Maury @ MindSay 
Blindness is Don McKellar’s screenplay adaptation of Jose Saramago's science fiction novel with the same title. The movie, like the book, questions what would happen to society if a super bug that causes blindness were to suddenly infect a large urban center?
It starts like this: A man goes blind while waiting in his car at a stoplight on a sunny morning. The effect is bright instead of dark; the man sees only white light. He’s blind and holding up traffic. After some commotion, Thief (Don McKellar) offers to help the man and drive him to the hospital, and he becomes the next character to catch the disease.
The movie introduces more characters before settling on the heroes of story.
Mark Ruffalo plays The Doctor and is the first ophthalmologist to attempt to understand the affliction. The Doctor’s Wife, Julianne Moore soon becomes the vast exception to the rule, and indeed the premise on which this wonderful film hangs; Julianne Moore’s character does not go blind, and yet she suffers even greater pain as she tirelessly cares for the sick, and silently bears witness to the decomposition of society.
It could happen anywhere at anytime - people in Toronto will remember the fear that paralyzed the city during a sudden outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in North York General Hospital. Every American was shocked when they heard testimony of the bizarre and horrific occurrences in the New Orleans Super Dome during Hurricane Katrina. Blindness puts human characters in those same mental and moral conundrums where they hate themselves and the selfishness they need to survive.
Actually Blindness goes well beyond those scenarios and into the realm of genuine horror. Those who control the food rise above the others. Gael García Bernal, Sandra Oh, Danny Glover, Alice Braga, Martha Burns, and Maury Chaykin round out this amazing cast of characters. Each story offers a different perspective on the phenomenon.
Blindness reminds viewers of the fragility of modern civilization; this movie depicts the evolution of evil in an unknown, terrifying environment.
While my interest and obsession with cinema has been documented many times on this blog, I here want to turn my attention to the offerings on the small screen.
I have never watched much TV. There just seems to be so much crap on there - nauseating American crime shows, god-awful Australian soaps, the legion of sitcoms (have they run out of ideas yet?), pathetic excuses for current affairs shows, and, worst of all, Australian Idol. Frankly, my lack of a working aerial in my room has never really bothered me all that much.
However, all that has changed since I've met Tildy. Her access to, and frequent viewing of Foxtel has introduced me to many of the well-known shows that I'd only heard about up until now. So, here is my review of a few of them:
1. Gilmore Girls: Tildy's favourite show. I approached it with some trepidation, but soon found myself attracted to the witty and often intelligent dialogue, and the mildly engrossing storylines. Sure, it's formulaic, the characters are a little one-dimensional, and you can often see what's coming a mile away - but it still makes for fairly enjoyable viewing. I'd give it a fairly solid 8/10.
2. Family Guy: Every single criticism of this show you've ever heard is justified. It's annoyingly random, borrows heavily from other animated shows like The Simpsons and South Park, and appears to be aiming for an audience a little dumber than the aforementioned two. Has its funny moments, of course, but otherwise a waste of time. 3/10.
3. Friends: Never really understood the fuss about this sitcom, but I'll grant it this much - it is pretty funny. My hatred of sitcoms (based on unfortunate encounters with Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond) has been softened somewhat by the recent discovery that some of them actually are pretty good. Will and Grace and The Nanny could also be placed in that category... I'm not about to buy a DVD boxset of them or anything, but the fact is, they're not a bad way to spend half an hour if you've got nothing better to do. 7/10.
4. Maury Povich: The show's main selling point appears to be that it has 'more bleeps than Jerry Springer'... I think that pretty much sums it up. The impression I received from one episode is this: several horribly unlikeable people whose parents really should have used birth control talk about inane garbage with Maury, while a live audience with a cumulative IQ of 10 shows why everyone hates Americans. Seriously, who watches this crap? 0/10 is generous.
5. Deadliest Catch: One of those things where you just stare at the screen blankly wondering why anyone actually watches it. It seemed understandable for Foxtel to have a yawnfest or two squeezed in with their mountains of TV shows... that is, until I chanced upon it in the free-to-air TV guide the other day. Has the world gone crazy? 2/10.
Therefore, my conclusion is this: not everything on TV is pointless crap. Yes, there are a lot of popular shows that should never have seen the light of day, but if you can avoid those, there's a little bit of quality TV spread around. All the same, give me movies any day.
p.s.: entertainment isn't just limited to the cinema screen and the television. Here's one of the best from everyone's favourite wacky British flash animator, David 'Salad Fingers' Firth.... "Health Reminder". Check it out.
Every day since Mark left, I've made a point to see something beautiful, or do something unusual. Yesterday I sat in a waterfall (a really small one) and William took my picture. When I saw the picture my breath was taken away. I feel so lucky to be able to go outside and pick freegrowing roses, or walk down the street and sit on a seawall. I can smell the ocean from my balcony.
Mark didn't make me unhappy. I put myself in a place where I let myself become unhappy. Which brings me to something I would like to put out there.
I was watching Maury yesterday. (With all the beauty in the world, I have to balance it with daytime tv) It was about controlling spouses/significant others. These women were not allowed out of the house, they couldn't eat when they wanted or see their friends or family. They were being abused, and basically held hostage. Now sitting on the couch, making my way to the bottom of a bag of bbq chips, I had to stop and think. Are we laying blame on the wrong person?
I know it sounds absolutely absurd, but think for a moment. We call these women victims, but in most cases (not all, I realize there are always exceptions) they allow themselves to be victimized. Why, if you are scared for your life, and fed up with being a subservient hostage, would you not pack a bag and leave? People aways say, "but I love him". What everyone neglects to realize is the man they say they love is not actually the man they fell in love with. People very rarely change. They simply pretend to be someone else for awhile.
I mean really, would any of these women have fallen in love with a controlling, abusive asshole? I vote no. Therefore, they must have fallen in love with someone else. Someone fake, someone who was playing a wicked game to win a prize. Whether that prize be a wife, a servant, or maybe in the end they even win a life.
We need to stop focusing on those who control and start focusing on those who surrender control. To everyone out there who has ever lost themselves to someone else, always remember, the game isn't over until you fold.