A blog for online film critics to talk about movies and review writing. Anyone with a movie review blog or website is welcome to join, post links to their writing, and write movie-related posts. Those interested in participating should e-mail David at DavidSwindle_AT_gmail.com for an invitation.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
David's Blindness review
I liked it a lot more than Black Sheep and Cine Snob.
A+? Seriously. You're telling me that this was a perfect film experience for you? It didn't bug you that they never bothered to explain whether the affliction had affected the whole world. It didn't bug you that the presumption is that humanity would just chuck everyone into quarantine and not bother making sure they were ok? It didn't bug you that Julianne Moore could see and yet no one ever thought that perhaps she should be studied? I enjoyed the film despite the holes but the holes are undeniable. The style does not make up for it.
Seriously. The intensity of the depressive, disturbing negative feelings it generated were quite potent. And I found the philosophical implications of the film very challenging. I also thought its moments of humanity were overwhelming at parts. My favorite moment was when Julianne Moore discovers her husband cheating on her and afterwards hugs the woman and tells her she can see.
The so-called plot holes didn't bother me because I saw the entire film as a philosophical allegory, not a real-life dramatic thriller: 1. It doesn't matter if the affliction affected the whole world. What matters is the relationships between the individual characters. 2. The presumption doesn't bother me in that it allows for the allegory. 3. Nobody is able to study her if they don't know that she can see. She kept her mouth shut about it.
I think your problem is that you were looking for the kind of hyper-realistic film that Meirelles is known for. That's not "Blindness." It's entirely to be taken as allegory. And when you switch it over in your mind to appreciate it in that fashion then plot holes become a non-issue. I'll point out a plot hole you neglected to mention. Where did the King of Ward 3 get the pistol? TOTAL PLOT HOLE. But it really doesn't matter because the film isn't about plot, it's about emotions and philosophical themes. I mean did it bother you that the characters didn't have names? Come on, these are intentional stylistic decisions. Meirelles is aware of all the holes you point out, he just rightfully doesn't care and neither do I.
I wasn't looking for anything from this film except for it be as striking and as effective as it seemed in the trailer. I think it was somewhat effective but it missed the mark and will be forgotten very quickly. I do feel bad about how the studio dumped it. It was worth more than that.
Well it hit me pretty hard. I was on the verge of tears for much of the film. The degree of the negative state that it generated in me was pretty profound. I plan on picking it up on DVD when it comes out.
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED is my film of the moment. Floored me. Verge of tears almost all the way through and total disorientation after it was over. I will post my review.
5 comments:
A+? Seriously. You're telling me that this was a perfect film experience for you? It didn't bug you that they never bothered to explain whether the affliction had affected the whole world. It didn't bug you that the presumption is that humanity would just chuck everyone into quarantine and not bother making sure they were ok? It didn't bug you that Julianne Moore could see and yet no one ever thought that perhaps she should be studied? I enjoyed the film despite the holes but the holes are undeniable. The style does not make up for it.
Seriously. The intensity of the depressive, disturbing negative feelings it generated were quite potent. And I found the philosophical implications of the film very challenging. I also thought its moments of humanity were overwhelming at parts. My favorite moment was when Julianne Moore discovers her husband cheating on her and afterwards hugs the woman and tells her she can see.
The so-called plot holes didn't bother me because I saw the entire film as a philosophical allegory, not a real-life dramatic thriller:
1. It doesn't matter if the affliction affected the whole world. What matters is the relationships between the individual characters.
2. The presumption doesn't bother me in that it allows for the allegory.
3. Nobody is able to study her if they don't know that she can see. She kept her mouth shut about it.
I think your problem is that you were looking for the kind of hyper-realistic film that Meirelles is known for. That's not "Blindness." It's entirely to be taken as allegory. And when you switch it over in your mind to appreciate it in that fashion then plot holes become a non-issue. I'll point out a plot hole you neglected to mention. Where did the King of Ward 3 get the pistol? TOTAL PLOT HOLE. But it really doesn't matter because the film isn't about plot, it's about emotions and philosophical themes. I mean did it bother you that the characters didn't have names? Come on, these are intentional stylistic decisions. Meirelles is aware of all the holes you point out, he just rightfully doesn't care and neither do I.
I wasn't looking for anything from this film except for it be as striking and as effective as it seemed in the trailer. I think it was somewhat effective but it missed the mark and will be forgotten very quickly. I do feel bad about how the studio dumped it. It was worth more than that.
Well it hit me pretty hard. I was on the verge of tears for much of the film. The degree of the negative state that it generated in me was pretty profound. I plan on picking it up on DVD when it comes out.
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED is my film of the moment. Floored me. Verge of tears almost all the way through and total disorientation after it was over. I will post my review.
Post a Comment