Blindness

[Watashi]

Teaser Trailer (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-us&vid=b10fe33d-d3a1-40b8-9bde-b6beb383360f)

Love the premise. Not too stoke about Moore and Constant Gardner was kinda lame.

[Rowland]

Allegory!!!!

I'm not a big Meirelles fan, but I'd like to see this turn out good.

[SirNewt]

Don't we have enough, future gone bad, oh now batten down the hatches and bust out the survival gear, movies. . .

Oh well, it's finally some more Meirelles.

[lovejuice]

Don't we have enough, future gone bad, oh now batten down the hatches and bust out the survival gear, movies. . .


but is any of that based on saramago's novel? ;)

watching the trailer. ummm....no, doesn't quite work for me. if there are novels that're un-adaptable, blindness are among them perhaps.

[Boner M]

Wow, this trailer completely caught me off guard. Suddenly the film's on my radar. Impressive stuff.

Love the cast too. Hopefully this will be Moore's big comeback; she hasn't really done anything of note since Far From Heaven.

[Sven]

"The only thing more terrifying than blindness is being the only one who can see."

I hate that shit.

[[ETM]]

"The only thing more terrifying than blindness is being the only one who can see."

I hate that shit.

Yeah, that was totally a "Oh, man, she's not... aw, she is gonna... yup, here it comes... daaamn." moment.

[Spinal]

"The only thing more terrifying than blindness is being the only one who can see."

I hate that shit.

Why? Thought it was just fine.

Film looks cool. Bernal! Oh! Ruffalo!

[SirNewt]

Why? Thought it was just fine.

Film looks cool. Bernal! Oh! Ruffalo!

Have to agree with Iosos here. Merielles is a very intelligent director. Why is he making a disaster flick.

[Rowland]

Have to agree with Iosos here. Merielles is a very intelligent director. Why is he making a disaster flick.I think he was referring specifically to the line of dialog, not the scenario. I don't see why this should be "below" Meirelles, given that his first two movies had strong genre overtones, his overripe aesthetic is perfect for such material, and many better filmmakers have wrung gold out of hoarier concepts.

[lovejuice]

Have to agree with Iosos here. Merielles is a very intelligent director. Why is he making a disaster flick.

as said this disaster flick is happens to base on a novel by a guy who wins nobel prize. and the novel itself is way awesome. (although i have doubt it will translate into a good movie.) if anything it should be the other way around, why does saramago want his beloved masterpiece -- he actually wrote a sequel -- to be directed by this guy?

sorry, if i sound a bit condescending, but the book is really great, and your casting it of as "a disaster flick" kinda ticks me off.

[SirNewt]

I think he was referring specifically to the line of dialog, not the scenario. I don't see why this should be "below" Meirelles, given that his first two movies had strong genre overtones, his overripe aesthetic is perfect for such material, and many better filmmakers have wrung gold out of hoarier concepts.


as said this disaster flick is happens to base on a novel by a guy who wins nobel prize. and the novel itself is way awesome. (although i have doubt it will translate into a good movie.) if anything it should be the other way around, why does saramago want his beloved masterpiece -- he actually wrote a sequel -- to be directed by this guy?

sorry, if i sound a bit condescending, but the book is really great, and your casting it of as "a disaster flick" kinda ticks me off.

Heh, you guys both make good points. Consider me taken to task.

The film does seem to me to be in a category with, 'I am Legend', 'Night of the Living Dead', 'Children of Men', etc. What I mean is, inexplicable Pandemic strikes the modern world causing the literal and metaphoric decay of society and infrastructure, cue heroic fight for survival. I'm not saying it's the same, it definitely looks like a more intelligent and believable story.

It's not below Mereilles and he'll be very clever about it, of course. I don't know, maybe I feel the time isn't right.

[Sven]

Why? Thought it was just fine.

The movie looked ho-hum-need-to-see-more, but the line I quote was beyond awful. It means nothing.

[Spinal]

The movie looked ho-hum-need-to-see-more, but the line I quote was beyond awful. It means nothing.

I don't understand. It seems quite clear to me. I don't know anything about this movie beyond the trailer, but allegorically, it could be like, for example, 1984. The proles are blind (to their plight). Winston can see and experiences the agony of knowledge. I agree that it is not a revolutionary concept, but I don't know how you can say it is without meaning.

[Sven]

I don't understand. It seems quite clear to me. I don't know anything about this movie beyond the trailer, but allegorically, it could be like, for example, 1984. The proles are blind (to their plight). Winston can see and experiences the agony of knowledge. I agree that it is not a revolutionary concept, but I don't know how you can say it is without meaning.

The idea is not a terrible one--as you point out, agony of knowledge and all that--but the construction of the line is so cliched. We hear platitudinous stuff like this all the time in movies. Bad ones. The occasional good one.

[megladon8]

I still haven't seen City of God...

*cowers*

[number8]

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.

I liked Constant Gardener a lot (meh for City of God), but what the hell? Talk about an obvious allegory.

And that line is like, "The only way we can feel is to crash into one another" bad.

[SirNewt]

The idea is not a terrible one--as you point out, agony of knowledge and all that--but the construction of the line is so cliched. We hear platitudinous stuff like this all the time in movies. Bad ones. The occasional good one.

Yeah, it sounded like the line was written more because it "sounded cool" when read than because it expressed anything.

[[ETM]]

"The only thing more terrifying than a world with no children is being the only one who can get pregnant."

"The only thing more terrifying than being turned into a vampire is being the only one who's immune."

"The only thing more terrifying than German terrorists is being the only one in the building who can stop them."

[Llopin]

Saramago's novel is potent.

I don't know what to make of the trailer, though...seems too americanized.

[KK2.0]

Not a big fan of Constant Gardener here, but I've read Meirelles' production blog for this and i'm curious to watch the results. The trailer is trying to sell it as a 28 Days Later rip-off which is unlikely, or at least i'm hoping it won't be. The film looks like it's gonna be very strange, and Miramax marketing must be trying to grasp for a theme most people will get.


on a useless note, one of the scenes (the one with the empty road) was shot a few blocks from my apartment in Sao Paulo. You don't even need a lot of special fx to make it look post-apocaliptic... :P

[SirNewt]

Not a big fan of Constant Gardener here, but I've read Meirelles' production blog for this and i'm curious to watch the results. The trailer is trying to sell it as a 28 Days Later rip-off which is unlikely, or at least i'm hoping it won't be. The film looks like it's gonna be very strange, and Miramax marketing must be trying to grasp for a theme most people will get.


on a useless note, one of the scenes (the one with the empty road) was shot a few blocks from my apartment in Sao Paulo. You don't even need a lot of special fx to make it look post-apocaliptic... :P

Thank you for validating my position. It may be a great film and it might not be a post apocalyptic tale of survival but the trailer sells it as such. I'm very interested to see how this turns out.

[KK2.0]

I'm reading his diaries again, and there's a bit where he comments on the troubles of shooting a city crowded with blind people: "extras aren't only there to fill the screen, they'll need to act like blind people and i'm worried they'll start walking with their hands in front of them, and turn this into a zombie movie."^^

He asked his "actors coach" (dunno what's the correct english term for this) to train every single extra to act like a blind person, not only to pretend they're blind. The descriptions of the blind workshops are very cool, even Meirelles himself tried, unfortunately his blog is only in Portuguese.

[SirNewt]

I'm reading his diaries again, and there's a bit where he comments on the troubles of shooting a city crowded with blind people: "extras aren't only there to fill the screen, they'll need to act like blind people and i'm worried they'll start walking with their hands in front of them, and turn this into a zombie movie."^^

He asked his "actors coach" (dunno what's the correct english term for this) to train every single extra to act like a blind person, not only to pretend they're blind. The descriptions of the blind workshops are very cool, even Meirelles himself tried, unfortunately his blog is only in Portuguese.

Well, I have to say that if suddenly millions of people turned blind that's exactly what they'd be doing.

[lovejuice]

"extras aren't only there to fill the screen, they'll need to act like blind people and i'm worried they'll start walking with their hands in front of them, and turn this into a zombie movie."^^

cool. :lol:

some books are not meant to be translated on screen. when i read his dark material, i think how cool it will be for every person to have an animal by his or her side. the movie proves visually it's messy. there is a scene in a conference room where every attendee has his/her own daemon, and boy! that just doesn't work.

[Ezee E]

New trailer out.

They may have overdone the washing out effect, but I think it looks good.

[Sycophant]

Saw a trailer for this in front of Wanted last week. Might have been a tad too spoilerific, but I liked what I saw.

[Qrazy]

Hate to burst the bubble folks but the feedback for this one so far has been beyond awful. *tear*

Apparently the average rating for it at Cannes was like a 1.3/4... but that's just hearsay.

Some reviews...

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117937131&cs=1

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/14/cannes-review-blindness/


Then again... Saramago's reaction to the film.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jose-Saramagos-reaction-after-premiere-at-Cannes-2008

Moving.

[Ezee E]

Hate to burst the bubble folks but the feedback for this one so far has been beyond awful. *tear*

Apparently the average rating for it at Cannes was like a 1.3/4... but that's just hearsay.

Some reviews...

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117937131&cs=1

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/14/cannes-review-blindness/


Then again... Saramago's reaction to the film.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jose-Saramagos-reaction-after-premiere-at-Cannes-2008

Moving.

There's a few raves out there too, the preview highlights them.

[Ezee E]

Screw the critics, this movie had quite the effect on me. A survival movie? Yes it is, but this is the first time where it was quite unnerving to see humanity stripped of everything and become animals. I'm more optimistic, and don't think it'd exactly go that route that quickly. The prison in general makes no logical sense at all, but that isn't the point of the film. The allegory is obvious, but realized.

Technically, the movie is accomplished in its acting, masterful art direction, and a fascinating score.

I have a feeling this movie might be one of the first to generate some awesome discussion if it gets seen.

[Ezee E]

I'm going to get Rowland up in here and post a quote that I liked from the San Francisco Chronicle regarding the movie:


At times almost unbearably ugly, but by the time you walk out of the theater, you know you've seen something.

I also like the line about the reuniting of family as the hope for humanity.

[Raiders]

I can recognize there is formal skill involved, but jeez was that excruciating to sit through. I knew I was in for it with lines like "I don't think we went blind, I think we always were." You need to make sure Paul Haggis didn't have a hand in this screenplay.

[Ezee E]

I can recognize there is formal skill involved, but jeez was that excruciating to sit through. I knew I was in for it with lines like "I don't think we went blind, I think we always were." You need to make sure Paul Haggis didn't have a hand in this screenplay.
That doesn't make much sense. Sure, people were pretty angry and thieves before it all started, but once the epidemic started, it all went to hell.

I don't even remember that line to be honest.

[Raiders]

That doesn't make much sense. Sure, people were pretty angry and thieves before it all started, but once the epidemic started, it all went to hell.

I don't even remember that line to be honest.

Yeah, don't think it was. In my rush to find a flippant dismissal, I just used an internet quote. Most of it sort of ran together as obvious thematic sledge-hammering. Sorry for the confusion.

Truth be told, I tuned out most of it. I found it rather funny that Glover's character has an eye patch and gives the sort of "seeing eye" thoughts. By funny I mean sad.

[Raiders]

In order to rectify, I'll give some more thoughts at some point. I am very interested in what others think. It can certainly pack a visceral punch, but I was just numbed and bored, quite frankly.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, don't think it was. In my rush to find a flippant dismissal, I just used an internet quote. Most of it sort of ran together as obvious thematic sledge-hammering. Sorry for the confusion.

Truth be told, I tuned out most of it. I found it rather funny that Glover's character has an eye patch and gives the sort of "seeing eye" thoughts. By funny I mean sad.
I can't really argue back about Glover's character, just that he was fulfilling whatever the book had set out for him. He seemed like such a small role that I hardly even noticed him except for his descriptions of how the epidemic got outside the wards.

At least you acknowledge the visceral punch of the movie. These types of movies tend to have people loving it or hating it. I much prefer that then a completely "meh" film. I just hope there's a few others that at least see it.

[Watashi]

Seriously, E? What the fuck?

This is quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen.

[Stay Puft]

Well, I don't get the hate. I'm not about to defend the film (or maybe I am?). It hardly moved me. But to posit it as an object of such derision... well, I suppose I just don't see the big deal.

Some of the criticism I have read seems generalized or hyperbolic. We can talk about the style: "It is over exposed, out of focus." Well, barely. (See D'Angelo's review, he misses the point.) The film begins with such visual strategies as a way of adjusting the viewer, inviting him or her into the picture - they hardly seem over used. It is a rhetorical device, if you will, a sympathetic appeal, culminating in a dramatic seperation/reunion - I refer, of course, to the Japanese couple (they open and close the first movement of the film). And beyond here the strategy shifts again.

What strikes me about the majority of the film (the scenes within the compound) is how it is so visually and dramatically unimpressive. The plotting is brisk, and the focus specific and clear, and of course it is, now we are with Julianne Moore's character - we see because she does. But every detail that attempts to punctuate the disgusting conditions of the compound is forced. It is visually didactic. There is a news montage with narrated exposition - a complete waste of time - and the style for the majority of the film is no less laborious. There is no style. The first orgy in ward three is the only time Meirelles seemed awake behind the camera. Let's talk about style: not whether or not Meirelles lacked imagination in employing those early visual strategies to acclimate the viewer, which function as they should, but how the entire project lacks imagination.

Okay, E, so you said, "The allegory is obvious, but realized." There is a transition in your statement. The allegory is obvious (a problem, or is it?). But it is realized (and is that enough?). The narrative is predictable - or should I say obvious? - in that it hits every cautionary note you expect, with every didactic detail you expect. But it seems to me that it is so obsessed with "seeing clearly" that it mistakes its laboriousness - a kind of visual neutrality - for truth. And so, again, I suggest the entire project lacks imagination. The Japanese couple being reunited is a wonderful moment. Only when the film loses focus, when it doesn't "see clearly," does it feel alive, does it find a kind of truth. Ironically, it is here the film speaks clearly - it is otherwise perfunctory, built on an appeal to literary and visual tradition, prejudice and authority.


I also like the line about the reuniting of family as the hope for humanity.

I love some of those closing scenes (if it isn't obvious, I think the film is only interesting when its horizon stretches beyond the walls of the compound). The image of the family together was perhaps, for myself anyways, the only touching moment in the whole film. I liked it because it is a transfiguration. It is an extended social family, and the child is without biological parents. Also:

there is no jealousy after the adulterous moment - there is rather understanding, and she is accepted into the family.

Perhaps I am being too symapthetic in my reading, but there are hints here of a possible future or way of living that I find appealing. Not too sure how I feel about the ending itself - but anyways, I also care so little. It is well made, perhaps technically proficient, or whatever, whatever that means or is worth... perhaps we don't want to argue that it is poorly made (what ever is, in the studio system?). I also agree that is has an excellent score, perhaps the strongest aspect of the film.

Am I making any sense? I suppose it might be hard to when one is confronted with such ambivalence. I'm finding it to be a frequent experience these days. I spend $4.75 or something like that for a movie ticket on cheap night. I saw a movie. It was a movie. The end.

[Watashi]

I saw a movie. It was a movie. The end.

Forget "movies are boring". This needs to be your new signature.

[Stay Puft]

All for you, Wats.

[Ezee E]

Seriously, E? What the fuck?

This is quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen.
why?

[Ezee E]

why?
The allegory being obvious isn't a problem to me. Allegory should be obvious, it's suppose to be literal. I just see some people not liking it for that reason.

As for the narrative being predictable, I disagree. I knew that the society would collapse, yes, but what I didn't know was how it would react afterwards. Would they come together or would it all be over for human nature? I found it riveting, scary, and remained involved the whole time, even if I was disturbed.

[origami_mustache]

afterward the guy next to me said "that was the gayest movie I've ever seen." I really don't know what's up with all the hate.

I feel this is an example of a mediocre script that a great director made into something important.

[KK2.0]

I thought it was strong, well shot and acted, specially Ruffalo and Moore. Probably one of my favorite apocalypse-movies when it comes to show how low humanity can sink in times like these. Never read Saramago's book.

the "woman`s march" (you know what i mean) is easily one of my favorite scenes of the year.

I agree that the film's score is fantastic, odd and disconcerting, and i also agree that the use of stylistc out-of-focus and light\dark to recreate the sensorial confusion of blindness didn't feel overdone, but are gimmicks and i remember similar criticisms to Le Scaphandre et le Papillon, which i also liked. However, i do like my movies to be visually quirky so, take it as you wish.

Maybe some critics do focus too much on the negative, all i know is that i was sucessfully disturbed, tense, moved and interested in the main characters' journey.

[Silencio]

It's a one-dimensional, tonally confused, directionless descent into unpleasantness. The greatest of post-apocalyptic films retain a sense of humanity and authenticity, even in the most dystopian settings imaginable, but Blindness only cares to revolt and alienate you in the most manipulative of ways. It bogs itself down with human nature politics that it doesn't explore to any circumstantial degree. Anything and everything it has to "say" is blatantly presented to the audience without any contemplation. All the events in the "prison" are so forced, heavy-handed, and simplified, and once they get out, the film just aimlessly drifts until Danny Glover's oh-so-convenient voice-over decides to wrap things up neatly for us.

I haven't read Saramago's novel, but whatever allegory this story presents is completely lost in Meirelles' over-edited and over-stylized mess. After all their hardship, the characters come to learn that through their disability, they were able to let go of prejudices and came together to help one another. If their vision returns, will they go back to their own alienated, self-conscious ways? It's a question Blindness ponders too little, too late.

[Watashi]

The score is terrible. It's all over the place. It doesn't have any interesting cues. Too uneven to be experimental and too frantic to be memorable.

[Ezee E]

The Women's March is the standout scene to me in the movie. Everything built up to that particular scene, and any moments of doubt I had in that movie were lost by that point. I was totally enraptured by then.

Silencio, you say everything is obvious, forced, and blatantly presented but you don't see the allegory. I don't understand. Allegory should be obvious shouldn't it? Allegory doesn't work if it's subtle in my mind.

The score works in the context of the movie. I can't say I remember it, as it certainly is frantic, but I do remember liking it as it was playing during the movie for the same reason as the eerie notes that played in Dark Knight.

[origami_mustache]

I actually didn't like the score much. It worked in some scenes, but not so much in others. I felt there was an awkward energy at times, and a better score could have helped this immensely. I would have liked it to be a little more experimental considering the way it was shot. I’m not sure why this film is being so poorly received. I personally thought it was just a few missteps away from brilliance. The cinematography is amazing, although I can understand some viewing it as annoying as things are often blurred and obscured. I suppose people are most likely complaining about the unexplained blindness phenomenon and other logistic matters, but these same critics are perfectly content with Hitchcock’s lame ass birds attacking people for no apparent reason. The fact is the film is more than just the vague premise. Like the trailer says “this is bold filmmaking.” It touches on a lot of universal social issues and basic emotions. The script in fact could have been done in a more trivial mainstream fashion and probably been more marketable, but Meirelles turns this film into something important. Blindness captures the entire spectrum of the human condition. It explores the darkest and most desperate, despicable behavior as well as love, pity, and compassion, as the characters fight for survival; something that is seemingly becoming more relevant considering the current conditions in the world.

I will agree with Silencio that Glover's voice over's were annoying and the ending dragged of for a bit too long. There were some other miscues with bad dialogue and a few other problems, but it was easy for me to overlook these things. The most forced scene was when the guy mistook Bernal's voice for an African American and used resorted to blatant racism, but I didn't feel there was an excess of this sort of thing. To me, complaining about the stylization makes absolutely no sense. I suppose this film could have been dull, obvious, forced, and all of the other complaints I've heard if it were directed by someone less capable who decided not to utilize the medium to their advantage, but instead Meirelles takes risks, keeps you on your toes, and makes things a lot less predictable than they could have been.
I also agree with Ezee on the Women's March scene...this was about the point where I lost skepticism and began to fully embrace the film.

[eternity]

Too bad this is going to be out of theaters before I get any chance to catch it, if it's not already out of my theater. This mass division among the film community along with the film's premise and what I have read by both sides makes me think that I am going to love the hell out of it.

[KK2.0]

The greatest of post-apocalyptic films retain a sense of humanity and authenticity, even in the most dystopian settings imaginable...

I didn't get this statement because what stood out to me were exactly the broad spectrum of human condition the characters have to endure, from the worst to the best.

I've been reading some reviews now, and noticed lots of complaints about the film's aspects that i've found to be my favorites, like the sensorial chaos, the uglyness and so forth.

I feel alone.

[Ezee E]

I didn't get this statement because what stood out to me were exactly the broad spectrum of human condition the characters have to endure, from the worst to the best.

I've been reading some reviews now, and noticed lots of complaints about the film's aspects that i've found to be my favorites, like the sensorial chaos, the uglyness and so forth.

I feel alone.
I'm not sure what people were looking for in this one.

[Mysterious Dude]

First The Happening and now this. 2008 has not been a good year for apocalyptic films.

[eternity]

First The Happening and now this. 2008 has not been a good year for apocalyptic films.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9585/hamlet2me7.gif

[Beau]

I wrote this (http://www.halo-17.net/articles/index/Film+Review/Blindness/12090). I'm in a strange camp of sorts, since I very well understand all the complaints, except I feel the "over-stylization" serves to bring us closer to the protagonist, which was immensely appealing. The script and dialogue are mediocre, but this movie's mostly visual anyhow, concerned with immersion and feeling as communicated through the aesthetic.

[KK2.0]

good write Beau, i don't think the film is a masterpiece but it was very effective with me, perhaps i'm a more of an emotional than analytical viewer.


First The Happening and now this. 2008 has not been a good year for apocalyptic films.

Avoided The Happening here. Glad i didn't do the same with this one. :P

[trotchky]

It's blunt, but it has a point. Anyway, Julianne Moore makes it worth seeing.

[Ezee E]

Going to rewatch this this week. See if I just happened to be insane the time I saw it.

[origami_mustache]

Going to rewatch this this week. See if I just happened to be insane the time I saw it.

haha I am considering doing the same.

[Ezee E]

Didn't love it as much as the first time as it loses some of its visceral punch the second time around, but it's still very good.

[chrisnu]

It's blunt, but it has a point. Anyway, Julianne Moore makes it worth seeing.
I agree. I think that a good deal of one's estimation of the film depends on whether the payoff in the final 30 minutes justifies the film's conceit. If you don't think so, I think it can become easy to nitpick contrivances and overt symbolism. I don't think that just because the symbolism is overt (it doesn't get more plain-face than the dogs) means that it's bad, per se. For me, Julianne Moore, the editing, and the music sold that moment for me. I think that enduring the desolate ugliness of the first 80 minutes creates a potent bond between the members of the 'family', something that runs deeper than the superficial associations they may have had in the real world. With the way the film ends, I just wonder whether I think the film did enough.

"I saw a movie. It was a movie. The end" seems like an appropriate reaction to this, and yet I'm still glad that I sought it out.

[RoadtoPerdition]

I guess I'm a little late on this discussion, but I wanted to weigh in. I had high hopes for this one. Great cast, great director, interesting premise. I think the film tried to be ambitious, but it just didn't work for me. I would classify this as one of those all-style-no-substance type of movies. It also feels like the film climaxed too early (Julianne Moore's retaliation in the prison) and the ending just seemed to drop off. For some movies, these types of quick endings work; however, I didn't feel it worked for this one. One person starts seeing again, 20 seconds later the credits roll. Really?
One of the things that I think made me lose interest was that I didn't have any kind of connection with the characters. I liked Ruffalo's character and he seemed to be the main protagonist, but then they switch to mainly featuring Julianne Moore's character as if she is the main protagonist and it made it feel like a different movie emotionally for me.

It felt like the only worthwhile parts of the movie were the events surrounding the abuse of the women in the prison, which amounted to what, 10 minutes of screen time? Everything else just seemed unimportant and pointless. I wouldn't say it's a horrible movie, but just disappointing considering the talent involved and one that I could've lived without seeing. It's frustrating for me when filmmakers try to make something "artsy" without the substance to support the art.