The film finally opened this weekend in a fairly wide release. Previously, Mike saw the rough cut, Marina saw and Kurt saw the theatrical cut. Are you going to wade through the sea of releases this weekend to brave Blindness? There has been wide critical and audience splitting on this one, and I think this might be the right film to simply have a post open up for discussion (rather than commentary split across the individual reviews). Part of me sees this high-profile production as much as the ‘prequel’ to The Road, as anything else. It certainly gets me stoked up for that upcoming post apocalyptic prestige project. Have at it. This is your **SPOILER** signpost, anything goes in the comments.
Related:
Typecasting Ms. Moore
Saramango Responds to Blindness in Cannes
Blindness Trailer
This discussion currently has 40 responses.
I’m going to assign him a -3 for not directly cutting and...
October 4, 2008
The narratives at play, some more obvious than others, make for a subtle complexity.
A sex-trade worker sacrifices her seemingly less than existent worth for the welfare of others.
Perhaps, after her tireless efforts of selflessness in a circumstance of unrelenting selfishness, Moore unconsciously blinded herself.
The trailer and the opening scene suggest the film is far more Orwellian than it actually is.
More at: http://winstoninwonderlandart.blogspot.com/2008/10/blindness-2008-julianne-moore-mark.html
October 5, 2008
Sad and disturbing that Beverly Hills Chihuahua makes more than 10x the B.O.$$ that Blindness does on opening weekend.
The Idiocracy doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to midnight.
Did no one bother to see this film this weekend?
October 5, 2008
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see this, but I better hurry up and try since it only made $2 million on 1,600 screens. I don’t feel an urgency though, even though I’ve heard some great things. Just something about the trailer turned me off from the getgo, and I know I’m not the only one who felt this way, although I cannot tell you exactly why I do.
And not to turn this into a box office discussion, but I’m surprised “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” debuted at #19 with $1.4 million, an embarrassing $800 per theatre. Ouch. That is going to close some doors for Mr. Pegg (although maybe closing doors for these type of Hollywood-driven flicks might not be a bad thing for him).
October 5, 2008
I would have thought Kurt, if any movie seemed it would make money this weekend, it wouldve been Nick and Norah
“Sad and disturbing that Beverly Hills Chihuahua makes more than 10x the B.O.$$ that Blindness does on opening weekend.”
There’s a pretty simple explanation. This is the first heavily hyped childrens film to come out in a good number of weeks. Whenever that happens, the movie makes money.
October 5, 2008
Goon, agreed that it is a bit reductive. However, when watching the gag-able trailer for Chihuahua, I wasn’t exactly sure what the audience it was for. It didn’t quite seem like a kids movie, and was pretty dreadful in the consumerist/fame/celebrity pandering. Really a movie that could only be produced by our culture at this time.
At the same time, Blindness is sort of an after-the-zeitgeist film (post 28 Weeks Later for that matter) that one would think might grab the adult audience and get them to the cinema. Perhaps not. The bad reviews may have scared the audience away. Too bad, it’s a very, very solid film, one of my favourites of the year so far.
October 5, 2008
“I wasn’t exactly sure what the audience it was for. ”
I knew it would make money. For better or worse the trailer was memorable, childrens movies are critic proof, there actually WERE laughs at its showing, its trailer was heavily featured before Disney/Pixar’s big summer movie, and unlike Igor, its followup TV campaign was prominent. It took its cues from the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie in how to take care of itself, and it made money. Just because its a shitty movie doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge it did what it had to do to put asses in seats.
“At the same time, Blindness is sort of an after-the-zeitgeist film (post 28 Weeks Later for that matter) that one would think might grab the adult audience and get them to the cinema.”
Well one, most of the reviews out there are leftovers from the less popular early cut so it wasn’t going to get a lot of people who count on that sort of thing, and number two, I don’t think the trailer was very good. At all. The only thing that had me considering it was that Mereilles made it, as “city of god” is one of my favorites. Your review makes me more hopeful, but I’d have to have a lot more word of mouth to convince me.
October 5, 2008
Time may catch back up with Blindness, but for the moment there is indeed going to be some ‘version’ confusion with the aggregator websites.
The laughs at the Chihuahua trailer were usually from 20-something women, at least the movies I saw it in front of. That may have been why I was thinking they were going for the ‘legally blonde’ demo.
October 5, 2008
**SPOILER**
*** You heard me, spoilers, go away****
*****************************************
*****************************************
Well I can only speak of the version I saw, which was the very first, which had voice over by Danny Glover’s character and which I thought worked because by the end his story arc was perhaps the most interesting to me. In my version there was this great brief romance between him and this other woman, and he talked about being the happiest he had ever been and was glad to be blind, because everyone was really seeing each other for what they were, rather than limiting to superficialities of image. This of course has similarities to online alternate lives, the idea of being a part of the world taken on the content of your mind and not so easily framed by the context of your appearance. For me this third act development with Glover’s character really got to the heart of the whole story, because the second sight is returned you see him reduced to appearance once again and shunned.
That said, I loved how the film ends, with Julianne Moore’s character going blind, as everyone regains their sight. I interpret this as a reveal of the whole allegorical context of the film, that what we have been watching was a fantastical projection of a blind person situating herself in a scenario of inverse reality, where she becomes the leader over the helpless masses, where she lives out a fantasy of being empowered in the way she wants to be, and after the fantasy wears itself out to a point of stasis, reality re-emerges. It need not be so literal as that, and in fact I think it can be looked at as purely an allegory of this sort of role reversal being played out, but I think the interpretation does work. I have not read the book and am not sure if it proves or disproves this interpretation.
Perhaps the voice-over was taken out to give more focus to Julianne Moore as the center of the story.
October 5, 2008
Well I watched How to Lose Friends and Appaloosa this weekend, because I watched Blindness last week. Boom! Always one step ahead of you Kurt.
I must say I enjoyed the film quite a bit, and the cinematography is absolutely stellar. I know I told everyone I could to go see it, and hopefully it at least gains some cult status when it inevitably gets rushed off to DVD.
October 5, 2008
Matt. One Step Forward, two steps back.
****SPOILER TERRITORY****
And weird that in my version of the film I seriously can’t recall Moore’s character going blind at the end of the movie, everyone just simply recovers, THE END. I didn’t like that ending so much, because it sort of made a lot of what happened to be ‘in vain’ in a way, but then again, a lot of the human experience is in vain, so maybe that is OK too.
The Danny Glover arc of ‘happiest being blind’ was in my version though, and I liked his character. There was no Glover voice-over in what I saw.
I plan on seeing this one again in the theatre before it leaves.
October 6, 2008
**SPOILER**
*** You heard me, spoilers, go away****
*****************************************
*****************************************
That is crazy, and I think you would remember a plot point like that if it happened. Julianne Moore walks over to the window, there is a bunch of jump cuts one of which is a church in the distance, things start fading away, and the there is a close-up of Moore’s face and she says something like ‘I’m Blind’, and the credits roll. I was in a focus group for the film and there were so many walk-outs, I’m guessing a lot of these fools found the ending confusing and put it down as something to cut and they followed the focus group… that is insane, I loved that ending.
October 6, 2008
Yea, I think I’d remember that. And I think I’d remember Glover’s voice-over if it were there. Sounds like two major changes to the film in the ensuing time. I’m definitely going to go again and check it out. The film certainly can use the business.
October 6, 2008
***SPOLIER***
I caught the film this weekend as well. The ending you speak of, rot, not only wasn’t there, but they tried pulling a fast one on us. It was seemingly being set up that Julianne Moore was going to go blind; she walked onto the terrace to look out over the city, and as she did so, everything went ‘white’. Just then, the camera pans down to reveal she was just looking up at some grey-white clouds. Her sight remained intact. Close up…Music swells…End credits.
The only voice-over I can recall is when Danny Glover was telling everyone in the 1st ward what heppened when the blindness spread, the story of which he had heard on his radio (since the residents of the 1st ward were among the very first to ‘go blind’, they didn’t realize how quickly the sickness was spreading, and what effect it was having on society at large). This lasts for about 3-4 minutes, maybe 5 at the most. Other than that, I don’t recall any voice-over narration.
Aside from the above (I also felt a bit let down by the ending), I really liked the film, and it currently sits among my favorites of 2008 as well. The way they introduced each new batch of ‘infected’ into the story was handled extremely well (the pharmacy cashier who had been infected when the prostitute paid for her medicine at his register, the taxi cab driver who had driven the 1st victim to the hospital, the receptionist at the eye clinic, the 1st victim’s wife, etc). In a sense, the ‘Blindness’ was creating a society where none could have existed before. On the outside, these people would have had little time for each other (not only did the pprostitute infect the cashier, but she also insulted him when he tried to make small-talk with her at his register). The various wards became, in essence, small governments as a result of thier forced interaction, and functioned as such throughout the film (when Julianne Moore strikes back at the ‘King of Ward 3′, her husband tells her that she’s just started a war…not that she’s caused trouble, or opened them up to inevitable retaliation. No, as far as they were all concerned, this was going to lead to war).
Along with the communal interactions, the film was also very successful at exploring personal interactions as well. Julianne Moore’s husband (who, I should point out, was expertly played by Mark Ruffalo) having sex with the prostitute had little to do with sexual desire; seeing as his wife, the only one who could still see, was functioning as his caretaker, he wanted to experience being with a woman who was on his same level (ie, ‘Blind’). Before the blindness took hold, I got the sense that Ruffalo was the one taking care of Moore, who seemed to me a bit flighty in her early scenes. Remembering how things used to be, he had a difficult time accepting that their roles had been reversed. This is just one example among many.
I certainly hope Blindness finds its audience; this is a really terrific film.
October 6, 2008
That is definitely the version that I saw Dave, glad that I wasn’t er, blind, (!)
And yes, this version is pretty darn good. I liked it as well.
October 6, 2008
Man I need to go see this film again, I am getting the sense there are some serious changes… the Danny Glover voice-over was pretty prominent in my cut, I am thinking at least five different quite beautifully poetics observations about blindness came from him… so did they scrap the voice-over about how blindness removes inhibition… I remember it was going on as Glover is outside on the ground outside the ward, I forget how it was worded but it was a great little description of the phenomena.
Why would they take out Julianne Moore going blind? Marina, tell me that is in the book. That made the film for me.
Also Dave your observation of Ruffalo being the one taking care of Moore’’s character, again it subtlely plays into this notion of her as one being taken care of, the burden of blindness playing into that, and the rest of the film is an extended re-imagining with her in a role of authority… all of the sexual violence in the film, everything is about power, about overcoming helplessness, it has an emotional core to it that could be construed as the projection of her inner life, her inner longing. Of being a victim and then overcoming it, I mean even in the scenario where she is not the blind person, she has put herself into a situation of victimization, and everything feels very coded in this way. Characters become signifiers of negative energy, of her pain her humiliation, and she becomes the hero of her own recovery (or at least metaphorically).
October 6, 2008
**SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER
****SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER
****SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER
****SPOILER****SPOILER**
I saw blindness this weekend and have to say that I got the sense that they left Julianne Moore sight ambiguous and only inferred that everyone else would regain their sight.
Re: Danny Glover voice over. I remember it at least 2 times and felt like it stuck out like a sore thumb. I loved hearing his story but I was like… why am I hearing this? Did we hear other thoughts? I think we may have, but his was totally narration. Very odd choice.
I didn’t see the initial Mark Ruffalo taking care of Julianne Moore’s character, she seemed to barely take notice of him. I actually thought Julianne Moore’s character disempowered Mark Ruffalo’s because of her sight he never really gained the skills to take care himself. Ironically, those are the things that made it feel like a real relationship.
Overall the film was way harsher than I thought it would be, so I’m still processing it. The gender stuff was brutal on so many levels.
October 6, 2008
I saw the film again, and it is certainly edging up as my front-runner for the year so far (vie-ing with Synecdoche, Vinyan, The Wrestler, Let The Right One In and Pontypool — We’ll see how Benjamin Button, Milk & The Road slot in as we progress)
**SPOILERS CONTINUE**
Back to Blindness, Yes the theatrical version I just saw (minutes ago) had two Glover voice-overs one in the middle of the movie (after he is discovered with the radio) and one at the end of the film as the camera stays on Julianne Moore’s face. I’m now unsure as to whether or not the last voice-over was there when I saw the Press Screening at TIFF. It probably was if my memory serves. I agree with Dave…Moore appears to be going blind, before the film gives the visual cue that she sees the city. I don’t think I would have liked the Moore-Goes-Blind ending…as it stands, other than the broad-human nature element, I really don’t like that everyone gets their sight back at the end. I want the “LAST MAN ON EARTH” ending, you know, the one that goes, ‘In the Land of the Blind, the Ju-li-anne is King!’ and that society can only be civil if the ‘good guys’ have a major privilege over the thrumming hordes. It’s an interesting mix of cynical ending and happy ending, it would have been the more satisfying one for this picture.
On the other hand, this time around I really dug on all the ‘human’ moments buried in amongst the heavier-handed broad-society story. There are both good and bad moments in the film. People struggling and doing less then noble things under the circumstances. Unable to keep dignity or maintain the moral high-ground, yet keep on going. The exclusion of the masses to maintain the privledges of ‘civility’ is a uniquely 80/20 principle (in the world 20% of the population has 80% of the wealth, much of this due to implicit military and financial might. I love Braga’s character’s pun-ny joke, “I’m so glad we have a leader with Vision”
And I stand by my previous column that the most fascinating thing about Blindness is how people acquire and use privilege.
And the cinemtography in this film is simply stunning.
As Dave and Mike have said, with some of the ‘lord of the flies’ hammer, many may fail to notice all the subtleties layers and nuance percolating through the mix.
Certainly one of the best, (maybe even THE BEST) of 2008. Sad that many people will not likely pick up on this until 5 to 10 years from now. Or is it just me?
October 7, 2008
Rachel Getting Married is better.
October 7, 2008
Actually I gotta say I was down on this year in the first half but there are a lot of promising films coming up and Rachel Getting Married has kickstarted my new enthusiasm. Benjamin Button, Milk & The Road have a very good chance of continuing this trend.
October 7, 2008
Not a huge Demme fan. But I’ll give this one a shot, it is making some solid impressions on folks.
Forgot to say that COUNTRY WEDDING was another great one this year. Still nowhere near the calibre of 2007. But still lots of good stuff out there.
October 7, 2008
To make a somewhat arbitrary division, I see two kinds of film which Blindness and Rachel Getting Married serve as examples of. There are the kinds of films that you work out, or focus on plot and everything appears geared to that, to playing up whatever the conceit is; in the case of Blindness, it is a story first and foremost, it is about scenes building upon one another to build an arc, to convey some kind of narrative first, and the emotional core comes out of that narrative stem, out of the actions of characters restrained to that narrative stem. And that is all well and good, this is not an either/or, but I would say my preference leans towards the other, which disbands from a narrative stem and allows the emotional core to form out of incidentals, small caveats of characterization, or how the focus of the film veers out from any rigid stem and finds value wherever it may lie. I call this ‘tacit cinema’, and by that I mean it is somewhat disinterested with the conscious narrative, it pieces together according to a known interest in the tacit value of things, the hidden connections we as people understand without knowing why exactly… it plays off of an audience that has lived and understands life. Rachel Getting Married is just such a film. There is a pretty literal story in it, but Demme’s camera is doing amazing things in this film, in its resistance to telling just that story, in how in makes the protagonist compete with the wider world of the wedding, in how he lingers on mundane things just because we can internalize them as events familiar to us, getting at the tacit experience of living.
These sorts of films work on two different levels, its not so much about subtext as subconscious, its really the apex of the medium in my opinion.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
Finally caught this last night. Excellent film. I also enjoyed the human element and as we got closer to the end I started wondering if humanity would survive if this actually happened. Probably would and then I started to wonder if the world might actually be a better place once the disease is accepted. This is where race and Glover’s character came into play. I would’ve liked to see Rot’s version with Glover’s voice-over.
PROBLEMS: Few, but one I had with the movie was the unbelievability of “the ward”. Sure there’s going to be some bad seeds in there and sure the “Andersonville” theory is going to take hold. But 1) I couldn’t tell how much time was passing and it seemed to me that things devolved rather quickly once Bernal’s character showed up. Would that many people really start raping women after only (what seemed like) a few days? But worse than that was 2) the fact that Moore’s character took the abuse for so long. She was a strong character with a HUGE advantage. I think it’s not very realistic that she waited so long to “attack.” People were starving and a few blind people were hoarding all the food? C’mon, no one would have stood for that; particularly when a gun was held to her husband’s throat and they got shorted on food after everyone gave up their wedding rings, etc. Frustrating and came close to ruining the movie for me. But the rest of it was stellar.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
Oh yeah, and I thought the trickery at the end was kind of weird too with Moore going blind and then…. PSYCHE!
Kind of lame, but not that big of a deal.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
the notion of a psyche-out ending is just dumb. He originally had it with her going blind but I guess people cannot handle a somewhat depressing ending, going through all the shit people want a happy ending. ugh.
and I totally agree Andrew about time lapses not being adequately conveyed throughout the film… there was something a bit off about that, which probably worked better in the book.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
As one who doesn’t mind the notion of a “depressing” ending, I have to admit I was really hoping this wouldn’t end that way. I was sure Moore was going to fall down the stairs and crack her head open when she was searching for food in the dark, below the supermarket – leaving her husband on the street and the other group of people all waiting in that house. I would’ve been very disappointed in that ending and was sure that was where it was heading.
But, I also kind of agree with Kurt that I’m not sure I like the idea of everyone getting their sight back (which we don’t know for sure is the case, though certainly inferred). I would’ve liked the open-ended thought of Moore having to “take care of the world” as the only seeing leader of a race of people who are blind. Not a happy ending, but not a depressing one either. Just sort of open-ended and thought provoking.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
The everyone stays blind ending with Moore being queen bee is also interesting because it looks at the burdens of leadership, this is echoed through-out the film with Moores self imposed victim-hood and mothering of her clan. She is cleaning up the shit and doing the grunt work, despite being in the position of greatest privilege (as opposed to Ward 3’s lording the ‘all men’ with a gun and a naturally blind person for guidance). Of course, her mothering and care-giving threatens her marriage significantly and she drops the moral-highground with a pair of scissors – for the greater good or to stop the ongoing atrocities. She is always at the head of the line of trailing blind folks, and the line always slows her down. I liked how that developed and flowed over the film.
The one person recovers ending undermines the weight of the film for me…almost like – it was all a dream (I really don’t like how the majority of films go about what they go about just to come back to the same spot at the beginning, with the only offer being: “and things were never the same afterwards”).
Having the tables reversed may work in a Grimm fairytale, but it doesn’t do much for me either. And if one wants to read the whole thing as a mind-fantasy as Moore slowly went blind, well, I can’t really buy that, it doesn’t make any sense in the narrative at all.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
wait a second, its only inferred that everyone has got their sight back?… how does that work? There is several minutes of them with their sight back in my cut, and that is where one of the best scenes occurs, with Glover in a corner quietly coming to the realization that his hope of love is gone.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
Yeah. One guy gets his sight back. No one else does. Everyone is so happy too – except Glover who is sitting on the couch with a very defeated look.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
no, you have to have them recover to have the full effect of Glover’s arc, that is great, and I think the inverse reality scenario takes nothing away from the story, it enriches it. like I said before it does not have to be quite so literal, its allegorical. I mean on a very simple level it is inversing the plight of a single blind person, the world has gone blind with one person seeing… it is very much playing off of the emotional effects of the condition, its about walking in another person’s shoes… in this case the person with sight being a representative for the solitude of the blind… its not necessary that everything be thought of as a dream sequence that fits squarely in the story, but it is ‘magical realism’, there is a reason other than to propel the basic plot forward that this scenario exists, and I think in the original cut Meirelles made it clear that in the final moments of the film as Julianne Moore goes blind, it is like the inverse world reversing, and you get a glimpse of the other side of this magical realism, and man that IS the movie… The central themes are about power struggles, and dignity, and these are integral to what people with disabilities go through daily… think of what it must be like to have someone caretaking over you, think of what that does to you… the emotional core of this film is of a disabled person walking in the shoes of her caretaker (allegorically not literally) of exploring the world from the other side and earning her dignity through the trials that are put before her. Once the story comes to a point of stasis, the bubble pops and the inverse image is removed.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …***
Which reminds me. I love the scene with Braga and Glover taking in the firelight and having an intimate conversation. He simply asks if anyone is listening to their conversation before he says something. No one in today’s world would speak up of course because they are curious to hear the conversation – which is what they did.
I wonder though, in this world over time, if social “rules” would change so that that sort of question would be honestly answered – i.e. “Yes, we’re right here, so don’t say anything that is private.”
October 7, 2008
“think of what it must be like to have someone caretaking over you, think of what that does to you… the emotional core of this film is of a disabled person walking in the shoes of her caretaker”
This is certainly the case when Ruffalo’s character goes blind. I think it was great that they put an eye doctor in there not for exposition, but rather having to have him join the patients while his wife steps up. I really, really liked this aspect of the story, often the strongest, most successful folks fall the hardest when disability/suffering is thrust upon them.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …***
And rot, the part where Glover handles the frustration of everyone potentially getting their sight back is handled very, very well in the film, although when is musings go into the wider world, the narration stumbles a bit, that is right around the whole psyche! she’s actually not blind! double take. That part is not editted very well.
But since the film is as much about implied threat and how to address the implied threat right before (or during) it becoming reality, I can swallow that wiffle-waffle is she going to go blind or not ending. Actually, the more I think about it, this ending may leave it up to the viewer as to whether or not she is going to go blind, or whether or not everyone else will go blind again.
Thus the film becomes a bit of a metaphor for getting old. It can happen when you least expect it and one is often not prepared. And authority and privilege are snatched away by the younger generation and disability.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
to clarify, in the final night in the house everyone comes to terms with their condition, and that would make sense that the vision returned (or things reversed) as the allegorical person found dignity in her situation and no longer needed a fantasy. The film is a parable about regaining control of your life.
merely a dystopic future story, I don’t know, that to me doesn’t work.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
Also the last clips of the cut I saw included a church steeple and that evokes allusions to forgiveness, or reconciliation, or revelation, and that came right before her saying in voice-over ‘I’m Blind’… so it was laid out pretty clearly… but perhaps he wanted to veil it a bit.
October 7, 2008
**SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …**** **SPOILER** SPOILER*** …****
The final shot is of the Sao Paulo skyline with a church clearly visible in the centre. But it is only there for a second or so, and Julianne Moore just stares, unfocused, off into the distance.
October 22, 2008
Hello, this is my first time listening to this podcast. great stuff!
Just wanted to comment on a few things about the movie. I’ve read the book and I definitely recommend it. One, it’s an amazing book, but also it will enhance your appreciation for the film. It was a pretty faithful adaptation, and where it isn’t faithful in plot, it’s still definitely faithful in tone. One thing I love is the film opens and closes very nearly to the book: it opens on a red stop light, and it ends with Julianne Moore looking into the sky and then down to the city.
Now, I think the ending is pretty fantastic. In the book, she looks into the sky and the clouds and and brightness make her see white. She then says “It’s my turn” but when she looks down to the city it’s still there. In the movie, she doesn’t say anything, but visually it’s very much how i pictured the ending when I read it. There’s something sad and quiet about this ending that I love. It sort of hints at these feelings her character has, of somehow being left out of the experience.
You two talked in the podcast about how everything goes back to normal so it feels like nothing ultimately happened, but I think the important thing in this movie is that they HAVE to go back to normal. They’ll again be able to see but will be pretty much irrevocably changed by the whole experience. That’s the change, not in the setting, but within the characters. Julianne Moore, meanwhile, didn’t share this. She definitely changed, having to become more of a leader and take charge, but the ending suggests her being left out almost.
Also, I agree about the passage of time. It becomes very vague and fluid very quickly. I don’t think this is a bad thing, though. It almost feels like we, as viewers are experiencing this timeless world, just like the blind are. They too lost track of time. Having specific cues as to the days or weeks passing would be pointless, because the days don’t matter to the people anymore. They realize that their sense of time was largely influenced by their sight.
anyway, sorry to just break in here, but thought i would drop my thoughts in the bucket.
October 22, 2008
Richard. Commenting is what this site is for. Join the conversation any time with quality thoughts like those above.
Welcome.
October 23, 2008
wow the book actually ended that way… I thought that was something Meirelles added. I think that perhaps works better in a book than the film, as a coda, but in a film we are habitually looking for the twist ending, and this felt too much like a psyche-out.
Can anyone support my view that Julianne Moore’s character is actually blind and everything is allegorical for her coming to terms with it?
October 23, 2008
There was this guy see.
He wasn’t very bright and he reached his adult life without ever having learned “the facts”.
Somehow, it gets to be his wedding day.
While he is walking down the isle, his father tugs his sleeve and says,
“Son, when you get to the hotel room…Call me”
Hours later he gets to the hotel room with his beautiful blushing bride and he calls his father,
“Dad, we are the hotel, what do I do?”
“O.K. Son, listen up, take off your clothes and get in the bed, then she should take off her clothes and get in the bed, if not help her. Then either way, ah, call me”
A few moments later…
“Dad we took off our clothes and we are in the bed, what do I do?”
O.K. Son, listen up. Move real close to her and she should move real close to you, and then… Ah, call me.”
A few moments later…
“DAD! WE TOOK OFF OUR CLOTHES, GOT IN THE BED AND MOVED REAL CLOSE, WHAT DO I DO???”
“O.K. Son, Listen up, this is the most important part. Stick the long part of your body into the place where she goes to the bathroom.”
A few moments later…
“Dad, I’ve got my foot in the toilet, what do I do?”
October 23, 2008
is there a moral to this story you want to share or is this a random vaudeville schtick?