Review of Children of Men (2006) by Noah Abraham G — 11 Nov 2012

Ever watch movies to go along with a mood or season? Maybe in general they'll carry some kind of personal association. Children of Men was released on Christmas 2006 playing in limited theaters, of course. I didn't see the film until half a year later and by then I didn't know anything about it. Never heard nor read up on anything (critic Roger Ebert was my source for new movies to check out but at this time he was on leave so I had no one reliable to guide me). I waved it off thinking it was one of those cheap direct-to-video action movies like those Steven Segal flicks but curiosity set in and I watched on my home desktop one night. And I thought it was really really good. Something kept me from thinking it was perfect until a second viewing eased my frustration. Alas, it was only minimal but good enough.

I've always praised the technical components of the film notably the long and complex single-shot sequences. My feeble and limited mind wasn't allowing me to touch upon exactly what made it great. I knew it was a fantastic film but I never could explain it. Maybe now I might but probably ruin the experience by being too wordy as I've been of late. Children of Men is the pinnacle of creating an atmosphere, of fully immersing the viewer.

This is what some of the supposed "great" 3-D films try to do, notably Hugo and Avatar (which I've still not seen) but we should also add Coraline to that small list. These movies show the world, show the depth, show the in-and-out, show the imagination but to me that's all gone once you take away those clunky lenses. You see all the colors of the rainbow but what else would be offered? When it comes to Children of Men, I'm immediately placed into this bleak hopeless world torn by warfare. You really do feel like you're put right in the middle of the action (and there are spectacular action sequences that must be seen) Whether I'm watching on a computer screen or a giant TV set I'm wired in. And I wonder: How does this film succeed on a level only thought to be possible with 3-D?

A quote from director Alfonso Cuaron:"There's a kind of cinema I detest, which is a cinema that is about exposition and explanations ... It's become now what I call a medium for lazy readers ... Cinema is a hostage of narrative. And I'm very good at narrative as a hostage of cinema.".

Children of Men is almost devoid of any exposition. There is a story that considers all the elements from politics to religion, from war to life, from faith to chance. It's up to the viewer to decide how all these issues affect these characters and it's all right there in the camera's field of range, capturing whatever it can to detail this despairing, war torn police state that is Great Britain, the last remaining civilized nation. Not only does all this attention to detail create atmosphere, it creates mood. There is awe yet it's unsettling. Imagine living in an infertile world where no human baby has been born in 18 years. That's the single sentence you can use to describe this film, and it branches off into whole other categories and sub-categories. It's amazing how in just 100 minutes Children of Men creates this whole world and covers just about every possible aspect. You have facts, you have questions and they fuel the main story.

Theo: "You kill me. A hundred years from now there won't be one sad fuck to look at any of this. What keeps you going?".

Nigel: "Know what it is, Theo? I just don't think about it".

There is reason behind everything, every dialogue and scene. The film may have a lot of unanswered questions but even the characters don't have an answer. What keeps them going? Seems like some mythical force, without cause but they go with it because they follow a belief and feel it is the right thing to do. It gives them enough reason or a sense of purpose in a world gone to hell. And it's not just one thing for the parties involved. To fight for human rights, to keep on going even if in less than a hundred years no one will be around, to fight for a greater cause, to make a statement, or... to remind everyone the core that drives us, that makes us human. This is the result of taking science out of the equation because it failed to provide answers.

Politics and religion are the bases of fanaticism, which usually steers people towards aggression or violence and giving everyone the idea that their views are right. The film shows this but maybe my interpretation is wrong. In this world, the gift of life is taken away. For whatever reason, again, no one knows. And you know how we can get unstable when we don't get an answer or explanation. We're erratic and can lash out. Since politics and religion is at the top of what we consider civilized and gives leverage to law and order and constructs morality and influence... those are the components that keep order but disrupt that order, out comes violence. I'd go as far as saying politics and religion go hand in hand because, again, they're fueled by beliefs: that's their weakness. And that creates a rocky relationship with science. Whereas science tries looking for an answer, politics and religion look for someone or something to blame. Children of Men shows what happens when those structures are disrupted. But again, the film gives us only bits of information that can allow us to perceive what the hell is going on here. The film allows the viewer to make up their own mind and that's especially the case when it comes to the end.

At that point. what do politics and religion matter? What any more possible use can they provide? They preach and are hypocritical. As Theo said at one point, they're irrelevant and as we know about Theo, he's a pessimist. Doesn't give a shit about nothing yet that allows him to arrive at that conclusion. Who cares about what other believe or what their cause is? It's the gift of life and potential hope for all of humanity. When people put their own label on something natural it obscures their vision and clouds their judgment.

And this is treading into spoiler territory but you find out really quick: there is a woman who is pregnant. Given all that I've typed up to this point, how does that put things into perspective? Hopefully I've painted an atmosphere, now go watch how it affects this story.

I'm not entirely lefty nor atheist. I'm just pointing out potential flaws found in religion and politics. There are flaws even in science. They seem so fragile. They have strong leaders but followers can just as easily lose their minds; heck, leaders can be capable of losing it, too. Point is: People gotta have beliefs that keep them going. I've got my own set and take influences from here and there. I acknowledge and try understanding other views and I'll respect 'em even if I don't agree which is kind of a shitty cop out but basically, I've got my own set of views and you got your own and I know some things I just won't ever understand. Of course I'm flawed and judgmental and even hypocritical but that's just how we all are.

I find beauty in a lot of things and when something bright can come out of this shitty world, makes it all worthwhile, right? That's what this film aims for and it's so powerful. Children of Men offers so many possibilities and I can go on and on. But it all narrows down to one force, one belief: hope. It's not much, it's too general but it's free from a definite meaning and with such a little word it is a force to be reckoned with. Makes us all look forward to tomorrow even for the smallest of things. Certainly makes Theo's heart grow 3 sizes bigger.

For a bleak action movie, it's so visceral, so real, so densely layered and covers so many thematic elements... it's not so much being awed but how the film resonates, how its freedom from narrative and exposition allows such feelings and thought to flourish. All the while, we're fully immersed in this world and still following a story. Honestly, it could turn a pessimist into an optimist. But again it's left entirely up to the viewer, which is another brilliant strategy used with this film.

It's got action, thrills, great acting even from the guys who barely make an appearance, humor, commentary... it's gives us enough to understand; the rest is left up to the viewer to fill in the gaps.