons, often fall into the trap of referring to this population as “autistic” or, in Adam’s words, “Aspy’s.” When we speak this way, our thoughts are determined by our words; our concepts are fixed by our words: the people become walking diseases, in a sense. They are what they have. When we label people in this way, we forget that we are talking about and treating human beings, who happen to have a condition – a very complex and pervasive condition that constantly hurls huge roadblocks in their paths as they try to live, love, work, interact with others and function in ever changing environments. We, instead, think of them as a different species, an aberration of the human profile. This film poignantly illustrates and clarifies that central point; it is my hope that it screws everyone’s head on right about the way in which we should be thinking and talking about children and adults with autism. When Beth takes Adam to a noisy restaurant where people are hidden behind foreboding masks, he becomes visually, auditorily and emotionally over stimulated, ill at ease, and off-balance, as we all do in certain circumstances; his bugaboo circumstances are just more predictable. Remember, this is a spectrum - we are all on it to some degree. Where do you become ill at ease? Where, when and how often have you thought: I’ve got to get out of here. Beth falls in love with Adam. She is attracted to him and loves being with him because she saw him first and foremost as a fellow human being, as a man. It was only later that she began to research Asperger’s; therefore, her first impression of him was not tainted by this label. He wasn’t squeezed into a circumscribed box or defined for her just yet; no, rather, he constituted possible “relationship material,” an equal with some idiosyncrasies that she could not figure out. (I don’t know about you but I’m married to someone for over 30 years and I can’t figure out his idiosyncrasies.) So, my point is that this film takes that A-word and makes it a condition defined by multiple challenges and roadblocks that can be moved aside and managed, so that a neighbor or a friend can live as fully as anyone else. They just need some help with the heavy lifting. In addition, it reminds professionals to meet the person first, not an embodiment of labels and judgments scrawled on the paperwork that often precedes them and defines them. One leaves the film loving Adam and admiring this man who must push aside boulders every day of his life. Yes, he looks weary by the end and that further educates us about the enormity of his task in accomplishing what comes so easily to so many of us.
As a speech/language pathologist, I was equally intrigued by the subtle references to the linguistic and socio-communicative aspects. When we speak about the linguistic aspects of a profile, we are generally referring to the language code. Most people think of this as the grammar and speech sound system. We know that in many people with autism, the linguistics of their overall communication profile are relatively well preserved; that is, when they encode their ideas (i.e., put ideas from their head into sentences, utter their thoughts) the messages are relatively grammatical and their speech is often clear. Adam’s profile is characteristic: his sentences were well constructed, his vocabulary effective and his speech intelligible. It would appear that his linguistics were, therefore, well preserved; however, the subtler linguistic deficits were beautifully scripted and brought to light. For example, Adam’s difficulty comprehending indirect directives was used to add humor to the film. Indirect directives are comments that seek to elicit an action from others when the request is not directly stated. When one is cold, one might utter, “Gee, it’s freezing in here” whereupon an attentive listener closes the window. The speaker did not directly state, “Close the window”; rather, the listener inferred those wishes – read the other person’s mind, in a sense. (Traditionally, comprehension of indirect directives was believed to occur around 7-8 years of age as language intersected with advancing cognitive stages; however, we see evidence of comprehension of these linguistic forms in younger children – but that’s another topic, once again.) Adam’s challenges comprehending indirect directives and simultaneously comprehending literal versus figurative language are well illustrated throughout the movie. When Beth demonstrates “upset” behavior, which Adam has obviously been taught to read by others’ facial expressions, he asks if there is anything he could do and Beth asks (something to the effect of – I’m paraphrasing here), “Could you give me a hug?” Adam responds in the affirmative, but does not hug her. Adam at that point demonstrates literal comprehension of her question: yes, indeed, he is physically capable of hugging her; however, he does not read the indirect nature of her request and so perceptive-Beth restates the proposition as a direct request, “Please give me a hug”, which Adam then obliges.
I must mention here how blown away I was by Hugh Dancy’s incredibly shaded and subtle performance in this scene (and throughout the movie). Reading Beth’s upset face, Adam states, in some words, “I can tell you’re upset.” Dancy’s vocal affect is so extremely rich here; the viewer with professional background well recognizes that particular vocal tone, the one that says: I’ve been trained in this. When you alien human forms (“N.T.’s”) look to the side with your head cocked to one side and mouth turned downward, it means that something has bothered you. He has learned well when a person is upset but is at a loss for the next step: what to do to behave as a compassionate human, which he is. He then asks what the protocol is, as above.
Adam’s literal comprehension and use of language surfaces over and over with the comforting and wonderful character of H… , who, at one point, refers to himself as a “stubborn old” man for not forgiving a former lover’s transgressions; the use of the word “old” here is figurative, idiomatic. Adam counsels H to call the woman so that he will no longer be “stubborn” but adds that H will still be “old” (as in the literal meaning of advanced age), failing to grasp the idiomatic use of the word.
Reference to limited metalinguistic skills is made as Adam fails to understand language as the source of humor in a party guest’s reference to the double meaning of the word “focus” when discussing telescopes – it flies right over Adam’s head – just as the guest’s communicative intent does when she admits that his overly technical explanations did. Here Adam understands her use of the idiom (the information was “over her head”) but cannot clarify his message so he begins to repeat the technical information again. Adam does not have the linguistic flexibility to respond to her pragmatic intent or her discourse needs.
Not only do we infer information from words; we also infer information from actions. Beth struggles to carry heavy groceries up the porch steps in front of Adam, even bumping into Adam, who demonstrates lack of comprehension of the meaningfulness of Beth’s plight to him, as a neighbor. Indirect directives come in many forms. Adam is, however, redeemed at the end of the film, when it occurs to him to assist a young woman in California with heavy boxes; he is smart and is, therefore, a fast learner. Learning, after all, is merely the connection of two events, and Adam, in the end, has mastered the new connection, revealing another major facet about autism – the ability to learn. People with autism have, like everyone else, different cognitive resources; these often contribute or limit their success at various tasks. It is clear that Adam is extremely bright; as a result, he makes connections quickly. His life was significantly enriched and successfully changed in many ways by his relationship with Beth, a formidable and perceptive teacher.
Difficulty with appreciation of abstraction is touchingly exemplified at the end of the movie as Adam reads the first page of Beth’s book, where Beth quotes Adam’s prior comments about raccoons in Central Park – they didn’t belong there, but there they were. Adam realizes that there is some text-to-life connection here, an abstraction of information that pertains to another situation besides the raccoon’s. Slowly, we see him grasp the connection between the raccoons and himself. This whole raccoon/Adam connection reminded me of Temple Grandin’s metaphor of people with autism as anthropologists, here learning our “ways.” Hugh Dancy’s portrayal of the latency involved in comprehension of this connection was realistically timed and beautifully executed: one could actually witness the peeling away of layers until Adam got to the core of the connection, which is the essence of abstraction.
The socio-communicative aspect of the language of autism was also well illustrated. Here we consider pragmatics, or the social use of language, in more specific terms. A major area of the study within pragmatics involves discourse, or conversational, skills. Texting involves responding to the constantly changing information presented in successive statements as two or more people discuss a topic. It is an extremely rapid and dynamic process as each person comments upon, adds, disagrees, segues a bit – and somehow we, with typical language skills, follow – not so for Adam. In one scene, Adam and Beth are sitting on his couch and Adam reveals that his father recently passed and them inserts a second comment about a related topic (which fails me now). Beth states, “I’m sorry” and Adam looks confused because the second statement did not warrant an apology. Beth quickly repairs the communication breakdown by clarifying, “about your father, I mean” – or words to that effect. Beth realizes that Adam did not text properly, did not automatically hook her utterance onto the initial proposition about his father’s passing. The subtle and impossible rapidity of conversational dovetailing is beautifully alluded to.
This scene also ends with Adam’s disclosure to Beth that he has Asperger’s and, with it, “mind blindness.” Development of theory of mind is fascinating and involves our ever expanding awareness that what is in other people’s minds differs from what is in ours – that we cannot automatically assume that another person is feeling and thinking and knowing what are, at any given moment. This fundamental and basic awareness is what makes us successful in conversation, social interactions of all kinds, classroom interactions, writing, reading comprehension, learning, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Returning to those danged troubling discourse skills, Adam’s obsession topic of outer space is used to illustrate the difficulty that people with autism experience in terms of sensitivity to listeners, to their body language that signals lack of interest in a topic, lack of background information, and so on. Once on the topic of space, Adam had to be cued in order to control himself, to inhibit, as Beth does by touching his arm. How many of us rant about topics, in which no one is particularly interested at the time? How many people reading this will realize my obsession topic?
Okay, so I feel someone tugging at my arm – I’ve ranted too long, but how fascinating is this film??? Get out and see it – see it many times. Appreciate every bit of it – rich, rich, rich.