Dummy (1979)

I saw this movie at a very young age and was very moved. I never saw anything hostile about Donny. Sure, it was just a movie, but no one that he encountered, even white, detected any mean streak. While I have deep sympathy for both Earline and Ernestine's family's, If you have not lived the criminal LIFE, such as prostitution you don't exactly know what these women were willing to do to get money. Then, you have someone that cannot communicate at all, other than to indicate what I am willing to pay you and what I want from you. If, perhaps they were not accepting of what was being offered, and demanded more than could be understood, he very well could be a murderer. But, that was the life they chose, for whatever reason. It's like trying to communicate to a child or an animal. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!! His communication skills were very limited..... Very limited........ The problem may have been that his family denied teaching him skills. MAYBE, he didn't even know that killing is wrong....Black or White and deaf & dumb, what more could society do????????

Hollywood does tend to bend the facts. In his book "Dummy" Tidyman has case details that are not present in the movie. Lang literally admits to both murders, in the only way he knows how, by showing police the location of the murders and the even one of the weapons that he used. In the case with Ernestine Williams, Lang was not convicted due several errors in the justice systems; which are more common than you think for minorities. Read the book "Dummy" if you want better case information. In addition, I believe the point of the Movie is to question the policies of law enforcement when it relates to suspects that have physical disabilities that hinder their ability to communicate. How can you validate a confession by a deaf mute? The original intentions of "Dummy" was to agitate readers/viewers in order to make them think about the moral implications of a criminal system that discriminates against minorities and people with special needs.This movie can in "no way" validate the fact that Donald Lang was guilty of his crimes. He was tried twice and released once on error (Williams) then finally convicted, when months later he convicted the same crime. Lang was a serial killer and well known in "his" neighborhood for having sinister motives when it came to "women of the night." My family knew Lang intimately because he was finally convicted of murdering my grandmother Earline Brown. Earline would probably still be alive to this day if Lang's case with Ernestine Williams had been handled effectively; however, it was not. Maybe because Ernestine and Earline had been prostitutes. Or, it might have been handled poorly because they were black women. Would there have even been a question of Lang's guilt or innocence if Ernestine or Earline had been white, upstanding, citizens? Lang never served his time appropriately for their murders, thanks to Hollywood. My grandmother was a struggling single parent. She had no education, nor any support system. She often took care of her children without welfare benefits, using the only skill she had been trained in; prostitution. Everyone, in that neighborhood that new her, loved her. She was kind and often gave to women that were less fortunate, like my father's mother who had twelve children. The unfortunate part of crime is always the victims. My mother lost her mother at seventeen, and my uncle was only twelve. Hollywood does not show the victims, only the sensational murderer. It is what people want to pay to see that matters. Isn't it?? Ann Brown

The previous comment missed the point entirely. The question isn't if the guy was guilty or not, but, does the justice system have any mechanism in it for someone who can't hear, speak, read, sign or communicate in any other way. THIS was the crux of the matter- if someone can't communicate at all how does he participate in a court proceeding? How could he understand what was going on? Donald Lang could not communicate ideas at all- he could not lip-read, could not hear,could not understand sign language of any kind- he literally COULD NOT COMMUNICATE- It wasn't about his guilt or innocence- it was about a situation where the courts could do as they pleased with someone because he could not understand anything. This is un-American- we are a land where people have DIED defending a system which provides rights which cannot be trampled by police powers. THAT is what the film was about. (FYI I live in Chicago and know Lowell Myers well, and have spoken to him about this.... so my info is directly from the source.)

I knew Donald Lang between the two killings. He was kind, bright, very strong and hard working. He had ape like qualities that Lavar Burton could not emulate, nor should he have tried.Lang was always being victimized by pimps, whores and scumbags wandering the ghetto. Lang had a sense of honor, justice and compassion that his tormentors did not have.I believe he was a lot smarter than most people thought and could understand volumes. He communicated with me by grunts and pointing. I could swear he could understand what I was saying to him.The only time anyone cared to teach him sign language and communication skills was to try him for murder. That never happened. I don't know where Lang is today but I know he's not in the Illinois prison system.He only needed a better understanding of how to deal with the evil people in the world. I really think that he felt that killing people who would rob him was okay. His world was truly a jungle and the laws of the jungle applied to him.Lowell Myers was a fine man. Sorvino did not look like him but captured all of his humanity in the film. Someday I'd like to talk to him about this film. I had a chat with Brian Dennehy who played Lang's boss earlier in his career. It's a great story and should be released on DVD someday. A jail guard from the Cook County jail named Cheserleigh played himself in the film. He too knew Lang