I didn't buy it.
I think it tried so hard to be realistic i suddenly couldn't step into the film reality from the blaringly obvious seams holding this ultra-realism together.

I don't think it was aiming for realism. It couldn't have, because of the vast number of references to real world events, like Abu Ghraib, which consistently point toward a reality external to its fictive bounds. You're getting at what I consider its aims by calling the effect "uber-realism," which for me suggests an acknowledgement of reality and a simultaneous deviation from it. That, for me, is at the essence of the world Children of Men constructs.


The film's great act of bravery, and it is brave, is that it relinquishes any attempts to centralize that world picture within its narrative, opting instead for a remarkably personal and simple story (in this regard, it is comparable to Blade Runner). The juxtaposition of that simple story with the complex background goes some length in accounting for the haunting quality of the film.


The simplicity of the main story imbues it with a quality akin to that evident in moral tales or fables, and it is as if the film, by means of the juxtaposition I just pointed out above, elicits that feature of the main story and punctuates the whole world within the film with it. This is the narrative equivalent of that moment in the film when all of the warring factions, hearing the sound of the crying baby, stop.

I think it's pretty stupid to expect the film to be distracted by the purty new gadgets and wizardry of 2027. It's not the point of the film, at all. And neither are the infertile humans.

That's not what I mean, though. Not entirely at least.


The film is not distracted by the parallels to real life events either, or by the political situation that frames the various events in the film. People are killed, tortured, and imprisoned, and remarkably, all that rarely becomes the main feature of a scene or sequence. Time and time again, it is on Theo and Kee's journey which the camera and the narrative fixate. It's amazing how focused the film is in this regard; it sacrifices a view of an entire world to gain a glimpse into the lives of three small people. And yet paradoxically, it gains a greater view of the world precisely for that reason.

I need to rewatch this. Been a while.

Yes, it's a film about hope coming into the lives of a race of beings that so desperately needs it and especially in three people. And not only that, they are developed through bits of information and their subtle actions (Theo swigging alcohol from a cantine, but also him trying to console people in little ways even in the most horrific, dangerous situation).

I'm still not decided on whether it is actually hope, or the affect of hope. There's no doubt in my mind that the story, and Cuaron, intend for it to be hope outright.


But I feel like the film is telling me something else. There's precious little hope for most of the people we see on the screen. But there is the possibility of hope, if circumstances were different. It's as if the film is positing the possibility that one can hope for a world in which hope can exist. So there's a surrogate for hope in place of the real thing, until the world changes enough for hope to become a possibility again.


Does this make sense?

Oh and by the way, Children of Men is one of the most Christian films I've ever seen. And I don't mean in the shallow new baby = baby Jesus thing. Its conceptualization of hope and redemption are profoundly Christian.

You know whats a really uninteresting film?

Children of Men.

Ha!

I thought you liked Children of Men though, baba.

As for you, Zingaling, I've just about given up on you. While taste itself is entirely subjective, I think I can honestly say that you have none when it comes to film.

But Christianity's conceptualisation of hope and redemption wasn't exactly original. The themes represented in both the bible and Children of Men are themes that have existed in some form or another long before both works existed. How those themes are realised in both works, on the other hand, are very different.

Well, actually, the answer in both cases is pretty similar. Hope functions as a means of deferring the solution to one's current situation onto some future time, and in the case of Theo, quite literally in the afterlife (after his life).

I wouldn't particularly stress the Christian link were it not for the fact that Children of Men the film is based on a novel which is blatantly and emphatically Christian. Cuaron's CoM is a different work, of course, but residues of that element of the novel remain in the film.

More importantly, given its plotline in conjunction with its context, it's pretty much impossible for Children of Men not to be influenced by Christianity. Like all, and I mean ALL, apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic works, its basis is in Revelation, which, although it was in turn inspired by the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Bible, is unquestionably the central text of apocalyptic works, at least in the West.

The link, though, isn't merely one of indirect influence. Children of Men attempts, among other things, to provide a solution to humanity at a hopeless juncture in its existence. It doesn't really come up with a solution (it wouldn't be a masterpiece if it did), but it posits forth some kind of vague notion involving a sanctuary at sea called the Human Project. Having abandoned religion as a solution, it plunges back right into it. The idea of the Human Project, that something beyond the present whose existence activates hope within oneself, giving one a purpose to strive for, is nothing more than the concept of God re-named.

Your attempts to outrun Batman will fail

We have the Batmobile

Can't I love both?

To hell with Batman. This thread is about Children of Men. If you want to discuss The Dark Knight, it has its own thread.

I would love if we could actually have a serious discussion about what is a really great film.


Maybe I'm too serious about it, but then again, I am presenting a paper on it at a conference this fall, so I do have my reasons...

Truth be told, I'm just trying to keep Children of Men ahead of The Dark Knight in page count. Having a serious discussion about what is a really great film is an added bonus, but ultimately a means to an end.

I have some other tricks up my sleeve as well... but they're a last resort.

Oh so you didn't come up with that last post off the top of your head? Thank god (or the boat), as that post was rather intimidating in its instantaneous brilliance.

I did actually, lol. My topic is on something else altogether (and has to do with post-structuralism).

I was just sitting here thinking about what a great film Children of Men is. Then I got to thinking, what do other KJ people think of this fine, fine film? I'm unsure if there's a thread in another forum for people to post their reviews in, because I'm not very smart and a bit lazy. So why not post your thoughts and comments about the film Children of Men here.

I'm sure if there is another thread elsewhere, someone will happily merge this with that other one eventually.

As for me, my grade is a hearty A+.

Ooh, I love post-structuralism! What other films are you using as examples in your paper?

Its better then becoming Jesus with extra superpowers.

My grade a meaty A++

None; just a comparison of The Waste Land with Children of Men.


But I have yet to actually write it

Definitely in my top 20

The best film of this decade.

I give it a healthy A+.