Download Blindness movie

Argentina:16 | Brazil:16 | Canada:14A | Chile:14 | Finland:K-15 | France:U | Germany:12 | Hong Kong:IIB ...  show  

Argentina:16 | Brazil:16 | Canada:14A | Chile:14 | Finland:K-15 | France:U | Germany:12 | Hong Kong:IIB | Ireland:15A | Japan:PG-12 | Mexico:B15 | Netherlands:16 | Peru:14 | Portugal:M/16 | Singapore:M18 | South Korea:18 | Switzerland:14 | Taiwan:R-12 | UK:18 | USA:R  hide 

Blindness is a 2008 dramatic thriller film that is an adaptation of the 1995 novel of the same name by José Saramago about a society suffering an epidemic of Blindness. The film is written by Don McKellar and directed by Fernando Meirelles with Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo as the main characters. The novel's author originally refused to sell the rights for a film adaptation. The producers were able to acquire it with the condition that the film would be set in an unrecognizable city. Blindness premiered as the opening film at the Cannes Film Festival on May 14, 2008, and the film was released in the United States on October 3, 2008.

Blindness is the story of an unexplained mass epidemic of Blindness - known only as the "White Sickness" - afflicting nearly everyone in an unnamed city, and the social breakdown that swiftly follows. The film follows the misfortunes of a handful of characters who are among the first to be stricken and centers on an ophthalmologist (Mark Ruffalo) and his wife (Julianne Moore), several of the doctor’s patients, and assorted others, thrown together by chance. This group bands together in a family-like unit to survive by their wits and by the unexplained good fortune that the doctor’s wife has escaped the Blindness. The sudden onset and unexplained origin and nature of the Blindness cause widespread panic, and the social order rapidly unravels as the government attempts to contain the apparent contagion and keep order via increasingly repressive and inept measures.

The first part of the film follows the experiences of the central characters in the filthy, overcrowded asylum where they and other blind people have been quarantined. Hygiene, living conditions, and morale degrade horrifically in a very short period, mirroring the society outside.

Anxiety over the availability of food, caused by delivery irregularities, act to undermine solidarity; and lack of organization prevents the internees from fairly distributing food or chores. Soldiers assigned to guard the asylum and look after the well-being of the internees become increasingly antipathetic as one soldier after another becomes infected. The military refuse to allow in basic medicines, so that a simple infection becomes deadly. Fearing a break out, soldiers shoot down a crowd of internees waiting upon food delivery.

Conditions degenerate further, as an armed clique gains control over food deliveries, subjugating their fellow internees and exposing them to rape and deprivation. Faced with starvation, internees do battle and burn down the asylum, only to find that the army has abandoned the asylum, after which the protagonists join the throngs of nearly helpless blind people outside who wander the devastated city and fight one another to survive.

The story then follows the doctor and his wife and their impromptu “family” as they attempt to survive outside, cared for largely by the doctor’s wife, who still sees (though she hides this fact at first). The breakdown of society is near total. Law and order, social services, government, schools, etc., no longer function. Families have been separated and cannot find each other. People squat in abandoned buildings and scrounge for food; violence, disease, and despair threaten to overwhelm human coping. The doctor and his wife and their new “family” eventually make a permanent home and are establishing a new order to their lives when one of the men in their group suddenly recovers from his Blindness, giving the others hope that the Blindness may suddenly lift as quickly and inexplicably as it came.

Cast

• Julianne Moore as Doctor's Wife, the only person immune to the epidemic of Blindness. Her sight is kept a secret by her husband and others, though as time goes on, she feels isolated in being the only one with sight.[1] Moore described her character's responsibility: "Her biggest concern in the beginning is simply her husband. But her ability to see ultimately both isolates her and makes her into a leader. The director also gave Moore's character a wardrobe that would match the actor's skin and dyed blond hair, giving her the appearance of a "pale angel".[1]
• Mark Ruffalo as Doctor.[2] The doctor also becomes something of a leader; in an early scene, he reveals that he has been elected as his ward's official representative to the rest of the community. Meirelles originally sought to cast actor Daniel Craig as Doctor, but negotiations were not finalized.[3] Ruffalo said that his character loses the illusion of his self-perspective and perceives his wife as being a person he could aspire to. Ruffalo said, "That's a very difficult moment for anybody, to have all their perceptions completely shattered, but I think the Doctor finally comes to a peace about his inabilities and his downfall, and admits to an admiration for his wife's strengths."[4] The actor wore a layer of makeup to appear older and also wore contact lenses to be blind while having his eyes open. The actor said of the experience as a blind character, "At first it's terrifying and then it's frustrating and then it gets quiet... we're tormented by our eyesight... you don't know this until you go blind... As an actor I suddenly felt free."[5]
• Danny Glover as Man with Black Eye Patch. Glover described his character, "The Man with the Black Eye Patch comes into this new world of Blindness already half blind, so I think he understands where he is within his own truth, within himself. I did feel like this character was very much like Saramago because he is completely unapologetic—he is who he is and he accepts who he is."[6] Glover explained his involvement with the role, "When you are blind you try to adopt another kind of sensitivity, so this role is definitely a challenge from a physical point of view."[7]
• Gael García Bernal as Bartender/King of Ward 3,[8] one of the film's villains. In defiance of the doctor's democratic election as leader of his ward, the bartender immediately declares himself "King of Ward 3" and gains immediate popularity from his "subjects" by prioritizing food over his ward's community responsibilities such as burying the dead. He somehow obtains a gun and uses it to bully the other wards by controlling the food supply. Meirelles followed the advice of Brazilian stage director Antunes Filho and changed the character from the novel by making him more ambiguous, explaining, "In the book, he is really a mean guy, terribly evil from the beginning... but I thought it was more interesting to have him be not evil but more like a child with a gun."[9] Bernal described the result of his character, "I think the King is just very practical, very pragmatic. He appears cold because he is not an idealist and does not see hope, but he is a survivor, the same as all the others."[4]
• Maury Chaykin as Accountant[8], who becomes the other villain when he helps the King of Ward 3 bully the members of the other wards. Because he has been blind since birth, the Accountant is much more used to relying on his other senses, which gives him a major advantage over the other prisoners; he assumes control over Ward 3 and the food supplies for the community after the King is murdered.
• Alice Braga as Woman with Dark Glasses.[8] Braga described her character as mysterious, believing, "While she does sleep with men because it is easy money, I did not want to treat her purely as a prostitute. She starts out quite tough, but she develops very strong maternal feelings." Meirelles explained that the character's glasses and cascading hair gave her a cold appearance, but through her scenes with the orphaned Boy with the Squint, she develops warmth.[4]

Secondary characters include:

• Don McKellar as Thief.[8] McKellar, who wrote the screenplay for the film, had also acted in the past and was cast as the character. The screenwriter described the Thief, "I like the trick where you think the Thief is a bad guy. He's a pathetic character you first believe is the villain of the piece and then you realize that, no, he's not even close to that. There's something charming about his desperation because, after a point, you meet the King of Ward Three and learn what real desperation is."[4]
• Sandra Oh as Minister of Health.[1]
• Yusuke Iseya as First Blind Man.[8]
• Yoshino Kimura as First Blind Man's Wife.[8]
• Mitchell Nye as Boy.[8]
• Susan Coyne as Receptionist.[1]
• Martha Burns as Woman with Insomnia.[1]
• Leonardo Magalhaes as a blind Boy who is the leader of a blind gang of starving kids.[1]

Director Fernando Meirelles chose an international cast. Producer Niv Fichman explained Meirelles's intent: "He was inspired by [Saramago's] great masterwork to create a microcosm of the world. He wanted it cast in a way to represent all of humanity."[10]

Production

Development

The rights to the 1995 novel Blindness were closely guarded by author José Saramago.[5] Saramago explained, "I always resisted because it's a violent book about social degradation, rape, and I didn't want it to fall into the wrong hands." Director Fernando Meirelles had wanted to direct a film adaptation of Blindness in 1997, perceiving it as "an allegory about the fragility of civilization". Saramago originally refused to sell the rights to Meirelles, Whoopi Goldberg, or Gael García Bernal.[11] In 1999, producer Niv Fichman and Canadian screenwriter Don McKellar visited Saramago in the Canary Islands. Saramago allowed their visit on condition that they not discuss buying the rights. McKellar explained the changes he intended to make from the novel and what the focus would be, and two days later he and Fichman left Saramago's home with the rights. McKellar believed they had succeeded where others had failed because they properly researched Saramago; he was suspicious of the film industry and had therefore resisted other studios' efforts to obtain the rights through large sums of money alone.[12] Conditions set by Saramago were for the film to be set in a country that would not be recognizable to audiences,[13] and that the canine in the novel, the Dog of Tears, should be a big dog.[14]

Meirelles originally envisioned directing the film in Portuguese similar to the novel's original language, but instead directed the film in English, believing, "If you do it in English you can sell it to the whole world and have a bigger audience."[9] A change that the director pursued was placing the film in a contemporary setting, as opposed to the novel that he estimated took place in the 1930s or 1940s. Meirelles chose to make a contemporary film so audiences could relate to the characters.[14] The director also sought a different allegorical approach. He described the novel as "very allegorical, like a fantasy outside of space, outside the world", and he instead took a naturalistic direction in engaging audiences to make the film less "cold".[15]

Writing

Don McKellar said about adapting the story, "None of the characters even have names or a history, which is very untraditional for a Hollywood story. The film, like the novel, directly addresses sight and point of view and asks you to see things from a different perspective." McKellar wrote the script so audiences would see the world through the eyes of the protagonist, the doctor's wife. He sought to have them question the humanity of how she observes but does not act in various situations, including a rape scene. The screenwriter consulted the author about why the wife took so long to act. McKellar noted, "He said she became aware of the responsibility that comes with seeing gradually, first to herself, then to her husband, then to her small family, then her ward, and finally to the world where she has to create a new civilization." The screenwriter wrote out the "actions and circumstances" that would allow the wife to find her responsibility.[4] While the completed script was mostly faithful to the novel, McKellar went through several drafts that were not. One such saw him veer away from the novel by creating names and backstories for all the characters. Another significantly changed the chronology. Only after these abortive attempts did McKellar decide to cut the backstories and focus primarily on the doctor and his wife. He attempted to reconnect with what originally drew him to the novel: what he called its "existential simplicity". The novel defines its characters by little more than their present actions; doing the same for the adaptation became "an interesting exercise" for McKellar.[12]

McKellar attended a summer camp for the blind as part of his research. He wanted to observe how blind people interacted in groups. He discovered that excessive expositional dialogue, usually frowned upon by writers, was essential for the groups. McKellar cut one of the last lines in the novel from his screenplay: "I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind. Blind but seeing. Blind people who can see, but do not see." McKellar believed viewers would by that point have already have grasped the symbolism and didn't want the script to seem heavy-handed. He also toned down the visual cues in his screenplay, such as the "brilliant milky whiteness" of Blindness described in the novel. McKellar knew he wanted a stylistically-adept director and didn't want to be too prescriptive, preferring only to hint at an approach.[12]

Filming and casting

Meirelles chose São Paulo as the primary backdrop for Blindness, though scenes were also filmed in Osasco, São Paulo,Guelph, Ontario, Canada and Montevideo, Uruguay. With all the characters aside from Julianne Moore's character being blind, the cast was trained to simulate Blindness. The director also stylized the film to reflect the lack of point-of-view that the characters would experience. Meirelles said several actors he talked to were intimidated by the concept of playing characters without names: "I offered the film to some actors who said, 'I can't play a character with no name, with no history, with no past. With Gael (García Bernal), he said, 'I never think about the past. I just think what my character wants.'"[16]

By September 2006, Fernando Meirelles was attached to Blindness, with the script being adapted by Don McKellar. Blindness, budgeted at $25 million as part of a Brazilian and Canadian co-production, was slated to begin filming in summer 2007 in the towns of São Paulo and Guelph.[17] Filming began in early July in São Paulo and Guelph.[18] Filming also took place in Montevideo, Uruguay.[19] São Paulo served as the primary backdrop for Blindness, being a city mostly unfamiliar to U.S. and European audiences. With its relative obscurity, the director sought São Paulo as the film's generic location. Filming continued through autumn of 2007.[5]

The cast and crew included 700 extras who had to be trained to simulate Blindness. Actor Christian Duurvoort from Meirelles's City of God led a series of workshops to coach the cast members. Duurvoort had researched the mannerisms of blind people to understand how they perceive the world and how they make their way through space. Duurvoort not only taught the extras mannerisms, but also to convey the emotional and psychological states of blind people.[5] One technique was reacting differently to others as a blind person. Meirelles described, "When you're talking to someone, you see a reaction. When you're blind, the response is much flatter. What's the point [in reacting]?"[20]

Filmmaking style

Meirelles acknowledged the challenge of making a film that would simulate the experience of Blindness to the audience. He explained, "When you do a film, everything is related to point-of-view, to vision. When you have two characters in a dialogue, emotion is expressed by the way people look at each other, through the eyes. Especially in the cut, the edit. You usually cut when someone looks over. Film is all about point-of-view and in this film there is none."[20] Similar to the book, Blindness in the film serves as a metaphor for human nature's dark side: "prejudice, selfishness, violence and willful indifference".[5]

With only one character's point-of-view available, Meirelles sought to switch the point-of-views throughout the film, seeing three distinct stylistic sections. The director began with an omniscient vantage point, transited to the intact viewpoint of the Doctor's Wife, and changed again to the Man with the Black Eye Patch, who connects the quarantined to the outside world with stories. The director concluded the switching with the combination of the perspective of the Doctor's Wife and the narrative of the Man with the Black Eye Patch.[4]

The film also contains visual cues, such as the 1568 painting The Parable of the Blind by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Allusions to other famous artworks are also made. Meirelles described the intent: "It's about image, the film, and vision, so I thought it makes sense to create, not a history of painting, because it's not, but having different ways of seeing things, from Rembrandt to these very contemporary artists. But it's a very subtle thing."[5]

Release

Theatrical run

Prior to public release, the director screened Blindness to test audiences. Meirelles described the impact of test screenings: "If you know how to use it, how to ask the right questions, it can be really useful." A test screening of Meirelles' first cut in Toronto resulted in ten percent of the audience, nearly 50 people, walking out of the film early. Meirelles ascribed the problem to a scene of sexual violence that took place partway through the film, and the director edited the scene to be much shorter in the final cut.[21] Meirelles explained his goal, "When I shot and edited these scenes, I did it in a very technical way, I worried about how to light it and so on, and I lost the sense of their brutality. Some women were really angry with the film, and I thought, 'Wow, maybe I crossed the line.' I went back not to please the audience but so they would stay involved until the end of the story."[9] The director also found that a New York test screening expressed a uniquely American concern about a victim in the film failing to conduct an act of revenge. Meirelles believed this concern to reflect what Americans have learned to expect in their cinema.[21]

Focus Features acquired the right to handle international sales for Blindness.[22] Pathé acquired U.K. and French rights to distribute the film,[23] and Miramax Films won U.S. distribution rights with its $5 million bid.[24] Blindness premiered as the opening film at the 61st Cannes Film Festival on May 14, 2008,[25] where it received a "tepid reception".[26] Straw polls of critics were "unkind" to the film.[27]

Blindness was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2008 as a Special Presentation.[28] The film also opened at the Atlantic Film Festival on September 11, 2008,[29] and had its North American theatrical release on October 3, 2008.

Critical reception

The film has received mixed reviews from critics. As of January 11, 2009, Blindness has 41% positive reviews on the movie review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, with 59 of 143 counted reviews giving it a "fresh" rating, and 84 giving it a "rotten" one. The film has an average rating of 5.2 out of 10.[30]

Screen International's Cannes screen jury which annually polls a panel of international film critics gave the film a 1.3 average out of 4, placing the film on the lower-tier of all the films screened at competition in 2008.[31] Of the film critics from the Screen International Cannes critics jury, Alberto Crespi of the Italian publication L'Unita, Michel Ciment of French film magazine Positif and Dohoon Kim of South Korean film publication Cine21, all gave the film zero points (out of four).[31]

Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter described Blindness as "provocative" but "predictable cinema", startling but failing to surprise. Honeycutt criticized the film's two viewpoints: Julianne Moore's character, the only one who can see, is slow to act against atrocities, and the behavior of Danny Glover's character comes off as "slightly pompous". Honeycutt explained, "This philosophical coolness is what most undermines the emotional response to Meirelles' film. His fictional calculations are all so precise and a tone of deadly seriousness swamps the grim action."[32] Justin Chang of Variety described the film: "Blindness emerges onscreen both overdressed and undermotivated, scrupulously hitting the novel's beats yet barely approximating, so to speak, its vision." Chang thought that Julianne Moore gave a strong performance but did not feel that the film captured the impact of Saramago's novel.[33]

Stephen Garrett of Esquire complimented the director's style: "Meirelles [honors] the material by using elegant, artful camera compositions, beguiling sound design and deft touches of digital effects to accentuate the authenticity of his cataclysmic landscape." Despite the praise, Garrett believed that Meirelles's talent at portraying real-life injustice in City of God and The Constant Gardener did not suit him for directing the "heightened reality" of Saramago's social commentary.[34]

The film appeared on some critics' top ten lists of the best films of 2008. Bill White of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer named it the 5th best film of 2008,[35] and Marc Savlov of The Austin Chronicle named it the 8th best film of 2008.[35]

Controversy

The film has been strongly criticized by several organizations representing the blind community. Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The National Federation of the Blind condemns and deplores this film, which will do substantial harm to the blind of America and the world."[36] A press release from the American Council of the Blind said "...it is quite obvious why blind people would be outraged over this movie. Blind people do not behave like uncivilized, animalized creatures."[37] The National Federation of the Blind announced plans to picket theaters in at least 21 states, in the largest protest in the organization's 68-year history.[38] José Saramago responded: "Stupidity doesn't choose between the blind and the non-blind."[39]

Notes

205 Comments »

Pages: [41] 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 … 1 » Show All

Absurd and stupid movie

If you want to see a good movie about how humans become animals when
society breaks down, go see Lord of the Flies
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057261/). This movie is a protracted,
boring and stupid rehash of the same idea with no originality, no
redeeming values, nothing. And I don't know about the screenwriter, but
if you suddenly find yourself blind, would you just declare to people
that "I am blind" as if it had been the case forever? Or would you tell
people that you had become blind or that you could suddenly not see
anything? Implausible storyline, bad screen writing, incomprehensible
ending… I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Avoid the movie
if you can.

balajiramanathan from United States - 25 June 2009

Starts out VERY good…

Yes, I loved the first 30 minutes of this film. It seemed very
intelligent and exciting. But from the point where they get locked up
in a former mental institution things start to get bad both plot wise
and logical flaws wise.Rather early in the institution you get the feeling that there is a
very strong urge to show how complicated we humans can be..how blind
etc. That is all good in itself. But when the plot goes in the certain
direction that it does, it has to jump a hoop of logical flaws and
psychological flaws to get to the point it so desperately wants us to
see.The movie in the end comes off as naive…sadly. It could have been so
much better if it hadn't been so desperate to get to the ugly or
beautiful parts. I really hope the book is better…You might think…oh but there weren't many logical flaws in this film?
Yes there are…you just have to think a bit.This seems like a film that Michael Haneke could have done way better.

Golgothae from Norway - 22 June 2009

Sucks and it sucks bad

Thank God I rented the movie. I would be even more disappointed if I
had paid more money and watched it on the movies. I cannot believe
Juliane Moore was on a movie like that. It's non-sense, ridiculous.
This only confirms my theory that Brazilian directors really shouldn't
be in the movie business. This was just another proof for me. Meirelles
was able to make this movie the worst that many people has ever seen
(including me). It wasn't just a big disappointment for the real blind
people but also to everyone that can see. Two long hours, no
explanation on how they got blind or how they got their vision back. A
lot of bad taste violent scenes for nothing.

cmwm06 from Brazil - 11 June 2009

Good Moral story

This is a very powerful, different and darkly disturbing film. As the
film progresses it is quite horrifying to see how society breaks down
and primeval instincts take hold (especially in the men), showing that
the world really could not cope if a loss of one of the 5 senses were
to take a sudden and inexplicable hold over the population. It also
depicts fear of the highest order, again showing that fear of the
unknown is the first response whether it be appropriate or not. The
actors were amazing and, as I work with blind people, were truly
realistic. It also proves an excellent opportunity to highlight
disability and I hope that everyone who watches this film will feel
compelled to try being blind for a day by wearing a blindfold and see
how hard life is. By doing this the world would become more tolerant of
disability as it can happen to anyone at any time.

Scott Nichol (yocca_98@yahoo.com) from London,UK - 6 June 2009

Shocking for the wrong reasons

First, I have to admit that I haven't read the book. Everyone says it's
great, and that may be. However, "Blindness" the movie is… well… I
don't know. I really, really don't know.I'm pretty sure there was some pretty strong and important symbolic in
there. I didn't see it, though. Or maybe it's so simple I just
dismissed it. I don't know. As some critics will be more than happy to
tell you: "this is a movie for people with superior intelligence only".
Okay, well… good for you.For my part, I'd rather just say it's an empty, yet very frustrating
movie. I gave it a 3/10 because it will make you react in some way, so
it achieves its goal: provocation. However, it will only make you react
because some scenes and parts of the story are revolting and gruesome.
Any movie could do that. It's like psychological torture porn. Oh, and
some actual torture porn, too (you don't see a lot, but it's all the
same).Was this movie supposed to point out that society is fragile and can
easily be devoured by chaos? Was it supposed to say that, deep inside,
we're nothing but violent animals? Was it supposed to be a metaphor of
some kind about… something? Whatever "Blindness" is supposed to point
out, it fails. Because in this movie, nothing makes any sense.The infected (blind) are treated like terrorists after two days without
being treated at all (even though they can be touched by soldiers in
Hazmat suits, apparently), the quarantined building looks like a
concentration camp right from the start, the heroine can see but might
as well be blind (except that she finally does what any sane person
would have long done… so her initial inaction is pointless). None of
this makes any sense. So it must be a metaphor. For something. Yet, it
remains unclear. This movie has one clear goal only: to shock you. In a
very unpleasant way.Now, people will tell you the rape scenes are revolting and disgusting.
And yes, they are. They are unbearable to watch. But, worst of all,
they're completely uncalled for and gratuitous, since the movie doesn't
make any sense. Anyone with some instinct of survival (who, also, could
see) would have tried to fight back (blind men) instead of being
voluntarily raped (by blind men). It doesn't depict human nature at
all, no matter what anyone might say. You don't have to be a superhero
to fight back in a situation like that, even if you're scared to death.
So, here again, there must be some hidden meaning. Very, very hidden. I
just didn't care anymore, I guess. There are other ways to make a
point, whatever it was.A lot will say that I'm missing the point. That's exactly it. I'm
missing the point. Totally. If that movie is a metaphor of some kind
for our own existence, why does it depict a world and characters that
make no sense at all? I just didn't relate to anything or anyone in
this movie. Or maybe that was the actual point. Who knows? Maybe the
book makes more sense. I sure hope so. As for the movie, I still think
it's mainly an excuse for provocation. That's how I feel after seeing
it: shocked, yet empty.

dazz_hero from Quebec - 2 June 2009

Pages: [41] 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 … 1 » Show All

Leave your Impressions!