Notes on Blindness (2016)

Kermode finds the film extraordinary, educational and inspirational. He praises how its inventive sound and imagery convey John Hull’s changing experience of blindness.

Walsh finds the film an achingly poignant and powerful portrait of adapting to blindness. She especially praises the Hulls’ taped voices for their honesty and searching curiosity.

Felperin finds the film richly evocative and thought-provoking, an unusual blend of documentary, drama and essay. She singles out its distinctive use of actors lip-synching to real audio recordings.

The review presents the documentary as moving and creatively made. It singles out the audiotapes recorded as an academic’s eyesight failed.

The review finds the documentary deeply sensitive and says it reveals blindness as a richer experience than many might assume. It praises the way Hull’s audio diaries and carefully staged reenactments draw viewers into his reflections.

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It also conceals what the review singles out for praise or complaint.

The page is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the available text.

Jenkins finds the film atmospheric and gently moving, but ultimately too lightweight and lacking a strong hook. He praises Dan Skinner’s subtle performance while criticizing the film for explaining moments that would be stronger if shown.

The critic finds the film’s approach misguided, arguing that it compensates for blindness rather than embracing it. They fault its lush imagery and sentimental music for competing with Hull’s recordings and limiting the audience’s experience of sensory privation.

Knibbs finds the documentary and its VR companion effective, recognizing Hull’s humanity rather than inviting pity. She singles out their sensory treatment of sound and rain for making his inner life feel vivid and known.