 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.148.210.45
In Reply to: Review: Children of Men, after due consideration. posted by Audiophilander on January 10, 2007 at 14:01:43:
If that really happened I would suggest you break open a Bible cause somebody big is mad.
Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
Follow Ups:
... in Adaptation through Robert McKee's lecture (Brian Cox)! FYI, I'm not exactly a fan of Charlie Kaufman's screenplays in case you haven't figured it out yet, but for your continued edification (or perhaps your continuing education), an explanation of Deus Ex Machina is provided below:
It's nice to see movies that are open to interpretation. Given the great attention to detail it must have taken great dicipline to leave such significant things open to many views. It allowed for much more interesting character development as well.
> > It's nice to see movies that are open to interpretation. < <I concur.
Even though the director left it open to interpretation, there is enough of a hint. The near-simultaneous global infertility indicates that this is a man-made, not natural, flu-related phenomenon: a bioterrorism attack by simultaneous global release of a pathogen. An organization like Om Shinrikiyo (remember Asaharu Oh?) would try to do this. One wonders how long scientists would take to identify the cause and look for a cure. Would they have enough time? Would politicians be able to pacify a panicking society long enough for cure discovery before global anarchy broke out? IMO, all these background details would just bog down the modern story of the Nativity told by Cuaron, though they could make for an interesting, conventional science fiction film.
> > > "IMO, all these background details would just bog down the modern story of the Nativity told by Cuaron, though they could make for an interesting, conventional science fiction film." < < <The christian religious subtext isn't one of the film's strengths, IMO. In a sense, Cueron's film is not just anti-SF, but anti-science and anti-cultural diversity. Such allegories were commonplace during the cold-war when science fiction cautionaries played into the 'us against them' public psyche of nuclear fear that contrasted our christo-capitalist culture with the then-godless communists.
When H.G. Well's War of The Worlds was adapted and updated for Hollywood treatment in the 1950's, religious themes were heavily employed to drive home the East vs. West allegory along with the cautionary moral about science being subserviant to religious values, but in today's world, when religious extremism threatens mankind on every front such preachy themes not only seem antiquated, but out of touch with reality.
Getting back to Children of Men. To some extent, Cueron appears to fault science for mankind's infertility, that it's "god's" punishment. The allegory would still have been there if he had asserted that this outcome resulted from an act or acts of terrorism or environmental catastrophy, etc., but failing to do so only amplifies the religious symbolism. This vagueness actually works against the film rather than for it.
The war ghetto and islam verses christian themes resound in the last 20 or so minutes of the film and the importance of the inexplicable baby is made all too precious to the story emphasizing the nativity angle, but in the end it becomes more of a chase movie with the baby being a McGuffin football headed for the goal line. Even then, we don't know what, or who's goal.
These are all caveats, but my point here is not to condemn a film which I admire and find compelling on several levels, but to make note of other near-future cautionaries which in my estimation pull off their themes more artfully and are, in my estimation, are much more entertaining: films such as Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and even James McTeigue's V for Vendetta (Wachowski bros. screenplay).
That said, I'd recommend seeing Children of Men, even if it falls short of greatness. I believe that Director Cueron achieved what he set out to do, even if I don't agree with all of his choices or resolution.
AuPh
was shot instantly down by her virgin-birth crack."In a sense, Cueron's film is not just anti-SF, but anti-science and anti-cultural diversity. Such allegories were commonplace during the cold-war when science fiction cautionaries played into the 'us against them' public psyche of nuclear fear that contrasted our christo-capitalist culture with the then-godless communists."
Anti science how? Anti-cultural diversity? The movie and not the world it represents? What are you talking about?
> > > "Anti science how?" < < <On several levels science was seen as having caused the problems and then failed to correct them only leaving the door open to a miracle. The breakdown of society to the point of near savagery also lended itself to this anti-science theme.
> > > "Anti-cultural diversity?" < < <
The rounding up of dissidents in nazi-esque fashion and depiction of ghetos where foreign speaking occupants survived in squalor under armed guard is a pretty good indication that cultural diversity was under siege in this dystopian world.
> > > "The movie and not the world it represents? What are you talking about?" < < <
That's trickier, because in most SF movies there's some shread of hope in which the cautionary is grounded; IMHO, there's little if any such hope in Cuaron's film. CoM isn't just dystopian and allegorical, it presents a somewhat hopeless picture of the near-future society it depicts; it could be argued and rightfully, that Kee and her child's departure on the fishing trauler was the end of hope.
If I'm not mistaken, Cuaron himself has stated that Children of Men is anti-science fiction. As a science fiction aficionado who appreciates both utopian and dystopian concepts, I concur with his view of this work. While I admire his film I'm troubled by the anti-science, or rather anti-SF, elements and have reservations about the slice-of-life miracle birth.
Again, and I don't know how many times I can repeat myself here, I admire his film and respect his achieving what he set out to do, but for me, it just falls short of greatness. The consensus may be different, and I respect that as well, but 3 1/2 to 4 stars is all I can muster for a very good to excellent movie based on how I felt about this film when I left the theater. The bottom line, I was moved by certain scenes within the film and left unmoved by others; likewise, in some places the suspension of disbelief was accute and in others I felt manipulated into disbelief. As always, everyone's mileage varies.
AuPh
Where does he do that?I've seen CoM twice and I never took saw that in the film. Maybe the cause of infertility was science, maybe it was terrorism, but no one knows and Cuaron doesn't tell us because he's completely uninterested in the why of the infertility. (And so should you be.) He just wanted to use the premise to hang the movie on.
There are people shown in the film that (naturally enough) proclaim the infertility is God's punishment. That would be a given considering the film's setting and the cultural history of Britain. But they're just there for texture and context. They're not proclaiming Cuaron's POV.
It was to avoid such religious/scientific baggage that Cuaron left the exposition out. The film would then become a film about why women are infertile instead of a film about what happens to society when people lose hope. I think Cuaron was absolutely right in NOT explaining the infertility. It doesn't work against the film - it clears the slate. It lets us see the the seeds of the that fictional dystopia are already planted here in the present. That's why the choices the filmmakers made about not having the movie look "futuristic" are so brilliant - that's us, 20 years from now. It's still recognizable as our own world. And the long takes, the wide shots, the kinetic hand-held camera thrust us into the reality of that place.
I don't understand why you feel the film is "anti-cultural diversity" either. How is that shown in CoM? I would have said the film is strongly the opposite. We have a white guy hero, an African heroine, a black british "baddie", Celtic and white British baddies, British troops of various races herding refugees of various nations/races into camps - refugees which include white Europeans, black Africans, Arabs, Jews, gypsies, Russians, Spaniards, etc. In the book, the pregnant woman is white. In the film, she's a third world, black refugee. Cuaron is a third worlder living and working in the first world - you think he's anti-diversity? Do you think Cuaron was advocating for the status quo - pro deportation of all refugees, Britain for Britons????? Did we see the same film????
I honestly don't see the importance of christian symbolism, although one is certainly free to apply this interpretation. I think you ascribe to the director something that isn't there - Cuaron wisely doesn't make much of it, leaving it in the subtext. He's frankly more interested in the political and social ideas beyond religion.
I'm well aware that anytime you have a baby that could provide hope for mankind some people are going to see this as a direct analogy to the nativity - hell, we even got mom in a manger. And that's perfectly OK. But these analogies are teasers. It ain't what the movie is about. The inner journey of Theo is just as important as the Key and her child, in fact, it's even more important. It's Theo's emotional journey and redemption that is the heart of the movie.
I'm also confused about the Muslim vs christianity you cite? Do you mean the marching at Bexhill??? There were many other ethnic groups collected there, including at least one other bunch marching. It would be natural in a refugee camp that people would live and organize around shared ethnicities. There would be confliicts, both internal and external. I don't believe that kind of reductionism is what the director intended at all. The mess at Bexhill
BTW, I love Brazil and Clockwork Orange, saaw them both in theaters when they came out and own them on DVD. But they are very different films about very different themes by very different filmmakers. There is room for more than a handful of great dystopian films, and they SHOULD shart new territory, they should be different.
V fo Vendetta I can't put in that company. I felt was a fairly weak if interesting effort.
I would say CoM is the best fiml I saw this year - and that included Pan's Labyrinth, UNited 93, Army of Shadows and The Death of Mr. Lazaresu.
I find it interesting...when Brazil came out I was defending it, when Clockwork Orange came out I was defending it, when blade Runner came out I was defending it (though I always hated the VO), now I'm defending CoM. Come back and ssee me in 15 years.
In the very beginning we see clips from all over the world and it seems to indicate global conflict between Muslims and Christians. IIRC, one the tele the phrase "only Britain stands...." was an indication that she was still fighting to stay culturally intact, hence mass deportations.
Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
