I just finished Blindness which was written by the Portuguese author Jose Saramago. (The film version is at the top of my Netflix queue, review to follow soon).
The book opens with a wonderfully horrific scene in which a man waiting in his car at a red light goes instantly blind. He can only see pure white and this whiteness completely hinders his vision. In the days that follow, it is clear that this unusual blindness is in fact a mass epidemic infecting many people in the city. As a precaution, the government quarantines those infected with the blindness and those who been in contact with people who've gone blind in hopes to contain the spreading doom.
The books centers on a group of nameless characters and their fight to survive as the conditions in the quarantine go from bad to unimaginably worse. There are a slew of obstacles for the blind detainees to overcome, including: The soldiers guarding the quarantine are so afraid of going blind themselves that they open fire on any blind person attempting to make contact with the open world; the building that houses the blind people has no running water and therefore little chance of staying clean; the food, water, and hygiene materials that were promised to the detainees rarely is delivered and when it is, is never enough for everyone.
As more and more people in the outside world go blind, they are continually corralled into the quarantine, making living conditions awful. The unthinkable and the unbelievable begin to be everyday occurrences. Blind thugs take over the quarantine and begin demanding riches and women in exchange for the little food available. The downward spiral that the detainees go through is extremely depressing to read because it resembles and mirrors the downward spiral our society is on.
The book is an excellent commentary on our society as a whole. How can we stay compassionate in the darkest of times? How do we respond to unthinkable evil?
2 comments:
Hey nole its miah...i haven't seen it yet and i don't know if you've heard the outrage about this movie but i can't really disagree with it. Heres some from an article in the AP: "Blind people quarantined in a mental asylum, attacking each other, trading sex for food. For Marc Maurer, who is blind, such a scenario - as portrayed in the movie Blindness - is not a clever allegory for a breakdown in society. Instead, it's an offensive depiction that Maurer fears could undermine efforts to integrate blind people into the mainstream. "The movie portrays blind people as monsters, and I believe it to be a lie," said Maurer, president of the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind. "Blindness doesn't turn decent people into monsters."
Some blind people say the movie reinforces inaccurate stereotypes, including that the blind cannot care for themselves and are perpetually disoriented. "We face a 70 per cent unemployment rate and other social problems because people don't think we can do anything, and this movie is not going to help - at all," said Christopher Danielsen, a spokesman for the National Foundation for the Blind."
Being an artist myself, its definitely something for me to think about. Especially the materials and metaphors i use in my own work and what ways my audience will take them. love ya buddy!
Miah, thanks for the thoughtful comment, I always love hearing what you have to say!
I have heard a little bit about the criticism regarding the movie, and I value those opinions. Being as I've worked with people with different disabilities, I know that there can often be cruel stereotypes. The last thing I want to support is a work of art that reinforces those stereotypes. And I agree that as an artist you have to be extremely careful about what metaphors are used.
That being said, I think the hoopla over this is not necessary. The book, nor the movie (I assume), are trying to say that all blind people are "monsters." In fact, there are plenty of characters in the book who are filled with compassion for one another and help perfect strangers. The people who do act like monsters represent the small minority of people who act like monsters in our "real-life" society. The epidemic in the book doesn't discriminate; the blindness strikes characters who are mean, ruthless, and monster-like as well as those who are compassionate and caring.
In addition to that, the book does portray blind people as struggling to "care for themselves and are perpetually disoriented," but isn't that to be expected of people who spontaneously go blind? In addition to that, part of the reason that they can't care for themselves and are often disoriented is because of the circumstances of the book. These people are plucked from their homes and forced to live in an over-crowed, filthy, and condemned building. Of course they struggle to take care of themselves.
I don't mean to minimize your point. It is important that people making art be mindful of the materials and metaphors they are using and how those are viewed by the auidence.
I think this brings up another important discussion point: as artists, can we assume that our audience is sophisticated enough to realize the difference between our work of art and real-life?
For example, I know not to view blind people in a lesser light because of this book. I can realize that the book is work of art, with made-up circumstances. I know for a fact that blind people don't act like monsters and are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. However, I could see a scenario where someone who read this book might think less of blind people.
Where do we draw the line?
Post a Comment