New on DVD Feb 10 2009 @ 08:15 pm
REVIEW: Blindness
Directed By: Fernando Meirelles
Written By: José Saramago (novel) and Don McKellar (screenplay)
Starring: Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Gael García Bernal, Danny Glover, Alice Braga
Running Time: 120 minutes
Rated R for violence including sexual assaults, language and sexuality/nudity
This review was originally published October 5th, 2008.
The science fiction/horror genre has often served as a launching pad for story tellers who wish to explore grand themes and still deliver an exciting story. In the late 50’s Rod Serling perfected this balancing act of thrilling, funny, heartbreaking stories mixed with social commentary and personal reflection. In The Twilight Zone television series, Serling worked with top notch writers to craft stories that would entertain viewers week after week, while still delivering a powerful message, all in 30 minutes. My guess is that Fernando Meirelles, director of Blindness, has never seen an episode of The Twilight Zone.
The main conceit of the film is that an infection of unknown origin begins causing an odd “white” blindness among the citizens of an unnamed metropolitan city. Through a chain of events we are introduced to a cast of characters who all seem to be loosely connected. Note that none of the characters are given actual names; we only come to know them for what they represent: doctor, wife, child, thief, whore, victim. Before long the government decides the best course of action is to round up all those infected and ship them off to an abandoned asylum. When the containment crew comes for the doctor (Mark Ruffalo), his wife (Julianne Moore) rashly decides to feign blindness to stay close to her husband. Once inside the asylum-turned-internment-camp Doctor’s Wife uses her gift of sight to help the afflicted, without revealing that she is, in fact, sighted.
From a storytelling perspective the blindness is, of course, not the point. It’s a metaphor and a plot device used to disorient the characters and get them into the asylum, which can now be shown as a microcosm of society. This represents my main problem with the film. Everything in it is used to serve the allegory. The story, which should be first and foremost, is left out in the rain. Every movie tells you how to watch it. It does this by creating a world that is unlike our own but still has it’s own logic that we can recognize and follow. Not in Meirelles film though. Characters operate inconsistently, acting only to make a statement rather than according to any logic. This carelessness with story rots the movie from the inside out.
Which is a pity, because as an example of the technical side of the cinematic craft it is amazing. The techniques used to draw us first into the unnamed city and then into the world of the blind are incredibly effective. Disorienting and sometimes beautiful, the cinematography is also cunning. It works in service to the world that it creates. Bathed in ugly washed out earthtones for long stretches it imprisions us as viewers, then shocks us with the brilliant orange of a flame, or the deep blue blacks of a night sky. DP Cesar Charlone clearly understands his art. It could have been truly stunning if set to work for a better movie.
According to Mary Poppins “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.” Rod Serling understood that, it’s too bad he’s not around today. He would have known to add the sweetness that this film needs. Because as it sits now Blindness is a tough pill to swallow.
on Oct 05 2008 @ 2:44 pm 1. Evan Derrick said …
Man, I had such hopes for this, but your review, Josh, seems dead center with everything I’ve heard on the film so far. People have praised the book to high heaven, but the film is getting shoulder shrugs galore. And I can’t stand films where the characters make statements about Society and Life and Big Issues in grand monologues that could not have looked good even on paper. Remember that HMO bashing film that Denzel Washington was in a few years ago? Where he takes the hospital hostage because his son can’t get treated due to the healthcare system? I’m not a fan of HMOs or our broken healthcare system, but the last thing I want in the middle of a dramatic film is a ridiculous speech that makes little to no sense in the context of the story. If I wanted that I would go watch a Michael Moore doc.
on Oct 05 2008 @ 3:41 pm 2. Josh Ickes said …
The sad thing is this could have been really good. The message is already there in the material, we don’t need the film maker commenting on it all the time. George Romero managed to make pretty much the same statements with Night Of the Living Dead, except that movie is much more enjoyable. And a half hour shorter.
I think that if someone more interested in crafting a story would have been given the material it could have been a great movie. Darren Aronofsky perhaps. He has proven himself adept at making style and message work FOR the story rather than be 3 separate threads.
on Oct 05 2008 @ 5:43 pm 3. Evan Derrick said …
I’m with you on Aronofsky – Requiem For a Dream was dreary and arguably message driven (drugs and addiction are bad), but it was stylistic and story driven and brilliant.
Meirelles managed to do all of those things with City of God, but I was thoroughly underwhelmed by his followup, The Constant Gardener. Incidentally, it also felt like a bit too much message and too little narrative – it was based on a book as well. Perhaps he needs to get a hold of some more original material.
on Oct 06 2008 @ 12:43 am 4. Sam Juliano said …
Indeed Evan, Josh Ickes’ astute review is dead-on!!! I saw it over the weekend and had pretty much the same issues. Too bad, but I was kind of expecting this.
on Oct 06 2008 @ 11:27 am 5. Ruth Derrick said …
In the land of “Freshman English,” we teachers often encourage students to “show not tell.” Sounds like this film has a heavy handed dose of telling.
Also, kudos for using the word, “conceit.”
on Oct 07 2008 @ 1:27 am 6. Josh Ickes said …
Ruth, if by “telling” you mean “shouting it’s message in your face to the detriment of the entire project” then yeah, it relies on telling too much.
on Oct 07 2008 @ 11:03 am 7. John said …
Just wanted to say thanks Josh, thought about seeing this one. After reading your review I decided to spend that 120 minutes on something else.
Thanks again….and oh yeah, I also enjoyed the Rod Serling reference.
on Oct 10 2008 @ 11:52 am 8. Alexander Coleman said …
A very good review of a horrible movie.
The more I let this movie stew, the more awful it seems. And like John, I did enjoy the Rod Serling reference, as I’m a big fan of his!
on Oct 10 2008 @ 1:46 pm 9. Evan Derrick said …
Yes, this one certainly doesn’t appear to be winning any friends. With films like this, you’ll often see a critic or two rise to the top to champion it, but I haven’t heard so much as a peep. The positive reviews have been mildly shoulder-shrugging positive – no praise is erupting for this one, which is too bad, since I had high hopes for it.
on Oct 11 2008 @ 5:41 pm 10. Matt Gamble said …
I’ll champion it. I loved Blindness, so much so that it will probably be in my top 10 at the end of the year.
It is a modern day equivalent of Lord of the Flies, only replacing children with blindness. It focuses on base instincts and survival during trying times and succeeds magnificently at it IMO.
And the complaints of the message being in your face seem way off base. Sure the film is dark and abhorrent as these people regress into savages, but that isn’t the message of the film, merely the delivery system. The actual message isn’t imparted until the Third Act and hinges upon Danny Glover’s character. And their are no grand monologues in the film, which is one of the things I enjoyed about it. It isn’t telling you how to think, merely showing you terrible situations and allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusion.
And Aronofsky is subtle? Are you guys joking? His films are all melodramas, which toss subtlety out the door before the opening credits roll and use relatively standard plot by numbers stories. Blindness falls in the same category of film, but to say Ellen Burstyn going totally crazy and talking to her fridge from dropping speed is somehow not shoving a moral down your throat is way off base.
on Oct 12 2008 @ 10:24 am 11. Sam Juliano said …
BLINDNESS, the novel encapsulated all the points you pose there Matt. The film was convoluted and a complete violation of the book’s profound context.
I will counter that the film will make the top WORST films of the years list for me. It is even worse than APPALLOOSA to be honest, a movie I know you disdain.
Right now I am celebrating over having seen both RACHEL GETTING MARRIED and HAPPY-GO-LUCKY in the same weeks, two films that will definitely make my own top ten.
For the record, I adore CITY OF GOD and Mr. Meirelles. And I like Matt Gamble a lot and often check out his site.
on Oct 12 2008 @ 6:46 pm 12. Matt Gamble said …
To be fair I haven’t read the book at all, and I have heard nothing but outstanding things about it. I really should track it down.
I’m quite comfortable being in the vast minority over Blindness, probably because I know I’m right.
Also, Appaloossa is terrible. Seriously terrible. Bland story, uninteresting characters, awful dialogue and disasterous voice over make for a truly tepid and turgid Western. Boo!
I’ve also heard very good things about Rachel Getting Married and Happy Go Lucky. I am eagerly anticipating both in the next few weeks.
on Oct 12 2008 @ 6:49 pm 13. Matt Gamble said …
One other point I would like to make is I rather like how sharply divided people are over Blindness. It really seems to be an all or nothing film with viewers.
If you go watch it, and don’t like it within the first 10 minutes, get the hell out and get your money back, because it will only get worse for you from there on out.
on Oct 12 2008 @ 8:19 pm 14. Evan Derrick said …
I’m glad to see someone champion it, Matt. I’ll have to put your points up on the shelf for when I actually come to the film. I’ll be giving it more of a fair shake now then I might have before.
I keep hearing wonderful things about the book, though. I’m wondering if I should read the book before the film or vice versa…I think I’ll read the book after the fact.