Coups d'État

Land of the Blind is a fearless meditation on the corrupting nature of power, and adds to the current, very welcome, crop of thought provoking political films. But it is quite unlike anything else you will see. All to the better. It will demand a response, provoke debate. The narrative goes from farce to horror to poetry in a moment. There is no way the audience can just settle back and let the film roll before them. You are involved.

The story, set in a non-specific time and place, draws on revolutions, emperors and dictators from history. It is not simply of the Left, nor of the Right. It is more complex and questioning than that. Idiots in positions of power make a terrible mess. Idealistic intellectuals take over … and make a terrible mess. We've seen it and continue to see it the world over. The message is see what power can do. It is never year Zero. One must always learn from history. The film makes a rare plea for wisdom.

The cast list is extraordinary. The roster of stars, working for a fraction of their normal fee I believe, appear to seize with gusto the unusual material they have been given and turn in excellent performances. Particularly noteworthy are Tom Hollander and Donald Sutherland as the two sides of the dictating coin and Jonathan Hyde and Robert Daws as the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee courtiers, funny and frightening by swift turns. Ralph Fiennes gives a career best. And the elephants? What do they mean? Make up your own mind.

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.

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.

This film is about a prison guard siding with a political prisoner in a fictional country. The prison guard helps overthrow the government, only to find out that the new president is a worse dictator.

The story was a bit slow to start with, but it becomes mesmerising soon. The political tones in the film cannot be underestimated. The filmmakers are careful not to criticise any kinds of regime, in order to avoid a political war.

The two leading actors, Ralph Fiennes and Donald Sutherland both give strong performances in the film. They make the film very enjoyable to watch.

In addition, the stylish editing and cinematography makes the film very artistic.

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.