Blind Advocates Protest New Film

[MA-Caver]

Advocates Protest 'Blindness'

by Jonathan Crow | October 2, 2008


Hollywood has trouble with portraying disabilities. Even when they try to do the right thing, they still manage to tick people off. That was the case for this summer's blockbuster comedy Tropic Thunder and it's happening again with this week's release Blindness.

In "Tropic Thunder," Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) tells fellow actor Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) to "never go full retard." The scene is hilarious, satirizing Hollywood stars' tendency to play disabled in pursuit of Oscar gold. Think Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump" and Sean Penn in "I Am Sam." The film's satire, however wasn't appreciated by disability advocates who slammed the use of the R-word as "offensive and demeaning...it fuels social stigma against vulnerable people."

"The National Federation of the Blind condemns and deplores this film, which will do substantial harm to the blind of America and the world. 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."
Read the full statement >> http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=368

Miramax responded, "We are saddened to learn that the National Federation of the Blind plans to protest the film 'Blindness,'" and that director Meirelles "worked diligently to preserve the intent and resonance of the acclaimed book."
So, is the NFB justified in its criticism of the movie or are they missing the point? You can watch the first five minutes of the film below to decide for yourself.

More: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/blindness_blog.html

I think this is a case of being too sensitive and not giving a film it's due process before judgment. Automatically saying it's stigmatizes real-life people without actually seeing the whole story. I also don't think watching the first five minutes of a film is enough to give it a basis of comparison... especially when most of it is the opening credits. But that's just me.
My father is blind (and deaf) and I'm not feeling any umbrage to it. I won't until I see it in it's entirety... if I go watch it. But just by first guess on the synopsis of the plot that normal sighted people are suddenly struck blind by some disease or plague or whatever (hollywood) has up it's sleeve. So people (in the movie) are trying to deal with it in their own way according to their various backgrounds.
What do you all think?

 

[jks9199]

I think this is a case of being too sensitive and not giving a film it's due process before judgment. Automatically saying it's stigmatizes real-life people without actually seeing the whole story. I also don't think watching the first five minutes of a film is enough to give it a basis of comparison... especially when most of it is the opening credits. But that's just me.
My father is blind (and deaf) and I'm not feeling any umbrage to it. I won't until I see it in it's entirety... if I go watch it. But just by first guess on the synopsis of the plot that normal sighted people are suddenly struck blind by some disease or plague or whatever (hollywood) has up it's sleeve. So people (in the movie) are trying to deal with it in their own way according to their various backgrounds.
What do you all think?

I agree; they're being way too sensitive. From what I've read of the reviews, the movie is built around people suddenly going blind. If I woke up tomorrow and was blind -- I'd probably be pretty incompetent at a lot of things, too.

I recognize their concern; I get so tired of all the movies and shows featuring dirty or corrupt cops, too. But going up in arms over everything just gets you ignored when you have a real complaint.

 

[elder999]

I think this is a case of being too sensitive and not giving a film it's due process before judgment. Automatically saying it's stigmatizes real-life people without actually seeing the whole story. I also don't think watching the first five minutes of a film is enough to give it a basis of comparison... especially when most of it is the opening credits. But that's just me.
My father is blind (and deaf) and I'm not feeling any umbrage to it. I won't until I see it in it's entirety... if I go watch it. But just by first guess on the synopsis of the plot that normal sighted people are suddenly struck blind by some disease or plague or whatever (hollywood) has up it's sleeve. So people (in the movie) are trying to deal with it in their own way according to their various backgrounds.
What do you all think?

I think the blindness is probably a metaphor-like you, I won't know until I see it, but I tend to think the people behind the movie are using epidemic blindness as a metaphorical device for our society's ills.

And, not to be glib or anything I'm not supposed to be (rhymes with starkly, sharky and darkly :lol but if they're blind, how are they gonna see the movie? :lfao:

 

[MA-Caver]

Ya, while blindness is a scary thought for a lot of people, some would be able to cope with it better than others. I know that I would; having many times turned off the lights in a totally lightless environment (cave) and actually tried wandering around inside for a few minutes... not fun but, educational.
While I agree that some "labels" are cruel i.e. retard, I think the application is the key.
But for this film, I think still deserves a full screening before saying yea or nay to it.