Comments on: C For Children Of Men http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:28:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Dennis http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6098 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:22:46 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6098 <i>Just as a matter of sheer practicality, dying societies will take whatever labour they can get. </i> As many eulogists of fading Europe will attest. The film is mostly excellent; it has the same remarkably vivid depiction of a future dystopia as <i>Blade Runner</i> without that film's sleep-inducing dialogue, wooden acting, and grade school storytelling. Much of the film's brilliance is in not only the look but in what's happening around the characters as they move about, sometimes in lingering on something just a moment longer after a character passes through a scene, for instance; Cuaron is a master of creating a moving canvas. The main flaw is the heavy-handed attempt to shoehorn in a contemporary statement on the immigration debate. Cuaron makes no attempt to properly place in context Britain's besiegement by the refugees ("fugees" in the film) of what appears to be the desperate remainder of humanity, much less present Britain's attendant closing off of its borders as anything other than the product of vicious white racism, with all the subtlety of a Wachowski bros. film. Keeping his foot on the audience's collective neck, he seems intent on stifling an obvious ethical dilemma before it can occur to us (perhaps unintentionally making a statement about the current immigration debate after all); that is a Britain reduced to Third World living standards being overrun by desperate masses of refugees from a comparably more desperate world would likely have no other choice but to forcibly turn the bulk of them away. Despite this and I think some other lacunae, I recommend this film highly, and while I think I understand what Mr. Newland is saying (I too felt the film was somewhat incomplete), I actually found it moving. I just happened to grab a copy of the book from the library earlier today for my daughter. From my understanding the film departs from the book considerably (someone said the novel is essentially conservative; Cuaron, obviously, takes a different approach). Just as a matter of sheer practicality, dying societies will take whatever labour they can get.
As many eulogists of fading Europe will attest.
The film is mostly excellent; it has the same remarkably vivid depiction of a future dystopia as Blade Runner without that film’s sleep-inducing dialogue, wooden acting, and grade school storytelling. Much of the film’s brilliance is in not only the look but in what’s happening around the characters as they move about, sometimes in lingering on something just a moment longer after a character passes through a scene, for instance; Cuaron is a master of creating a moving canvas.

The main flaw is the heavy-handed attempt to shoehorn in a contemporary statement on the immigration debate. Cuaron makes no attempt to properly place in context Britain’s besiegement by the refugees (”fugees” in the film) of what appears to be the desperate remainder of humanity, much less present Britain’s attendant closing off of its borders as anything other than the product of vicious white racism, with all the subtlety of a Wachowski bros. film.
Keeping his foot on the audience’s collective neck, he seems intent on stifling an obvious ethical dilemma before it can occur to us (perhaps unintentionally making a statement about the current immigration debate after all); that is a Britain reduced to Third World living standards being overrun by desperate masses of refugees from a comparably more desperate world would likely have no other choice but to forcibly turn the bulk of them away.

Despite this and I think some other lacunae, I recommend this film highly, and while I think I understand what Mr. Newland is saying (I too felt the film was somewhat incomplete), I actually found it moving.

I just happened to grab a copy of the book from the library earlier today for my daughter. From my understanding the film departs from the book considerably (someone said the novel is essentially conservative; Cuaron, obviously, takes a different approach).

]]> by: semanticdrifter http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6095 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:26:32 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6095 To me, the sterility of the human race was the inciting incident that scares world into barbarity and I don't think the government was in any way exempt. In clamping down on individual freedoms and attempting to purge the country of minorities, the government in Children of Men was trying to find hope in xenophobia. It is hinted at in the film V for Vendetta (stated more explicitly in the graphic novel) that the totalitarian state is built upon a notion of Saxon Strength, a kind of racial purity that requires the expulsion of foreigners. This is typical of fascist regimes, as a strong nationalistic spirit is the cornerstone of their power. I don't think either film is overly specific in its criticism of politics, especially considering the source material in both cases came years before the films. I wasn't left feeling cold. I had mixed feelings on my way out of the theater, but I was drawn in by the cinematography to the point where I felt as harrowed as Theo by the end of that urban warfare scene. The baby was a cipher, a MacGuffin. There has to be a source of hope to drive the movie, and I think that abstract sense of salvation was more important than the actual child. To me, the sterility of the human race was the inciting incident that scares world into barbarity and I don’t think the government was in any way exempt. In clamping down on individual freedoms and attempting to purge the country of minorities, the government in Children of Men was trying to find hope in xenophobia. It is hinted at in the film V for Vendetta (stated more explicitly in the graphic novel) that the totalitarian state is built upon a notion of Saxon Strength, a kind of racial purity that requires the expulsion of foreigners. This is typical of fascist regimes, as a strong nationalistic spirit is the cornerstone of their power. I don’t think either film is overly specific in its criticism of politics, especially considering the source material in both cases came years before the films.

I wasn’t left feeling cold. I had mixed feelings on my way out of the theater, but I was drawn in by the cinematography to the point where I felt as harrowed as Theo by the end of that urban warfare scene. The baby was a cipher, a MacGuffin. There has to be a source of hope to drive the movie, and I think that abstract sense of salvation was more important than the actual child.

]]> by: James Newland http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6092 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:22:05 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6092 I need to modify what I said above a little bit. CoM is probably simply intended as a "what if" movie, depicting how people might react to the hypothetical scenario of worldwide barrenness. Their lack of hope is expressed in barbarity, the barbarity is magnified by the institution of oppressive, authoritarian government, etc. The message then is that it is only hope for the future of mankind (represented by the baby) that civilizes us and keeps us happy. But, as I said, the movie leaves me cold. It leaves me cold because I don't happen to believe that hope for the future of mankind is what civilizes us and/or makes us happy. Hope for the future of OURSELVES is what civilizes us. The conviction that there is some reward or some good in it for us as individuals is the only thing that stands between our virtuous selves and our vicious selves. This, I think, is the source of my apathy towards the baby. So what if mankind lives to see another day? Will any of the individual characters in the movie? Will any of them ever find happiness and rest? There's no particular reason to think so. CoM depicts perfectly the bleakness and despair of a world and a worldview completely shorn of religion; of God; and that's ultimately why I didn't like it. As an artistic expression of pure atheism I suppose it has merit, but as a moral drama intended to move its audience to virtue, it is an abject failure. I need to modify what I said above a little bit. CoM is probably simply intended as a “what if” movie, depicting how people might react to the hypothetical scenario of worldwide barrenness. Their lack of hope is expressed in barbarity, the barbarity is magnified by the institution of oppressive, authoritarian government, etc. The message then is that it is only hope for the future of mankind (represented by the baby) that civilizes us and keeps us happy.

But, as I said, the movie leaves me cold. It leaves me cold because I don’t happen to believe that hope for the future of mankind is what civilizes us and/or makes us happy. Hope for the future of OURSELVES is what civilizes us. The conviction that there is some reward or some good in it for us as individuals is the only thing that stands between our virtuous selves and our vicious selves. This, I think, is the source of my apathy towards the baby. So what if mankind lives to see another day? Will any of the individual characters in the movie? Will any of them ever find happiness and rest? There’s no particular reason to think so. CoM depicts perfectly the bleakness and despair of a world and a worldview completely shorn of religion; of God; and that’s ultimately why I didn’t like it. As an artistic expression of pure atheism I suppose it has merit, but as a moral drama intended to move its audience to virtue, it is an abject failure.

]]> by: James Newland http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6089 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:05:04 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6089 My problem with Children of Men doesn't have to do with any contemporary political subtext, because I don't see any. If Cuaron is trying to say something about modern-day Britain or America, he completely fails, because there is no real parallel between our situation today and the situation in the movie. In the film, the entire human race is dying, and it knows it explicitly. You simply cannot extrapolate from that sort of situation to the world we live in, which renders the film useless as a moral or political fable. Moreover, I didn't hate the supposedly fascist regime that was in place in the movie. My understanding was that it arose as a reaction to widespread barbarity on the part of the population, not that it gained power and then somehow created the barbarity. Consequently, I saw it as the natural prescription for a people who were no longer capable of ruling themselves. What really bothered me about CoM was the total lack of hope I felt even at the end of the movie. I'm not sure whether that was intended or not, but I just never felt that the baby's safety would, in the end, make much difference. Maybe it's because the film's focus was never on the child, as it should have been if the message was that this child was going to save the world. The focus was always on Whatsisname and Whatsername and the travails *they* went through to reach safety. The story of Joseph and Mary's flight into Egypt, by way of contrast, is completely lacking in details of their journey precisely because it's the child Jesus who is the focus, not his parents. Anyway, CoM, in the end, is a cold and soulless movie. It has great visual appeal, but it fails at telling us anything about ourselves we didn't already know. My problem with Children of Men doesn’t have to do with any contemporary political subtext, because I don’t see any. If Cuaron is trying to say something about modern-day Britain or America, he completely fails, because there is no real parallel between our situation today and the situation in the movie. In the film, the entire human race is dying, and it knows it explicitly. You simply cannot extrapolate from that sort of situation to the world we live in, which renders the film useless as a moral or political fable. Moreover, I didn’t hate the supposedly fascist regime that was in place in the movie. My understanding was that it arose as a reaction to widespread barbarity on the part of the population, not that it gained power and then somehow created the barbarity. Consequently, I saw it as the natural prescription for a people who were no longer capable of ruling themselves.

What really bothered me about CoM was the total lack of hope I felt even at the end of the movie. I’m not sure whether that was intended or not, but I just never felt that the baby’s safety would, in the end, make much difference. Maybe it’s because the film’s focus was never on the child, as it should have been if the message was that this child was going to save the world. The focus was always on Whatsisname and Whatsername and the travails *they* went through to reach safety. The story of Joseph and Mary’s flight into Egypt, by way of contrast, is completely lacking in details of their journey precisely because it’s the child Jesus who is the focus, not his parents.

Anyway, CoM, in the end, is a cold and soulless movie. It has great visual appeal, but it fails at telling us anything about ourselves we didn’t already know.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6088 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:50:04 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6088 That's probably true. The similarities aren't exact, and I haven't seen CoM, so there may be more to Cuaron's adaptation than even Orr's review lets on. There seemed to be enough similarities in the setting and the politics of both movies that they could be compared fairly closely. CoM has gotten great reviews across the board, so I am confident that it is not the cinematic junk that Vendetta was. On the other hand, because of their similarities, CoM might be an example of what Vendetta could have been had it not been made by the Brothers Wachowski. Then again, "graphic novel" movies will probably never match up to adaptations of serious novels, because the basic plotting and characters will never be as believable in the former (and they are not supposed to be). That’s probably true. The similarities aren’t exact, and I haven’t seen CoM, so there may be more to Cuaron’s adaptation than even Orr’s review lets on. There seemed to be enough similarities in the setting and the politics of both movies that they could be compared fairly closely. CoM has gotten great reviews across the board, so I am confident that it is not the cinematic junk that Vendetta was. On the other hand, because of their similarities, CoM might be an example of what Vendetta could have been had it not been made by the Brothers Wachowski. Then again, “graphic novel” movies will probably never match up to adaptations of serious novels, because the basic plotting and characters will never be as believable in the former (and they are not supposed to be).

]]> by: Ian Dalrymple http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6085 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:41:37 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/04/03/c-for-children-of-men/#comment-6085 <i>...both vest their hopes for social and political change in more or less empty symbolic actions carried out by desperate revolutionaries.</i> I don't think it's quite so clear as that in Children of Men. I had some of the same hesitations about the film that you do, Daniel, but I loved it all the same. There's room for some criticism from PD James fans, I'm sure, but at the same time I think Cuaron's message was much more nuanced and complex than its Christians critics sometimes allow. I logged <a href="http://prochoros.blogspot.com/2007/02/fragile-things_14.html" rel="nofollow">my own review here</a>, if you're interested. …both vest their hopes for social and political change in more or less empty symbolic actions carried out by desperate revolutionaries.

I don’t think it’s quite so clear as that in Children of Men.

I had some of the same hesitations about the film that you do, Daniel, but I loved it all the same. There’s room for some criticism from PD James fans, I’m sure, but at the same time I think Cuaron’s message was much more nuanced and complex than its Christians critics sometimes allow.

I logged my own review here, if you’re interested.

]]>