By Mitch Ringenberg
<[email protected]>

“Blindness,” the new film by acclaimed director Fernando Meirelles, is an intelligent and thought-provoking film, but not one for the squeamish. “Blindness” is based on a novel of the same name by José Saramago, who won the Nobel Prize for literature. Meirelles directed the ground-breaking and award-winning “City of God,” along with the acclaimed “The Constant Gardener.” With such an impressive billing behind the film, many will be expecting a masterpiece. Alas, this is not the case. “Blindness” is a good film, with a great story and message to offer, but many of its flaws are not difficult to miss.
The movie begins with a single inexplicable event. A young man is driving his car down a busy intersection in an unknown city (we are never given the name of the film’s setting) when he suddenly goes blind. This is not blindness in the conventional sense. Instead of seeing “black” or the absence of light, all the victim sees is a bright white. To make things even stranger, it is contagious.

Eventually, it seems as if the majority of the country has caught this “blindness” and panic has erupted throughout the world. Nobody has any idea where this plague came from or how to cure it. The blind want to be cured, and the unaffected desperately want to hold onto their sight. The government begins to send all of the afflicted into quarantines, where the real story begins.
The story follows the plight of one survivor, played by Julianne Moore, who feigns blindness in order to be with her husband (who, ironically, is an eye doctor), who is being sent to a quarantine. The quarantine is essentially an abandoned hospital with around four separate wards where the blind are basically just given food and left to fend for themselves. It is here where the story reveals its true meaning.

The epidemic strips everyone of their basic human dignities, thus exposing their true nature and morals, or in some cases, a lack thereof. The wards begin to turn on one another for food, and one ward in particular, led by a vicious and evil “king,” takes things much too far.

This is where my biggest complaint concerning the film comes. There are some scenes in “Blindness,” intended to be effective and disturbing that are almost too much to endure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not someone to criticize a film for its violence–I thoroughly enjoyed the “Saw” series–but in order for it to work in a story’s benefit, it has to serve a purpose, and the film has to have heart.

But the violence in this film is sexualized, and while it does indeed benefit the film’s story, it is brutal and cold, and many audience members will feel the need to walk out of the theater during certain scenes. When a film makes you feel uncomfortable, it can be good or bad. It’s a good thing if you feel uncomfortable simply because you care and sympathize with a character and don’t want to watch them go through any pain. When it’s bad, the film is simply showing you actions or images that you do not want to see. Unfortunately, this film falls more on the latter side, which prevents it from being better than it is.

However, this film contains some strong and moving performances, particularly by Moore and Mark Ruffalo, who plays the husband, as the film’s main two protagonists, who are never given names to enhance the film’s symbolism. Moore is especially impressive as the doctor’s wife, while giving us a believable take as a heroine leading the blind. Ruffalo is clearly challenging his acting chops in this role and does a great job with his character.

There will be a great deal of moviegoers and critics panning this film, which is understandable. However, this movie is not for everyone. People with weak stomachs may want to think twice before paying to see it. On the other hand, moviegoers looking for a change of pace from multi-million dollar blockbusters and wanting to be challenged will find something to appreciate in “Blindness.”