Coups d'État

As I scanned earlier comments about "Land of the Blind" I was struck by the failure to recognize that this film cobbles together elements of Orwell,"1984", "Z", "Clockwork Orange", "Marat/Sade", etc..

I suppose when one lives long enough(72), there is no surprise when others find novelty in a regurgitated past. Even the music,(particularly Schubert's trio theme) presents us with a Kubrick/Proustian remembrance without the substance.

Although many seem to find an echo of the W Bush years, I find myself sensing a brave new world aspect to our new President. Mantras for "change", iconic adulation, even an Inaugural speech in which we are referred to as "My fellow citizens"--Robespierre redux.

Fiennes, as usual, is compelling, even when it's not clear that his own actions were spurred by a higher morality. Castro was indeed a hero in the 50's, but his half-century left a river of blood and suppression. It is clear in the film that principles are the first victims of power.

I think that before audiences stand and applaud this film, they should ask themselves if they are ready to stand up to tyranny, even if it is well-spoken and attractive. I doubt if most viewers were alive during the McCarthy years, or recall Hollywood's total capitulation to the witch hunts or blacklists. Nor do they remember Stalin's trials, Mao's re-education programs, or so many other acts of oppression.

I realize that I've strayed from a direct review of this film, but I'm dismayed at all that has been forgotten or overlooked by those who seem anxious to fight for freedom.

When I read the cast list for this film i thought "hey with these people it should be great!" well... it's not great, but it does do a good job at exposing the hypocrisy of power, and who is better suited to govern, a single person/regime or that amorphous element named "The People".

Donald Sutherland and Rafe(don't call me Ralph!) Fiennes, give wonderful acting performances, and there are many great supporting roles too. Including the lovely Lara Flynn Boyle, (watch for the scene with her in a skin tight latex dress playing kinky sex games with her husband!,it made the rental price, for me anyway, worth paying ! Woo Hoo!).

There is a lot of interesting and intelligent dialog through out the film too , the director/writer is obviously a literate man.

My problem, is that this film tries to hard to be too many things at once.

BTW, the poem that Sutherland's and Fiennes' characters quote is by William Butler Yeats and it's named "The Second Coming", and the haunting piano music you hear, you might remember is also used in "Barry Lyndon" and I believe is written by Mozart

It's definitely worth a rental though.

An unnamed country is ruled by a horny birdbrained tyrant, while the intellectual revolutionary Thorne, hero of the resistance, is tortured in an inhuman prison. When the enduring riots threaten to get out of control, the government is forced to release Thorne. With the help of Joe, the Winston Smith or Bernhard Marx of the story, Thorne brings down the despotic government and takes over control. However, the hope for freedom and a better world doesn't last long...

In the official program of the Film Festival in Munich, LAND OF THE BLIND was announced as "a satiric political drama about terrorism, revolution, and the power of memory". In fact, the film story is rather conventional. After the outlines of the story become clear, the further development is rather obvious. However, for several reasons the movie is still very much worth seeing.

The first reason is the performance by Ralph Fiennes. He was willing to take part in the non-lucrative project even though he had to wait three years until the money was raised. His presence adds a breath of magic to the movie.

Another reason rare the numerous cinematographic and intermedial allusions (Kubrick, Lucas) that give you the satisfactory "aha" when you recognize some hint.

At last, it is the fable-like setting: neither time nor place are specified, and the hints like typewriters or Asiatic palaces are deliberately controversial. Together with the satiric elements, this aspect makes the film more entertaining and less pretentious.

The film is promoted by "Human Rights Watch", although Robert Edwards' intention was certainly not a clamant "call to arms", but rather a quiet sigh about the state of the world.

I have always had a certain fascination for stories which indict the abuse of power in the name of the state. After I saw this film the first time, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It had all the disturbing characteristics of an Orwellian novel, but it was not as relentlessly depressing. I believe the screenwriter was holding out the hope that the people will "get" the story.

In this film, a mythical country is beset by an endless array of despots. These despots show character traits mankind has witnessed in real life, such as Pol Pot, Mussolini, Louis XVI/Marie Antoinette, Peron, Ayatollah Khoumeni, and Kim Jong Il. In this "land of the blind," the people are more interested in popular culture than the suffering of mankind at the hands of the despots. As a result, they elect movie stars to represent them in what becomes clear as a sham system.

Those people who are politically motivated and want to see a parallel between the nasty people who are leading the poor nation in the story to ruin and the current world leaders are, in my opinion, completely missing the point. In the first place, the title of this film should provide a clue. In a "land of the blind," just about anybody could arise to a position of power because the "blind" are too easily led.

In this film, there is a heavy reliance on imagery and metaphor. The main repetitive image is that of an elephant. In the movie, the parable of the blind men and the elephant is brought out and that, in my opinion, is what this film is all about. New governments can provide their side of the story--the elephant--to the blind public by steering them to the desired part of the anatomy.

Donald Sutherland, playing a character aptly named Thorn, is one of the best casting choices ever made. You'll need to see this film to understand what I'm talking about. I gave this a nine rating out of ten.

To put it simply, this film is George Orwell's Animal Farm as told by the makers of Memento. It covers a dark subject, and embraces the darkness associated with it.

This film is set in a fictional country that takes elements from many utilitarian countries around the world to give us things to relate to. To me the most interesting was the Kim Jong-il analogy. A president for life who succeeds his father and is very interested in the film industry. Others will likely see other references.

As the film progresses, we follow this country through stages of governmental upheaval. We ride on the shoulder of an idealistic prison guard as he chooses sides, and faces the consequences of that choice.

As the movie was building, I felt like it was building a Pro-Terrorism Utopian government, but in the end I was left hopeless, because of each plot turn making the movie yet more dour.

Symbolism abounds, and you will find yourself trying to locate the meanings of the symbols, which are perhaps a tad too convoluted for my tastes.

I was completely immersed in the story, and I found the progression of the movie to be very compelling, but the overall message of hopelessness clashed with my youthful idealism.

I recommend this movie as debate fodder for political theorists. Its dark themes limit its audience otherwise.