16
Educated people becoming cold-blooded terrorists. Apparently ‘decent’ men turning into vicious killers. Self-claimed scholars of faith harbouring fantasies of mass murder. And equally decent men justifying such murders.
The world has been increasingly seeing the emergence of such folk. Why is this so, and are such people inherently evil?
A little-known independent film, Land of the Blind (2006), looks at the creation of one such character. The film is a subtle political satire starring the veteran Hollywood actor, Donald Sutherland, and famous British actor, Ralph Fiennes.
Though the film is largely a satirical dig at the politics of dictatorships, one of its most interesting aspects is its portrayal of a character called John Thorne (played by Sutherland).
The film takes place in a fictional country with a largely Caucasian population (with Christian names). But the look of the city in which the film’s plot unfolds has architectural and cultural elements that are a fusion of 20th century South American and Middle-Eastern settings.
The country is being ruled by a corrupt and oppressive tyrant called Maximillian II.
Maximillian II lets his secret police run the regime, because he is always busy relishing his love of producing over-budgeted action films and catering to the decadent demands of his wife.
It’s an oppressive regime that does not allow any criticism and dissent against its policies. It regularly tortures, murders and jails dissenters. The country’s economy has also been suffering due to Maximillian’s corruption, resulting in the rise of poverty levels and crime.
Joe (played by Fiennes) is a guard at a prison that has filthy little cells in which political prisoners are held for torture and execution. One of the cells holds John Thorne, an anti-government activist and scholar.
He is often beaten and tortured by the guards, but he still continues to denounce Maximillian’s regime. His denouncements are punctuated by quotes of famous philosophers and sages. This begins to draw Joe towards him.
A cinematic satire on totalitarianism and how absolute power corrupts absolutely provides food for thought
Joe leads a regular working-class life and is almost entirely apolitical. But his fascination with Thorne continues to grow. He finds himself awakened to the plight of his country and the nature of the regime views roused by his talks with Thorne.
One day, Maximillian decides to release Thorne, hoping he would fade away as just another cranky activist. On the other hand, Joe is promoted and becomes a member of the elite guard stationed at Maximillian’s palace.
After spending some months at the palace, Joe is shocked by Maximillian’s decadent behaviour. Thorne’s scholarly words and revolutionary slogans ring in his head and he decides to help Thorne topple Maximillian.
A plot is hatched by the two in which Joe secretly lets Thorne and some of his followers into the palace. The idea is to remove and jail Maximillian and hold an election.
Convinced that Throne would usher in a more just set-up in the country, Joe is taken aback when Thorne and his men shoot and kill Maximillian and his wife.
Thorne explains that the killings were a necessity. After taking over the government, he declares Joe to be a ‘national hero’. Joe, however, withdraws.
But he can’t help notice how the empathetic activist that he had grown so fond of, has now turned into a monster.
Thorne never holds the election. Instead, he unleashes a reign of torture, arrests and killings against his opponents and orders the separation of children from parents (so the children could be correctly indoctrinated); he bans films and the import of foreign medicines; and sets up ‘re-education camps’ where men and women are sent to memorise the thoughts and words of Thorne. He also orders the women to cover themselves up in public.
Joe is distraught. He confronts Thorne who tells Joe that he was only implementing policies based on the principles and ideals on which the country was created and that this was the best way to keep it safe from men like Maximillian.
Joe is repulsed by Thorne’s explanation and tells him that he was even worse than Maximillian! Thorne laughs off Joe’s accusation, calling him a naïve man. He then calmly orders his arrest. Joe is thrown in jail, tortured and then forced into a re-education camp. But he refuses to support Thorne and is thus left there to rot.
The film is a cinematic satire on totalitarianism, political expediency and state-imposed morality, but it also suggests that many men (such as Thorne), though greatly affected by injustices in society, personalise the effects of the flawed system to such an extent that instead of becoming a clear anti-thesis of the oppressive system, they eventually adopt its traits and then justify this adoption by giving the same system their own twist.
Thorne, when he was in jail, was a man affected by the manner in which the common people were suffering in a system imposed by a tyrant. But when he came to power, he behaved as if he alone had suffered during Maximillian’s regime.
So, after drawing his immediate revenge against the regime by assassinating Maximillian and his family, he still felt that the humiliation that he suffered in Maximillian’s jails was not completely avenged. Thus, he turned against society itself which, he believed, was equally responsible for his past sufferings.
Of course, this is not how he saw it. By imposing a totalitarian set-up based on archaic and myopic forms of morality and order, he instead believed that he was gifting the people a more just and moral order compared to Maximillian’s decadent and corrupt set-up.
The film also takes a satirical jibe at the hypocrisy that is inherent in such self-righteous thinking and behaviour. Because at the end of the film, Thorne is assassinated in the royal bathtub in which he is enjoying a bubble bath — with his mistress.
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine November 22nd, 2015
