The film starts with the sudden blindness of a Japanese man in an intersection and ends when he suddenly regained his sight. In between, many people got his ‘blindness virus’--the doctor, his Japanese wife, the whore, the bartender, etc.--until such time that isolating the afflicted in a prison-like compound did not make sense anymore. Everybody was blind except for the doctor’s wife (Julianne Moore), who for unknown reasons has immunity to blindness. She pretended to be blind though so she can take care of her husband (Mark Ruffalo) while in the quarantine compound.
Blindness turns dark and violent towards the middle, when the self-proclaimed King of Ward 3 (Gael Garcia Bernal) decided to take all the food ration from the government and distribute it--a representation of a tyrannical form of government. At first, he demanded jewelry in exchange of food. When the inmates had no more jewelry to give, he demanded women in exchange for food. Then the movie turned darker and more violent when the killings started.
But the film did not end there. It would take 30 minutes or so before it ends, and I wonder, how will this film end? I thought it would end when it rained, and all the blind people went outside to taste and feel the raindrops in their skin. That was how I would like it to end.
A lot of films have already presented versions of our future world, and Blindness presented a scary--because everything is uncertain--dark world, where the evil inside all of us rules because of the need to survive. Like a beast, an animal in the wild. Like what happened in Lord of the Flies when the children got stranded in an island and were left on their own.
It goes to show that we are more inclined to do evil things to each other than good ones. Even the doctor’s wife, who was democratic at first, turned violent and let go of her moral beliefs just to survive. So that even when she did not get the virus, she also turned blind.
- - - - - - -
However, these were not the focus of the film. It was not science per se. It was far more than any immunological defense mechanisms we humans have. It was not about the tangible human being but the sense obliterated in Blindness – Eyesight. It showcased how humans will act when E (for eyesight) was eliminated; human as less humanE.
It did not have any fancy effects or renowned setting but every plot was convincing enough to hook you and close my blabber-scientific mouth. Acting wise, actors were good (Yes, good is vague, I know) and apologies because I am not really into American stars especially when it comes to remembering their names.
Nevertheless, it was full of realizations on how animalistic we humans can be when faced in a notorious environment and survivability. It was a matter of life and death in a literally dark ecosystem. Morality was ousted and selfish acts ruled over. It was not about the “hardcore” sciences; it centered and exacerbated social sciences (political, psychological, etc.) which in my belief are far more complex.
I want you to be bemused as well so watch it. Literally see Blindness yourself!
Yes. I am a biologist. I am human and as reminded by the film, more importantly humane.
- - - - - - -
PAM: Jicker, welcome! Jicker, the biologist, was having a case of "Clyde Syndrome" while watching the movie, but I'm glad that he eventually got the point that there are plausible stories even without the scientific explanation of the causes of events. And this, dear readers (if you do exist) is part of the fun of watching movies.
("Clyde Syndrome" is named after our good friend Clyde, an agricultural engineer by profession (number 5 in the board exams!) and a movie buff as well. The syndrome is prevalent in individuals (i'm not saying all, and not in all cases of movie-watching episodes) in natural science disciplines because they are grounded in material scientific evidence-based logic system. Though he had the habit of finding scientific bases for cause-effect sequences in movies, I guess he is learning the process of suspended disbelief.)
I skip the plot summary of the film as Kei has already done a good job of providing it. Jicker's take on the film is about being humanE, Kei's about uncertainty, mine's about order and control.
So everyone loses eyesight, except for the doctor's wife. It would be interesting to note that at the beginning of the film, she seemed to be some secondary character playing the supportive wife of a successful ophthalmologist who may have the knowledge and skill to at least solve the riddle of blindness that has stricken the population. As the film progresses, she comes to the foreground establishing herself as the film's heroine, savior of the blind.
As blindness afflicted everyone, except the doctor's wife, the notion of control and order became hinged on fear and violence.
I have a different take on doctor's wife's immunity to blindness : she became an all seeing eye, she did not turn blind, she acted based on the prevailing "justice system" of the wards, because what used to be the justice system was the one that turned blind. She was the light into this very dark film about humanity losing a sense, and the sense of order.
The film also showed that despite chaos, people would always find a way to put things back into order, however different that new order from the way it was. And disorder does not merely change people's positions in the societal hierarchy, it can also change their inner character - the bad can overshadow the good, the good may overcome the bad.
The end of the story was too easy. It would have been interesting, though, to have an ending different from how the director/writer chose to end the film. What if people did not get back their eyesight? What kind of order could have evolved?
No comments:
Post a Comment