« Working Well With People | Main | Ross’s Disillusionment »
October 08, 2008
Take Advantage of This Teachable Moment
The other night I saw "Blindness," the film by director Fernando Meirelles.
Based on the 1995 novel by Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, "Blindness" imagines a mysterious epidemic that causes people to see nothing but fuzzy white light resulting in a collapse of the social order in an unnamed city.
Julianne Moore stars as the wife of an eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo) who loses his sight; she feigns blindness to stay with her husband and eventually leads a revolt of the quarantined patients.
The book was praised for its use of blindness as a metaphor for the lack of clear communication and respect for human dignity in modern society.
But, the movie reinforces inaccurate stereotypes, including that the blind cannot care for themselves and are perpetually disoriented, according to the National Federation of the (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB).
Dr. Marc Maurer, NFB President, said:
"Blind people in this film are portrayed as incompetent, filthy, vicious, and depraved. They are unable to do even the simplest things like dressing, bathing, and finding the bathroom.
"The truth is that blind people regularly do all of the same things that sighted people do. Blind people are a cross-section of society, and, as such, we represent the broad range of human capacities and characteristics. We are not helpless children or immoral, degenerate monsters; we are teachers, lawyers, mechanics, plumbers, computer programmers, and social workers. We go to church, volunteer our time for worthy causes, raise children, operate businesses, and engage in recreational activities, just like everyone else.
"Portraying the blind on movie screens across America as little better than animals will reinforce the unfounded fears, misconceptions, and stereotypes in the general public about blindness. It will exacerbate the unemployment rate among the blind, which is already higher than 70 percent because of public misconceptions about the capabilities of blind people.
"It will reinforce false public notions that blind children (can’t be educated), that blind adults are unemployable, and that all blind people are socially undesirable."
ACB has similar concerns.
"The movie 'Blindness' is a demeaning depiction of people's reactions to losing their eyesight," stated Mitch Pomerantz, ACB president.
Dr. Ronald E. Milliman, a blind university professor and also a member of the ACB, says, "In a very mythical sense, something like what is being shown in the movie might have happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, but certainly not in any civilized society such as what we have in the United States today. The movie is at best totally misleading and, at worst, serves to frighten deeply those who see it."
Here is eSight member Albert J. Rizzi’s reaction:
"It is difficult enough walking into a room or a public forum and know that others perceive you as different and that you scare the hell out of them. But to understand that this film could further that fear and give others the impression that blindness could lead to an utter breakdown in our social system is disturbing to say the least.
"It only makes me angry about how much harder it will be for me to prove myself as I try to get my life back to as normal a life as I had before going blind.
"We can begin together to redefine deeply imbedded beliefs that have been nurtured and passed on generation after generation about people with challenges."
The New York Times says:
"When they stumble into the quarantine ward, these characters introduce themselves by number, according to order of arrival, and by profession, evidence that they have been stripped of their humanity not by sickness or the state, but rather by Mr. Saramago and by Don McKellar, the screenwriter...
"...(This film) does not, in the end, give you much to think about. But there is, nonetheless, a lot here to see."
My own take on this film is that there not much to see but a lot to think about. The film doesn’t work well overall because it tries to turn an obscure fable into a concrete narrative -- a narrative which reinforces commonly held misconceptions of blindness because the fable comes alive in our minds through flesh-and-blood characters on the screen. We identify with those characters, even if they don’t have a name.
The film uses this convenient but unfortunate allegory to address author’s perception of how humans react when there’s a breakdown in the social order. My impression is that the screen writer, in transferring the book to film, understands blindness only as a human condition to fear. That fear serves his purpose, for, by using fear, he perhaps taps into an emotional truth about the human condition. But it’s at the expense of realistic details. The details he includes in the film lack possibility and logic.
The notion that blindness can be contagious is just one example of the lapses in logic which occur when Saramago’s fable is transferred to the screen.
As a result, this film too easily leads to two conclusions: that a blind person is less than human and that a blind person cannot lead or function as a human being.
The dialogue (and the whole setting) reaffirms what some people already believe. Here are two examples.
"We need a leader with vision," a nameless, blind individual says after breaking out of the quarantine. He’s reaffirming the dominance of the sighted Julianne Moore as she leads a group of his fellow victims, hand by hand and helplessly, through the streets of the abandoned city.
"I’m not a man," an again nameless man with an eye patch suddenly inserts at the end of the film. He’s played by Danny Glover.
This could have been an art house film, if it were better produced. Instead, it’s strangely sensationalized to appeal to a mass audience and comes across as low-brow fiction.
As a result, it’s likely to quickly be forgotten in midst of our election and financial crisis because it hits too close to the vulnerability we all feel right now. It’s a statement of how government reacts to a crisis, and we again see how government can fail. Remember the Japanese interment camps during in WWII or when kids sick with measles were taken away and separated from their families or what happened to the residents of New Orleans during Katrina?
Film-goers with visual impairments may not miss much visually by going to this movie. I found the cinematography nothing exceptional, lacking color with stretches of white and black or darkened screen, leaving much to the imagination like old-time radio. Perhaps that was the intent, trying to simulate the common misconceptions of visual impairment.
Glover’s character, by the way, occasionally narrates the film, which makes it accessible.
Whether you choose to go see the movie or not, I encourage you to use your insight to help turn the film into a "teachable moment." I believe we can use the film's current high profile to raise awareness about visual impairments, especially among employers.
For background, read the eSight article for employers, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Blind Employees But Were Reluctant to Ask.
Raising awareness will benefit not only hiring managers but also individuals who have had a visual impairment all their lives as well as the baby boomers who are currently employed but will perhaps deal with a visual impairment during the years ahead.
You can make your voice heard right now about the film, "Blindness," by replying to this question on the eSight Networking Forum:
What do you want employers to learn about visual impairments during this teachable moment when the film, "Blindness," is in the public spotlight?
Add your comments to this posting
Posted by Jim Hasse at October 8, 2008 11:54 AM
Comments
I have not yet seen the movie but expect to cringe throughout. That being said, remember one thing - these are all people who just became blind. And be honest, if everyone did so, helplessness would in fact be the result. It doesn't help our cause to rail against something without thinking it through.
One suggestion, refer people to another film, The Day of the Triffids, which started out as a British mini-series... I mean the more recent one, not the Howard Keel version. In this almost everyone becomes blind as a result of a meteor shower. Yes, people are helpless the morning after. But in this case the already-blind turn out to be the capable ones. They take charge of those who have yet to learn how to compensate.
One more comment, and this won't go over very well with many people. I have observed the phenomenon that when deaf people are together they are no longer disabled... they all "speak" the same language3 after all. But when blind people are together, they are still disabled or perhaps more so for lack of a sighted helper. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I would like to see two things happen here. The first is that everyone remember this is fiction and it is metaphor. It is not a treatise on the uselessness of blind people. The other thing is that this is an opportunity, as this assignment suggests, to teach. I would recommend using the term "good news" when you do. I like to say to non-disabled people that their fears of losing everything when they lose a faculty are unfounded. In fact they can continue to live and achieve. Every single one of my own achievements, and they are many if I say so myself, have come about after I lost enough vision to become considered disabled. How wonderful to be able both to reassure people and to embody the proof that life as a blind person is different, not necessarily less. I am not a Miss Mary Sunshine person.. but I am a realist. I think this message demonstrates what I mean.
Nan Hawthorne www.nanhawthorne.com
Posted by: Nan Hawthorne at October 8, 2008 02:40 PM
Although I have not seen the movie and have no intention to do so, I feel compelled to comment. Although I am aware that some claim that this movie is not about blindness and that we have no right to limit freedom of speech, I am concerned that many of the people who will view this film, particularly young people and those who are in the process of losing sight, will have damaging misconceptions and fears underscored by the portrayal of blind people in this film. Like it or not, many future prospective employers will see this film, and, although they may intellectually recognize that blindness is being used metaphorically, their visceral reactions may subtly influence their responses to a blind applicant. Also, many people who are losing their sight begin to take note of information about blindness long before they acknowledge their own situation or share concerns with friends and family. How sad it is that some of the many people who may need accurate information about blindness the most could obtain erroneous and devastating information from this production. Although I am aware that legal constraints prohibit potential employers from asking question's about an applicant's or employee's disability, I hope that they will take every opportunity to challenge their own private fears and misconceptions and obtain accurate information about the range of capabilities that we blind people, like our sighted peers, possess.
Posted by: Amy Ruell at October 8, 2008 06:09 PM
Hi Jim and others. I haven't yet seen this movie, but I'm doing so next week with a group of people from Center for Independent Futures. It was listed as one of the activities for this month. We are having a discussion the following week. I am very excited to see the movie. Having said that, there are indeed a lot of misconceptions out there surrounding blindness. For the better part they come from one or both of the afore-mentioned organizations themselves. I think one thing to keep in mind here is that this is only a movie and not real life. This is something in my opinion, which must be more or less taken with a grain of salt. I remember back when the National Federation of the Blind was all up in arms over Mr. Magoo. I'll admit that I'm probably too young to remember that cartoon, but the point is that it was simply a cartoon and nothing else. It was a form of entertainment, and if you're like me you need at least some entertainment in your life. The other thing I'd like to say here is that if the ACB and the NFB want to "change what it means to be blind," they'd do well to stop all their bickering and complaining about this and that. For some people, blindness is in fact a tragedy and almost the end of the world if not the end of the world. This isn't the case for me and never has been, since I was born blind and have learned to just deal with it. I've learned to compensate for my blindness, and in some areas I'm continuing this learning process. But other people may not be dealing with their blindness that well, and this isn't just something which can be ignored or laughed off. That's why blindness isn't always a matter of a mere physical nuisance. Also, one size does not fit all. Braille isn't necessarily what every person who is blind or visually-impaired wants or can handle. That's fine and it doesn't make a person less capable than another. The same is true for those of us who use canes and those people--like my former roommate--who use guide dogs to aid them in their travels. Rather than push a "one-size-fits-all" philosophy as one organization does, why not stand up and advocate for justice in cases of discrimination? Discrimination is a real problem which needs a real solution. In summary, if certain people would just learn to deal with life's idiosyncrasies a whole lot more would be accomplished.
Posted by: Jake at October 8, 2008 09:12 PM
I have not yet seen the film and cannot comment on the viceral effect it might cause as one watches it, but I would urge us to focus directly our main concern - the reactions of sighted people, especially employers. Our community will do best to ask the question of them rather than rail prematurely about what we fear the effect might be. If we are indeed a modern and civilized society, there is a good chance sightee viewers will understand the film as allegory and attribute little to real blind people. If the film has the power to turn someone away from blind people, perhaps those thus turned away were prone to do so already. Let's ask our sighted brothers and sisters for their reactions.
Posted by: Anthony R. Candela at October 8, 2008 10:24 PM
Hi everyone,
My own take is that almost every blind person in the movie had absolutely no blindness-related training and therefore their incompetence and fear is mostly understandable. The movie also portrays a major health crisis, during which both victims and authorities behave savagely, and in general society breaks down. Sorry, but I do not know any society in the Americas, Europe or Asia that I think would behave much better than that. In fact, quite the contrary. Our societies have behaved quite savagely when faced with much smaller problems such as terrorism.
I agree though, why did the author place the only legitimate blind person among the bad guys? Why couldn’t that blind person play a positive role?
It is an ugly story because societies rarely behave nicely when facing serious crises. However, there was unnecessary vilification of the only blind person with experience and training for dealing with blindness. In general I judge this movie to be more or less as ignorant about real life as your average Hollywood production. What makes this one especially irritating though, is that it touches on a subject about which we know so much.
Posted by: Fernando at October 9, 2008 10:32 AM
Hi again. I saw "Blindness" last night with a sister and some other friends and colleagues, and I thought the movie was quite well-done indeed. Some parts were rather grim and there was a great deal of violence, but I still enjoyed it and I'm glad I went. Someone sat between me and my sister and described parts of the movie for us. He had never done this before but did a very nice job. I went to the theater expecting to witness at least one protest, given that both the American Council of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind are staging protests in theaters throughout the country. But none occurred here. I guess I only expected to hear of the NFB protesting this movie, since they and the ACB generally don't see eye to eye. Therefore, I was rather surprised to read that both organizations were protesting. I hate to say this, but people just need to grow up. Like I mentioned in my first comment here, this is only a movie, i.e., staged drama. I realize that there are a lot of people who go blind later in life and who therefore might be very upset by this movie, but I don't believe those two organizations have the right to tell everyone what to think of it. I don't see what's so difficult about just getting along. But I guess it's easier said than done for some people. I can't help but wonder how my former roommate would've reacted to the movie, and maybe he'll see it. He was not born blind or visually-impaired.
Posted by: Jake at October 17, 2008 03:01 PM
I think that any media presentation, whether a movie, a book, or any other media, that promotes negative stereotypes of persons who are blind is wrong. However, it seems that everywhere we go, those of us who are blind are confronted my people's misperceptions and negative attitudes about blindness. I used to be able to go into the schools here in Lafayette, Indiana and talk to children about braille, guide dogs, and how a person who is blind lives life every day. Now there is so much that the children have to do that there isn't time for that kind of education anymore, and that is unfortunate. Educating the general publc about blindness often happens on a one-on-one encounter. It astounds me that, with all the technology available that we are still dealing with the same old stereotypes and attitudes that have been in existence forever. I don't know anything about making videos, but maybe there is some way that a group of blind persons could come up with a positive presentation to counteract the negative reenforcement of this movie. No matter what organization people are affiliated with, maybe it's time for us all to come together. I'm not a current member of either ACB or NFB.
Posted by: Debbie Morgan at October 23, 2008 12:23 PM
I did not see the movie Blindness. I read the book a few years ago because it was recommended to me by my then assistant whom I had judged to be smart, but then she had not read the book – only heard about it.
It was one of the worst books I ever read and, because I made a pledge with myself in 8th grade to finish what I started, I read to the end despite my distaste for it. I really thought it was a poor allegory – disgusting images. I know he was depicting the breakdown of society and using blindness and a metaphor, but it was so extreme that I do not know if he really made his point.
If anyone can remember that far back, Jean Luc Goddard made a movie in 1964 (Alphaville), which depicted a futuristic society under “big brother.” This book had some of those elements of thought control by society’s governing powers. Also reminded me of Arthur Koestler’s communist society depicted in Darkness at Noon
I was so relieved to reach the end of the book that there is no way I would entertain the idea of seeing the movie. I do not think from the book that the author thought at all about the effect on real people who are blind.
Posted by: Rachel at October 30, 2008 09:52 AM