Change Your Image
Laert
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Land of the Blind (2006)
A quiet sigh about the state of the world
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.
The Pianist (2002)
To show how it really was like doesn't mean to make a good movie.
Spoiler!!!!!!!!! There are plenty of movies set in eastern Europe during the second World War. And I'm sure that "The Pianist" is not among the best of them. Certainly it is important for such a movie to create an adequate atmosphere, to let the audience feel the dimension of the brutality and inhumanity of the nazi regime. Yet I think that Polansky focused too much on it and the rest of the movie suffered from it.
The movie was meant to be a portrait of Szpilman. Now, what have we learned about him? He survived the war, he lost his family and his possessions, he had to suffer... I didn't feel like I learned a lot about his nature. The same is to say about Szpilman's family. Polansky failed to show the uniqueness of his characters.
Instead he showed many scenes of violence and brutality, a lot more than necessary to create the adequate atmosphere. What for? To show ignorant people that nazis did horrible things? But I don't think that "The pianist" was meant to be a movie for ignorant people. To let you feel the brutality? Well, after the fifth scene of that kind I wasn't able to feel anything of that kind any longer. It was just needless and disgusting.
There are two scenes I want to point out. The first is the scene where the SS-officer finds Szpilman and forces him to play the piano. This is the most impressing scene of the whole movie. You feel the desperation in the music and the performance of both actors is great. Then the scene in which the same officer leaves his overcoat for Szpilman. Why did Polansky include this scene??? I can not find an answer. The outcome of it was so obvious that there could not be any suspense at all. Of course Szpilman runs out to meet the Russians in that coat, of course they think he is an SS-officer and shoot at him, of course he survives - 5 minutes of the movie completely lost.
For those who would like to see a movie treating the same topic absolutely differently I recommend "Gloomy Sunday". And sorry for all the mistakes!