Cries from the Heart (1994 TV Movie) User Reviews

Silent Scream

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 25 September 2005]

Strightfoward and at the same time painful made for TV movie involving a severely autistic seven year old boy Michael, Bradley Pierce. Michael was well on his way to be cured of his autism when he's molested, by one of the persons who's supposed to look after him, and not able to tell his parents and therapist what happen. Karen, Mellisa Gilbert, has her hands full with her young son Michael. We see early in the movie "A Cry from the Heart" Michael wondering away from her as she's on the phone with her husband Roger, Marcus Flanagan, and almost getting himself run over by a car in the street.

Trying to get Michael help for his autism Karen gets him enrolled in this special school and dormitory outside town that specialized in troubled children like himself. Working with Michael is Terry, Patty Duke, who the boy takes an immediate liking too and within days responds to her therapy. This at first impresses his mom, Karen, but later makes her feel as if she let him down all these years growing up autistic, by not being able to do for him then what Terry is now doing now.

The movie has Karen develop a very strange hostility toward Terry even though she's doing everything that Karen would have hoped for her son, cure him of his autism. There's also the fact that both Karen and her husband Roger are separated and she feels that may be a factor it young Michael's autism, and his not being able to overcome it. There's also Karen's suspicions of Michael's autism being genetic on her part. In fact Michael strangely tells his mom, by typing it out on a computer, that he feels that his father left him and Karen because he once broke his car window.

With Michael getting better every day in his ability to communicate and respond to both Terry and his mom all of a sudden he falls back into the world of non-communication that he was in before he entered the school. It's that what brings both Terry and Karen together and takes away their differences, or at least Karen's,with each other. In finding out what was it that destroyed all the progress that was achieved in by them in getting Michael out of the helpless autistic state that he was in. It later turns out that Michael was molested by someone near and dear to him and that person may well have molested many other boys like himself who he's in charge of.

The last half of "Cries from the Heart" is very gripping by changing course with Michael together with Terry having to go on trial to testify against his counselor Jeff, Peter Spears, for sexually abusing him. It would be really hard for young Michael to testify, this by tapping out his answers on a computer keyboard, with Jeff and his parents, in the courtroom. State D.A Ms.Tolbert, Lisa Banes, has doubts if Michael could go through with being able to not only testify against Jeff but have a jury believe him.

With the entire state case against Jeff dependent on Michael's testimony it forces D.A Tolbert to put him on the stand and have him relive all the horrors that he went through again. Michael goes on to prove that he can handle that, as well as his autism, much better then even those who have faith in him ever thought possible.

Conflicted feelings

[Gryphon-Dragon39 · 6/10 · 13 March 2024]

First off I wanna say I found this movie on tubi and it covers a very heavy and disturbing topic that deeply troubles me so I was worried going in. I think the characters are very good, the mother, and teacher and little boy are all great characters who I cared about. And I don't think the plot is bad at all at least in the beginning, however once the teacher started using facilitated communication the plot kind of lost me a bit. My main issue with the film is I don't think its plausible. What I mean is, the child is portrayed as severely autistic to the point where he cannot communicate and the film shows that the boy has a severe learning disability. In the beginning he can't even spell or seem to read. A regular child who is getting groomed is not going to understand what is happening to them is wrong, much less a child with a severe learning disability so that part just didn't feel realistic to me. How would he even understand what happened to him or know it was bad? I felt the plot would have been more realistic if the boy had been older at least where he could understand the concept of what happened. Secondly even if the child knew what happened was wrong, I don't believe the jury would believe him because he isn't able to really communicate properly. I feel the beginning and middle are good but the ending just feels incredibly contrived. I get the film makers probably wanted a feel good ending but in terms of the way the child is portrayed and his circumstances the ending just isn't realistic, and because of that I couldn't fully enjoy this movie. All that being said it is a decent film and the boy playing the character Michael did a amazing job, I would've really believed he was autistic.

Realistic Behavior

[darkriver11 · 20 March 2002]

My daughter is autistic. I found this movie to be a very real depiction of that type of behavior. Almost painful to watch. Our school and physician felt she would be best served in an institution. I kept her at home and lost my family in the process, but found my daughter as a result. She is now a functional person. 18 years old. Good movie for any one curious as to what one would have to deal with. "Rain Man" is one thing,sort of a stereo type. But, this is well done from the parent/child view point. And, they ARE all individuals with varying degrees of a whole myriad of behaviors.

Rubbish

[richard.fuller1 · 1/10 · 17 September 2006]

I saw this movie way back when it premiered.

It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.

Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.

This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.

So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.

Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.

So who was doing the typing? Never the child.

This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.

Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.

If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.

Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.

The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . "we won!" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.

At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.

Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.

A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.

It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.

Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around here.

Truthful autistic behaviour in a truthful movie

[HGH-3 · 8/10 · 28 February 1999]

Jeff, who is an autistic seven year old, gets placed in a special school. Since he doesn't speak, his teacher wants to teach him how to write, by using a computer. She succeeds and he suddenly got a way to communicate. One day he reveals that he has been sexually abused by one of his guardians at the school. Is he a reliable witness in court? His only way of communicating is by the computer. Will the jury belive an autistic boy of seven?

This film is based on a true story and the way the autistic kid is depicted is far better than in most films. His tics and other disturbing behaviours is really believable. I should know. I have an autistic daughter myself.

To teach an autistic how to use a written instead of a spoken is a matter of some controversy in the film. Can they really learn? Yes They Can! My daughter can, and she is only three years old! She also uses sign-language and a few words. But she can't really speak.

The film is surprisingly to the point. It rarely falls into the trap of being over-philosophical, which is quite usual when it comes to TV-productions. If you are the least bit interested in autistic behaviour and want to see one way of helping one out of his isolation, this is a good movie. But remember: all autistic children don't behave the same way. And all of them don't respond to the same learning-methods. Autistics are individuals just as you or me.

Starts of well but ends terribly

[jaronnimo · 4/10 · 30 July 2007]

First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.

Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.

A very heartbreaking and eye-opening movie

[fnnona · 10/10 · 26 March 2000]

I found the movie was well put together, and had a very good story line.

It's about time that some-one actually displayed what is going on in these sort of places, as I do not feel it is appropriate for these sort of things to be going on.

It's irresponsible to perpetuate this story as real life!

[MadTom · 1/10 · 24 February 2024]

I originally wrote this as a post on the old discussion boards here at IMDb 16 years ago, and only discovered an archive of the boards recently and can now copy it as a review.

I'm a retired school psychologist with 22 years experience, and my best friend from college has a son who is severely autistic; he was diagnosed at age 2 1/2 and is now in his mid-40s, and has been living in a group home since his legal adulthood. I therefore view autism on both a professional and personal level.

I remember back in the early 1990s, before this movie came out, when I first saw an ABC-TV newsmagazine (20/20 or PRIME TIME) segment on so-called Facilitated Communication. This is the "method" by which the facilitator, like Patty Duke's character in this movie, supposedly steadies the (nonverbal) autistic person's hand over the keyboard so the person can type messages on a computer. When the reporter pointed out that the autistic person wasn't looking at either the keyboard or the computer screen, the typed response was, almost invariably, to the effect that "I have the keyboard memorized so I don't have to see it."

I had this pegged for what it was immediately: the facilitator was subconsciously guiding the autistic person's hand, probably without being aware of it but entering responses that the facilitator (again subconsciously) deemed appropriate. As I pointed out in a letter to ABC-TV's news division, "A Ouija Board works the same way." (I played with a Ouija Board a couple of times when I was a kid, so I knew what was really happening!)

My friend shared much of my skepticism but, figuring they had nothing to lose, he and his wife contacted the facilitator organization, who sent someone from their local area to facilitate for their son. The facilitator immediately began transmitting messages supposedly from their son. There was nothing conclusive either way.

For years afterward, the facilitators and their organizations refused to submit to impartial tests in which the autistic person would be asked questions that the facilitator would not possibly know the answers to. In the meantime, incidents like those which occurred in the movie started to occur in real life: the typed "Facilitated Communications" messages began to include accusations supposedly from autistic children that adults, sometimes the parents, were abusing them. Several arrests and criminal charges were made. People were convicted and imprisoned. Parents, if not imprisoned, had their children taken from their custody.

Fortunately research discredited "Facilitated Communication", although because of the facilitators' refusal to submit to testing, the testers initially had to resort to deception. In one such test, the facilitator was shown a picture of an object, but when the picture was turned toward the autistic person, the experimenter secretly moved a flap so that a different object was actually shown. Invariably, what was typed in was what the facilitator was seeing himself/herself instead of what was exposed to the autistic person. As early as two months before this movie was first aired, the American Psychological Association released a Resolution which concluded:

*****

Facilitated communication is a process by which a facilitator supports the hand or arm of a communicatively impaired individual while using a keyboard or typing device. It has been claimed that this process enables persons with autism or mental retardation to communicate. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular, information obtained via facilitated communication should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy.

*****

Most people who were convicted for abuse based on messages from Facilitated Communication were eventually acquitted on appeal and custody of their children was reinstated. But where do they go to get their lives and their good names back? Do Patty Duke, Melissa Gilbert and the other actors and production staff feel any remorse or regret at all for this movie?

I'm just grateful my friend and his wife discontinued Facilitated Communication for their son before such a fate befell them!

I gonna to write about Micheal

[murphy1169 · 10/10 · 31 August 2013]

I have Autism myself only mild god bless poor Micheal hope Jeff rots in hell did Micheal need to wear Nappies even tough he was able to the toilet . But I wouldn't be surprised if He did anyway because Micheal is severely Autisc I am sure if he had an ancient Karren or Terry would probably clean it up I am not sure if Michael does Nappies but by the way he is walking looks like he is wearing nappies I have a friend in school who wears Nappies his name is Ethun Doran with severe to moderate autism he is 12 years old but sadly it is his only toilet or Ethun wears them because he can't tell his ma if he had ancient i think he only has 25 words anyway. But that's neither here or there the point is Jeff got his comeuppance and Micheal was able to get on with his life.

An Emotional Journey Through Autism and Sexual Abuse

[ventery · 10/10 · 30 August 2020]

When I first came across "Cries From The Heart," I was a little hesitant to watch it because it dealt with two topics that are very near and dear to my heart; autism and sexual abuse. Naturally, I scrolled past it but soon found myself intrigued by the plot and decided I would give it a go. Thankfully, I am glad I did.

Set in a beautiful little town somewhere in suburban America, a young mother must come to terms with her inability to cope with her 7 year old autistic son, Michael, and after being persuaded by her ex-husband, she decides to place Michael in a well-known special needs school where he can receive the care that she is unable to give him. However, one day, after learning how to type on a computer by his dedicated teacher, Terry, Michael makes a startling admission that turns everything on its head.

It is now up to Terry and his parents to convince the jury that this strange little autistic boy is, in fact, a very reliable witness and that his way of communicating through a computer is, in fact, him communicating.

What struck me the most about this powerful story was the chemistry between the cast members and how convincing they were. To start, Bradley Pierce was cast as the young Michael and his performance was both realistic and very moving. Also worth mentioning is Melissa Gilbert who played Karen, Michaels mother. Gilbert was brilliant in her role and had great chemistry with the young Bradley Pierce so they made a really beautiful fit. Furthermore, I have to congratulate Patty Duke who played Michaels' dedicated teacher, Terry. She was incredibly convincing in her role and all three of them made a great team on screen.

Moreover, I have to give credit to the artistic director, Michael Switzer, for his accurate portrayal of autism and the guidance he gave Pierce to bring this special little boy to life. The tics and other strange behaviours Michael exhibited was very convincing and very typical for autistic children. Bradley Pierce was able to bring depth to his character and gave an astounding performance.

Finally, there were various themes that stood out in the film, most notably, the unique bond between student and teacher, as well as, the issue of how autistic children experience sexual abuse and how convincing their unique ways of communicating are in the eyes of the law. This was one of the many questions posed by the film: Can an autistic child really understand and communicate what has happened to them? And are they able to learn?

I will let you make up your own mind about that. Personally, I feel it is a shame this film did not make it onto the big screen as it would have reached a bigger audience if it had but nevertheless, if you are a big 90's lifetime movie fan and have an interest in autism, I highly recommend you watch this film as it truly is a remarkable story of how one little boy managed to gather all the courage he could to confront his victimizer and convince a whole courtroom full of people that he does, in fact, have his own voice.