i saw children of men this week, the new film from alfonso cuarón. he is best known for directing y tu mamá también and harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban. the film is set in a dystopic london in 2027, and women have been infertile for 18 years. everyone is hopeless as they know that the extinction of humanity is inevitable. there is great warring between nations over immigration because several populations wish to immigrate to london and laws are thus set up against this. i thought this was a really interesting idea to pose because the reason for the infertility is unknown and quite possibly due to environmental issues; something that concerns us today. the films asks us to question how we would deal with this not-so-implausible reality. clive owen's character, theodore, is asked by his former partner, julian (julianne moore) to assist in transporting a woman who is somehow (it's never explained) pregnant to the human project; a ship at sea that carries scientists working to save humanity.
the plot follows theodore as he transports kee (the pregnant woman) through several potentially fatal situations where almost everyone else gets killed along the way. it is these scenes that are most intense. cuarón uses ridiculously long takes to increase the tension and i found myself in awe of how he could have orchestrated these scenes without any cuts (that i could tell). one scene in particular is when theodore is helping kee and her midwife escape a safehouse that turns out to not be safe...he attempts to steal a car that won't start, so pushes it while running away from several people who were planning to kill him anyways. the camera is inside the car spinning around to take in every character's reaction and the subsequent injuries.
aside from all this, the film also addresses the national politics involved in a situation like this one. there are groups of people who want to help kee get to the human project and potentially save humankind and there are others who wish to use her child for more political reasons.
because kee is an immigrant, she is not legally allowed to enter london, thus the possible solution to humanity's extinction is disallowed because of arbitrary man-made borders. kee's fertile body represents the possibility of life on earth if these borders are removed. there is one scene in which the warring soldiers stop their gunfire to allow theodore, kee, and her baby to pass through a building to safety, demonstrating this recognition. as soon as they are safely through, the gunfire resumes, thus ending the temporary dissolution of borders.
i'd definitely recommend this film. if you've got any thoughts/opinions on it or what i said...leave em here....
check out the trailer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ok, so mom and I just saw this film and have some major problems with the lack of explanations, that could be either the fault of the screenwriter or the novelist. Let me point out that there are scenes of burning cows (think mad cow disease footage) and burning fields. Where are the Britons getting their food supply if the rest of the world is in greater disarray than their country. Where are they getting their tobacco and why is it such a common thing if it seems like its such a rare bargaining tool. Tobacco comes from North America, so whats the deal.
Also, the plot was all very sketch around the idea of the Human Project and how they exist, and who knows. The very brief conversation that Theo has with Miriam on the refugee bus is very vague while providing just enough information to possibly trick the audience into thinking they understand what the problem is, or have maybe guessed what could potentially happen next. Vague.
Ok, now let me tackle my take on your "dissolution of borders". The way interpreted it was more about the shock factor of a baby. I don't think something like seeing the first newborn baby after 18 years could be anything less, and therefore I think there would be less conscious thought, and more dumbfounded actions. They would have let her pass because they wouldn't have known what else to do. You can bet that the last thing you would find in the soldiers handbook is "What to do when you encounter a refugee with a newborn baby" after many babyless editions.
I do realize that you tend to focus more on the cinematographic and symbolic aspects of film, as is your training, I just think this movie was quite foggy. What happens to Theo after the last scene? How do you know the Human Project is a boat of scientists working to save humanity? How does anyone know that? They're a legend. And the group that wanted to protect Kee and the group that wanted to use the baby for political reasons were the same group, just coming from different powers from within. Julian wanted her protected, those that killed Julian felt the opposite. That's what Theo discovers that launches the entire following plot of the film.
I'm not denying that the overall plot of the movie is intriguing, especially since, as inhabitants of Earth, we really have no idea for sure what our actions will have on the future environment, and movies such as this one and The Day After Tomorrow have speculated, or made outlandish "statements" about the future destiny of the planet that maybe aren't so outlandish?
Aside from a good attempt at a plot, I wish the film hadn't tried to wow and distract the audience with neverending fight and escape scenes that dragged on without advancing anything but the position of the actors on set.
I would recommend this film only if you don't mind being left hanging and confused.
[spoilers below]
Definitely cool. I have to disagree with you though Rae on the vagueness; not about it being in there, but about it being a problem. Usually the problem with this kind of conceptual sci fi film is that you have scenes that are awkwardly put in to explain to us how we got to a particular situation. I find it usually takes me out of the narrative, but they managed to skirt it here. For example, if they'd had characters discussing the origin of the words "fugee", "F.I.S.H.", etc, or talking at length about the fact that women can't have babies, it would have rung false. No one has conversations in which they explain in a roundabout way what 'googling' is to an outside observer - you just use the term, cause it's part of your world, just like the slang and political landscape of 2027 would be commonplace and unremarkable for Theo. A Clockwork Orange is probably one of the more famous examples of this kind of thing.
That being said, the lack of detailed history might be seen as politically problematic. David Walsh writes in an article on the world socialist website,
"Children of Men makes no effort to explain how British society has become so oppressive. Repression of immigrants appears to have little or no connection to generalized economic difficulty. It simply seems malevolent. Unfortunately, this is not a unique failing. Neither Minority Report (Steven Spielberg) nor V For Vendetta (James McTeigue) could provide a plausible explanation for the dismal future each envisioned. The artists’ intuition as to the possibility and quality of a military-police regime is far more advanced than their understanding about the driving forces of such a process."
Now, David Walsh would say this, cause he's all about a "thoroughgoing rejection of the social order" and the systemic dialectics of social change, but maybe he has a point here. He also mentions that he was hoping for some more debate in the film, dialogue that deals in detail with the ideas the film is working through (what is it with these socialists? stick to your speeches and manifestos if it's all about the words... ;-)
All of this being said, I can't deny that I really wanted to see what was inside the human project. Of course, I can't think of anything they could have showed me that would satisfy me... I think chose well to end it when they did (I think we're lucky they didn't just leave the trio drifting in the fog without answering the Human Project question, which they very well could have done).
Carly, I dig your border crossing thing, with nationalism as anti-humanity. The film is a little heavy on the violence in general, but I think that scene alone is enough to justify 90 minutes of carnage. It's such a profound moment of silence that would have been impossible without the contrasting chaos of the rest of the film. I especially like the bit before the soldiers enter the building, where the inhabitants are just watching the baby pass in awe, still getting hit intermittently with stray bullets. I think it's even more striking than when they're passing the soldiers, cause the film manages to establish this tone of awe and majesty even though the carnage is still happening. It's this really interesting paradoxical moment, surreal almost, that puts a unique frame on the violence. It becomes unintelligible, it's as if the characters are entirely numb to it; no one can even make sense of it as violence anymore.
Anyway super cool blog you're rocking here. This is my first comment but I've been watching it all the way along.
Some more discussion on this:
470 Discussion Board
my friend amanda posted on facebook about this so i'm copying our discussion here:
so amanda said:
Here's what I thought:
I HATE Shaky Cams... Walker and I felt sick, boo. Although it did add to the realism, it also made it difficult to watch.
I think there was a theme of Joseph and Mary "looking for the Inn". Maybe it's a stretch but at one point I definitely saw it.
I found it frustrating that the film did not answer some pivotal questions like "why is this woman going to save the world?". I want to give the film credit for being so incredibly filmed (the blood splatter on the LENS, amazingly terrifying and very video game like), but I was frustrated because I needed to know more about why this infertility happened and why the government had turned so evil. But, I suppose if we had all the answers, I'd be annoyed with the political brew ha ha forced upon me.
In the end, I found the violent scenes of the camp unsettling and without justification. I suppose that contributed to the sheer violence of the acts... I suppose it seemed just a little too real.
Agree, No?
and my response to amanda:
my thoughts on that are that a) i don't think its pivotal to know how kee is going to save humanity, or that she definitely will. i think it's more that she offers the hope that humans will go on reproducing. and b) if we were given more details about how the infertility happened, it would make the film more scifi-ish...like if they explained every detail to death, you would be able to remove yourself more from the situation and i think the film wants us to feel like this could happen to us in the near future.
as for the joseph and mary thing, i never considered it but yes i can see that...i suppose its an interesting metaphor...like if you subscribe to the jesus story, then these 2 are offering hope for humanity, blah blah...what scene did you notice it in particular?
yeah shaky cams can be nauseating but i think it did definitely put you in the middle of the action...and same with the violence, i think he's going for realism, etc...which i think helped the film.
i think this is one of those movies where i loved it and you didn't and neither of us are going to convince the other to change their mind...like if you need more details to be satisfied, i can't give them to you. and i definitely see what you're saying but just felt differently about the omission of these details.
Post a Comment