Children of Men

[OscarGuy]

Besides, in this type of society, it's not improbable that the government, wanting to control the flow of information, eliminated telephones and cell phones.

[rain Bard]

Did anyone notice there were no cell phones in this futuristc film?

No, but it's a really interesting observation, cam. The fact that cellphone technology depends on transmissions of signals that could potentially be regulated to extinction by a zealous government prevents it from falling into the category of "anachronism" though.

[criddic3]

Did anyone notice there were no cell phones in this futuristc film?

Thank goodness!

[99-1100896887]

Did anyone notice there were no cell phones in this futuristc film?

[Damien]

For those of you who were wondering about the title, P.D. James took it from Psalm 90 in the Burial For The Dead section of the Anglican Church's Book of Common Prayer:

Psalm 90 Domine, refugium

LORD, thou hast been our refuge,
from one generation to another.

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever the earth and the world were made,
thou art God from everlasting, and world without end.

Thou turnest man to destruction;
again thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men.

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday
when it is past,
and as a watch in the night.

As soon as thou scatterest them they are even as a sleep,
and fade away suddenly like the grass.

In the morning it is green, and groweth up;
but in the evening it is cut down, dried up, and withered.

For we consume away in thy displeasure,
and are afraid at thy wrathful indignation.

Thou hast set our misdeeds before thee,
and our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.

[Damien]

So will I be like Clive Owen and provoke you proles into rioting and throwing rocks at me if I dare say no, I don't think Children of Men is one of the best films of the decade? Or that it even comes close to being one of the best films of the year?

Thank you, Sonic! I just saw the film yesterday just now read the posts on this thread (I never read posts til I actually see a film). Until I got to yours, I was wondering if I had seen the same film as everybody else (although, Tee, while I disagree with your assessment, your analysis was beautifully written).

There's an intelligence at work in the film but it never engaged me, it never got me to care that there were no more kids (and I'm someone who loves the sound of children playing), it was monotonous and it was filled with too many contrivances and implaussibilities. SPOILER I never bought for a moment that Moore's comrades would kill her -- there was nothing at all to indicate their differences (differences so deep that they would lead to murder).

And as I mentioned in the Ten Best thread, i couldn't stand what I found to be the movie's gloppy sentimentality.

Some of the set pieces are masterful, but whereas Mister Tee had a hard time believing the movie was only an hour 40, to me it felt endless.

And for me, the only emotional resonance in the film came from Cuaron's use of songs from the 60s.

[Okri]

If Code 46 is warm, I would die of frostbite with a film you thought cold :;):

[Sonic Youth]

What's with the fascination with Code 46? It features perhaps the worst performances from Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins and despite a couple intriguing ideas, it is surprisingly dull. I bought the film based on your recommendation, and came away thinking I should just donate it to the library.

Aha! And some people think Moby Dick is dull.

There's no such thing as a worst performance from Samantha Morton, and Tim Robbins has been far worse in The Truth About Charlie, The Hudsucker Proxy, and War of the Worlds. The worst I can say about the performances is that there's not enough spark between the two, which is the only small flaw in this beautiful film.

I loved this movie because the setting was a highly intricate, very political, and entirely believable extension of our world, and it wasn't pulled off by merely replicating our present day with minor alterations. It's alluring, unusually warm and character-driven, and most especially, it doesn't insult the intelligence by trying to talk down to us with graceless exposition. And it only cost 7.5 million to make, and captured its futuristic universe strictly with on-location shooting. Really, a lovely mesmerizing film.

[Okri]

What's with the fascination with Code 46? It features perhaps the worst performances from Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins and despite a couple intriguing ideas, it is surprisingly dull. I bought the film based on your recommendation, and came away thinking I should just donate it to the library.

[Sonic Youth]

I loved this movie and I'm very sad that it's being overlooked this year. Like The Pianist, I think it's going to be a movie that people start catching onto way too late.

Verrrrry interesting that this comment should be made while I'm at the theater watching Children of Men (but I was too tired to respond last night) because much of the time it reminded me very much of Polanski's The Pianist with Terry Gilliam touches. There's the theme of survival, the pervasive feeling of dread and despair; the resistance movement fighting the military through the windows of a building; the vast rounding up of much of the populace, etc. But I'm talking stylistically as well. The enormous crowding and claustrophobia echoing the Warsaw ghetto; the degraded buildings and cityscapes looking nearly the same in both movies, only more modern in COM and with a touch of Soviet reconstruction project; the long takes; the uncut shots of battle as seen from the POV of the protaganist; even the tinnitus caused by excessive explosions. The clutter, of course, and that's where Gilliam of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas comes in. Cuaron and Gilliam (of Brazil) also have an affinity for filming slogans, but that's a common enough visual trope for dystopian films. There's the quick shot of a burning cow's foreleg snapping off that could have been from one of his Monty Python cartoons. And hey, COM even briefly features a midget!

So will I be like Clive Owen and provoke you proles into rioting and throwing rocks at me if I dare say no, I don't think Children of Men is one of the best films of the decade? Or that it even comes close to being one of the best films of the year? Or that COM is to this board what Dreamgirls is to Tom O'Neil (I'm assuming, since I haven't seen Dreamgirls yet)... that is, way overrated? I mean, it's fine. I'm glad I saw it. It's very impressive to watch, ocassionally fascinating. Other than its striking immediacy, it didn't engage me or move me. Yup, there's lots of symbolism, and reading the posts here I can see it's of the thinking film-goers' variety. But it is so overwrought and lily-gilding, from the cows milking pen where Kee reveals her fertility, to the caged refuges, to the Pink Floyd album cover replica, to the name of ship in the final scene which raises questions as to how anyone could think that ending is ambiguous. It's as ambiguous as the similarly blanked out ending to A History of Violence, meaning audiences are having trouble differentiating "abrupt" with "ambiguous."

And yes, I think it's a weak script, or at least average. Not because the movie doesn't provide any scientific explanations for the world's infertility or expository background. This I admire. It's a weak script because the dialogue sounds like flat-footed script-reading as delivered, which badly jars with the visual sponteneity. I hear throwaway lines and jokes that could only be delivered in a movie, and particularly during the strategy meetings at the Fishes hideout and the interactions between Owen and Julianne Moore (who's gives a stiff, awful performance) sound like actors in a BBC television production. This is very frustrating because when the movie's on - when it's at its most kinetic - it's really on. The escape from the hideaway in a car that's badly in need of a jump is actually great slapstick, and just the half-second long sight of the dogs running down the driveway gives this sequence an unexpected vibrancy. But then there's all that other stuff undermining the startling aspects of the film, including the dialogue, and the contrivances - Owens managing to eavesdrop through a (closed) window - and the archtypes - Michael Caine's slightly batty hermit, removed from society and wiser for it. But he is a spritely joy, promising to be even more youthful in his old age than John Gielgud.

It's all very well to make comparisons with Van Gogh and Melville, but isn't that going a little overboard? The studio handling was a huge botch, but the critics realize this, and while they were unable to advance the Oscar campaign because of it they'll more than make up for in the years ahead. It did recieve a wide release, Cuaron's career will have advanced as a result of the film and if proseperity smiles upon COM in the decades to come, then it will be regarded as American cinema's Moby Dick. And Cuaron will be alive to see it. Meanwhile, my dystopian world-view masterpiece of choice, Michael Winterbottom's barely released "Code 46", will remain an obscure Typee.

[Okri]

I KNOW!!! Three of the prospective best picture nominees were released in October (The Queen, Babel, The Departed) and a further two were released earlier than that (United 93 and Little Miss Sunshine). A December release makes no sense for a number of these films and a lot of them are being hurt by it. I don't see how a studio can invest 70 million in a film (the budget for Children of Men) and just dump it the way they did.

[Penelope]

I certainly hope the studios have learned their lesson; aside from a possible nomination here and there, many of these late-December releases (Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, The Painted Veil, etc.) are getting shafted, when they are so much superior to the films that are likely to get most of the Academy acclaim.

[OscarGuy]

I think the Academy wanted films to stop the last-minute release stuff and thus moved up the schedule...

[rain Bard]

Right, but in 2002/2003 the Oscars went by their old schedule, with nominations announced Feb. 11 and the show Mar. 23. This year they'll be announced Jan. 23 and the show held Feb. 25. Much less time for a late-year release to get traction.

That said, I don't think Children of Men is really that Academy-friendly overall anyway. It's extremely well-made, and it's politically-minded, but that mind is encased in a hard, disreputable-genre skull. Yes, the Lord of the Rings films overcame their disreputable genre to secure nominations in a wide variety of catgories. But they did so with the help of box office totals too high to be ignored.

[anonymous1980]

I loved this movie and I'm very sad that it's being overlooked this year. Like The Pianist, I think it's going to be a movie that people start catching onto way too late.

What do you mean by The Pianist catching on "too late"? It won three major Oscars and was a modest hit (for a bleak, artsy Holocaust film) in theaters and DVD.