An Analysis of the Movie Blindness

In October of 2008, the movie "Blindness," hit the theaters. I am not a movie buff. I usually wait until it comes out on DVD and receives some positive ratings from people whom I respect before I waste my time watching it. However, this movie would be portraying blind people. Now, it would be too optimistic to actually believe that there would be any blind actors and actresses in this movie. My first instinct is to watch this movie and rate it on its portrait of blind individuals. Since I am blind, myself, I find that I tend to analyze blind characters in movies and the movies that portray them. But, there were many reasons that I was first drawn to this film. I had just read a review on another of Jose Saramago's books, "Death with interruptions" and the review was quite positive. I thought that I might get a sense of the author through this movie. Also, if I liked the movie, then, I would read the book and most likely, enjoy the book even more than I did the movie.

I had seen this movie get rave reviews on many movie websites and even on Amazon from *some* people. An organization that I belong to, National Federation of the Blind (NFB) was quite up in arms about the movie. I thought that maybe they were a bit thin-skinned. As in any organization, there are those who are a bit overzealous in their desire to be politically correct and image conscious. After all, maybe they were just misinterpreting some of the scenes and a bit hypersensitive. Sometimes, when we are advocating, we forget to take a step back and laugh at ourselves. I had seen the NFB's press release condemning the movie and I became more intrigued. There were bold claims in the press release and I imagined that certainly some people of my organization must be exaggerating. So, I decided to view it myself and add my $0.02. Note: none of this review discusses the visual effects or any visual aspect of the movie.

First, you should understand the plot. Actually, the plot is quite simple. There are two parts to the movie and the first part is inside of the asylum and the second part is outside of the asylum. "White Blindness" is contagious and it spreads throughout the entire city. It quickly renders people without sight. There is much panic about this disease, thus, the blind are quarantined into a building comprised of three wards. There is one woman, the heroine, who pretends to be blind so that she can stay and care for her husband, the doctor. The doctor is the figure head, but his wife is the true leader of ward one. Soon those in Ward one meet the ward three barbarians. These men decide to take control of the food, extort all of the wealth and rape the women of the other wards. An obvious twist frees seven blind members and one sighted member of ward one from their exploitation of the members of Ward three and the bonds of the dilapidated asylum. Part two, which is predictably shorter in nature(not much sex and violence since the thugs are dead) centers around the survivors after they have escaped the asylum.

Before I discuss the portrayal of the blind, I must admit that there are many other difficulties that I had with the movie. from the beginning, I found the actors and actresses to be unbelievable. The only emotions that they adequately conveyed were those of helplessness and self pity. Even when they were sighted, they were unbelievable. This movie was not set in a specific city. All you know is that it took place in some cosmopolitan area, although there was some form of Latin music playing on the soldiers' radio. All of the characters (except for the Japanese woman and man) spoke English. No one in this movie had names. some were noted by their profession: "The accountant," "the Doctor," and "The pharmacist's assistant." Some were named by their physical appearance such as "eye patch." And, some of the women were just: "The Doctor's wife," "The Japanese man's wife." Some say that this gave the movie a Universal feel, as if it could happen to anyone, anywhere. I say, it was downright annoying and certainly confirmed for me one of the author's largest flaws: the inability to give depth, personality and emotions to his characters. While the author tried to give the effect that this situation could happen anywhere, what he really ends up doing is ensuring that the watcher will not connect with the characters.

The plot was poorly constructed. Some lost their sight instantly and others, like the woman with the eyeglasses and the small child, lost their sight within a twenty-four hour period. The first man to lose his sight is a corporate Japanese man. It was not clear why one lost their sight and, how this epidemic was transferred to others. Additionally, no one knew how and when sight would be restored. "White Blindness," was quite random. Thus, the suggestion that "white blindness," is somehow a symbol for any undesirable societal characteristic is unlikely. From the beginning, the circumstances seem implausible. I'll try not to be too picky here. I am making a running list of less important errors that I will not focus on for the reader's sake. When the Japanese man goes blind, it is in the middle of traffic. His "white blindness" is instant. Instead of an ambulance, the Japanese man allows a stranger, who is a thief, to drive him home. The exchange with the thief is ... ... plane weird at the least and certainly unlikely to happen. Before the doctor went blind, he was... ... dare I say it, an "ophthalmologist." He was an eye doctor! Yet, he knew nothing about being blind. the only exception to this statement is when he knows that the accountant who was blind from birth was using tools to Braille with. But, why was that scene even in the movie? It did not matter what or how much was given. The criminals were not going to sell any valuables to anyone, anyway. In any case, the doctor should have been able to shed some light on blind people. But, he was the most ignorant, undignified and emasculated out of all of the men. In one of the scenes in part two of the movie, he does try to defend his wife from a gang of starving blind people. He does get some credit for defending his wife and finally using a broomstick as a white cane. I won't mention the fact that he will defend his wife from a starving mob, but silently consent to her rape.

Some instances and objects seem to be placed in the movie only to demonstrate a stereotype. One example is the radio. the Doctor's wife finds Eye patch listening to his radio. There is no sense of time, but he says: "There aren't as many stations as there use to be." this allows us to assume that he has been listening to it for a while. The most important use of the radio, however, is not the updates that it might bring, it is the mesmerizing music that allows the blind to sway in a trance-like state as the solace of the music washes over them. Unfortunately, since the doctor's wife is really not blind, it does not have the same effect on her. Don't feel sorry for her though, although her blind husband's affectionate attempts are inadequate because he is, after all, blind, she gratefully accepts the comfort and kisses of a roaming Airedale terrier. Back to the radio, it is never seen or heard from again. The death of the thief is unbelievable. He tries to cop an easy feel and the prostitute stabs him in the leg with her shoe which makes a gaping wound. By the way, we never hear that heeled shoe on the tile of the ward's floors and I notice that she does not use it to stab any of the thugs in ward three. Anyway, this could happen, I guess. But, then, after his leg has been quite infected for a while, the thief is feverish and suffers gang green. So, he tells the Doctor's wife that he has gotten smarter as a result of his blindness. "I can think better," he confesses. He tells her that he knows that she can see. then, he acts as if he will escape and the soldiers shoot him. This exchange with the Doctor's wife and his subsequent death do not match. Then, there is the doctor's wife herself. She claims that she is blind and tells the members of ward one that she has learned to do things such as finding her way around the asylum. So, until she decides to reveal herself, all of the people (blind and sighted) are to believe that she is blind. Yet, she bathes them, washes their clothes, makes a passage way that connects all of the wards and kills the leader of ward three. Not one other blind person aspires to immolate her and the only blind person who did figure out her secret, decided to get himself killed. Why wouldn't the Doctor's wife try to teach the blind people to do things for themselves? She gives explanations as to how she had accomplished these challenges while blind; yet, she never imagines that any of the blind people can or will even try to copy her. Maybe she has a desire to be needed and wanted. But, I shouldn't psychoanalyze the movie characters.

The doctor and his wife, even more so than the author, are obsessive about time. I find it interesting that we have no concept of time in regards to: the timeframe between the doctor's contraction of "white blindness," and the time of quarantine, how long the people have lived in the ward, how long the women had to sacrifice themselves to the men of ward 3 and the time between the white blindness and the sight restoration. Yet, the doctor annoyingly continues to ask his wife for the time and she actually does show some emotion when she realizes that she forgot to wind her watch. That makes us assume that somehow, the doctor was trying to keep track of time. Yet, that falls flat.

The lead villain, the bartender, was Hispanic. At least I know that (either Saramago or the director's) ability to stereotype is an all encompassing trait. It certainly does not stop with the blind. Somehow, the villain has weapons and an endless supply of bullets. They miraculously appear when applicable. If the wards were being equally filled, how did Ward 3 become the ward of men only? While we are talking about the villains, they were... ... well, STUPID. The bar tender was one of the most pathetic criminals ever. Even the accountant (who was the Barman's second in command) seemed to be lacking any kind of intelligence. Yet, the doctor, pharmacist's assistant, Japanese man and wife, maid, prostitute, receptionist and doctor's wife could not think of a plan to stop this criminal?

All of the sex scenes in this movie were unbelievably staged. The rape scene seemed to come from the pages of a prepubescent psychopath's journal. There were nine women of ward one who volunteered to sacrifice themselves to the men of ward three for food. There were about 40men of Ward three. The accountant pronounces,"Oh, if any of you women are on the rag, we don't want you." Well, 1. if they are not getting food, then it is quite likely that they are not receiving sanitary items. Thus, technically, they would not be "on the rag." 2. we are suppose to believe that the men don't mind defecating and urinating wherever it suits them and they are so barbaric in their sexual desires: yet, they draw the line at menstruation. And, we are to believe that not one woman was either A. menstruating or B. lied about it to get out of being raped. We are to believe that not only were the women raped repeatedly, but they were beaten, also. One woman was even killed. Yet, the men of ward three did not fight among themselves. They did not fight each other for the chance to be first with these women. They only beat the women. The last sex scene with the Doctor and his wife was at least brief and believable, even if it was corny. The movie showed blind people having sex wherever and whenever they felt the desire to do so. With all of the sex that was going on, why didn't anyone become pregnant? There obviously was no birth control. the only child ever was the little boy.

After the heroine stabs and kills the barman with a pair of scissors, (Why didn't she do it sooner?) we finally see why the receptionist is permitted to keep her cigarette lighter. So, she can stealthily creep to ward three and start a fire, which, by the way ultimately kills her. And, only eight of the inhabitants of ward one survive. The other hundreds are killed in the fire.

There was no depth of emotion. The characters of ward one were flat and lifeless. the only emotions that they showed were loss of pride, depression and gratitude to the heroine. This movie would have been so much better if the characters were more developed. Many of the men are identified by their former employment, but after they go blind, their former lives cease to exist. They don't miss them. they don't think about them. they don't use them in any way to benefit them in their current situation. The Japanese man tries to remember a moment with his wife, but she turns away. Only once (near the very end) does the doctor tell his wife that he misses her. No one discusses their fears. No one discusses their grief. No one discusses their desire for a better life. No one contrasts their former life with their current. That is, if you don't count the brief sentences near the end of the movie spoken by Eye patch that suggests that he was quite lonely until he found the prostitute and this close family. The doctor has sex with the prostitute. The prostitute does apologize once for the affair, but the Doctor doesn't. The wife responds by embracing the prostitute and reassuring her that she is not angry. The wife even shares with the prostitute her secret of sight. This is certainly not how a woman who has been deprived of husbandly affection and who catches her husband giving affection to another would handle the situation. that is, unless you see the wife's admission of sight to the prostitute as a passive way of getting her revenge. "you may have sex with my husband, whom I am repulsed by anyway, but I have sight." Yet, there again, That is a rather lofty assumption on my part.

The wife does find comfort in the cute innocence of a little dog. He licks her tears away. Doesn't she know that that dog's tongue is dirtier than her husband's hand? She can embrace a little dog, but not her husband? They seem to have the same habits of hygiene, so that should not be the issue. The very basic plot of this movie lent itself to much exploration: socially, politically and emotionally. I think that I could write my own thousand question study on this movie. Most of the questions, however, would be aimed at the author and director. Besides, I don't want to promote the movie. Oh, when they finally get to the Doctor's house, guess what? It is the only nice house standing. The entire city is in ruins, but the doctor's house is still in great shape: of course, with the exception of three rotten oranges in a fruit bowl. There is no electricity, but twice in the movie they sit down to have coffee. Although there is no running water, it rains and somehow they have enough water for endless cups of coffee and at least one bath for the old man, Eye patch.

Now, on to the issues with their portraits of blind people. On the DVD, there is an extra portion that tells you that the crew took some "Vision training." the DVD even says that actors and actresses were made to wear dark contact lenses while filming to 1. help them play the part more convincingly and 2. learn and empathize with the blind. Thus, I feel that it is fair to judge them on their accuracy. When the first man goes blind, within hours he has lost his ability to sign his name and his wife has to help him make an X on a piece of paper. When people go blind later in life, they still retain their memories of letters. They certainly don't lose them within the first few hours of going blind. While in the ward, the blind people eventually find their way to the cafeteria, the various wards and such, but can't find their way to the restroom to do their business or to their bunks to engage in sexual activity? The doctor can't dress himself or perform the simplest of hygienic functions. Yet, he can undress and engage in sexual relations? In fact, he is half dressed when his wife finds him in this compromising position with the prostitute, who, also can dress and undress herself and engage in sexual activities without sighted assistance. The blind people seem to lose their modesty along with their sight. Throughout the movie, they undress in open spaces in front of each other. They are seen having sex everywhere. When ward one is discussing ward three's ultimatum of "women for food," all but the Japanese man has lost their entire dignity. throughout the movie, the blind remain helpless. The prostitute says: "We are so lucky that we have a leader with vision." They never learn how to do anything for themselves: until it is convenient for the movie. The Doctor can't wipe his own hind end, but he can, however, take photographs. How they will be developed is beyond me because there is no business to do that. The blind have lost their intelligence. when they go blind, it seems that they lose any memory of their life beforehand. For most of the movie, the blind are led around by the hand or in a train formation. The thugs in ward three had pipes for canes. The accountant had a cane. But, the people in ward one (who by the way was led by the sighted wife and her husband the eye doctor) never learned to use canes. I'd like to know who gave them vision training? I am sure that no one will be willing to admit such a thing.

Out of fairness, there were some snippets of a scene which deserve a bit of praise: if for only one reason: to allow them to shine. The prostitute with the eyeglasses cares for the little boy. She shares her food, comforts him and tries to protect him. the Japanese man tried (all be it unsuccessfully) to have an emotional moment with his wife. He was attempting to reminisce and be loving and affectionate. also, he did not want his wife to sacrifice herself to the rapists. He at least tried to hold on to her dignity, even if she used her one great stand in the movie to go against him. The receptionist finally took matters into her own hands and made her altruistic attempt to kill the men in ward three. She carefully sneaked by the guards with their led pipe canes and entered into ward three. Without bumping into anything, she (somehow) found the accountant's mattress and caught it on fire. If she sneaked in so brilliantly, couldn't she also sneak out? Couldn't she have done this earlier in the movie? Maybe before the heroine killed the barman with scissors. Whoops, too optimistic, again. By this time in the movie, I was applauding any independent action from a blind person. She should have survived. But, then, they would have had to keep the pharmacist so that they could be equally matched. this probably would have worked even better because there would not be holes in that bonding theory. The Doctor finally actually did "make an attempt" at something when he saved his wife from the hungry mob. Those are it! People who enjoy this movie state that we are not to take this movie for face value. they say that it simulates what will happen when chaos is all around. When the world is in chaos, humans will revert to animalist self gratifying behaviors. They also point to the group's cohesiveness to illustrate the bond that can be achieved when people have to survive together. I believe that there is a 30minute episode of Rod Serling's "The Twilight zone," that does a better job at using blindness as a metaphor for a myopic view of themselves in society. This would have been better illustrated if we had seen these people's character before their blindness. Another way that this could have happened is to display some of the characters engaging in a bit of self exploration. If the goal was only to prove that a lack of government and a large amount of trauma is the catalyst to a murderous immoral and animalistic society, then, it got lost somewhere in the many flaws listed above. Some say that this movie demonstrates human strength and cohesiveness in times of extreme distress. The pharmacist's assistant accidentally loses contact with the hand of Eye patch. No one calls out to him, nor does he call out to anyone else. He just drifts quietly away and is not mentioned again. That doesn't sound like human cohesion to me. This, does, however, ensure that there are three neat little couples with a boy and a dog.

Could the same type of allegory have been presented respectfully? Could the same philosophical dilemmas have been portrayed without so many obvious blunders? Could the same message have been conveyed in a much more probable setting without gaps in time, a lack of character development, an obvious exploiting of demeaning stereotypes and a dialog that makes one cringe? And, if this philosophical message is the point of the movie, then, why the sappy happy ending? What if the thief, after going blind, used his intelligence for good and helped the others? After all, he was an occupant of ward one. That would be much more likely than his demise. What would that say about humanity? What if the Doctor's wife was also blind? Wouldn't that be an even more powerful statement about human struggle and success? What if the people did not regain their sight, but learned to live with their new impairments? Wouldn't that tell people that we, as a human race are quite adaptable? But, the point is that Saramago could not fathom a world of blind people who were successful. it is as if he has taken one concept and instead of exploring it, he uses whatever he can to fit his remarks without having to think too hard about its plausibility or true effects. My last question is: With an unemployment rate of 70%, couldn't you have hired a few blind consultants to assist in the making of this movie? The list of appropriate consultants is limitless: philosophers, psychologists, creative writers, members of the blind community.... ... I guarantee, our assistance would have yielded better reviews and more profit.