Tierra de sangre

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.

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.

'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.

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.

With that said, I must say that 'Land of the Blind' is not for those who get lost in movies easily, or find this subject to be offending or uninteresting. There is not a lot of action, nor are there a huge amount of politically stirring speeches. Think of it sort of like V for Vendetta, except the overthrower is Donald Sutherland, and without all the cool lines, big ka-booms and ninja fight scenes.

Joe (Ralph Fiennes) is a soldier in a prison holding famed terrorist/politician Thorne (Donald Sutherland). As Joe performs his duties, he listens to what the prisoner has to say, becoming affected by it. This is a story of how one man can change the outlook of another by simple words and actions.

The acting in 'Land of the Blind' is superb. Ralph Fiennes lives up to his Oscar nominated expectations by giving a layered, moving, and psychologically deep performance. He really gets you thinking as Joe. He makes the character very interesting, likable, and deep. Donald Sutherland is perfectly cast as Thorne, making him just as intriguing as Joe. His performance is thought generating, powerful, and memorable. Tom Hollander gives a chilling and memorable performance as well, similar to his turn in 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest'. He is shaping up to be one of the new up and coming British actors.

Robert Edwards' writing and direction are another strong element of the film, though not as strong as the acting. The writing is simply above average, because the film tends to drag at times and seem boring, but Edwards' direction of the actors makes up for it. His sets are interesting and realistic, and the music is somewhat noticeable in a good way.

Land of the Blind is the second best political thriller of the year, behind the wonderful V for Vendetta. I enjoyed it, mainly because of the awesome performances of Ralph Fiennes and Donald Sutherland (both should be in the mix for an Oscar nod). Robert Edwards gives us a memorable film that you'll remember for some time. At 110 minutes, it is neither too long, nor too short.

7/10 --spy