Click To Subscribe
Get By EmailMovie Notes: Children Of Men
= 3 stars
Starring Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Claire-Hope Ashitey
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Amazon Link
In an odd way, Children Of Men, a future dystopian nightmare, which was hardly advertised, and I haven’t even seen the trailer, was still a let down. The premise is great, the acting stellar, and the cinematography out of sight (there are several “one take” scenes that are amazing to watch unfold), but what starts out mesmerizing sadly collapses into stressful situation one after the other, never headed towards any resolution. Meanwhile, the only glimmer of hope is completely contrived and unbelievable, resulting in a film - that for me, at least - built on a house of cards.
The film takes place in 2027 where the entire world has basically gone to heck. The human race is infertile (nobody knows why). Britain is the sole nation still functioning, possibly through a military dictatorship. Nuclear war has obliterated several continents and America is in a state of constant terrorist attacks (there is reference to a “Siege of Seattle”). As a result, there is constant wave of refugees (”fugees”) trying to get into England which are being captured, jailed concentration camp style, and deported. Into the mix arrives a young “fugee” woman named Kee (Claire Hope-Ashitey) who is miraculously with child. Journalist Theo (Clive Owen) is sucked into protecting her and escorting her to safety.
I’m usually on board with bleak science fiction films, from Twelve Monkeys to Minority Report, but Children of Men is so utterly depressing that my interest began to fade about halfway through. Initially, we’re given a look at some cool technology of the future, from see-through monitors, newspapers with moving images, and kids fiddling with hologram cubes via wires on fingers. However, by the middle of the film, we’re not dealing with this technological future but a standard thriller that moves into a ground war more similar to what’s going on in Iraq today. I can understand why this happens for plot reasons, but I personally didn’t find it all that entertaining to be put in the middle of something I didn’t know I was getting into - which I suppose is the film’s point.
Second, while I could buy many aspects of this depressing future, I couldn’t go one step further and swallow the blatant religious symbolism of a pregnant woman (the rebels are called “fishes,” Kee is in a barn, and note how several people when first presented with the newborn, utter “Jesus Christ”). Children of Men could essentially be a retelling of the nativity. But it asks for a serious suspension of disbelief to believe that these religious beliefs would still be relevant in this supposedly believable 2027. And to think this one child could possibly offer salvation to the warring factions battling over this husk of a planet is completely ridiculous.
I guess the bottom line is, this world isn’t worth saving. It’s kind of lame, really, to have such an outstandingly directed film, supposed to be a realistic extrapolation of bleak current events with a religious, undeniably religious core to it. Because, after all, fanatical belief is part of the problem. To have that as the beacon of hope in this plausible future, I find frankly, irresponsible. So despite my admiration for the film making of Children of Men, I can’t advocate it.
IMDB: Children of Men
Wikipedia: Children of Men
Rotten Tomatoes: Children of Men 91%
Categories: 3 Star Movies, General, Movies :: Tags: ::
Trackback URL
Front Page
Previous Post: Music Notes: Sid and Susie, Under The Covers Volume 1
Next Post: Netflix Offering Free Streaming Movies
Related Posts: Crazy Business Idea 4: Family Airlines :: Apple Releases Apple TV 2.0.1 Update :: Movie Notes: Me And You And Everyone We Know :: Apple: Movie Download Purchases Are Great, But I Want More Rentals ::
"Thanks - i'll mention the one day twitter boycott too. But a big reason why I'm okay with leaving Twitter temporarily is because I have FriendFeed - my cojones are not that big." -
I disagree with the review on a lot of points.
1. how can you call it depressing when the plot and thematic arc of the film is about finding hope where there is none?
2. i felt the film is just a (minor) exegeration of what the present situation is like now. maybe you are not aware, but immigrants are looked down upon in most countires in the world. there is rampant racism all around. it is thus not unrealistic at all.
3. if you cannot face upto the facts in this film, then you are not facing upto the facts of the present.
1. Well Joe, as I pointed out in this review, I don’t think that glimmer of hope was believable. That one scene where all the soldiers put their guns down for one child? That will never happen in today’s world. Even if some individual came forth as some kind of “messiah” half the world think it was propoganda.
2. I agree with that.
3. It’s sort of a matter of belief. I can’t believe that the world is as bleak as the vision pointed out in this film, because then I’d conclude there is no hope. If you’re of the opinion that things are already as bad as they are in this film - well - that really, really, really sucks! I feel there are still things we can do today to keep this future from occurring. I don’t want to live in a world where all the hope is riding on one person.
Anyhow thanks for commenting. I have comments open to get different points of view, even if you disagree.
i agree to what you said in point 3, but my argument was actually in a different light. as a film, Children Of Men can be considered a distorted mirror. But consider the possibilty that the film-maker intended it that way. The film’s sole objective was not entertainment. he used the future to discuss the present. I have in no way implied that things in the movie have a direct resonance in this time frame. i stated that it was exxagerated. thus your statement “i feel there are still things we can do today to keep this future from occuring” and my statement are essentially teh same: “if you cannot face upto the facts in this film, then you are not facing upto the facts of the present.”
since we both agree on point 2 let me discuss point 1.
that one scene cannot be taken in the context of the present. because in the time frame of the film, the root of all issues is impotency. a child birth is a miracle then. if we subjectively look at the film-maker’s intent, he makes it almost dreamy, the light looses it’s harsh look, the exposure blooms. but this reverie is broken when the rocket is fired. so you see, Cuaron does not adhere to a narrative structure confined by plot alone. sure, it’s dramatic. but the intent is not believability here, but subjectivity.
Hmmm, well, since the whole film (at least to me) was filmed an a very realistic manner, I think when it stepped out of that and turned into something “subjective” as you say, with the child and the cease fire, I think that was a bad choice.
I suppose that is an instance where my political and religious beliefs taint my objectivity of this film - I am basically an agnostic. As such, I found the religious references out of place, and did not satistfy my definition of hope. When I saw this “miracle” as you put it, I just thought - so what? Is this child supposed to be the mother of the entire human race? More likely she’d be warred over and killed by some competing faction. I didn’t accept it as a hopeful sign. Even in a world with no children, I found it hard to swallow.
Anyhow, I appreciate your comments as they make me think about the movie again. I’m hoping you will review a movie that I have seen on your blog in the future, so I can add a comment there.
When Theo asks her who the father was, she says that she is a virgin. There is a beat-pause and then they start laughing. I think of that scene and it almost feels like Cuaron kills the argument of any religious symbolism there. but then again, it can be taken in the other context- that it was added to remind the audience that there is a layer of religious symbolism, albeit in the vein of dark humour.
there is also a sequence when they exit the bulding from Bexhill when the camera leave the protagonists and shows a mother cryind for a dead son. Almost Pieta like. Not almost, when you come to think of it. It is an obscure reference that felt jarring, yet it blended well with the tone of the film.
you are more than welcome to comment on my film reviews. But i’ve refrained from over-reviewing now. for some reason it kills the purpose. maybe i’ll post film studies rather than film reviews.