Cannes 2008: Review - Blindness
Our verdict on the opening-night film from Fernando Meirelles
Following up The Constant Gardener, an intellectually-stimulating thriller based on a John le Carre novel, with Blindness, a post-apocalyptic tale of a world in which people (as the title might suggest) turn suddenly blind, would seem like an odd change in tone for director Fernando Meirelles. Remember however his break into English-language film was with 2002's similarly diverse effort City of God - If Blindness confirms anything, it's that this is a director not content to repeat himself.
Mark Ruffalo is an eye doctor who encounters a patient with a strange condition - he can see nothing but bright, white light, even though there's nothing physically wrong with his eyes. It's not long before the doctor finds himself unable to see and very quickly a chain of people around him begin to go blind. With the government keen on containment, the victims are quarantined in an old, decrepit hospital and cut off completely from the outside world. Things soon start to deteriorate as the blind struggle to live in the unfamiliar environment.
The exception is Julianne Moore as the doctor's wife. She's immune to the affliction and finds herself playing nursemaid to her husband from within the facility. But as the victims start forming packs and becoming more violent, standards of human decency slip and life becomes harder within the group.
Like most post-apocalyptic movies, Blindness delivers a rabid, dirty, oversaturated universe and then lets a group of morally bankrupt characters run amok. The premise is a fascinating one, but Meirelles never pulls back and lets us see the carnage wrecked by the freak illness on the wider world. As the film unspools because it becomes clear that we're going to spend more time with the main players than with the universe as a whole. Characters come and go but we stay with a core group and actually never learn much about them beyond their needs in the moment of any particular scene. Even their names are generic - the Doctor, the Doctor's Wife, the First Blind Man - just as the city they inhabit is unidentifiable but probably American. You spend most of the film in the company of a set of disconcertingly vague archetypes - characters with not enough, well, character, to make us care about them.
Meirelles certainly goes to great lengths to nightmarish vision of the future, though his world does kind of resemble a zombified version of Children of Men, as characters wander aimlessly through grey corridors with their arms stretched out in front of them. Touches of visual genius do remain, particularly when the director is exploring the idea of blindness - at one point the reflection of a white sky on a car window inhibits our vision of the scene, while at another a boy shuffles down a corridor before bumping into a table that appears as soon as he hits it - though these fantastic touches do leave you yearning for more. Indeed at certain points you almost forget the characters are blind.
Ultimately, Blindness is a brave attempt from this ever-versatile director at creating an intelligent, original sci-fi thriller that, sadly, never quite comes together. There is entertainment to be had in spite of its flaws - though as Danny Glover's philosophical narration starts to kick in you begin to wish the film provided the sort of impact his words allude to - and strong performances from Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and Gael Garcia Bernal do as much for the characterisation as the script allows. But, as the credits roll, frustration and indeed bafflement linger in the mind, as you wonder how a project with such a strong central conceit and fantastic array of talent failed to deliver anything more fascinating than a visually arresting, but shallow and somewhat derivative entry in the post-apocalyptic sub-genre.
Mark Ruffalo is an eye doctor who encounters a patient with a strange condition - he can see nothing but bright, white light, even though there's nothing physically wrong with his eyes. It's not long before the doctor finds himself unable to see and very quickly a chain of people around him begin to go blind. With the government keen on containment, the victims are quarantined in an old, decrepit hospital and cut off completely from the outside world. Things soon start to deteriorate as the blind struggle to live in the unfamiliar environment.
The exception is Julianne Moore as the doctor's wife. She's immune to the affliction and finds herself playing nursemaid to her husband from within the facility. But as the victims start forming packs and becoming more violent, standards of human decency slip and life becomes harder within the group.

Like most post-apocalyptic movies, Blindness delivers a rabid, dirty, oversaturated universe and then lets a group of morally bankrupt characters run amok. The premise is a fascinating one, but Meirelles never pulls back and lets us see the carnage wrecked by the freak illness on the wider world. As the film unspools because it becomes clear that we're going to spend more time with the main players than with the universe as a whole. Characters come and go but we stay with a core group and actually never learn much about them beyond their needs in the moment of any particular scene. Even their names are generic - the Doctor, the Doctor's Wife, the First Blind Man - just as the city they inhabit is unidentifiable but probably American. You spend most of the film in the company of a set of disconcertingly vague archetypes - characters with not enough, well, character, to make us care about them.
Meirelles certainly goes to great lengths to nightmarish vision of the future, though his world does kind of resemble a zombified version of Children of Men, as characters wander aimlessly through grey corridors with their arms stretched out in front of them. Touches of visual genius do remain, particularly when the director is exploring the idea of blindness - at one point the reflection of a white sky on a car window inhibits our vision of the scene, while at another a boy shuffles down a corridor before bumping into a table that appears as soon as he hits it - though these fantastic touches do leave you yearning for more. Indeed at certain points you almost forget the characters are blind.
Ultimately, Blindness is a brave attempt from this ever-versatile director at creating an intelligent, original sci-fi thriller that, sadly, never quite comes together. There is entertainment to be had in spite of its flaws - though as Danny Glover's philosophical narration starts to kick in you begin to wish the film provided the sort of impact his words allude to - and strong performances from Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and Gael Garcia Bernal do as much for the characterisation as the script allows. But, as the credits roll, frustration and indeed bafflement linger in the mind, as you wonder how a project with such a strong central conceit and fantastic array of talent failed to deliver anything more fascinating than a visually arresting, but shallow and somewhat derivative entry in the post-apocalyptic sub-genre.
Related Items
| Movie: | Blindness |
| Celeb: | Fernando Meirelles |
|
chachito writes: on May 14 2008 07:26 AM Is there a reason Joe Utichi mentions the author of the banal Constant Gardener but not the author of Blindness? Or even the fact that this movie is based on the book by Jose Saramago? A very curious and unfortunate ommission. (Reply to this) |
|
unbreakable_samurai writes: on May 14 2008 08:35 AM This is about what I was afraid the film would turn out like. I really like the cast and was hoping this would be good, but I have no faith in Meirelles after the very over rated Constant Gardener. (Reply to this) |
|
liantener writes: on May 14 2008 08:47 AM Jose Saramago's novel doesn't identify characters by name and it doesn't concerns with what is happening outside this world. In fact, the blindness plague only occurred in a small area. The whole idea is to show human behavior, not to show an apocalyptic event. (Reply to this) |
|
dahluzz writes: on May 14 2008 09:14 AM yeah good point about the lack of notation on the fact that this is again based on pre-existing source material (just like his last two films). i can't say i thought 'constant gardener' was overrated. it was a pretty gripping mystery with great performances and excellent cinematography. though, it can't measure up to 'city of god,' which is one of the best foreign language films i've ever seen. that movie is amazing. when i saw the 'blindness' trailer last week, i was super excited for it. more because of meirelles' previous movies than because of the premise (which seemed to have potential, but didn't wow me initially). what was said here works to confirm some of my fears, the main one being that a bunch of blind characters would get boring after a while. i'm not casting the movie out by any means, but my excitement level is down from high to normal. (Reply to this) |
|
Joe Utichi writes: on May 15 2008 06:54 AM I'm well aware of the fact it's based on Saramago's novel, but if its conceit affects the film the criticism has, really, be be leveled at the film. I haven't read the novel, but for me, the idea that none of the characters were named detracted from the audience's ability to engage with them and ultimately left the film feeling flat. It may work differently in the book. (Reply to this) |
|
Wakka writes: on May 22 2008 04:44 AM Blindness was mostly filmed in São Paulo, Brazil. (Reply to this) |
|
Dionei writes: on Jul 30 2008 05:41 PM Very well said Liantener. The beauty of the book is to show the blindness as a metaphorical example (sorry for killing the metaphor here...) for how quickly people lose their behavior when they aren't "seen" things anymore... The intension of the book, as well as the movie, I imagine, is not to show destroyed cities or famous streets emptied by CGI effects, like I Am Legend or Children of Man have done. Even though I know movies and literature are different ways of telling stories, I really hope that for those who have read the book (specially in portuguese, the language of the author, José Saramago) the film makes more sense... (Reply to this) |
|
Bruce Campbell's Ghost writes: on Aug 21 2008 06:43 PM Joe seems to have more of a problem with Saramago's novel, which has been generally recognized by critics and readers alike as being brilliant and profound. All of his criticisms are about plot points and Saramago's decisions to tell an allegorical story. I doubt Joe is even familiar with the source material, which is pretty sad in itself. There are reasons why Saramago doesn't provide names of cities or characters. Perhaps Joe should a) pick up the book, and b) take a lit class, before he trashes another movie based on a novel. (Reply to this) |
|
alex w. writes: on Mar 26 2009 05:45 PM In reply to this comment (#1735975) well, Joe, no one is specifically named in the also-post-apolyptic novel, (and soon to be released as movie) the road, by...by....whoever he is....characters are named as "the boy", "the man", the wife....(the cannibals, etc.) and if you want a more encompassing view (this IS a visual medium) of world devastation, it proceeds in the book from burned out mile to mile, all the way to the (also burned out) pacific....frankly, I would want it also; and this is no confined epidemic, guards vanish in the book along with the rest of the world and its' vision....i HAVE read a translation of Saramago's novel, and I found it no better in translation than very good....it is also very introverted, and it is always tough to convert introspective meditations into a visually arresting movie (a visually arresting movie about what it is like to be visually arrested....i decline to pursue that). as blindness came and went with virtually no comment, i assumed it was a bust, but the review is a useful confirmation. by the way, s throws it in at the finish of the book (the MORAL of the book, obviously, as this is a morality play) that his unusual defect of vision is intended as an allegory of universal moral blindness, and i am guessing the movie never ties that in at all. a good move, if so, as that parallel should be obvious anyway. ciao. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |






