Los ojos vendados

At long last I was able to see this film last night as part of a(n) (incomplete) Carlos Saura retrospective sponsored by the Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York City. Having been a big fan of the director's CRIA CUERVOS (1976) and ELISA, VIDA MIA (1977), both of which were shown commercially in the United States and warmly received, I was dismayed when LOS OJOS VENDADOS (1978) received no theatrical release and never turned up as part of previous Carlos Saura retrospectives in NYC.

Saura's collaborations with Geraldine Chaplin are the shining lights of his career and LOS OJOS VENDADOS is no exception. Her presence in this film is indispensable to its success, and she is never less than mesmerizing. I would need at least another viewing to begin to appreciate fully the film's layers and nuances -- the ways it links falling in love with the disintegration of existing relationships; persistence of memories with dreams and nightmares; persecution by self, others and society with political terrorism.

The film is filled with unforgettable imagery and haunting moments. Except for two overlong and overdone sequences (ironically, one of which is a dance scene given that Saura's reputation today rests mostly on his dance films), LOS OJOS VENDADOS is one of Saura's strongest films. The final 5 minutes are unforgettable.

By the time he made LOS OJOS VENDADOS, Saura had definitely developed an identifiable style of his own, and it is a pity that his 1970s films are largely ignored and/or unavailable today. Unseen in New York for 28 years, LOS OJOS VENDADOS drew only a handful of viewers at the showing I saw. The film cries out for restoration (the print the Film Society managed to unearth was faded pink and had a botched subtitling job). It is perhaps an even more relevant and powerful film now than it was in 1978.

Los ojos vendados (Blind folded eyes) is a melancholy story about relationships, especially Carlos Saura's relationship with Geraldine Chaplin against a back drop of a play about a woman name Inez sufferings at the hands of an authoritarian government.

Side note: Saura was part of a tribunal that heard the testimony of people who were tortured by the Franco government.

Luis (Jose Luis Gomez) an acting teacher and theater director of the play, has his lover Emilia (Chaplin) play the main character which mirrors how Saura placed Chaplin in the main character roles of his movies.

The scenes between Luis and Emilia felt very personal as if they were mirroring the conversations between Saura and Chaplin. Those scenes are very poignant because a year after the film was released, their relationship ended.

What does the title mean? I do believe it has a two meanings. One, we walk through life blindfolded, ignoring the world around us. Two, We are blindfolded in our relationships and refuse to take it off until its too late.

As of when this review is written, the movie can be found on the Criterion Channel (there is a subscription)

I highly recommend the film.

(1978) Blindfolded Eyes/ Los ojos vendados (In Spanish with English subtitles) POLITICAL SOCIAL COMMENTARY

Written and directed by Carlos Saura that opens with an announcement of some testimonies by civilians who had been mistreated by an authoritarian, while one of them comes up on stage while wearing dark sunglasses. It then has theater/ actor instructor, Luis (José Luis Gómez) coming to meet, Emilia (Geraldine Chaplin) and her husband, Manuel (Xabier Elorriaga) and he shows up so that he can invite her to one of his classes. And upon her visiting one of his classes, the movie some times flips back and forth between Luis and Emilia. Luis revisits some of the same places that was a part of his childhood such as Mr. Andres who sells coal for a living and his auntie, Emilia recounts how gov't agents used to capture, cover her eyes and interrogate her. At the same time Luis is writing about his experiences, he continues to receive threatening letters, he continues to be defiant and ignore those threats for it was just a matter of time both are destined to be with one another. We also get to see how they first met, which is on a country field and both Elia and her husband happened to be driving on the opposite side of that long stretchy road, and decided to stop and check up on him.

I was involved in what is a fictitious social commentary movie, I did not care for the way it ended. It still does explain local authorities involvement of all this after the authoritarian passed away, or how history itself looked back on it. This is the eighth of nine movies actress Geraldine Chaplin collaborated with writer/ director Carlos Saura.

Theater manager José Luis Gómez watches a commission report on torture and a victim of that torture speak of her experience. He decides to stage a show based on it. When Geraldine Chaplin gets the role of the victim, her life begins to resemble that of a victim of violence. She moves out of her marriage home to stay with Gómez as his lover. As time goes on and she delves into how to play the character, she begins to dream of the events happening to her.

Carlos Saura's movie can be read as an indictment of Method Acting, of the insanity that comes with delving too deeply into a role so that reality loses its meaning. Equally, it can be viewed as the loss of reality on the part of terrorist and dictatorial governments. I learned recently that among college-educated terrorists, the most frequent major seems to be engineering. The article speculated it was not because they know how to make bombs, but because their training leads the to the idea that there is always one right answer, and therefore other choices are wrong.

That unsettling thought aside Saura's movie lacks a philosophic underpinning, except that he's against violence because it hurts people, or worse, upsets otherwise nice people. Perhaps it's the sense of focus among the actors, who behave as if what they are doing will have no real-life repercussions that''s the point: do what's right, but understand it may not turn out well.