Autism is a disorder that affects the communication and social development of young children. While these disorders cover a very wide spectrum, the basic common trait of autism is a difficulty or inability to communicate with others; also, the ability to understand social cues (e.g. what is and is not appropriate, interpreting gestures/expressions/body language correctly, etc.) is significantly limited.
In the last twenty years, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism. Despite numerous studies on the subject, no definitive cause has yet been determined; and while there are many helpful treatments and aides available, no reliable “cure” has been found. The severity of autism can vary from those who are completely withdrawn and totally dependent on others for their care, to those who are able to live independently, with their little “quirks”. The Story of Luke is about a young man with autism, and the struggles and accomplishments of him and his loving family.
Content
To begin with, the information presented in this documentary was well laid-out and presented in a logical manner. It began with a brief description of autism and its characteristics, followed by an explanation of Luke’s diagnosis and early development; it concluded with his current treatment/education, as well as a look at what the future might hold for him. Additionally, the film did a good job of adding a personal aspect to what could have easily turned into a detached, clinical observation.
The interviews, however, were problematic. To begin with, the people being interviewed are looking straight at the camera. There are two big reasons why this is not a good idea: 1.) it feels intrusive to the viewer, and 2.) it makes the talent uncomfortable. As viewers, we don’t like feeling as though the person on the other side of the screen is staring right at us; for the talent, it can be very unnerving to try to talk to a piece of machinery. Such nervousness is particularly obvious in the interviews with Luke’s doctor. This is the last thing a director wants, because a nervous interviewee (and a doctor, no less!) diminishes the audience’s confidence in the facts being presented. A better alternative is to have the person looking about five degrees off center, as though they are talking to someone just off-camera.
Additionally, the quality of the voice-over performance was monotonous. It is absolutely essential to have an interesting and engaging delivery from your talent, especially since documentaries are educational by nature, and can run the risk of sounding boring. Also, there were several places where the voice-over talent halted on or tripped over words. This should never happen. The whole point of voice-overs is so that you can have perfectly delivered lines; there is no reason to have any “flubbed” lines at all.
