Talk:Blindness (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Japan / Cinema (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 02:57, October 21, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese cinema task force.
 

Headlines[edit]

In the Guelph Mercury, two headlines to find on July 30, 2007:

  • Lights, camera, we're in the action
  • Old city jail fit producer's vision for 'Blindness'

For possible implementation. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast information[edit]

The existing citations present the formatting of the characters' names the way they are now. IMDb does not take precedence with the formatting, since its cast and crew information cannot be relied upon before a film is released and the actual credits are replicated on the website. In addition, film adaptations can take liberties with the source material, so there is no reason to believe that details in the book would match those in the film. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Release date[edit]

The current article mentions the limited release date. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding movie release dates (if one exists, ha!), but I think the info box should contain the general release date (3 October). SweetNightmares (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reference and put the general release date under the limited release date.
  • 19 September 2008 (Limited)
  • 3 October 2008 (General)
Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not finding any reliable source for October 3rd. (IMDb doesn't count; it takes user-submitted information and is pretty unreliable for upcoming films.) I suggest staying with September 19th until we can find the sourcing. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Lol i was watching VH1 last night and it said october 3rd if that helps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceT13TSOSIM (talkcontribs) 00:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction[edit]

This is clearly a science fiction film - of the "what if?" variety rather than the laser guns and spaceships variety - but I've not been able to find any sources brave enough to label it as such, sticking to the broader genres of drama and thriller, although the book has often been compared with classic sci-fi novels. Has anyone found a source directly calling it what it is? GDallimore (Talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Between the breakdown of civilization in the novel based on a fictional epidemic and the countless book reviews that describe the events as apocalyptic, it's safe to say that at least the novel is Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction which is a sub-genre of science fiction. Sure, it's borderline original research, but if a novel has a detective trying to solve a murder with unraveling details, do you need a reference to substantiate it as a mystery?
That point aside, it was shown at the Cannes film festival and has been reviewed. Without directly calling it an apocalyptic film, it has been described as such. Though the Esquire review of it points out word for word, what you said about it being a "What if?" science-fiction movie: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/CANNES-2008/blindness-movie-review-051508

--68.77.17.106 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "fictional" epidemic. it's an allegorical epidemic. Nor is it apocalyptic. On the contrary, it's redemptive.
Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


Religious Themes[edit]

Spoilers below

This movie has overt Christian references, shown both through the storyline and through the cinematography. The blindness that strikes the population is unexplained, and its arrival and sudden departure can both be best explained as Acts of God. In the beginning Moore also makes a comment about blindness being ignorant and agnostic, suggesting that those who are struck with the blindness have lost their faith. The episodes in the quarantine then show the extent of human suffering, where man falls into a hell-like state of sin. During this, Moore, someone who largely upholds the values of Christian charity, rises and leads the others. After the great fire in the end that consumes the evil men within, the party ventures out to find the world in a state of apocalypse. However, in this chaos and destruction the one place shown to be in perfect harmony is a church. The rain that follows brings people into the streets and cleanses them from their sins, resulting in their happiness. Finally, when man has seen the error of his ways, the blindness is lifted for many. However, some are still left in blindless as a sign that the world is not heaven.

Strangely, there appears to be few to no articles which describe this view. Therefore, there are no references to cite and this is not placed on the main page. However, the theme appears to be strong enough that it should be noted in addition to any others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turboluigi33 (talkcontribs) 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

just because it mentions faith, or lack thereof, doesn't mean it's "Christian" or even Judeo-Christian. The Doctor's Wife doesn't talk about people loosing their faith, she talks about them not having any. There's nothing to suggest that the Doctor's Wife's behavior is in any way inherently Christian or an act of Charity. On the contrary, at one point she explains to her husband that she has no choice. The one place shown to be in perfect harmony is the Doctor's Wife's home. To say it was the Church is absurd. I take it you didn't notice the groaning therein and the blindfolds on all the church's statues?
Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

José Saramago is an atheist - his only novel that reffers to religion is O Evangelho segundo Jesus Cristo, and it obviously criticises religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talkcontribs) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't subscribe to Christian doctrines, doesn't mean they're an atheist. The Doctor's Wife is the curator of the story's redemptive process. She's clearly epitomizing Saramago's vision of the importance and value of faith -- not to be confused with those poor lost souls moaning and groaning and helpless in the church towards the end of the film.
At the outset the Doctor's Wife compares her husband's preliminary diagnosis of agnosia with agnosticism, ignorance and people without faith. That, my friends, does not an atheist make.
I thought it was pretty cute the way her husband "kindly" informed her that agnostic and agnosia were from Greek, not Latin, and she then, almost immediately, om the same spirit, informed him that the dessert was tiramisu, not pie. LOL. I wonder if that was courtesy of the scriptwriter - Don McKeller -- who also played the film's Thief. That line definitely stole the show. Badabing. Now I have to get a copy of the book to see which lines came from "The Thief".
Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Saramago was an atheist. He often says that in media interviews. He also criticises the catholic church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.187.47 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation dump[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Saramago's reaction[edit]

José Saramago has responded positively to the film, as seen here. I haven't found any reliable sources to cite yet about his response, so if anyone happens to come across anything useful, we can include it in the article. Considering how Saramago had hesitated for a film adaptation of his book to be made, his reaction seems worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Saramago made Meirelles go to the Canary Islands, off the northwest coast of mainland Africa, to beg for the privilege of making the film. Social butterfly Saramago ain't. In this context, the documentary included on the DVD release -- showing Saramago watching the film for the first time with Meirelles sitting to his left - was really a must-see. This is particularly the case given the extent to which Meirelles talked about how afraid he was, all through the making of the film, of not doing justice to Saramago's vision. Do not miss the documentary on the DVD release.
Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

International poster[edit]

International poster at IMP Awards. Considering the international scope of the film's production and the goal of an international cast, the international poster seems appropriate to use. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ending[edit]

Does anyone have any idea what the ending is supposed to mean? "I'm going blind," she thought. What's that all about? Normen Behr (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it means she was going blind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.19 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful ... And well, no, she wasn't. That wouldn't make any sense, at all. Why would she think that if it doesn't happen? In the follow-up novel Seeing there's not a word about her ever having been blind. Normen Behr (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
After I have read the novel, this sentences is a bit less ominous - I therefore added some sentences in the main article. Normen Behr (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She wasn't going blind. It was simply a shot designed to make you think "OH NO" for a second as she is looking up at the white sky. The camera then clearly shows her face as her head comes down and she looks straight ahead. Then the shots goes to her perspective again and shows she can see the city in the distance.DingoateMyBabyyy 06:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoateMyBabyyy (talkcontribs)

Also, when you live in a reality where everyone is blind, it is like going blind -- or being agnosic- because everything that ever meant anything as good as disappears. When you look for the love of your life, for instance, what you see is someone who needs help wiping his ass. Was that line Saramago's? Is it in his book?
Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding time period[edit]

The page contains the following information: "A change that the director pursued was placing the film in a contemporary setting, as opposed to the novel that he estimated took place in the 1930s or 1940s." However, it is clear from reading the novel, that it is already in a contemporary setting. There are references to portable radios, airplane "black boxes", among other things, which demonstrate that the story could not have taken places in a 1940s setting.

200.166.237.10 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Haven't any feminist groups spoke out about this sexist predatory writing? There has to be something if the blind protested it. How can women watch Julianne Moore stare at her husband banging a woman then go ahead and allow herself to be raped when her husband says "well I won't like it cause I am a man(grabs his balls and grunts) but if she wants to let them rape her I will let her cause we need to eat. It's been a day or two after all since I've had a decent meal." Then at the end when all is done she jumps her bastard husband on the kitchen countertop and alls is well. What bullxxxx! And men should be offended as well since they were only in the hospital a few weeks. What, men cant go without sex for even a month without resorting to rape and violence?

It wasn't so much "sexist" as it was real. IRL, women often trade sex for survival. But. On the flip side, it was the bartender's abusive behavior, and the subsequent hate speech of his sleazy side-kick, that gave her the strength she needed to assassinate "the King" and finally lead everyone out of the prison. The Doctor's Wife was the film's fearless leader. In fact, it was a very feminist film - if we define feminism as the art and craft of empowering the feminine. You're not going to do that without portraying the obstacles in feminism's path.
Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about "Controversy"[edit]

How does any "blind" watched the film? Why did they get angry? Almost every blind on the film were blind for just some days, how could they get smell and touching skills like a born blind person? It explains the "zombie like" behavior of the new blinds. And the world stopped since no one could be prepared to drive and make other things that needs vision, since no one could help each other. Maybe on another place another group also had a leader who could see. (Getúlio Prates) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.122.232 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarity to short story Darkness[edit]

The story is very similar to a prior short story called "Darkness" by Andre Carneiro. In the story Darkness, people are no longer able to see, as light begins to fade. The light from a match fades, the light from the sun fades and so on. Everything goes dark and the story follows a main character who hooks up with a small group of people who were blind before the event that takes away the light.

I read the story in a paperback called "Best SF 1972" edited by Harry Harrison and Brian W. Aldiss, published by Berkley Publishing Corporation in July 1973. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-116158. The story in the book was translated by Leo L. Barrow. The book says the story was first published in Nova 2. DJParker39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

This does not sound like the stories very similar... they just have some things in common. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit]

The suspense surrounding the violation of trust in the opening scene of Blindness is an important aesthetic achievement of the film, so it's too bad that the current wikipedia entry starts off by giving the "punchline" away.

Meanwhile, probably one of the most important motifs of the film, and the novel on which it is based, is that everyone is "named" by their profession. So you have "The First Blindman" and "The Thief", "Doctor", "Doctor's Wife", "Boy", "Policeman", "Bartender", etc etc. Through out the film, that's important messaging technology. Knowing that before watching the film the first time gives the first time viewer a significant leg up in appreciating the film. Knowing the thief before he really gets a chance to "introduce" himself is just a bummer. Everyone already knows what it feels like to be prejudiced - whether they realize it or not. But the careful interpolation, in the first time viewer's mind, of "good Samaritan"?, "thief"?, "good Samaritan"?, "thief"? - that's a portrait we rarely get to see of ourselves.

People use the Wikipedia entries to tell them whether or not they want to see a film. We should be more careful what we give away.

Kiosacoup (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

People also use the Wikipedia entries to read about a film after they've seen it. However, the entries are part of an encyclopedia, which means that they are fully inclusive of all major detail related to the film. It's impossible to determine what detail would be a spoiler and what would not. It may be worth reading Wikipedia:Spoiler. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

The plot section of the article seems overly long and wordy, e.g., "During a dinner with his loving wife..." Really? Is it important that a plot summary detail that she's "loving"? Also, it isn't necessary to reveal every small detail about the plot in the article, such as the woman in glasses is "revealed to be a call-girl prostitute" (are there other kinds of call-girls?) or that two people got in a fight right after arriving at the asylum. The plot section probably ought to be half or a third of its current length. 65.200.157.178 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 for being too long. Also, it's inaccurate: "but as soon as he assures his rescuer that he'll be fine waiting there for his wife to come home, the "rescuer" departs with the car keys and steals the vehicle." - nope, he helps the blind upstairs, helps him settle in, then goes away in the blind's car, effectively stealing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.102.124 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)