[nfb-talk] Fwd: Monk episode about blindness

[David Andrews]

>From: "Angie Matney" <Angie at mpmail.net>
>To: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:59:16 -0400
>Subject: Monk episode about blindness
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>This is not appropriate for any of the lists I'm on. But feel free to forward it to lists where you think it might be appropriate, 
>if there are any.
>
>Did anybody here watch Monk this weekend? A sighted friend wrote her observations. I'm going to post them here and 
>follow with a few comments of my own.
>
>Okay, I'll try to get this down from my notes before I lose it.
>
>Although come to think of it, I'll be glad when it's gone.
>
>First, I should say that I don't watch this show. Neither am I blind.
>Neither have I ever been in the presence of a blind person for more
>than an hour, and that was a long time ago. So I'm coming at this
>from the point of view of a sighted person who's a stranger both to
>blindness and to the show.
>
>Second, there are lots of stupid things in this episode, but two
>things strike me as globally offensive: the overall slapstick tone
>and the patronizing way other people treat Monk.
>
>First, the slapstick. Some of what contributes to this may in fact be
>an accurate portrayal of how a newly blind person with virtually no
>training (he's had a little, but how much is unclear, and given the
>time frame, it can't be much) would try to function, but while I
>think that might be an excuse the show's producers would offer, given
>the context, I think it's no excuse at all.
>
>One of the things that contributes to this tone is the way they have
>him moveing, with a weird gait that has him walking bent over at the
>waist and knees, holding his white cane out at about the level of his
>waist. Whether this is an accurate or inaccurate portrayal of what
>some people try to do when they first lose their sight, the fact is
>that the impression it leaves is classic slapstick. And he just keeps
>moving around, again and again, whether the plot calls for it or not,
>giving him ample opportunity to bump into things, wave his cane
>around in the air so it becomes a menace, get tangled up in police
>crime tape, and in general make an idiot out of himself while
>everyone else simply stands there and watches. Nor, when he and
>someone else are in an unfamiliar environment, does anyone attempt to
>orient him or, with only one or two exceptions, give him any directions.
>
>So on the one hand, everyone around the guy seems to have this hands-
>off policy, though there's nothing in their facial expressions or
>dialogue to indicate that this might be deliberate. That is, if it's
>their way of trying to "respect" his "independence" we certainly
>aren't told this. And anyway, on the other hand, they're as
>patronizing as it's possible to be. If their policy is hands-off,
>it's only in the figurative sense. In the literal sense, they pat him
>on the shoulder. They pat him on the back. They grab him and drag him
>around. (Although, to give them their due, he's acting so stupidly
>that maybe they really think it's called for.) They tell him one
>thing while indicating to each other, with nods, head-shakes, and
>facial expressions, that they mean just the opposite. In short, they
>treat him like a three-ear-old. Or maybe younger?
>
>Finally, there are so many stupidities that I couldn't keep up with
>them all. I just don't write that fast, but here are a few I managed
>to get down: 1) The ophthalmologist says that Monk is going to have to
>get used to "the dark." 2) Shortly thereafter, Monk assumes, though
>for a relatively brief period, what I think of as the stereotypical
>facial expression of the blind, a kind of vague, benevolent smile, as
>though his blindness had also caused his IQ to drop to well below
>100, or even more obnoxiously, as though he had suddenly been
>admitted to a realm in which he is "seeing" something wonderful to
>which the sighted world isn't privy. 3) Throughout, when he's not
>flailing around on his own, he's constantly being guided by sighted
>people, but they're always holding *his* arm. Nor does he
>correct them. 4) Several times, while he's doing his slapstick grope-
>around-with-bent-knees thing, Natalie (who can't act her way out of a
>paper bag, though that's beside the point) stands by holding his cane
>while he risks limb, if not exactly life. 5) He does not object when,
>after he has hit something harmlessly--for once--with his cane, the
>captain simply takes it away from him and throws it aside. 6) Not
>only does he agree to feel a suspect's face (finds a convenient wart
>and decides it's not the guy, whom he saw before his tragedy
>occurred) but later on, realizing that there's someone standing in
>front of him, and suspecting it's the killer, he actually stands
>there, gropes the guy's facial features, and decides this one is for
>real. (And the murderer just lets him do it. Hard to tell who's
>dumber.) 7) Getting into an outdoor construction-site elevator that
>bears an out-of-order sign, he fails to figure out that it's not
>moving--though there's no indication that his hearing is going--and
>consequently thinks that when he gets out of it, he's very high up,
>but he never uses his cane to discover that in fact he's standing on
>a beam later described as 10 inches off the ground. 8) Talking to his
>therapist, he's suddenly wearing dark glasses. They are little, round
>things, rather like the kind the Annie Sullivan character wore in
>Miracle Worker. Although the Johns Lennon and Denver wore them in the
>1970's, in today's context all they do is scream "blind." This is, by
>the way, the only scene in which he wears them, perhaps to impress
>his therapist, but for no other discernible purpose.
>
>I really didn't know that in these times of political correctness it
>was still okay to misrepresent, make fun of, patronize, and insult
>blind people. I'm pissed, astonished, dismayed, and most of all,
>thoroughly disgusted. As someone who rejects political correctness
>most of the time, I've got to admit that this one made me want to go
>and take a shower.
>
>OK, here are my comments about the episode. I think it would have been nice if the lady from the school for the blind 
>had also been blind. That would have
>been a great opportunity to show a functioning blind person, even if they *would* insist on the slapstick for Monk. And I 
>know this is *Monk,* a comedy.
>I know I'm probably expecting too much. But still...
>
>Also, at one point, Monk asks Natalie about other blind people who have done great things. She comes up with Ray 
>Charles and (I'm not kidding here) Mr.
>Magoo. Part of this is supposed to be funny because Monk doesn't know who Mr. Magoo is. Natalie tells him Magoo is a 
>great inventor. But...come on! Even
>a show like Monk could do better with a list of blind folks than Ray Charles and Mr. Magoo.
>
>The scary thing is that I think they actually *consulted* people before airing this episode. They consulted *blind* people. I 
>guess I can't see why they
>bothered if they were going to do this anyway.
>
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1684 (20060729) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com