Children of Men
Finally got to see Children of Men last night, reviewed by #3 here. As 3PO says, it has the feel of a "classic." It is a movie, however, that leaves its seams exposed. Maybe it's just because we couldn't turn the volume up especially loud or decipher all the English accents speaking in hushed tones, but here are a few things I didn't get. Maybe those of you who have seen it (#3, Fronesis?, etc.) can answer these issues for me.
1) Why, in a world with a collapsed birth rate, i.e., no children born in more than 18 years, would people be obsessed with preventing immigration? This made no sense to me. It seems like you'd see the opposite: there would be immense competition for immigrants, since they would be the only way to replenish your workforce, even if this would only be a short term solution. Still, any smart country would want to take workers from elsewhere to keep their economy soldiering on at the expense of everybody else's. Plus, you'd want a diverse batch of people for fertility research. You might even tie this to border entry: we'll let you in if you submit to a whole battery of invasive tests. Now, the film does hint at world disorder, but really, did England seem like it could have been that much better?
2) Why exactly were the pro-immigrant rebels called "the Fish"? I get the allusion to Christianity: a radical, apocalyptic group of zealots demanding justice for the poor, the oppressed, the outsiders, etc. There's a lot of religious and specifically Christian imagery here (the miracle baby as messiah ("CoM" = "Son of Man"?), the joke about whether Key was a "virgin," the graffiti fish logo, and the climactic Moses in the bullrushes scene) even if it's intensely anti-institutional, suggesting that the miracle child was seen as a political tool by the violent and unscrupulous from the very start. But was there a more organic reason for the name--one grounded in the logic of the group itself and not just in historico-religious metaphor?
3) Could the leader of the Fish have been much dumber? If you don't want people to know you're going to kill them, you probably shouldn't wave your gun around while screaming things like, "As soon as I go around the corner, kill them!!" In general, I thought the characters were a bit underwritten here. The film's strengths come in its amazing visuals and its dramatic flow, which offer a compelling vision of men pushing relentlessly forward in a world that has lost any hope for the future. But, save Clive Owen's "Theo" (a Christianized "Neo"?), the individual characters lacked depth. Julianne Moore is great as always playing Theo's old flame, and I love the ping-pong ball scene both for its playfulness and its shocking brutality. And yet her dialogue with Theo is beyond lame: "I still see his eyes when I look at you." Urgh. Same for Michael "pull my finger" Caine. On one level, I enjoyed seeing a de-suaved Caine as a whacked out, dying cartoonist dad. But his appearance in the movie also disrupts the fantasy because you just keep thinking, "Hey, it's Michael Caine!" That's always a risk with a familiar actor, but it struck me as a significant problem here.
Don't get me wrong. I greatly enjoyed the film despite its flaws. I don't need perfection to savor a tale well told. This film reminded me of Apocalypse Now as one of those brilliant movies that lacked a certain air-tightness. A final thought: aside from AN, the movies that this reminded me of most were all recent Spielberg: AI (for the themes of futuristic maternity and paternity lost in the woods), Minority Report (the grainy dystopian landscapes and chase scenes), and finally Saving Private Ryan (the war scenes). I wonder how much, if any of that, was intended.
posted by tenaciousmcd @ 6:07 PM
3 Comments:
Good points. The immigration thing clearly doesn't make much sense in context, for the points you raise. But as science fiction, you have to look at the movie on two levels. One, it attempts to imagine a plausible future scenario. But two, it is also a commentary on existing society. My sense in seeing the movie was that the immigration plotline was more the latter.
I think "the Fish" was chosen for the reasons you give. The movie isn't subtle--as you point out--on the Christian imagery.
Some of the dialogue was pretty bad, yeah. But again, it's science fiction. The standard for dialogue has to be relaxed. Just because Aragorn says "By nightfall, these hills will be crawling with orcs" doesn't make Fellowship a bad movie. (Btw, try to say any of the dialogue Aragorn speaks, in any of the films, with a straight face.)
I found Michael Caine distracting, too. As for other characters' actions, there are a few plot points where willing suspension of disbelief is required. My favorite is the ambush scene. Moore's character is shot, on purpose we learn later. But the assailants, then . . . are knowingly firing into a car with the first pregnant woman in 18 years in it! She's the MacGuffin, and they're shooting in her direction . . . to eliminate the main obstacle to achieving her . . . that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either.
Yeah, shooting into that car was pretty dumb--from a motorcycle no less. Maybe we have to assume that the Fish have attracted the best motorcross and sharpshooting biatheletes from around the world.
I get your point about the two levels on which sci fi works (future and refracted present), but it seems to me that they also need to be related with some degree of plausibility, greater than was evident here.
As for dialogue, LoR was MUCH better than this, even with the cornball Aragorn (and Arwyn) lines. For me, a key difference is that LoR was based on an original work which broke some fresh ground, whereas in CoM I felt like they're rehashing a lot of old rote material: the ex-lovers, the dead child, the radical leader as psychopath, etc.
Okay, I hate to be that guy (so why am I always he?), but I will.
I purposely read CoM (actually, in book form it's The CoM) before I watched the movie. And now I'm very glad.
Having made it through both, I find I very much agree with TMcD's comments and hesitations about the movie.
I have a million things to say about the differences between the book and movie but I'll just note a few that are relevant. And I'll start by saying that the book is fantastic and P.D. James really is a talented writer. But, she's British, so I expected that.
The fishes are actually the five fishes in the book. The fishes part is lame and mostly unexplained (or ill-explained) but the five is because there are one two three four five of them. No organized uprising. No guns and bombs. Just five dissidents, all of whom have different reasons to hate the government (only one of which is treatment of immigrants which is not, as TMcD was spot-on about, keeping them out).
The five are all lily white British citizens.
Theo, a much older man in the book, is drawn in by Julian, a much younger woman to whom he was never married and had only ever seen once.
It's the men, not the women, who are infertile. And it is one of the five (Luke) who knocks up another of the five (Julian) and they're never on the run from anyone but the government (because, as I mentioned, there is no uprising). And they're only on the run from the government so that the child can be born in peace. I won't tell you the end on the off chance that you want to read the book, but let me say that it is radically, radically different. Radically.
And, finally, as with all good British dystopic novels, there is no public unrest at all. People are safe and placated. That works in books but, sadly, not in movies, where an ugly future needs gray skies and tanks on the public square to be convincing.
I agree with #3, then, that this film version has taken many liberties with the story, it seems, only for the sake of current politics. Or so they could show cool fighting scenes.
I loved the look of the movie and I actually liked the Michael Caine character (who is a melange of book characters, including that of Theo). I also liked Clive Owen; he plays that role well. But I'm sad that I can't like the movie more. I agree with TMcD that a bunch of plot points just don't make sense unless you fill in the blanks (which is fine) or have read the book (which is not fine).
Still, those long shots are incredible.
Post a Comment
<< Home