Sat 20 Jan 2007
Children of Men
By Ian Forbes
[3] Comments
Should we be worried no one else is on this bus?
WINNER:
Picture
NOMINEE:
Director (Alfonso Cuaron)
Supporting Actor (Michael Caine)
Supporting Actress (Claire-Hope Ashitey)
Adapted Screenplay (Alfonso Cuaron, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby-screenplay, P.D. James-novel)
Cinematography (Emmanuel Lubezki)
Film Editing (Alfonso Cuaron & Alex Rodriguez)
Art Direction (Ray Chan, Paul Inglis, Stuart Rose, Mike Stallion)
Theatrical Release Date: 09/22/2006 (UK), 12/25/2006 (USA)
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Cast: Clive Owen, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Caine
Based on the P.D. James novel of the same name, “Children of Men” is a dystopian view of the future, specifically in England, as the world has devolved into madness and for some unknown reason, humans aren’t able to procreate anymore.
This set of circumstances creates a harrowing look into what drives people and the depths to which we as a race are capable of.
In the film, one woman (Ashitey) has mysteriously become pregnant and in order to assure her safety, and to hopefully allow for scientists to figure out how it happened, a small rebel faction group (led by Moore’s character) has devised a plan of escape from England to a supposed group of scientists baring the title of The Human Project.
Of course, everything doesn’t go quite to plan and the majority of the film is a tense ride as the audience is brought along with the characters, trying desperately to find safety and solace.
That’s a mouthful. Okay, plot aside, let’s get to the meat of the matter.
Everything in the film is done top notch. From production value to score to costumes to acting to directing to editing to writing, everything is superb.
What makes “Children of Men” so fantastic is how natural the film feels. Events unfold as if you were there. There isn’t a buildup of the score or a camera panning in a direction to highlight what you should be focusing on.
Things just happen. You’re either paying attention or you’re not. Just like life.
And things aren’t explained six times just to make sure the audience gets it. If you aren’t able to keep up, you’ll get left behind. While some people may want their films sugar coated for them, this is definitely for the crowd that actually did well in high school. Bring your thinking caps, it’s a good thing.
Also, Cuarón did a wonderful job of having the camera be right alongside the actors, allowing the audience to feel like they were right there with them. He also used a number of camera shots done in one take, creating an even eerier sense that what you were watching was happening right then and there.
Masterful direction notwithstanding, it is the actors who make us believe. Everyone in the cast, from top to bottom, gives convincing performances devoid of any artifice. Leaving the film, I was relieved to find that I still lived in a somewhat free state.
To that end, the big brother mentality that dominates the futuristic England is gorgeously framed within the context of the film. Places and objects felt just odd enough to be futuristic but not so strange as to seem unbelievable. The mindset of the people is one of blind obedience to the system that has sprung up in the midst of all the world chaos.
Getting away from the literal elements on screen, what makes “Children of Men” stand out so much is that it creates discussion.
The “1984”-esque world that is presented is one we all hope doesn’t come to pass but as more and more civil liberties are removed in the name of safety, how far are we from that time really?
Also, the diabolical nature of people as they try to eek out a living for themselves is on display in the film and it isn’t a pretty picture.
And perhaps most relevant is that in the film, there is worldwide chaos stemming from extremist violence. As America and her allies continue to wage war on “terror”, this film hits very close to home and depicts an end result no one wants to see happen in real life.
“Children of Men” is provocative, intelligent and gripping. I don’t think there was a better film in 2006, having weighed all of its elements together. Any one who considers themselves a film buff should run, not walk, to the nearest theater and see this film.
If you can’t, hop on that Information Superroadway thing and order it up. This is a film you simply shouldn’t miss.
Now in Theaters
Rantrave.com -
A place to rant and rave about everything that matters.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Have you ever had a dream whose individual details made no sense whatsoever, but were assembled into a comprehensible whole? Combine that with your idea of what George Orwell would do were he a modern filmmaker and that’s this movie.
Even if the story seems boring to you, the way it is presented is unlike anything I have ever seen. The movie and the sometimes odd imagery is shot and lit in and odd dreamlike manner (what is with that floating pig?) It never stops, and the tone changes abruptly from pleasant daydream to horrific nightmare. And watching the film itself is kind of exhausting–there are a number of hyper-realistic action filled scenes that run 3 minutes or more without a cut–so that the movie becomes the equivalent of stream of consciousness writing. The effect is mesmerizing, to the point that I don’t know how to feel about the whole. Some of the individual pieces are horrific, while when you consider the story, it is really one of tremendous hope. This is really a picture you’d have to see and judge for yourself.
July 8th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
I like this movie only because the scene with the train reminded me entirely of the opening in Half Life 2.
Yeah yeah the movie scared me as it should if your half intelligent because of the way it presented itself. It felt very real and painful, maybe hopeless. I’ll have to watch it again. And yes I’m posting this a full 4 years after the movie came out. Continue.
July 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Not being a Half Life 2 aficionado, I didn’t pick up on any similarities but Cuaron’s camerawork and storytelling delivered one of the more intelligent films of that year. It actually assumed the audience would pick up on bits of information not spelled out in big bold letters, which is so unusual in this era of lowest common denominator films.