Coups d'État

'Land of the Blind' is a brilliant, darkly comic thriller - a sardonic fable about power politics. It's at once deeply absurd and deadly serious, and I loved every minute of it.

The movie takes place in an unnamed country, an outlandish mix of Haiti, Iran, pre- revolutionary France, and suburban London. It's a get-along or find-yourself-in-a-re- education-camp kind of place.

The film plays as both taut political thriller and broad farce. It's a grim sign of the times that even the most outlandish aspects of this world feel like political deja-vu. Politicians are voted in based on their acting credentials; the President-for-Life is also a self-styled auteur of 'B' action movies; the sycophantic TV news-anchors remain upbeat and bubbly as they bend to the political winds, switching cheerily from Brooks Brothers to burqas.

At the heart of the movie is the relationship between imprisoned playwright Thorne (Donald Sutherland) and the man who guards him - Joe (Ralph Feinnes.) Thorne is a tortured man in possession of a brilliant mind, who's been reduced to writing on the walls of his cell with his own excrement.

Joe works for Junior, the buffoonish but cunning dictator played brilliantly by Tom Hollander. Junior is part infant terrible, part cold-blooded killer. Some will see parallels between him and other political leaders - the wealthy, goofy President trying to live up to the image of his father, the manipulation of a nation's fear of terrorism to hide gross abuses of power, etc.

Joe is cursed with a moral compass. He comes to recognize Junior as evil, but struggles with whether betrayal of the regime is the same as betrayal of his country. At first, Thorne looks like Joe's savior. But the question of whether Thorne is a Vaclav Havel - an intellectual who could save his country, or an Abimael Guzman – the imprisoned Peruvian professor and leader of the Shining Path terrorists, is grimly answered in the movie's closing act.

The cast is remarkable, nothing you wouldn't expect from Fiennes and Sutherland, and Lara Flyn Boyle does a terrifically dark and funny Lady Macbeth as Junior's wife. But Tom Hollander's performance deserves special note. Junior is now my favorite movie villain, ever. Frankly, I'd never heard of Hollander before, but here he turns in such a spectacularly comic and sinister performance that I've now Netflixed all of his other movies. If there's justice in this world (and according to this movie, there's not), Hollander would get an Oscar and a huge career out of this film.

LOTB a highly stylized, gorgeously shot movie – the rich production design and cinematography beg comparison to Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' and Jeunet & Caro's 'Delicatessen'. Like those films, LOTB also takes place in a surreal dystopia that feels physically warped by abuses of power. Also, like those films, LOTB is darkly cynical and very, very funny.

It's a rare pleasure to see this kind of razor-sharp satire wrapped in a thrilling, artful, and well-crafted piece of story telling.

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.

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.

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.

This is a grim tale about how totalitarian regimes try to ban the free spirit out of the minds of their citizens. Performances by Ralph Fiennes, as the warden sympathetic to the cause, and Donald Sutherland, as the imprisoned rebel leader, are both splendid. I liked the satirical approach to the subject. Despite its harsh and eerie subject - the cycle of violence concerning revolutions and contra-revolutions - it is also very funny movie on a darker level. It's an absolute blast to spot the existing dictatorial regimes they mixed up to create the most horrible regime imaginable.

Another great movie getting a mediocre score. It's a shame. Though I do understand that this is not the material for your average escapism of everyday life. This grim and violent tale is perhaps only interesting for those with an interest in modern history.