At the beginning of the movie he said that he started pretending he was a different person and blind. Was he really blind or was pretending it?
I think he was pretending
Also was he joking when he "saw" Ernesto through the door.
Also he was picking beautiful girls from the street
[deleted]
I was wondering the same thing. It seemed like he was blind, but he did look at Ernesto jr. through the spyhole in the door. And yeah, it was as if he also cheated by picking up beautiful girls and pretending he was blind.
I'm still not sure.
I'm quite sure he is really blind, at the beginning he says he had 2 names, but suddenly he had to became his pseudonym, Harry Caine the writer, but what he didn't planned was that this writer was going to be blind.
The beautiful girl, just a coincidence, actually he had to make lots of questions to get sure that the girl was beautiful!!
About the peephole of the door, we talked about it before on the forum, for some of us that was like a defense mechanism, like a routine everybody follows: looking through the peephole and asking: who is...?
So I think Harry did it to pretend he is not blind, and cheat the stranger outside the door. A good defense mechanism.
We dont know what time was when Ernesto was visiting Harry, but I remember Ernesto was like whispering, talking softly, maybe due to the neighbors, so maybe it was close to midnight, and Harry felt insecure.
To cbracamonte and sarastro7: have you actually watched the movie? And if yes, how could you have missed the entire episode at the clinic after the accident, when Judith asks the doctor whether there was any hope for Mateo to ever see again, and the doctor answers "No, the blindness is irreversible"?
As for Harry pretending to peep through the peephole - I agree with loveantinoo's explanation.
Yes I watched the movie. The way Harry introduced himself at the beginnig maked me think he was pretending he was blind (the way he said it in Spanish could be understood either way), so during all the movie I thought he was pretending he was blind, and it made sense. Then there is the scene of the accident and I wasn't sure if I misunderstood the beginning or was part of the character. I posted this to see if others understood the same way as I did.
shareYou are definitely right. The film consists of several juxtapositions, which exist not necessarily only due to cutbacks:
- he is Mateo/Harry
- he is blind/not blind
- she is living/dead
- she loves the rich man Martel/she hates him (this is clearly demonstrated by the furious bed scene, where we believe it is with Mateo, but is with him, even supposedly dead after)
- the film remains unfinished or de-cutted/ the films gets finished according to Mateo's ideas
[deleted]
Gotta love the inevitable attacks on these boards. Obviously there is meant to be some ambiguity regarding Mateo's blindness. If you choose to believe that he is irreversibly blind, as the doctor says, then that is absolutely fine. But don't jump on top of other people who are fixating on another point in the film that appears to be incontrovertible proof to the contrary. Doctors' diagnoses are not gospel truth. It seems as likely that Mateo recovered unexpectedly and is pretending to be blind in public as that, as you seem to be suggesting, he is carrying on a charade of seeing when he is alone. If you didnt pick up on the number of deliberate contradictions/ambiguities created by Almodovar (and enumerated by the previous reviewer), then perhaps it's you who should have watched more carefully.
there's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
Well, said... I've read three threads so far, and in all of them, just because somebody is giving an opinion, or like in this case, asking a question, they get attacked...
Chill, people...
I had the same confusion at some point about his blindness... I'm glad I didn't ask the question first... :-)
It's OK, Claude... it's me... Dad...
-Ken Park
"Gotta love the inevitable attacks on these boards. Obviously there is meant to be some ambiguity regarding Mateo's blindness. If you choose to believe that he is irreversibly blind, as the doctor says, then that is absolutely fine. But don't jump on top of other people who are fixating on another point in the film that appears to be incontrovertible proof to the contrary. Doctors' diagnoses are not gospel truth. It seems as likely that Mateo recovered unexpectedly and is pretending to be blind in public as that, as you seem to be suggesting, he is carrying on a charade of seeing when he is alone. If you didnt pick up on the number of deliberate contradictions/ambiguities created by Almodovar (and enumerated by the previous reviewer), then perhaps it's you who should have watched more carefully."
Gotta love those that not only have an opinion but serve up that those that think differently should watch a film more closely.
One of the deleted scenes in the film may be helpful regarding intent. Mateo is alone in his bed. He uses a audio alarm clock that tells him the time (5 a.m.). He goes to a drawer and fumbles around for a key. He goes to another set of drawers and opens the drawer with the key and them fumbles around a good long time for the editing notebook in his drawer. He immediately takes it to his son who is asleep in another room and asks him to look through it for any clues from the editor on the film. Not the sort of thing that someone faking blindness would do. As far as intent - I guess if you suggest that Mateo loses his mind and becomes Harry - faking lost of eyesight is somewhat plausible. However, Harry continues to work in the same business as he always did except now he is limited (because of his eyesight) to writing scripts. So, in my view, he hasn't lost his mind, he merely getting by.
deleted scenes have no bearing on the final movie. they might give us some insight into the directors original intent, but almodovar could very well have removed the scene you mention specifically because it detracts from the ambiguity he decided to construct. about half of the people I talk to who watch this movie think he is faking. the other half dont. almodovar is far to sensitive and perceptive a filmmaker to create a film that just "accidentally" confuses half its viewers in such a way. if he's that careless, then he's a bad storyteller. if i believed that he were, i wouldnt be watching his movies, which i respect for his unbelievable ability to tell a story!
by the way, quite a similar device is used in volver (spoiler): many people watch the entire film believing that the mother is a real ghost, and others disagree. I have my opinions certainly, but i'd be a fool to say that there are no points of ambiguity, to say that the director didnt deliberately create doubt in the viewer's mind.
If almodovar has created two successive films that confuse viewers out of nothing but carelessness, that is not only a major step backward in his career (a director renowned for his storytelling now finds himself unable to convey his protagonist's unequivocal blindness? wow!), but a really remarkable coincidence considering how rarely such situations occur in film. i find it exceedingly unlikely that that is whats happening here.
there's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
"deleted scenes have no bearing on the final movie. they might give us some insight into the directors original intent, but almodovar could very well have removed the scene you mention specifically because it detracts from the ambiguity he decided to construct. about half of the people I talk to who watch this movie think he is faking. the other half dont. almodovar is far to sensitive and perceptive a filmmaker to create a film that just "accidentally" confuses half its viewers in such a way. if he's that careless, then he's a bad storyteller. if i believed that he were, i wouldnt be watching his movies, which i respect for his unbelievable ability to tell a story!"
_________________________________________________________________________
So, Almodovar has "unbelievable ability" to tell a story BUT doesn't have the story while filming? Because why? Because he ordered props used to aid the blind to support the "ambiquity he decided to construct?" That he filmed the director alone continuing to be blind when there was no one but him in the scene to see him continue to fumble in drawers for items? Because someone 'fakes' blindness ... because why? Life not hard enough for him?
Certainly some filmmakers have deliberate ambiguity in film as in any type of art. But you can't have it both ways. Either they had the intent to make it ambiguous going in or they didn't. If they did they would have NEVER done that deleted scene. It's over-the-top clear as to the director's blindness. So, the only remaining choice is Almodovar is not some amazing storyteller as you and I believe but a guy fumbling for a story while making a film. You can't have it both ways and I give Almodovar more credit than you do.
Some people are going to believe what they want to believe. I believe that that deleted scene went away because it was a slow/prodding scene that hurt the pace of the film and did precious little to advance the story.
As for VOLVER, "many" people don't believe the mother is a ghost. Just a few clowns on the Internet where reality is merely a concept (to them). So the two ambiguous films in a row is really zero. YMMV.
well, i think it's pretty clear who's being dismissive at this point.
do you really believe that filmmakers all go into films with the final film in their head, scene-for-scene, and make no modifications to that as they get deeper into the filmmaking process? Hell, sometimes directors dont even know how the film will end until they edit, so they film multiple endings! The best writers and filmmakers draft and redraft, edit and rewrite. If we were to analyze everything that was written down and crossed out or filmed and then cut, we'd never get anywhere. deleted scenes are interesting insights into the filmmaking process but have no bearing on interpretations of the final film. I have no idea where you're going with the props thing. if someone were faking blindness, he would obviously have all the aids that a blind person would have.
I have encountered a number of intelligent people who watch these films, both of them, and find room for interpretation, or understand them completely differently from me. if you want to claim that these people are all just whackjobs entirely out of touch with reality, then be my guest. im done arguing.
there's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
I don't wish to be mean-spirited about this. Some of my favorite films have ambiguity front and center such as Vertigo, Mulholland Dr. and L'Appartement.
Your argument was centered on Almodovar recent interest in ambiguous films citing Volver as an example. As the mother explains what she has been doing, why she has been hiding out and how being taken for a ghost actually made it easier for her ... I have no idea how anyone watching that film would think she was a ghost. That and oh little things like her getting a haircut. C'mon.
But Volver is a different film, if you want to make a case for the director being blind, share with us the moments that give that idea credibility.
Natashashkd,
First, don't be nasty to the questions that others ask. The question was asked in honesty, it's a good question. The evidence you give both to insult cbracamonte and sarastro7 and to try to prove beyond all doubt that Harry was indeed blind is flimsy. The doctor says one thing, but in both life and movies, doctors sometimes are wrong. This is certainly the case in pulp fiction, soap operas, and telenovelas, three genres close to the spirit of this movie. So the mere statement of the doctor does not conclusively establish Harry's blindness (although I happen to believe he was truly blind).
When it comes to the peephole, that you have to rely on an explanation shows clearly that the question of his blindness isn't something so completely beyond doubt that no own should talk about it. Loveantinoo gives us an explanation, not a proof. A very plausible explanation that I happen to agree with, but still an explanation.
I think the movie is set up so that most viewers in the beginning are supposed to suspect that the blindness is a ruse: there's the peephole, there's the voiceover talking of switching from one identity to another, etc. But after the accident, I think most viewers will believe the case for real blindness is pretty solid. There's the accident, there's the life of living as a blindman, there's the name change, there's the doctor's diagnosis. None of this, in movie land, is conclusive, but it's convincing.
So, I agree with your opinion that Harry was really blind but really am put off by your snotty tone. Not only is this, Harry's blindness, a worthwhile point to discuss but almost certainly Almodóvar planned for there to be enough doubt so that viewers would discuss this matter. He probably even expected that there'd be condescending viewers like you who'd weigh in.
I do not afraid that it was a defense mechanism because if so he would have no actually looked though the whole, he would of just made the sound of it if he was just trying to fool the stranger...
he really is blind.
shareI also thought he was pretending to be blind...the intro narrative, unless it was mis-translated, said that he created thie psuedonym, along with his blindness. Then the whole stranger scene and the spyhole re-inforced the idea that he was just only pretending. But then the whole doctor scene confused the issue. He gave a medical explanation and said it was irreverible, but like another poster mentioned, that was 14yrs prior so the doctor could've been wrong.
Also, it just wouldn't make sense that the spyhole scene was just a "reflex". Maybe after a year, but no way 14yrs.
I attended a press conference where Pedro explained why Harry looks through the peephole: in case it's a stranger, he doesn't want that person to know a blind man lives there. It's a safety, power/weakness thing.
shareWhile watching the film I too believed Mateo/Harry had been faking blindness at some point, despite the statement by the doctors. In addition to placing his eye to the peep hole, he also appeared to have recognized Ernesto (aka Ray X), when he directed Diego to go through the photos to identify him; however, at another times, like when he pulled Ernesto’s phone number from the drawer, he fumbled as thought he were sightless. Was this merely an attempt to always stay in character even when alone?
Towards the end of the film, as he regained his identity as Mateo Blanco and was inspired to re-edit and re-release his film, I could not understand why he would continue a charade to act blind. A man with vision could be so much more effective at editing a film and now that he had resumed his original identity, why act? He was now confronting his painful past.
There is much ambiguity here and fodder for debate, but in the end I think that character Mateo was truly blind and not acting.
I think a lot of posters are mixing up what's metaphorical and what is literal in the movie. The pretending to be blind thing in opening narrative is not intended to be literal. He's merely putting a literary spin on his situation. He IS in fact blind. Further, his blindness is very important for the 'broken embraces' theme of the film. It would still make sense if he were so traumatized that he simply decided to change his name and pretend to be blind, but it would be a be a lot less poignant.
shareThere's nothing IN THE FILM that supports he's faking his blindness. If you just thought that it was a misreading of what's on the screen. We're misled by a number of factors (the cause of the accident, for instance) but it's all tidied up at the end. Caressing the image on the wall at the end wouldn't have the power it does if he was faking being blind. Ray X/Ernesto Jr. even reacts to the idea that Mateo/Harry is peering through the peephole.
Almodovar isn't a director who's known for ambiguity.
Exactly. Those who insist he is faking it are actually Blind to many touching and moving parts and scenes in the film, that would not carry any meaning or power had he been faking it. As you mentioned, the part where he traces the faces after the kiss in the footage of the accident, or when he tell Diego Don't look at me like that.. it makes you smile, and it is touching, only because he IS blind. And much more. I think it is sad that viewers would miss and ignore all these subtle, endearing and moving moments and little bits in the movie, for the sake of "logical" interpretations of things (like one user here would talk about some medical facts, like we are discussing a real life situation or a crime. It is a movie for fu%$ sake, and we are supposed to take note of the meaningful and touching moments there, not collect evidences and alibis.
shareYou'd better read the following only after seeing the films "Nine" and "Los abrazos rotos (Broken Embraces)".
I saw these films in two days in that order and was struck by the common elements in both.
In the first, the women are magnificent, riveting, radiating energy. Worth seeing the films just for them: Marion Cotillard; Penélope Cruz; Nicole Kidman; Dame Judi Dench; Kate Hudson. Testosterone pumping choreography. Boy, oh boy.
And the men! Oh my God! May the Saints pray for us all: sons of bitches, narcissists and mama's boys.
Both films show the elements of a film that, in the end, has yet to be made and which (supposedly) will be very good. Enjoyable to watch though disappointing.
"Nine" is supposed to be about Federico Fellini or 'Guido Contini' (played well by Day-Lewis), but the film itself is as significant as "8 1/2" is to "9". Imagine a drink with the main ingredient over-introduced by 1.0588235294117647058823529411765 (check the calculator). Not the same drink. In the meantime a wife suffers in the fragmented embraces left over from the sexual encounters of her comet-like husband.
"Los abrazos rotos" is about the same thing. Except it's Almodovar about Almodovar. He's still around, but seems to be losing steam.
Ambiguity is OK, but disjointedness is not. Both films metaphorically and concretely are bunches of ripped up pictures that are to be put together afterwards. Amazing similarity.
Look at the poor participants of the "boards". Was he blind? Who rammed into the car?. May be Judit? Looks possible. But does it matter?
I know you enjoyed the experiences. Not much of the ideas though.
Both seem to be good illustrations of manifestation of feminism, preponderance of human qualities: femininity a n d masculinity (anima and animus - Carl Jung). In women! They still need us, thank God. Although, soon enough, I think, they'll be able to get by without.
Hope not too soon.
As for the doctor's diagnosis - it all depends whether it was just "Post-traumatic t r a n s i e n t cortical blindness" http://www.springerlink.com/content/x20w85127j05278j/ or "Cortical blindness" http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/50318
Ambiguous again... Boy oh boy......
Oh! About the boys. Both films present a single mother with a son. A perfect set up to produce a narcissist. I should know.
drfy.com
I don't think it was a deffense mechanism. When Ray-X leaned closer to the door he quickly went out of the peep hole, but how could he knew Ray-X had noticed it if he was really blind?
shareHmmm I need to see this again from this perspective. Usually Almodovar does show all his cards by the end of his films. One thing that comes to mind however is that there was a photo of Lena in Mateo's desk near the beginning of the film. Why would he have this there if he was blind?
www.mediasickness.com
lol
"...the young man would love it too, but he can't afford it."
When you pop that question everybody is talking about the scene on the door, but what about the one when he go down the stairs and refuse to be helped?
He goes down very fast for a blind guy.....doesnt he?
It was an odd thing for him to do, opening the spyhole like that, but as others have said he may have been doing it so the person knocking would assume he did have sight and was therefore on guard against any intruders.
Yes, he did trot down the stairs to his place after being dropped off by Judit, but then he'd been up and down those same stairs probably thousands of times.
Two other things I picked up on...
When he does let 'Ray X' in, he sits down and a beam of light comes through the curtains and falls on his face, but it doesn't bother him at all. No squinting, no blinking, nothing.
Then there's the scene where he finds the slip of paper with the phone number on it for 'Ray X'. He feels compelled to make contact, but what does he do? He gets dressed, pops down to the cafe and has someone else make the call. If he really could see, he would've just dialled it then.
This film is also about identity. Is Mateo Blanco / Harry Caine blind or not? We are never told. Is it important whether he is blind or not? We know that all films are a lie, even documentaries to some extent. We even play roles in our daily life and lie to our self. Why should films be any different and why should we expect clean cut answers from them when we don't get that in real life. Not telling us is in fact closer to the truth about life than it would have if he told us.
Also is being blind not a great metaphor for not wanting to see any more, rejecting reality? So what really matters is the metaphor, not reality :)
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
Very true, Thao. I find the possible blindness intriguing, and despite some of the arguments here, I don't think the issue is fully resolved. When Mateo "became" Harry, he changed his identity to escape from the pain in the past. Who's to say that he didn't pull one over on the doctor, the visitors and everyone else in his life. I still don't know, and I don't think the physical aspect of sight is as significant as the emotional aspect of detachment here.
share