A flyer being sent around the country from NFB:
Blindness: A Movie that Harms the Blind
We Condemn and Deplore
The National Federation of the Blind condemns and deplores the negative,
damaging, and distorted description of blindness and blind people in the movie
Blindness, adapted for the screen from the novel of the same name by José Saramago. This outrageous and offensive movie reinforces society's fears and misconceptions about the blind and will lead to lost opportunities for employment and social acceptance. Contrary to the stereotypes and images this movie portrays:
• Blind people travel, work, go to school, raise families, play sports, and
participate in their communities.
• Blindness need not be a tragedy.
• Blind people are confident and competent human beings, with as much
imagination, creativity, and capacity as the average sighted person.The Truth About Blindness -- Contrary to the assertions about blindness and blind people found in both the film and book, the National Federation of the Blind wants you to know that:
• Blind people are responsible; a sense of responsibility is not in any way related
to visual acuity.
• Blind people can care for themselves both physically and emotionally.
• Blind people are conscious of the importance of hygiene and personal
appearance; they do not live in filth and squalor.
• Blind people can successfully travel; they are not generally disoriented or
wandering without direction.
• Blind people are unique individuals; they are not without identity.
• Blind people are active in society, not isolated from others and the world.
• Blind people can perceive their surroundings and exercise judgment.
• Blind people are as dignified and conscientious as their sighted peers.
This Film Gets It Wrong
The premise in the film Blindness is that everybody but one person becomes
blind. The description of society as an increasing number of its members become
blind is one of filth, greed, perversion, and vice. The film depicts blind people as
incapable of doing everything, including basic tasks like bathing, dressing, and
traveling. Blindness becomes a metaphor for all that is bad in human thought and
action. Blind people in the movie have every negative human trait and few of the
positive ones. The only encouraging element in the release of this film is the almost
universal reaction of the critics that the film is a failure.
Marc Maurer, President of the 50,000-member National Federation of the
Blind, said of the film in his July 2008 banquet address, "The Urgency of Optimism":
“The capabilities of those who become blind remain essentially the same after
they lose vision as they were before they lost it. Although the loss of any major asset
(including vision) will bring a measure of sadness to some and despair to a few, it will
also stimulate others to assert their will. Blindness can be a devastating loss, but it also has the power to galvanize some to action. The reaction to blindness is not the least bit one-dimensional. Therefore the description is false. . . . The charge that loss of vision creates a personality alteration to a sordid and criminal character is in itself sordid and defamatory to an entire class of human beings.”
This film will do incalculable harm to the public image of blind people. Society labors under multiple misconceptions about blindness and blind people, and this film promises only to affirm and strengthen these false impressions. The film Blindness
will diminish opportunities for blind people to find employment, a distressing reality
considering that over 70 percent of blind people are already under-employed or
unemployed. The film will also further lower the general public's expectations about
the ability of blind people to be fully contributing members of society. Both of
these consequences will be devastating to the hopes and aspirations of blind people.
President Maurer concluded his reflections on the film when he said, "The description in Blindness is wrong–completely, unutterably, irretrievably, immeasurably wrong. That such falsity should be regarded as good art is revolting and amazing."
An email being sent nationwide:
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Movie Blindness
Q: What is the premise and plot of the movie Blindness?
A: Blindness is based on a novel of the same name by the Portuguese writer José Saramago. The premise of the movie is that unnamed residents of an unnamed city in an unnamed country suddenly and mysteriously go blind. Those who experience the blindness see only a white glare, so the blindness is sometimes called the “white sickness.” The blindness is contagious and the government immediately quarantines the victims in an abandoned and dilapidated mental asylum, with orders that anyone attempting to leave is to be killed.
The prisoners are given food and supplies, but deliveries are inadequate and become increasingly irregular. The asylum also becomes filthy because the blind inmates, as portrayed in the movie, cannot find their way to the bathroom and simply relieve themselves on the floor or in their own beds. Some of the inmates die from infection, disease, or are shot by guards when they try to escape or simply become lost and wander too close to the fence.
The inmates of ward one, led by an ophthalmologist’s wife who can still see but feigns blindness to remain with her husband, fare slightly better than the rest; the implication is that this is solely because she assists the blind, portrayed as being unable to do anything for themselves. As food supplies dwindle, another group of blind inmates, whose leader has acquired a gun and dubbed himself “the King of Ward Three,” begins to terrorize the others. The armed clique in ward three hoards all the food, extorting money and valuables from the other inmates and eventually demanding sex with the women from other wards in exchange for allowing the rest of the inmates to eat. One of the members of this clique, who was born blind and is not a victim of the white sickness, knows how to read and write Braille and is given the task of taking inventory of the valuables stolen from the other inmates.
When the women from ward one go to ward three to exchange sex for food, one of the women is beaten to death as she is raped. The doctor’s wife later kills the King of Ward Three, but the man who was born blind takes his place as leader of the armed gang and threatens to avenge the “King” by killing the doctor’s wife. Being blind, however, he is unable to shoot her and she escapes unharmed. The rest of the inmates finally decide to do battle with the gang in ward three; just before the showdown, someone sets a pile of bedding alight, starting a fire that soon engulfs the entire asylum. During the ensuing confusion, the man who was born blind shoots himself. When the surviving inmates, including the group led by the doctor’s wife, escape the burning asylum, they discover that no soldiers are standing guard and they are free.
Outside the makeshift prison, everyone has gone blind and the city has descended into total chaos; no government services or businesses are functioning and nomadic groups of mostly naked blind people wander through the streets, squatting in abandoned houses and shops for shelter and taking food where they can find it—including in rubbish heaps. There is no electricity or running water, so the streets and buildings of the city are as filthy as the asylum was. Dogs that people used to keep as pets have gone wild and roam in packs, feeding on refuse and human corpses. The home of the doctor and his wife, however, is intact, and their group sets up residence there. The movie ends just as they regain their sight—as suddenly and mysteriously as they lost it.
Q: Have you seen the film?
A: Yes. Members of the National Federation of the Blind were permitted to screen the film. Many other members of the National Federation of the Blind have read the novel, and according to the filmmakers themselves, the movie is “true to the book.”
Q: How will this film harm blind people?
A: Blind people already suffer from irrational prejudice based on ignorance and misconceptions about our capabilities and characteristics. This prejudice–which is based on ignorance and low expectations but is no less harmful than prejudice based on ethnicity, religion, or sex–-is the cause of the overwhelming majority of problems experienced by blind people, including an unemployment rate that exceeds 70 percent and the lack of proper education for blind children. This movie will further entrench myths and misconceptions about blindness and blind people, thereby contributing to the barriers to equal participation in society that we face.
Q: What is wrong with the way blind people are portrayed in the film?
A: Blindness falsely depicts blind people as incapable of almost everything. Even accepting that most of the characters are newly blind and thus have not learned certain skills needed to function effectively as a blind person, their complete and utter incompetence is simply not credible to anyone who has had even casual contact with actual blind people. The blind people in the film are unable to dress or bathe themselves; they usually go about naked or nearly naked and relieve themselves on the floor or in their own beds. The doctor’s wife is shown helping him dress by holding his pants so that he can step into them, and he comments at one point that she even has to clean him after he has defecated.
In reality, even newly blinded individuals do not experience this level of incapacity; they do not forget how to dress, wash, or use the toilet. The blind people in the movie are portrayed as perpetually disoriented and having no sense of direction or ability to remember the route from one place to another. However, blind people regularly travel independently using white canes or guide dogs. The blind people who are not completely helpless in the novel and movie are depraved monsters, withholding food from the others in exchange for money, jewelry, and sex. One of the worst of these criminals is a man who was born blind and has adapted to his blindness, yet he sides with the criminal gang of ward three, participating in brutal rapes and attempting to kill inmates from the other wards. Thus, all of the blind people in the film are portrayed either as helpless invalids or degenerate criminals. The movie suggests that blindness completely alters the human personality, resulting either in total incapacity or villainous evil.
The movie also makes it clear that blindness is cause for complete and irreversible despair; one blind man comments, “I’d rather die than stay like this.” Blind people, in fact, do live happy lives once they have learned to accept their blindness and adjust to it. The movie also suggests that the blind must always defer to the sighted; when the doctor’s wife leaves him outside a supermarket so she can attempt to find food, he says, “I know my place.” The dignity, worth, and individuality of blind people is constantly denigrated in this way throughout the movie.
The National Federation of the Blind objects to this portrayal of the blind because it simply isn’t accurate. Blind people are a cross-section of society who happen to share the physical characteristic of being unable to see. The blind are employed in almost every profession imaginable, have homes and families, raise children, do volunteer work in their communities, and generally lead normal, productive lives. To the extent this is not the case, the problem is not blindness itself, but rather the misconceptions and stereotypes that society holds about blindness and blind people. This film will further those myths and misconceptions and deepen public prejudice against the blind. Most members of the public do not know a blind person and may therefore assume that this portrayal of blindness is accurate and true. It is not, and the falsehoods in this film will damage the prospects for equal opportunity, productivity, dignity, and happiness for blind people throughout the world.
Q: Isn’t this just a matter of political correctness, or a difference of opinion with the novelist and filmmakers?
A: No. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not his or her own facts. If an artist were to create a painting called “Elephant,” but the picture in fact represented a giraffe, a camel, or a creature from the artist’s own imagination, then any art critic–or any layman–would point out that the picture does not, in fact, represent an elephant. The person pointing out the inconsistency would not be accused of “political correctness” or a “difference of opinion” with the artist, but would be recognized as having good common sense. The portrait of blind people in this movie is simply wrong; artistic license does not permit a writer or a filmmaker to make false assertions about an entire group of people. The stereotyping of blind people is just as inappropriate as the stereotyping of African-Americans, women, Hispanics, or any other group of individuals who share common characteristics.
Q: Isn’t blindness being used as a metaphor in the novel and film?
A: Yes, and this is one of the movie’s main problems. Blindness is simply the physical characteristic of being unable to perceive things with the eyes, but the author and filmmakers want it to be a metaphor for everything that is bad about human nature. At the very least, blindness in this movie represents lack of insight or perception; arguably it represents even worse traits, since many of the blind characters engage in rape, murder, and other forms of criminal behavior. Blind people, however, are not inherently obtuse or incapable of discernment. Although we cannot see with our eyes, we are aware of the world around us through our other senses and through the alternative techniques we use to learn about our environment, such as traveling with a white cane, reading and writing Braille, and using technology.
Blindness is no more an appropriate “metaphor” than other physical characteristics, like hair color or ethnicity. Movies in which all of the villains have dark skin or a foreign accent are rightly criticized as employing racial stereotypes. If a movie were to be made in which people’s hair suddenly turned blonde and all of the characters with blonde hair were vapid idiots, then people with blonde hair would rightly be outraged. In today’s society, it should likewise be unacceptable for blindness to be used as a stand-in for depravity, incompetence, and lack of understanding.
Q: Doesn’t your protest violate the First Amendment rights of the filmmakers?
A: No. The First Amendment protects the production and screening of this film, but it also protects our right to protest its production and screening and to tell the public that it portrays blind people in an outrageously false manner.
Q: Have you brought your concerns to the attention of the filmmakers?
A: Yes. We sent letters to officials involved with the production asking to meet and discuss our concerns but they refused to respond.
