At first impulse, it is hard for me not to feel that the director has made a bad ethical choice by refusing to subtitle a film about a deaf musical superstar. The effect, whether aesthetically planned or not, of this choice, is that hearing-impaired people who might well benefit from learning about Glennie, are excluded from the audience. That said, I recognize that introducing text into a medium that is all sound and image does change the final result. Having attended a few subtitled operas though, I don't find the presence of text all that distracting. Perhaps I've gotten used to the presence of textual intrusions into visual media by watching the rolling headlines on CNN. The second clip, which does feature subtitles, does not change my opinion here.

Excellent point. I also agree that - given the crawl of news shows, etc - people simply don't find subtitles as jarring as they once did.

Also, one might even argue that subtitles can enhance the viewing experience via the disruption, if it does exist? It could have a Brechtian effect that helps the viewer maintain a critical distance in which pleasure isn't about simply being transported, but is a pleasure of active viewing and analysis.