Blindness (Fernando Meirelles, 2008)
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
Rsdio
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 11:42 am
- Location: UK
I'm very interested in this too, I only read the book for the first time a few months ago and was pleasantly surprised when I happened to see that Meirelles was doing it. I was a little dubious about the casting of Daniel Craig as the ophthalmologist, probably only because the character I imagined was completely different physically, but I see that he's not in the cast anymore.
-
Cosmic Bus
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:12 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
Anticipating this like mad, although I'm still a bit wary despite excellent cast and crew choices throughout because it's one of my favorite books. Curious how that article mentions location shooting in Toronto; I was under the impression Meirelles was filming in Portugal (or thereabouts?), but perhaps that's only part of it.
-
Cosmic Bus
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:12 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
-
King of Kong
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
It'll be interesting to see how well the novel translates into a film. Saramago is like Jane Austen in that there is more to his novels than story, and however well a film may capture a novel's story, it can't capture the amazing narrative voice, unless of course by voice-over. Same probably with Austen's ironic barbs - they won't come through (unless you parcel them out to the characters).
-
Eclisse
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:29 pm
He is also shooting in Canada,Brazil,and Uruguay.On the site of this Brazilian company, - http://www.o2filmes.com- there's a link to a blog that Fernando Meirelles started.He's basically talking about the film,Saramago,food,working with Julianne Morre and Mark Rufallo,and everything in between. The blog is in Portuguese.Cosmic Bus wrote:Anticipating this like mad, although I'm still a bit wary despite excellent cast and crew choices throughout because it's one of my favorite books. Curious how that article mentions location shooting in Toronto; I was under the impression Meirelles was filming in Portugal (or thereabouts?), but perhaps that's only part of it.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Blog posts summarized in English here.
-
Cold Bishop
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Trailer
Saramago doesn't want any identifiable city or country, so its possible there shooting in multiple places.Cosmic Bus wrote:Anticipating this like mad, although I'm still a bit wary despite excellent cast and crew choices throughout because it's one of my favorite books. Curious how that article mentions location shooting in Toronto; I was under the impression Meirelles was filming in Portugal (or thereabouts?), but perhaps that's only part of it.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
Cold Bishop
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
I'm hoping that the last line is just cut from actual dialogue in the film, because it could work there. But yeah, it sounds way too much like a tagline.bkimball wrote:I loved the teaser minus the last line, but that's OK.
Has anyone read the book and what are your thoughts?
And the book is fantastic. What Jaws does for the beach, Blindness does for the public restroom.
The main problem seems to be that Meirelles is making concessions to preview screenings and focus groups.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Nice poster.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Saramago "reviews" the film.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Canadian trailer.
The film seems to have taken some liberties with book. As I recall only the doctor's wife knew she could see when they were brought to quarantine. If anything, the trailer shows that Saramago is unfilmable. So much of the power of his books come from his own words. However, as a film using the premise of the novel, it does look it like it has some potential and if anything (and somewhat ironically), it looks gorgeous.
The film seems to have taken some liberties with book. As I recall only the doctor's wife knew she could see when they were brought to quarantine. If anything, the trailer shows that Saramago is unfilmable. So much of the power of his books come from his own words. However, as a film using the premise of the novel, it does look it like it has some potential and if anything (and somewhat ironically), it looks gorgeous.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Blind people to protest the film (no, this isn't a link to The Onion).
-
hot_locket
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:39 am
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Here's the film's unnecessary social interactive web thingy.
-
karmajuice
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:02 am
Has anyone else seen this yet?
Aside from one or two scenes, I found the film unaffecting. The cinematography can be interesting but it only scratches the surface of what could have been done (same with the sound design). I have not read the book, but the movie felt like they tried to stretch a proverb across the length of a feature film.
Aside from one or two scenes, I found the film unaffecting. The cinematography can be interesting but it only scratches the surface of what could have been done (same with the sound design). I have not read the book, but the movie felt like they tried to stretch a proverb across the length of a feature film.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Re: Blindness (Fernando Meirelles, 2008)
Now that some time has passed and presumably more have seen this I wanted to re-open the thread to get some more responses. I'm particularly interested in that from those who have an investment in the text. Once again, this is another of those properties like Watchmen that I'm supposed to have read but have not. As with that I'm sure my own response is colored by that lack of familiarity. Unlike with that, this time my reaction was favorable. In fact, I thought this was a tremendous achievement and am a little surprised by the lack of discussion here.
Obviously I assume much of that is related to the fact that those who read the book and were impressed by it must have actively disliked the adaptation. And I have to admit that I spent the majority of the time I watched this struggling with whether the essence or point of this was, in fact, deserving of the extraordinary treatment it received. As far as I'm concerned it's hard to imagine how this core material (assuming the consensus is that it was present) could have been rendered with more respect, integrity and unremitting resolve--not to mention staggering aesthetic accomplishment. I'm no fan of Meirelles either and hated his other two pictures so I went into this one with more than a little trepidation, bolstered up primarily by the trailer imagery and the basic conceit which clearly has potential.
Or does it? Doubts as to the profundity of the whole enterprise kept nagging at me throughout (and here is where those who have read the book will likely assure me things were handled so much better there). For the first half I was irritated by the set up, as it seemed a lot to accept that things would be allowed to run amok to this degree and degenerate this fast--later this specific reservation fell away upon the realization that Meirelles/Saramago really have taken their premise all the way and expect us to accept a kind of grand, sweeping apocalyptic effect; it was to the credit of the set design, locations and intensity of performance that I absolutely did.
Beyond this issue though there was the issue that would not go away, which had to do with whether the ultimate insight and power of the central metaphor and the narrative as a whole earned such brutal yet always artful presentation. I found myself really bothered by this as it often felt to me as though the blindness itself was not exploited particularly well for whatever depths of meaning it might contain but was instead merely being used as a device or gimmick to drive the escalating apocalyptic scenario; in other words, that the depiction of this was where Meirelles' real interest lay. I'm naturally inclined to suspect that as well since I think so little of his earlier work and consider it fairly superficial in character.
Anyway, the real problem here was not just the notion that the metaphor was being neglected but, more importantly, that it was being neglected at the service of a pronouncement that was ultimately banal despite its accrued force. Is the energy expended by the filmmaking collective and the blunt cruelty we have to wade through worth it? Because every collaborator is at the top of their game here and yet their efforts seem wasted if the ultimate insight is just the obvious one that devastating social collapse results in savage viciousness and complete chaos. That message is too broad and uninsightful; still, what finally sold me on the experience was the very fact that these tensions were so irreconcilable and yet that the force of the presentation carried me through any such impediment. I was impressed that at least I kept genuinely struggling with the idea that perhaps I just couldn't accept the implications drawn here, that I did not want to believe them. And that 's worth something. It's certainly more than I got from that last Ridley Scott movie. I was not even put off by the vaguely unbelievable newly ordained family arrangement at the end nor by the glint of hope which is saved by Meirelles' willingness to keep the experience isolated and unindicative of anything beyond itself; it offers hope but speaks to our fear of investing in the random or arbitrary. Also, the tone of those final scenes work because they are so jarring in contrast to the slow descent within the picture as a whole; someone knew that this was the right way to present hope under such circumstances, along with its unavoidable patina of suspect illusion.
Meirelles' facility with rendering convincing surfaces in minute detail persuades and he is aided by the dislocating alien remove of his cityscape collage and its inherent otherness. The performances are all first rate but especially Moore's which is beyond that; it is, in fact, one of her absolutely finest turns and it's shocking and pathetic to think that it went so under-recognized last year. Not only does she have to bear up under the weight of responsibility but she has to shoulder a heavily symbolic burden as well. And she emerges with breath taking strength and a very carefully modulated range of expressed emotion.
In the past I've been somewhat unimpressed by Meirelles' camera work as its flash is usually either unwarranted or used too capriciously. Here, however, he gets it so right. Not only is the picture lit perfectly (which is critical for the emotional temperature of something like this, given its focus) but it's also composed brilliantly throughout. His framing is often just slightly off, with characters displaced and bodies sundered. He doesn't over do that or underline it but allows it to become a template for variations throughout, which build upon and expand this aesthetic in league with his themes.
I have to add that the final few moments are evidence enough that Meirelles understands enough of what matters. The implications of possible communal hope upon the Danny Glover character in particular is carefully acknowledged and the last three shots drive home the ambiguity of the situation and the omnipresence of frailty in the face of the seemingly arbitrary and uncontrollable. The music, it should be mentioned, is also superb and distinctive. So for me a far greater picture than, say, the similarly pitched Children of Men.
As for the DVD, there is an excellent documentary included which I highly recommend. One caveat regarding the disc though: there is a stunningly obnoxious menu screen contrivance which is mind blowing in its trivializing effect. It did not start my viewing off well.
Obviously I assume much of that is related to the fact that those who read the book and were impressed by it must have actively disliked the adaptation. And I have to admit that I spent the majority of the time I watched this struggling with whether the essence or point of this was, in fact, deserving of the extraordinary treatment it received. As far as I'm concerned it's hard to imagine how this core material (assuming the consensus is that it was present) could have been rendered with more respect, integrity and unremitting resolve--not to mention staggering aesthetic accomplishment. I'm no fan of Meirelles either and hated his other two pictures so I went into this one with more than a little trepidation, bolstered up primarily by the trailer imagery and the basic conceit which clearly has potential.
Or does it? Doubts as to the profundity of the whole enterprise kept nagging at me throughout (and here is where those who have read the book will likely assure me things were handled so much better there). For the first half I was irritated by the set up, as it seemed a lot to accept that things would be allowed to run amok to this degree and degenerate this fast--later this specific reservation fell away upon the realization that Meirelles/Saramago really have taken their premise all the way and expect us to accept a kind of grand, sweeping apocalyptic effect; it was to the credit of the set design, locations and intensity of performance that I absolutely did.
Beyond this issue though there was the issue that would not go away, which had to do with whether the ultimate insight and power of the central metaphor and the narrative as a whole earned such brutal yet always artful presentation. I found myself really bothered by this as it often felt to me as though the blindness itself was not exploited particularly well for whatever depths of meaning it might contain but was instead merely being used as a device or gimmick to drive the escalating apocalyptic scenario; in other words, that the depiction of this was where Meirelles' real interest lay. I'm naturally inclined to suspect that as well since I think so little of his earlier work and consider it fairly superficial in character.
Anyway, the real problem here was not just the notion that the metaphor was being neglected but, more importantly, that it was being neglected at the service of a pronouncement that was ultimately banal despite its accrued force. Is the energy expended by the filmmaking collective and the blunt cruelty we have to wade through worth it? Because every collaborator is at the top of their game here and yet their efforts seem wasted if the ultimate insight is just the obvious one that devastating social collapse results in savage viciousness and complete chaos. That message is too broad and uninsightful; still, what finally sold me on the experience was the very fact that these tensions were so irreconcilable and yet that the force of the presentation carried me through any such impediment. I was impressed that at least I kept genuinely struggling with the idea that perhaps I just couldn't accept the implications drawn here, that I did not want to believe them. And that 's worth something. It's certainly more than I got from that last Ridley Scott movie. I was not even put off by the vaguely unbelievable newly ordained family arrangement at the end nor by the glint of hope which is saved by Meirelles' willingness to keep the experience isolated and unindicative of anything beyond itself; it offers hope but speaks to our fear of investing in the random or arbitrary. Also, the tone of those final scenes work because they are so jarring in contrast to the slow descent within the picture as a whole; someone knew that this was the right way to present hope under such circumstances, along with its unavoidable patina of suspect illusion.
Meirelles' facility with rendering convincing surfaces in minute detail persuades and he is aided by the dislocating alien remove of his cityscape collage and its inherent otherness. The performances are all first rate but especially Moore's which is beyond that; it is, in fact, one of her absolutely finest turns and it's shocking and pathetic to think that it went so under-recognized last year. Not only does she have to bear up under the weight of responsibility but she has to shoulder a heavily symbolic burden as well. And she emerges with breath taking strength and a very carefully modulated range of expressed emotion.
In the past I've been somewhat unimpressed by Meirelles' camera work as its flash is usually either unwarranted or used too capriciously. Here, however, he gets it so right. Not only is the picture lit perfectly (which is critical for the emotional temperature of something like this, given its focus) but it's also composed brilliantly throughout. His framing is often just slightly off, with characters displaced and bodies sundered. He doesn't over do that or underline it but allows it to become a template for variations throughout, which build upon and expand this aesthetic in league with his themes.
I have to add that the final few moments are evidence enough that Meirelles understands enough of what matters. The implications of possible communal hope upon the Danny Glover character in particular is carefully acknowledged and the last three shots drive home the ambiguity of the situation and the omnipresence of frailty in the face of the seemingly arbitrary and uncontrollable. The music, it should be mentioned, is also superb and distinctive. So for me a far greater picture than, say, the similarly pitched Children of Men.
As for the DVD, there is an excellent documentary included which I highly recommend. One caveat regarding the disc though: there is a stunningly obnoxious menu screen contrivance which is mind blowing in its trivializing effect. It did not start my viewing off well.