Children of Men

[kooyah]

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.

[kaytodd]

i also found this on imdb:

'Children of Men' a Surprise Hit
Children of Men , a film that was apparently held in higher regard by critics and audiences than it was by Universal, the studio that released it, landed in third place at the box office over the weekend, as it raked in $10.2 million at just 1,209 theaters, fewer than a third of those showing the No. 1 film, Fox's Night at the Museum. Children averaged $8,435 per theater versus $6,355 for Museum.

I went to the 10:10 pm show of Children Of Men last Friday night at my neighborhood multiplex and it was packed (it was at only one screen at this particular theatre). The seats on the floor right in front of the screen were almost full. The 7:25 show had sold out. I do not know how the film did the rest of the weekend but this was encouraging.

The crowd was diverse: teens, young adults, middle aged people, older people, blacks, whites. Apparently, a large group of filmgoers heard about this film and wanted to see it. I was surprised since it has no big stars. TV ads were noticable but no more so than when any other film opens. Word may be getting around that this is a quality film. I am looking forward to next weekend's B.O. numbers. I hope word of mouth from people who have actually seen it will help. I have been recommending it to my friends and co-workers. I am glad the film appears to be doing well across the country. It deserves to be seen and recognized for what it is: one of the very best films released in 2006.

[rolotomasi99]

i also found this on imdb:

'Children of Men' a Surprise Hit
Children of Men , a film that was apparently held in higher regard by critics and audiences than it was by Universal, the studio that released it, landed in third place at the box office over the weekend, as it raked in $10.2 million at just 1,209 theaters, fewer than a third of those showing the No. 1 film, Fox's Night at the Museum. Children averaged $8,435 per theater versus $6,355 for Museum. J. Hoberman, writing in the Village Voice, recently remarked that Universal had been treating the movie "like a communicable disease." Sheerly Avni, writing on the liberal blog Truthdig Monday, called it "an orphaned masterpiece," and one fan, disgusted with the official trailers for the movie, created one of his/her own and posted it on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lfs1UIKALQ), where it has drawn considerable comment and praise from fans.

i am sure if universal or warner bros deserves the award for most inept handling of a movie. warner bros f-ed up eastwood's two movies and now universal does almost nothing it seems to promote CHILDREN OF MEN for oscars. unbelievable.

[rolotomasi99]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-lfs1UIKALQ

i found this video. it is a beautiful fan creation. it contains many spoilers so only watch it if you have already seen the film.

OscarGuy, you are not allowed to watch it because it contains copyrighted material, but everyone else please enjoy.

[Mister Tee]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. I had, obviously, a very strong reaction to the film, and needed to put the feelings into words. But I did take especial care, in an effort to do the film justice. Movies like this don't come around often, and you want to honor them.

And it's great to hear other responses/insights. To comment on a few:

Magilla, I took the children's voices to be representative of the future. Of course, you could say, by not putting it into the body of the movie, Cuaron left it to our interpretation: maybe that's just my hoped-for future, and it's all a matter of what each individual wants to believe (like the ending of Sideways, where you have to decide if Maya's on the other side of the door).

Thinking about the ending some more: I do agree with BJ that there was something a shade abrupt about it...not so much on a plot basis as stictly technically: the sudden blackout startled me. Maybe, after the emotional drain of the previous 100 minutes, we needed a slower fade to take us out of Cuaron's world (and hearing children's voices as the fade happened would have clarified the final emotions a bit more).

I doubt reading James' original book would be that helpful in understanding the themes (though I'll probably be tracking it down just to see what it's like). A friend of mine went to a lecture of James' at the time of the publication, and she described James as a staunch Tory who believed organized religion was essential to preserving society. So, my guess (and buzz I've heard) is that this is a VERY loose adaptation, mostly reflecting Cuaron's obsessions.

The characters in the film quite clearly lay the infertility on women -- they're the ones failing to carry to term. But, as my wife said, inadequate sperm and inadequate eggs are equally likely candidates for the problem. I don't know if Cuaron meant to implicitly indict male society for its myopia on this, or if it's something he overlooks, himself.

I don't know what James meant by her title, but I think in Cuaron's usage it has to be ironic. Though a few men -- Theo and Jasper -- help the pregnancy forward, the vast majority of those we see on scren are killing, not nurturing.

dws, thanks for the info on the screenwriters. It's odd to see credits that extensive; usually the Writers' Guild is determined to limit the number to two (as in Tootsie's case).

Anon, great stuff. I agree completely: the local birthrate/immigrant thing is constantly being cited by the press (and the right-wing), so it makes perfect sense for society to react the way it does in the film. Your religious/mythical references are also fascinating, and may have been a source for James in putting the original story together.

I suspect this is the kind of film where people will come up with all sorts of fascinating new angles from which to view it.

[Anon]

Anon, I think Baroness James would be a little shocked at some of the interpretations you lay on her.

I haven't read the book, so all my interpretation is based on the film. I aimed to lay all this at Cuaron's feet, not the Baroness! :laugh:

[Big Magilla]

It's mentioned in the film that the women became infertile and at the same time there were many miscarriages. No explanation was given.

Tee, I must have tuned out the children's voices at the end. Were they supposed to be voices of children on the ship or children yet to be born? Interesting that the source material is the only non-mystery (aside from her autobiography) written by the now 86 year-old P.D. James.

Anon, I think Baroness James would be a little shocked at some of the interpretations you lay on her.

[Jacob]

Interesting how men hardly figure in terms of this fertility story (shouldn't everyone be curious about the "guy" who got her pregnant? After all, isn't this about "Children of Men"?)

That's a lot of sperm that could save mankind - which, by the way, considering all the sperm banks and frozen eggs stored, global infertility shouldn't really be a problem, but I won't criticize the story too much since it's sci-fi.

Maybe I should see the film again, or read the book (I'll do both if I can find the time), but I don't remember the film mentioning any specifics of the sudden infertility. Yet in some plot synopses I read, it says that it's the women who have become infertile, not men. Is that actually in the movie, or is it a presskit writer taking the easy way out?
To be honest, I never quite got the title.

[Anon]

Excellent summation, Mister Tee. Might I also add to your ruminations a possible connection between the infertility plot and the anti-immigration issue in the film.

I've been hearing from different people that they thought these two themes didn't make sense together, that in a world plagued by infertility, governments wouldn't be rounding up illegal aliens to ship them elsewhere but will be doing the exact opposite: fighting each other over labor supply.

Well, I think that's interpreting the film too literally. On a far more figurative (or political level), when we consider the debates over immigration, nations inevitably stress out over what's perceived to be a foreign take-over of the population, hence the tensions around low fertility rates among the local women and high birth rates among the immigrants, with various projections of what the future population will look like (I mean, how many of these stories have already been featured in Newsweek and Time?)

Here's a film that puts the issue of fertility right at the center and, to top it off, places the most "undesirable" reproductive body as the body that the entire human race must now depend upon for its own survival (and let's face it: how many fears abound about black women having "too many children" or the "overpopulation" in Africa or any other third world/black or brown nation?).

Of course, that shot in the barn, in which Kee's naked body (not sure why she had to reveal her breasts to Theo when all she had to do was show her big belly, but whatever!) is revealed in the midst of milked cows hits the point home about her very fertile body (animalistic to some extent?) but the science/animalism of the shot harkens back to a more ancient image of mythology: the Egyptian goddess of fertility, Isis, whose symbol is the calf or cow. Many interpretations of Black Madonnas in Europe tie this Catholic icon back to Isis, so I couldn't help but think of Kee (the original African mother) as the 21st-century Black Madonna - especially considering the image of Mary, mother of the savior of the world, was so liberally used throughout this film.

Interestingly, the far inferior DaVinci Code tried to resurrect such images - in particular, the counter-myth of Mary Magdalene fleeing the war-torn Holy Land (the war zone in the film looked pretty Middle East, doesn't it?) with her baby daughter Sarah, the child she had for Jesus, and crossing the Mediterranean sea on a boat with Joseph of Arimathea (In this case, Theo is Joseph, Kee is Mary).

While Christians may get upset over this mythology, there is a different version of that myth in which the woman in the boat (often called St. Mary, Star of the Sea) is actually another Mary, the penitent prostitute (not Magdalene from the Bible but Mary of Egypt - who prostituted herself to finance her pilgrimage to Jerusalem, converted to Christianity, and eventually sailed from Egypt to the South of France where she lived out her life in solitude). So, Kee's "joke" about being a "virgin", combined with the "who's the daddy" ambiguity surrounding the paternity encodes so much folklore and midwives tales (I guess that's why we had so many midwives throughout this film?)

Interesting how men hardly figure in terms of this fertility story (shouldn't everyone be curious about the "guy" who got her pregnant? After all, isn't this about "Children of Men"?)

That's a lot of sperm that could save mankind - which, by the way, considering all the sperm banks and frozen eggs stored, global infertility shouldn't really be a problem, but I won't criticize the story too much since it's sci-fi.

[dws1982]

The credits list half a dozen writers on the project, which normally you'd think was a sign of slapdash work. But, as with the similarly many-hands-on-deck Tootsie script, what's emerged feels like the work of a single creative intelligence. The number of writers was apparently just perfect.

I read somewhere that all but one of the non-Cuaron writers were guys who had worked on previous adaptations before this version got off the ground, but that they demanded and recieved onscreen billing.

------
And yeah, to echo what the last two posters said, that was a great analysis. I can't wait to check the movie out again myself.

[Okri]

That was bloody brilliant, Mister Tee.

[The Original BJ]

If there were an award for Best Post of the year, the one below would get my vote.

That was an amazing read, Mister Tee. Probably as good as the film.

[Mister Tee]

NOTE TO EVERYONE: I HAD THIS POST WRITTEN BEFORE THE RECENT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ENDING, AND I DON'T HAVE THE ENERGY TO REWRITE. DON'T TAKE WHAT I SAY HERE AS RESPONSIVE TO WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN SAYING

Magilla, I realized shortly after posting it was Schwarzbaum instead of Gleiberman. Can't believe I confused them; usually the first sentence is enough to tip me off.

Where do I start, elaborating on this extraordinary film? For openers, I was astonished to look in the newspaper and find that the running time is only 100 minutes. Can that be? The film is so dense with content, it seems to carry the weight of a far longer opus.

At one moment while watching the film, I thought of a scene from Chinatown. You probably remember it: Nicholson's being tossed out of the Albacore Club; Polanski and his buddy are coming menacingly toward him; Dunaway sweeps in with her car and the two drive away. I remember thinking, that night in 1974, that, in a conventional action film, I'd probably be shouting Woo-hoo! at such a moment -- but that Chinatown was working on such a deeper level that it seemed practically disrespectful to react that way. I felt the same watching Theo, Kee and Miriam make their escape from the farm. God knows it was an elaborate, meticulously staged sequence, full of anxiety (when will that ignition kick in?) -- but, as with Chinatown, I couldn't cheer mindlessly even when they made their getaway. I was too emotionally wrapped up in their plight; I knew that the future of mankind was literally at stake here, and it would be way too trivial to cheer like it was a turn in a sporting event.

Children of Men is like Chinatown in another significant way: both films are set firmly within the thriller genre. Though both easily transcend those bonds, they don't do it in any ostentatious, make-it-easy-for-intellectuals way. The poetry isn't grafted on; it's embedded inside a plot that just keeps moving relentlessly. There's no stop for illuminating speeches; the film's accumulating emotional power comes purely as a result of story and characters.

There are pitfalls to this approach; some might just not take the work seriously. It was true with Chinatown -- which certainly was well reviewed, but didn't come close to winning major critics' awards, falling behind Godfather II and The Conversation, as well as overseas heavyweights Amarcord and Scenes from a Marriage. At least some of this was due to people considering it "just a thriller", not worthy of heavy consideration. So too, now: Dave Poland, who (as Pauline Kael said of Bosley Crowther) can be counted on to miss the point, not only claims the film is "content" to be an action thriller, he describes the infertility aspect of the plot as simply a MacGuffin, with no profound meaning. I think this is a phenomenally obtuse reading. It's clear to me that, though the breakdown of society occurs in ways that derive from present-day trends, the completeness of it stems almost entirely from the despair of knowing there's no one set to live on after us. (We sneer at politicians who talk about "the children", but without a sense of some future, surely we'd view all things differently) Perhaps if there had been elaborate, vapid speeches articulating this theme, Poland would have caught on. But Children of Men stays away from such obviousness, and risks the less discerning labelling this incredibly vivid, complex film shallow.

There's also some belief out there that the film, while viscerally powerful, has a weak script. I think this is also quite wrong. Obviously there are not the verbal flourishes one encounters in Notes on a Scandal, or even The Departed. But the script as it exists is a marvel of lean storytelling. Information is conveyed sharply and obliquely (as when we learn about the Human Project through Jasper's silly joke). Throwaways are important; every word really MEANS something. And the dialogue, while not expansive, is generally sharp, insightful, even witty -- Jasper's initial "Good thing you don't take cream and sugar"; Theo's dry response to Nigel on the world situation ("The thing in Madrid was a disaster for art" "To say nothing of people"); the car- banter between Julian and Theo (which lets us know in a few moments the marriage may have ended but the love never did); Jasper's recounting of the fate of Theo/Julian's child; Miriam's reminiscence about the miscarriage epidemic; the chats between Theo and Kee, especially about her baby's parentage (Of course! If procreation were off the table, sex would be viewed totally differently). The credits list half a dozen writers on the project, which normally you'd think was a sign of slapdash work. But, as with the similarly many-hands-on-deck Tootsie script, what's emerged feels like the work of a single creative intelligence. The number of writers was apparently just perfect.

And then there are of course the visuals. The several extra-long takes -- the road ambush; the escape from the farm; the amazing foray through the war zone -- are unforgettable, and I guess you'd have to dub them "action sequences". But, again, to even suggest what Cuaron is doing here is in any way akin to, say, Michael Bay leaves us feeling we need a new vocabulary. These scenes have existential power that goes well beyond any pyrotechnics. As fellow Amigo Del Toro said on Charlie Rose (and anyone who missed that roundtable should definitely catch it; pure delight), people tend to dismiss visual cinema as eye-candy -- but there's such a thing as eye- protein, and that's what Cuaron provides here. Not just in the big sequences, either. As my wife heard Owen point out, there's not a single close-up in the film; in fact, the only focused single- character shots I can think of are those of Theo and Kee in the barn scene. The effect of this is to always locate characters -- Theo, in particular -- in the context of other people and a larger environment. It also gives Cuaron the opportunity to convey a multitude of information quietly and quickly -- so much that I'm sure there's a great deal I missed. I'd love to have done a freeze- frame on Jasper's wall: I'm sure there were clues to his and his wife's background (as well as more about Julian and Theo). I don't often revisit films I truly love; someone convinced me long ago that trying to recapture ecstatic experience was a fool's game. But in this case I may make an exception, just to try and grasp everything Cuaron has put up on the screen.

Even beyond the visuals and good script, I don't think the film would have such astonishing power were it not for the focus on the primal issue of Kee's childbearing and delivery. The later scenes in the film, where this element of the story comes to fruition, are almost unbearably moving. The birth scene is, I think, magnificent in its perfunctoriness. It doesn't seem godlike; it's pure biology -- and all the more miraculous for that. Then the following sequence -- Kee/Theo/baby making their procession down the stairs and through the crowd -- IS godlike; it's everyone BEHOLDING the child that really matters. I can't have been the only one who teared up at this scene, for its perfect summation of our existence: everyone will stop dead in their tracks for glimpse of the divine...and then, after the moment's passed, resume ongoing everyday battles.

I'd argue that, in its smaller fashion, the final scene in the rowboat is even more powerful. When Kee says, I'm bleeding everywhere, and Theo says, No, it's me -- on one level, it's just factual. But I think of it metaphysically: she says I'm bleeding, but the way the shot is framed, you can't tell the source of the blood...and it's as if he says, No..LET IT be me. I've had a life -- in fact, I've just, in the last day or two, validated it. You're the future. In a sense, Julian and Theo have managed to recreate their dead child (now, by name); their work is done. Kee is the one who gets to greet Tomorrow. Sacrifice and rebirth -- the most profound of themes.

By the way, I've heard people describe this ending as "ambiguous". Huh? Theo delivers Kee, the boat arrives -- we see the Human Project exists -- and, when the screen goes to black, we hear the sound of many children's voices. Exactly how more explicit could that be?

I doubt I'm capturing even half the things I loved about this film -- there are so many wonderful details: the ubiquitous animals (who remind us it's not the entire planet being wiped out, just the human race); the great music (for those of us of a certain age, hearing King Crimson and "Ruby Tuesday" again is a real treat); the allusions to Iraq (as someone said, that long battle scene seems to travel from Gitmo to Fallujah in moments); the obvious influences from the Bible (the Nativity as lethal obstacle course), from history (trying to figure who Theo can trust suggestsa journey through Nazi Germany), from pop culture (the Baby Diego floral tributes recalling Diana), even from movies ("transit card" inevitably recalls Casablanca). All these things contribute to making this perhaps the richest cinematic work I've encountered in all the years I've been frequenting this board.

Which gets us to the mundane question...will the film do anything at the Oscars? You'd like to dream it could -- at least showing up with the discerning writers branch; getting a well-merited design mention (I assume cinematography is in the bank); and, in a perfect world, getting the lone director slot it so deserves. I think, were there time, the film could build up enough momentum to surprise -- the Schwarzbaum reversal came the same week as a rave from Hoberman in the Voice this week; and there's loud, widespread enthusiasm all over the Internet. Under the old schedule, a miracle might happen... But we're not on the old schedule. The guilds are already in. Academy ballots are due in about ten days. I just don't think there's time for word to percolate.

I'm afraid what's going to happen is, six months from now -- certainly when people start discovering the film in the lesser form of DVD -- there'll be general wonderment over how the Academy could have passed over such a wonderful film.

[The Original BJ]

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT RE: ENDING FOLLOWS.

I need to see Children of Men again to decide how I truly feel about the ending, which, upon first viewing, struck me as the most problematic aspect of the film.

On one hand, I love that the film is open-ended. The final shot is perfect, and part of me feels like a such a stickler for wanting more resolution. What kind of resolution could possibly follow the re-birth of human kind?!

On the other hand, I felt the ending of the film was a tad rushed. After that SPECTACULAR final sequence, one of the most astonishing, visceral, and moving pieces of filmmaking in years (more on that in another post), I wanted an ending that didn't feel so abrupt. Perhaps I was looking for a conclusion that burrowed deeper than the film had up to that point. I think the accusations from some that this film is all form and no substance are wrongheaded. The content's there, and it's fascinating, however, I felt like the third act was building to a more substantial thematic revelation that never came.

As I said, I have a feeling a second viewing will calm some of these (very minor) qualms. But, as others have commented on the ending, I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

[Franz Ferdinand]

You're right Magilla, the little details that we can relate to (like Theo's shoes) are what make the movie more terrifying, as it could easily be something out of today. I especially liked Theo's beat-up 2012 London Olympics sweater, a minor detail, but a pretty effective ad for future times.
Regarding the ending, I thought it was quite appropriate.

SPOILER ALERT: I was afraid they would end it right when Theo dies and the camera shows Kee floating in the open water, as if discarded and forgotten, which would have been an unbelievably daring (and pessimistic) ending, but even with the ship, it was still an open and questionable end: for something called the Human Project, it was a fishing ship, really all it's cracked up to be? The group I saw the movie with didn't much care for the ending, but I thought it was perfect. Ambiguous, open-ended, and unresolved, like much of life. The more I contemplate it, the better it gets, and is probably an easy four star movie in my books.