Imagination

email this story
read comments (103)
post a comment

"For those who can't appreciate a good story without having every little detail explained to them, and who can't imagine any plausible reason for Children of Men's set-up (i.e., a world where humans can no longer reproduce), let me provide a possible reason: genetic warfare.

"At some point in history of this film's world, someone engineered a virus that would cause sterility, and released it on a population in order to commit genocide. But it was an airborne and it got loose and became more virulent than predicted, and affected everyone that it came in contact with. Okay? Not that difficult to imagine, and good stories often let you use your imagination a little bit. Some people even enjoy using their imagination.

"But really the story doesn't require you to know the why of the premise; the premise is plausible enough to hang the story on it, without having to explain why." -- Bkemper on Diggs.com.

Alan Arkin comment<< previous | next >>Erickson's "Men" trailer

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 7, 2007 at 5:25 PM

comment #1

Undercover Brother says ...

Maybe. Or maybe God died. Or just took a smoke break. Or was fired for mismanagement by his higher ups. Doesn't much matter. But yes, there are those people out there who get hung up on the why when the why doesn't matter much.

Posted by Undercover Brother at January 7, 2007 5:51 PM

comment #2

Craig Kennedy says ...

I don't think the question of why the human population had become sterile crossed my mind once during Children of Men. It's not like it was set up as a big mystery for the film to solve...it was simply a fact of life and the movie was about how the characters dealt with it.

Interesting though how Wells gets tripped up over the lack of explanation of the metaphysics behind Stranger than Fiction but doesn't get hung up on the background details of Children of Men.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 7, 2007 6:07 PM

comment #3

Hallick says ...

I haven't seen "Children of Men" yet, but if all the movie ever did was say, "nobody knows why...", that'd be enough for me. And it would definitely fuel a chaotic social climate since humans panic so much better in an undefined crisis.

Posted by Hallick at January 7, 2007 6:40 PM

comment #4

mitch says ...

Given that Children of Men opened locally on Friday just outside of Seattle I was fully prepared for the theater to be sold out, and it was. The crowd was quite eager, and the movie began well enough for what I consider to be a critical hit, but the overall mood of the film fell so flat and utterly unbelievable upon much of the crowd that, as it ended, a man 2 rows behind me stated, rather loudly, 'Is that it?' More than one person thought that comment was appropriate, as scattered laughter verified. Additional comments overheard were such a strong mix of good and bad ('fabulous' 'disaster' 'exciting' 'boring' 'science lite' (my personal favorite)) that now I must question the near unanimous critical acclaim.

This is my second viewing, each full price paid, and my original opinion holds up well: unimpressed.

Had to give it another go, though, and rightly so. For me, critical hits deserve to be seen (within limits) and sometimes given a second chance. I've been surprised before and become fond of a movie upon further acquaintance, just not this time.

As for the premise, I prefer a reasonable foundation. Whether other people need such a thing is, as always, up to them.

Posted by mitch at January 7, 2007 6:50 PM

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

I could have sworn there was a snippet of dialogue in the movie (or perhaps the trailer) where somebody says 'nobody knows why'. Personally, I find it absolutely beside the point. It's like asking why it's raining all the time in Blade Runner, or why you can hear the spaceships flying through a vacuum in Star Wars, or why The Terminator has an Austrian accent. It's not important.

Posted by jeffmcm at January 7, 2007 7:10 PM

comment #6

mutinyco says ...

The rain, vacuum or accent aren't the foundations of those respective stories. Here, the explanation isn't denied for any dramatic reason. It's practical. There is no explanation. The setup is pretty much a biological impossibility as it's portrayed. State the setup and quickly move on. So, yeah...this is a bit like dramatic Three-card Monty.

Posted by mutinyco at January 7, 2007 7:30 PM

comment #7

goodvibe61 says ...

Scattered laughter, and "Is that it?"

Yeah, that Children of Men is a real knee slapper.

"Is that it?". That's funny. There's more detail, more setting firmly established, more fully realized situational drama in this film, than in an average half dozen movies combined.

The mood is flat...I guess it could be if you don't connect with the lead character, his life, and the point he's reached in his life, and how that's going to change once and for all when Julianne comes calling. I've seen the film twice now as well, with sell out audiences, and you could literally feel how riveted everyone in the audience was regarding the fate of both Ted and Kee.

The mood is flat...wow, you must really have a high set of expectations for an action type picture. There's more dramatic action in this film than most, and I don't remember anywhere in this picture when I wasn't feeling either worried for the characters, or creeped out by the eerily rendered future, in which the government advertises suicide on the airwaves, and everyone is either rounded up on the street like criminals or falls victim to terrorism.

Posted by goodvibe61 at January 7, 2007 7:40 PM

comment #8

insidah says ...

Man, when I make a movie, I hope I get the HE ink this movie's getting.

JW is like Kathy Bates in MISERY: "I'm your NUMBER ONE fan"

Posted by insidah at January 7, 2007 8:16 PM

comment #9

MathewM says ...

Having just seen Children of Men I'll voice my opinion. The movie starts interesting enough but I never 100% bought the premise that within twenty years we would live in an infertile world--especially with the number of livestock that is seen roaming the frame throughout. I'll give you that the movie is a visual tour de force. However much of what "wows" us in terms of the visuals is directly lifted from other films--Saving Private Ryan, The Piano, Full Metal Jacket even The Matrix. I think Cuaron is exceptionally talented as a visual artist but so are dozens of others working today. As a cautionary tale the movie works but really no more than an episode of The Twilight Zone but without the wit and awe. Three stars out of five.

Posted by MathewM at January 7, 2007 9:30 PM

comment #10

CarlinhosBrown says ...

this is by far the best directing of the decade, such a gripping film that should be getting all the awards... amazing performances, a great screenplay, unfortunately UNIVERSAL fucked the film...

*****/*****

Posted by CarlinhosBrown at January 7, 2007 9:38 PM

comment #11

MathewM says ...

"unfortunately UNIVERSAL fucked the film..."

How so? It opened pretty wide here in St. Louis, a mid-market city. I saw it in a nice sized, state of the art theater. The movie from a marketing stand-point is a tough sell. How exactly do you market a big budget cautionary tale? I'm frankly amazed the movie was green lit at all.

Posted by MathewM at January 7, 2007 9:49 PM

comment #12

Nick29 says ...

Lots of "is that it" comments from my screening in Tampa as well. I think it has to do with how the movie ends, its a fast, sudden, cut to credits and there could've been another scene or two in there to gently ease dumb members of the audience into accepting a typical ending.

I think the plot thread of infertility could easily have been replaced by any other tragic event, could that's easily the part of the movie that least intrested the director. I'm glad he went with it though, its different. Great movie.

Posted by Nick29 at January 7, 2007 9:57 PM

comment #13

Nick29 says ...

Posted by Nick29 at January 7, 2007 9:58 PM

comment #14

MathewM says ...

"...there could've been another scene or two in there to gently ease dumb members of the audience into accepting a typical ending."

Hmm, I wouldn't call audience members "dumb" just because they found the ending un-satisfying--which it is. Don't get me wrong, I like an unconventional ending such as the ones in Peter Weir films. However with Children of Men, Cuaron leaves you with only a shipping boat named "Tomorrow". Ok so I'm using my imagination here...nope still not satisfying because niether the boat nor Kee and her baby form any sort of resolution--the world is still going to hell.

Posted by MathewM at January 7, 2007 10:08 PM

comment #15

BBG215 says ...

Children of Men is a good chase flick...got to get the package from point A to point B without getting caught by the government or bad guys. But beyond that its nothing but great camera work,set design, and directing. The screenplay is average at best. Only Owen and Caine really stick out...the dialogue is simply there to push the chase forward...not cause the audience to think about anything substantial idea wise or become extremly emotionally attached to the characters.

This is not a movie you argue and discuss with your friends over coffe about all the great ideas/ issues etc it brought up, or how amazing the characters were. Its a film you talk about how amazing was that camera shot, action sequence, etc.

United 93 is so much greater than this film its laughable that people are calling out for this to grab a BP nomination when not even U93 might make the list.

Its kinda sad the movies that are getting described as great or masterpieces as each year passes and the output gets worse and worse that good to very good films are proclaimed as the best in years...etc etc

Shorthand Summary of COM:

owen: lol julian u r teh hawt

julian: thxu

owen: no rly, can we plz have some sex

julian: maybe l8r, i need u 2 deliver this girl across country

terrorists: LOL POZZED...julian down

...

owen: (to girl) i see ur pregnant, this development has exciting implications

owen: we need 2 leave these ppl are crazy

owen: lol lets just put a big coat on u no1 will

notice ur preggo

...

girl: i cant [censored] do it

owen: lol u can do it bro

girl: I CANT [censored] DO IT

owen: wtf yes u can

girl: loltrickedu

...

army: lol we r pozzing the terrorists

head terrorist: wow we r [censored]

baby: WAHHHHHHHHHHHH

entire movie cast: yo wtf baby?

entire movie cast: YO, WTF, BABY!

army: u may pass.

...

owen: lol i am tired from rowing this boat.

owen: ps i got shot im dying

girl: hey im going to name the baby after ur son.

owen: ty, but ttyl, its been really real

girl: heh how am i going 2 row the boat

I will give props to the director for randomly re-creating the cover of Pink Floyd's Animals in the film

Posted by BBG215 at January 8, 2007 12:37 AM

comment #16

jeffmcm says ...

Mutinyco, we've already established that you don't know how to watch movies...moving on.

Posted by jeffmcm at January 8, 2007 2:02 AM

comment #17

Matthew Lucas says ...

It all boils down to personal taste. But the "it doesn't explain why people are infertile" crowd kind of irks me. Do people really want everything layed out nice and neat for them? Every little detail explained? How boring. I thought that it made the film all the more eerily plausible. I guess people just don't like it when filmmakers refuse to hold their hands through the whole movie.

I thought it was the movie of the year, if not the decade. The guy behind me exclaimed "that was a waste of time!" and swept out of the theater.

It's all a matter of taste.

Posted by Matthew Lucas at January 8, 2007 5:00 AM

comment #18

Midwest Doug says ...

I saw it at a matinee yesterday; theater about 10% full. I was greatly impressed by the movie, but it really got me down. More so even than United 93.

SPOILERS BELOW: I think the movie, intentionally or not, makes a strong pro-life argument. The logic would go: the reason for the infertility isn't gamma rays or genetic warfare; it's God's will (or punishment). [Would even genetic warfare cause such simultaneity in the lack of fertility?]. Without new life, the world despairs. The birth of the baby causes great hope and even (temporarily) halts warfare. Therefore all life is precious, etc., etc.

One other note: in the early stages of the movie a group of 'repenters' are shown wearing yellow slickers while gathered at the corner. Are the folks on the Tomorrow ship also wearing yellow raincoats? Can't remember for sure.

Posted by Midwest Doug at January 8, 2007 5:51 AM

comment #19

Rich S. says ...

Here's where I think the problem lies. We have become too conditioned to look for the political slant of a movie and its director. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Children of Men uses the deus ex machina of humankind's infertility to examine how society would react if it knew it literally had no future. The reason it has no future is unimportant.

However, as the movie has been marketed, it appears to be an indictment of humankind's having brought the infertility on itself. Since audiences are now trained to look for the political slant, they would naturally want to know how that happened and what the director's position is. Bkemper's explanation above feeds directly into that. "We were fooling around with nature, and look what it got us." I think that's where the dissatisfaction comes from.

People didn't care why it was raining all the time in Blade Runner because the movie wasn't about global warming. It was about our creating tools to do menial labor that turn out more human than we eventually become. If Blade Runner were made today, I'm not sure audiences wouldn't have the same reaction as they do to Children of Men.

Posted by Rich S. at January 8, 2007 6:31 AM

comment #20

lionsfan says ...

Interestingly, the movie version of "Children of Men" (not P.D. James's original novel, which is quite different) makes very clear that whatever has affected fertility rates worldwide has only affected HUMAN fertility rates. For the movie is quite full of adult dogs, cats and many other critters whose general life span is less than 18 years. And also of, importantly, kittens. Even the herd of black-faced sheep that clatters through Bexhill at one point looks rather well-fed, although the human immigrqnts don't. (And how on earth can they even arrive in an island nation in the first place?) It is also clear that the British Army in this film is rather well-integrated.

But I'm not sure it's really that well thought-out a film (whereas P.D. James's novels are always well thought out), For instance, it shows us in the refugee camp at Bexhill what appears to be a detachment of Hamas suicide bombers (including at least one, maybe two, on horseback, WHITE horseback), right down to those green and white headbands with a Koranic sura on them. What on earth is that supposed to signify? Oddly, too, for such a futuristic movie, the jihadists are still firing off the same old Ak-47's. It's a dank, despairing movie that can rightly spark discussions (among, say, "career women" currently delaying even trying to get pregnant until their late 30's), but I'm not sure it has much to say of and by itself.

And what were those zebras and camels doing loose in Kensington or Hyde Park as Clive Owen sped by in the limo?

Posted by lionsfan at January 8, 2007 7:35 AM

comment #21

OddDuck says ...

"And what were those zebras and camels doing loose in Kensington or Hyde Park as Clive Owen sped by in the limo?"

My take is that it represented the kind of lavish decadence that might present itself when the rich have nobody to leave their money to and reason to invest in the future.

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 7:55 AM

comment #22

Colin says ...

I find the debate about the expositiuon/lack of exposition of the film to be fascinating. My wife and I both loved the movie and put it in our top 5 for the year (it was my number 1). After watching the film, we both remarked about how much we enjoyed the lack of exposition and not having everything explained to death.

A few days later, my wife talked to 2 people at work who hated it. Why? They wanted to know why people couldn't have babies any more. They wanted to know more about The Human Project. They wanted to know what happened after the end of the movie.

Oh well. I guess different strokes for different folks.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 7:59 AM

comment #23

Ju-osh says ...

Yeah, like my idiot brethren above, I was sort of hoping for the movie to end with Owen clicking his heels three times and then waking up from a dream surrounded by Moore, Caine, etc.
At least then all of the why-can't-he-manage-to-stay-in-one-pair-of-shoes stuff would've been explained.
Oop! Spoilers!

Posted by Ju-osh at January 8, 2007 8:08 AM

comment #24

MathewM says ...

So if it doesn't matter how the world became infertile then why should we care about Kee and her baby? They're really just a McGuffins. Kee's explanation for her pregnancy is realistic if off-putting (she slept with a bunch of guys and doesn't know who the daddy is--This makes her as sympathetic as a Jerry Springer guest). So yeah with the open ending and a dead protagonist it's hard to really give a damn.

Basically if you're a 'Doomster' you'll dig this movie, flaws and all. If you're an optimistic type who believes in the power of humanity you'll more likely be turned off by the movie's unrelenting attacks on mankind.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 8:11 AM

comment #25

storymark says ...

The other option being: If your an optomist, who can handle seeing a grim vision of the future, or can grasp the hopefull undercurrent of new life returning to the world - you may like it.

Posted by storymark at January 8, 2007 8:29 AM

comment #26

otakuhouse says ...

Rubbish. I'm a pragmatic optimist who comes away from the film filled with a sense of hope. Theo commits to something absolutely regardless of politics or selfishness and more importantly despite overwhelming despair. I think the film is a mirror of reactions to hope. And the unsettling thing about its collage of 21st century malaise is how unbelievably brilliantly its realized. What's with the Hamas? The film is full of iconography from the Balkans to Baghdad mirroring today as it is now. Manhola Dargis' take on the scene with Huston is brilliant - on the surface it's a simple one note exercise on the wealthy being entrenched. But it's even more than that.

Likewise, in 1917 flu killed more people than WWI. And we still don't know exactly why or how. Likewise believe it or not in the western world especially Europe (which led I believe to James' novel) it was reported a decade or so ago that fertility rates especially among men were plummeting at extraordinary and statistically improbably rates.

The film sets up an experience and isolates you as you might as individual experience it.

Jamie Stuart's idiotic criticisms of the movie baffle me.

Posted by otakuhouse at January 8, 2007 8:34 AM

comment #27

Colin says ...

MatthewM, I know that some people have referred to the infertility/pregnancy as MacGuffins. I disagree. Both of these have relevance to the character's histories, the film's political/moral themes, and how the film plays out. In other words, the infertility/pregnancy does not merely set the plot in motion; instead, it continually connects with the film as it proceeds.

And as for caring/not caring about Kee and her baby, I don't see how some exposition would have changed how much I cared. Does it matter whether infertility was caused by disease, God, some unknown cause, etc.?

Not to me. For me, the point was that infertility caused hope to be almost completely lost. Kee's pregnancy restored that hope. That's why I (and the characters) care about it.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 8:37 AM

comment #28

MathewM says ...

Come on, did you guys really care that much about Kee and her baby? They were cardboard characters. Theo was the only character I really cared about and even he was pretty much written as the a-typical anti-hero complete with tragic past. Also what was up with the fascist dude? Wasn't he supposed to be a friend of the old hippy dude? He turned out to be just another nutjob--these types of characters, the old hippy and the right wing nutjob are easy to write. Take away the visceral impact of the chase and battle scenes and there's really not all that much depth to be found.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:07 AM

comment #29

Josh Massey says ...

This is what's great about the movie's ending: it's not spelled out, so anybody can take away what they want. Personally, I looked at it as God's punishment, particularly because of the MANY, MANY shots of animals in the film. There were cats and dogs in seemingly every scene, as to drive the point home that only humans were affected by whatever caused the infertility.

Posted by Josh Massey at January 8, 2007 9:10 AM

comment #30

Colin says ...

* Spoilers *

MatthewM, from what I remember, Jasper supplied Syd with drugs, but I'm not sure how much of friends they were. That said, once Syd saw that Theo and Kee were wanted and that he could make some serious money, any friendship was off.

And I thought that Kee was fleshed out nicely. She showed a pretty humorous side, and, as you yourself note, the reason she gives for the cause of her pregnancy (in addition to showing her humor-- "I'm a virgin"), is, to say the least, not what you'd expect.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 9:21 AM

comment #31

DavidF says ...

SPOILERS

I dunno why people need the ending spelled out more clearly.
Unless the audio in your theatre was broken, when the end titles came up you could hear the sound of children playing implying that, one way or another, "Dylan" helped them solve the problem.

It reminded me of the brilliant ending of 12 MONKEYS. It takes a minute to get it but then you realize that, somehow, they sent one of the scientists back because Bruce Willis pulled it off. They know where the virus is, she will get a sample of it and, one way or another, they will be able to get back to the surface. It's not spelled out but it's not totally obscure either - it just requires you to think for a minute or two.

Since, in CoM, there were so many questions about whether the Human Project existed, whether Julianne Moore had even been in touch with them etc. the mere fact that they show up is sufficient to let you know it'll be alright (IMHO). Whether Clive Owen is dead or passed out and whether the world can right itself once fertility resumes...these are all things you can ponder on your own.

And thank the lord for Google because I thought I was imagining the Pink Floyd reference when no one else in the theatre seemed to react to that pig...

Posted by DavidF at January 8, 2007 9:21 AM

comment #32

MathewM says ...

"Rubbish. I'm a pragmatic optimist who comes away from the film filled with a sense of hope."

Why because we hear crying babies during the closing credits? Who is to say that that wasn't tacked on after they realized the movie lacked a resolution. The ending seemed to be a little too much of a coincidence also. I like unconvential endings but without any connection I'm left wanting.

Like I said I think people who think the world is going to hell because of our own doing will "enjoy" Children of Men more since it plays to those fears.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:25 AM

comment #33

Colin says ...

* Spoilers *

MatthewM, I'm not sure how the ending was "a coincidence." They had heard that the boat would be at a specific place and time. Theo and Kee went to that place at around the specified time. The boat was there. I would see it as a coincidence if they went to some random place and the boat was there, but...

And, DavidF, as for the sound of children, I agree that it's somewhat optimistic. And I'd agree that from that, we can probably assume that the Human Project was able to figure out the infertility problem. At the same time, most of the world has been destroyed, and England ain't looking great either. So, I'd still say that there;s a lot to be resolved for good or bad, although I do agree that the ending was filled with hope.

And MatthewM, who cares why the children's cries were added if they worked?

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 9:30 AM

comment #34

mitch says ...

I'm glad to see the heated debate here. Personally, I feel that directly attacking audience reactions with terms like 'dumb' when they fail to fit within a given taste is overly simplistic. Simple is as simple does, I guess.

My final comment on the whole thing is: just saw the Starry Night trailer for Halo 3. I feel there's more emotion and excitement contained within those 60 seconds than I found in Children of Men's entirety.

Let the flaming begin.

Posted by mitch at January 8, 2007 9:32 AM

comment #35

gatsby1040 says ...

I'm a published critic, and even after reviewing COM, I'm so fiercely protective of this movie that I'm posting on HE about it.

Whether you like COM or not is surely a matter of taste, and we can have a great argument about why you ultimately found it hopeful or depressing or political or apolitical or religious or spiritual or deep or shallow or whatever.

That said, anyone who says the movie doesn't work, that the characters are shallow, that the story lacked plausibility or is a simple chase movie, is someone who doesn't know how to watch movies, let alone like them.

You don't have to like North By Northwest. But to say that it's a bad film would call your powers of judgement into question.

That viewers have split into love it-hate it camps is testament to the power of this film. It isn't pessimistic, it is optimistic, but its optimism is built on a powerfully uncomfortable, unsettling, and uncompromising vision of the hell we are making for ourself in this still-young century. That the film is also brilliantly realized goes without saying.

Posted by gatsby1040 at January 8, 2007 9:36 AM

comment #36

DavidF says ...

"Why because we hear crying babies during the closing credits? "Who is to say that that wasn't tacked on after they realized the movie lacked a resolution."

Come on. There were crying babies AND laughing children.
But you're probably right. Probably everything else in the movie is there for a purpose ... except for the ending. And the audio.

Next you'll be wondering if the rebels won in Star Wars just because we saw the Death Star blow up. How do we know they didn't tack that on after they realized the movie lacked a resolution?

You get it or you don't.
A boat called Tomorrow, from an organization we weren't even sure existed, shows up, right when it was supposed to, and picks her up. And then you hear children.
But, yeah, I'm sure the point was that we're screwed after all.

Posted by DavidF at January 8, 2007 9:38 AM

comment #37

MathewM says ...

"..the reason she gives for the cause of her pregnancy (in addition to showing her humor-- "I'm a virgin"), is, to say the least, not what you'd expect."

To be honest I saw that more as a glib remark thrown in by the writer and not really identifiable to the character. However since we don't know who the father is and Kee is a genetic mutation without medical reason then scientifically we should assume that if it's not a "virgin" birth then odds are there are other cases of fertility. My point is that movie never attempts to make Kee "special" outside of her skin color.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:39 AM

comment #38

MathewM says ...

"Next you'll be wondering if the rebels won in Star Wars just because we saw the Death Star blow up. How do we know they didn't tack that on after they realized the movie lacked a resolution?"

Yet the rebels didn't "win" hence why we see Darth Vader escape leading to the inevitible sequels.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:43 AM

comment #39

Colin says ...

I don't know, MatthewM, I thought that Kee busted Theo's chops throughout the movie and that the comment was pretty consistent with her character.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 9:47 AM

comment #40

MathewM says ...

"A boat called Tomorrow, from an organization we weren't even sure existed, shows up, right when it was supposed to, and picks her up. And then you hear children."

So the movie is really saying that there is hope in the form of an organization that can clone babies?

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:48 AM

comment #41

Ju-osh says ...

"My point is that (the) movie never attempts to make Kee "special" outside of her skin color."

What the fuck does this mean?!
Do you really think the director -- a brown-skinned man -- made this character black simply to show some kind of 'otherness'?
If so, you live in far too white of a self-made, self-contained universe.

Please explain your stance in full when Limbaugh's show is over for the day.

Posted by Ju-osh at January 8, 2007 9:51 AM

comment #42

Colin says ...

* Spoilers *

Although this is simplifying things considerably, I would say that Theo represents the populace in general as he has lost hope in the survival of man (death of his child standing in for infertility). It is Kee's pregnancy (as well as the re-appearance in his life of his ex-wife, which reminds him of his life with "less money") that gives him hope again. The boat coming at the end is that hope realized, but, as is clear from the fact that Theo dies before the boat comes, it was not necessary for the rekindling of hope.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 9:52 AM

comment #43

MathewM says ...

"That the film is also brilliantly realized goes without saying."

So you were saying...

Why do you feel the need to say that you're a published critic? Does that make your opinion more valid than mine? There's a reason nobody is reading you guys anymore.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:53 AM

comment #44

Colin says ...

* spoilers *

As for the color of Kee's skin, I think the film makes it clear that her 'fugee' status (which, I guess doesn't necessarily depend on her skin color) is key because it means that the govt. won't want to accept that she is the one who finally got pregnant.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 9:56 AM

comment #45

MathewM says ...

"What the fuck does this mean?! "

It means that to make the character stand out and thus be more "important" or "relevant" they made her black. It's not a Limbaugh statement, it's a cinematic observation. Don't try to corner me just because I'm countering an arguement it's weak.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 9:57 AM

comment #46

MathewM says ...

"As for the color of Kee's skin, I think the film makes it clear that her 'fugee' status"

However that's one of the problems I had with the "movie logic". We're to assume that society is actually more backwards in 2027 than it was in 1950 when in reality society has gotten more and more progressive.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 10:00 AM

comment #47

Colin says ...

* Spoilers *

Hmm...I don't know MatthewM. The movie shows a world where basically the whole world has collapsed except for England (which is on the brink). Understandably, a ton of refugees have made their way to England b/c there's nothing else out there. And the English govt. has responded by rounding them off to camps and executing many of them.

Based upon that context, yeah, I can see the government not wanting to recognize a refugee as their savior. And, yeah, based upon the world's history and what's going on today, I could see such events happening, especially in the wake of worldwide infertility, which, yeah, probably would cause the world to regress.

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 10:07 AM

comment #48

Mickey says ...

This is not a movie you argue and discuss with your friends over coffee, indeed. See above comments.

Posted by Mickey at January 8, 2007 10:11 AM

comment #49

Ju-osh says ...

How does Kee's black skin make her "stand out" more than, say, the wild Scotsman's accent or the dreadlocked white guy, or the red-haired J. Moore?
It doesn't.
Unless you're predisposiitoned to look at black folks as 'other'.
I apologize for the snarky comment hinting at a Limbaugh-ish racism, I had no right or basis for that. Still, you seem to have at least a slightly naive view of how most people (the director included, I believe) view blacks.

Posted by Ju-osh at January 8, 2007 10:14 AM

comment #50

storymark says ...

"Why do you feel the need to say that you're a published critic? Does that make your opinion more valid than mine?"

No. But perceiving more depth from a video game trailer than a masterfully executed film does.

Posted by storymark at January 8, 2007 10:18 AM

comment #51

Midwest Doug says ...

I thought the ending was fine; I would have been gut-wrenched had we not seen the ship at all. In fact, I was expecting nothing at that point, which is why seeing the ship brought some modicum of relief. And I presume that Kee is not the only one pregnant, all the children are off to the Azores, and civilization begins anew.

Kee is pregnant, I thought, as a result of being a prostitute, the only way she could make a living.

The only main plot point I didn't get is why the midwife standing up on the bus somehow saved Kee from scrutiny.

Posted by Midwest Doug at January 8, 2007 10:26 AM

comment #52

mitch says ...

storymark: does you inability to properly read and relate the names of those who have chosen to post here and then apply counterpoints to those remarks basically invalidate everything you've written up to this point?

Yes, it does.

I wrote the comment about Halo 3, not MathewM. If you can't keep something as simple as that straight, then how can anyone expect you to even begin to understand anything of minor complexity?

Posted by mitch at January 8, 2007 10:34 AM

comment #53

gatsby1040 says ...

Thanks storymark.

Didn't mean to sound condescending, I was actually pointing that out to say that I'm not just a COM cheerleader. It's rare that I go this far out on a limb for a movie. This movie is special. It's a true cinematic masterpiece in an era with far too few. Watching the film I was both held by its grip and moved by its artistry, and afterwards I was shaken for days such that I needed to see it again... and again. I now have a new optimism for the future of the medium. And I have a new favorite director to eagerly await projects from.

That said, Y Tu Mama Tambien and HP/Azkaban were, and are, terrific in their own specific ways.

Posted by gatsby1040 at January 8, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #54

DavidF says ...

Matthew's just being devil's advocate, as is his right, I guess.
To answer...

"So the movie is really saying that there is hope in the form of an organization that can clone babies?"

What do YOU think?
You are given a certain number of objective facts and then left to conclude for yourself. The film challenges you to use your brain and you, on this board, are raising some questions that indicate you have one.
So put it together.
It seems obvious to me.

And as for :
"Yet the rebels didn't "win" hence why we see Darth Vader escape leading to the inevitible sequels."

I'm not sure if you're joking at my joke or not, so allow me to rephrase..
""Next you'll be wondering if the rebels won in Return of the Jedi just because we saw the Emperor die and the Death Star blow up. How do we know they didn't tack that on after they realized the movie lacked a resolution?"

Some movies - even good movies - wrap everything in a nice bow. Other movies like Blade Runner and Sideways and Twelve Monkeys leave it to you to analyze what you've been presented with in guessing "what happens next."
In the case of Children of Men I think the ending most certainly points in a hopeful direction - otherwise why even show the boat? I suppose someone could draw a different conclusion but, IMHO, I doubt that was the filmmakers' intention.

Posted by DavidF at January 8, 2007 10:50 AM

comment #55

OddDuck says ...

Hey Mitch, mistakes happen, and confusing two posters in long discussion thread doesn't "invalidate everything" the guy's said.

And dude, comparing Children of Men to a trailer for a videogame? What. A. Dork. But I won't let this invalidate anything you've said, so we're good here.

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 10:52 AM

comment #56

mitch says ...

I still find it amazing that dissention on the worthiness of a film can lead to outright anger. Not everyone will like this movie. Not everyone will find it cohesive.

I love to read James Joyce, but I genuinely dislike Pablo Picasso?s work. My wife stands in utter disdain of Joyce, and gladly embraces Picasso at every turn.

We both love The Wire, Band of Brothers, 30 rock. She is enthralled by 24, I am not.

I love mixed martial arts, she deems that barbaric. She loves ballet, and I absolutely despise it. We both love football (go ?Hawks!).

People are different, yet still manage to embrace those differences. Those of you on this board attacking and chiding those of negative dissent regarding this film are no different than the political thugs you so smugly claim to hate.

Where I come from, we deem that type of person a hypocrite.

Posted by mitch at January 8, 2007 10:53 AM

comment #57

gatsby1040 says ...

Don't be so literal-minded. The best films are collections of images, movements, and moods. Films only need to move the audience, and to do so move beyond literary explanations. Infertility, the Human Project, the Fishes, etc are just metaphors, and don't require logical backstories and explanations, as long as the texture of the story succeeds in convincing the audience that they are real.
The movie teaches you how to watch it. Just open your eyes.

Posted by gatsby1040 at January 8, 2007 11:00 AM

comment #58

mitch says ...

Thanks for the compliment, OddDuck.

Posted by mitch at January 8, 2007 11:02 AM

comment #59

storymark says ...

My appologies to MatthewM for the mix-up.

Posted by storymark at January 8, 2007 11:15 AM

comment #60

Josh Massey says ...

Ju-osh: I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but I was wondering if you can point to a single instance of "racism" perpetrated by him.

Posted by Josh Massey at January 8, 2007 11:32 AM

comment #61

OddDuck says ...

Re whether Limbaugh is racist, I'm not Ju-osh, but a quick google search brought this up:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549

"As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

In 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."

In a similar vein, here is Limbaugh's mocking take on the NAACP, a group with a ninety-year commitment to nonviolence: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's "Jeffersons" when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting "ax" for "ask"-- when discussing black leaders."

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 11:38 AM

comment #62

Craig Kennedy says ...

This conversation reminds me of someone trying to tell a joke about a hooker and a dog going into a bar and the person being told the joke interrupts and asks what kind of dog it is and what the hooker is wearing and why did they go into the bar and was it happy hour.

The joke doesn't need those details to be funny and the film shouldn't need those details to be powerful. To me it was about *SPOILER ALERT* a hopeless man living in a hopeless world and his transformation into a man who finds hope and meaning and a purpose. The mechanism behind the causes for his hopelessness are unnecessary. His hopelessness is the point in itself. And whether we as the audience care for or sympathize with Kee is totally pointless. She represents the continuation of our species. I'd say that's a built in rooting interest. It's not who she is, it's what she represents that is important. *END SPOILER*

I know I'm simultaneously singing to the choir and a brick wall here, but I was shocked to see this thread get so heated and I had to expand on my original point.

I'm ambivalent about the film personally and I haven't decided yet whether it's great or not, but my feelings have nothing to do with the information the movie didn't give out. It's not a movie about how the world is going to end, it's a movie about how we would react if it was.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 11:58 AM

comment #63

OddDuck says ...

Well said, cj Kennedy.

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 12:00 PM

comment #64

Ju-osh says ...

Nicely listed, Odduck.

Posted by Ju-osh at January 8, 2007 12:15 PM

comment #65

MathewM says ...

"*SPOILER ALERT* a hopeless man living in a hopeless world and his transformation into a man who finds hope and meaning and a purpose."

Right before he keels over from a bullet wound. I still think the movie is a dirge...

Actually aside from Rush Limbaugh being dragged into it I've found the discussion enlightening. While I have brought up what I perceive as faults others have provided insight into their own perceptions of the film.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 12:19 PM

comment #66

Craig Kennedy says ...

SPOILER ALERT though really if you haven't seen the film you have no business reading this far into the thread....

MathewM, it's his transformation before the very end and what he accomplishes at great sacrifice to himself...a character who began the film in a total mechanical zombie state, interested only in getting from day to day without getting blown up.

Is Casablanca a dirge because the hero doesn't get the girl at the end of the movie?

Great list Odduck, though let me be the devil's advocate and suggest there's a different between bigotry and racism. To me bigotry is a state of mind (not liking black people) and racism is acting upon that state of mind (not hiring people because they're black). More importantly to me, Rush is a douche.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #67

Josh Massey says ...

Agreed with everything you just said, cjkennedy (including the douche part). I just wanted to point out the difference between being a bigot and being a racist.

I just hate that the word "racism" has basically lost all of its power because of overuse.

Posted by Josh Massey at January 8, 2007 12:41 PM

comment #68

MovieBob says ...

SPOILERS

The "thats it?" reaction of what seem to be large audiences on this one maybe aren't as sociologically-complicated as all that. The film has, and the trailers more-or-less "promised," the outline and beats of a mid-budget scifi/action film when it's more of a deliberately-paced futuristic-drama which happens to contain armed conflict as part of it's plot. They're "waiting," because they've seen this basic setup and outline before, for Theo (or Kree) to "have enough" and start blasting all that uniformed canon-fodder standing between them and salvation. Instead they get ONE bad guy clubbed in the head with a hunk of debris.

Basically, the film is "missing" ONE fragment of a scene that would've made the difference, as far as probable audience-expectations go: 20 seconds - as their getting ready to flee that bombed-out building, of Theo snapping every damn peice of ordinance he can find onto his person, clicking the magazine into a handgun, cracking his neck and intoning "let's move" before they charge out into the fray.

Posted by MovieBob at January 8, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #69

MathewM says ...

"Is Casablanca a dirge because the hero doesn't get the girl at the end of the movie?"

Two different movies. I used the term "dirge" because Children of Men as a whole is a depressing movie where character after character die. You could argue that Kee's baby, Dylan is a resurrection of Theo but it doesn't change the tone of the film.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 12:46 PM

comment #70

Josh Massey says ...

SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!

I am consistently surprised by hearing how depressing the film is, when the ending is completely hopeful. The hero does die, but he does so with a smile on his face. And then, as discussed above, the appearance of the boat in the right place at the right time, and - most of all - the sounds of children. I mean, the audio answered most every question the audience members are having, everything except "Why did it happen in the first place?"

Posted by Josh Massey at January 8, 2007 12:50 PM

comment #71

OddDuck says ...

MovieBob, good point, I think, but am so very glad that Clive doesn't go all Harrison Ford on us.

Points well taken about bigotry versus racism. One more thought on that though. Rush is not simply a douche. He is the archetypal douchebag, the platonic ideal of a douche, if you will. All other idiots who we might call douches are mere approximations of Rush Limbaugh's wet pathetic douche-i-ness.

who makes all other lesser douches seem like mere approximation of

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 12:51 PM

comment #72

OddDuck says ...

excuse my undeleted edit!

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 12:55 PM

comment #73

MathewM says ...

Come on Josh, did you actually walk out of the theater feeling hopeful? You can analyze the ending all you want yet for 95% of the rest the film the tone is decidedly downbeat. The only scene that really moved me was when they walk out of the bombed out building with the crying baby and there is a momentary cease fire. Yet that momentary uplifting is erased as the gunfire begins anew. Considering how vague the Human Project is most of the audience forgets that's why they need a boat in the first place.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 12:59 PM

comment #74

mitch says ...

Moviebob: I think you're breakdown is correct for a good many of the audience. I do believe that expectations are often 'trailer' set (too much so, in my opinion) and when a movie fails to live up to the promise (and premise) of its trailer then some in the audience will be disappointed.

Posted by mitch at January 8, 2007 1:01 PM

comment #75

MathewM says ...

"who makes all other lesser douches seem like mere approximation of"

Whatever. You probably listen to Rush more than the people you accuse do. Rush can be entertaining but goes overboard on occasion. Of course if he played it safe all the time he wouldn't be half as popular as he is. Besides Jesse Jackson has hurt African Americans more than he has helped. Regardless, I'm not sure what Rush Limbaugh has to do with Children of Men though I'd be interested in hearing his opinion on it--if he would even see it.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 1:05 PM

comment #76

Craig Kennedy says ...

Ok so is the Passion story a dirge because Jesus is killed? What about what he accomplished in life and the message of hope he left behind. Not that Clive is Jesus, but I can be sad for the character while not being depressed by the movie.

"wet pathetic douche-i-ness" AHAHAHAH. Nice.

He's an entertainer. Unfortunately, in a society full of literal minded simpletons, he's a primary source of information. Therefore he's therefore a dangerous douche. Talk radio in general...liberal or conservative is a cancer. A lot of smoke, very little heat or light.

You make a good point about the trailer MovieBob. We could have several interesting threads about how much I hate trailers, but I think it goes deeper than that. The same literal minded simpletons who get their opinions from talk radio also expect movies to fit certain patterns and trailers just play into that need for comforting sameness. Shame on the studio for not having the balls to be honest, but what are you going to do?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 1:06 PM

comment #77

Craig Kennedy says ...

MathewM, the movie definitely put the audience through the ringer but just because I didn't leave the film thinking "Sweet! Human Race: 1, Apocalypse: 0!!" doesn't mean I wanted to drive off a bridge. I do believe the basic message of the film was a hopeful one: When the crap truly hits the fan, the human race will step up, leave their cynical selfishness aside and do the right thing.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 1:10 PM

comment #78

MathewM says ...

"Talk radio in general...liberal or conservative is a cancer. A lot of smoke, very little heat or light."

It's entertainment much like Professional Wrestling is.

"Ok so is the Passion story a dirge because Jesus is killed?"

I think so. I haven't seen POTC because I have little interest in watching a man be beat to death because of what he represented. Not my idea of entertainment or even enlightenment.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #79

OddDuck says ...

"Considering how vague the Human Project is most of the audience forgets that's why they need a boat in the first place."

Not sure how much in jest that comment is made, but we're reminded enough of the importance of the Human Project, and the lack of specifics create an enigmatic promise. I like that the details of the human project remain a mystery. In the end we're given somrthing close to a promise of a happy ending, although it takes the tiniest leap on our part as viewer to get there.

On a more flip note, I'm not sure what you really expected from the ending -- a friggin rainbow?

Posted by OddDuck at January 8, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #80

Craig Kennedy says ...

I'm not talking about Mel's snuff film, I'm talking about the story itself.

Luckily, people don't vote based on Pro Wrestling, eh?

I must say this has been one of the more entertaining HE threads in a while.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 1:14 PM

comment #81

Josh Massey says ...

I really want to get into this talk radio/Limbaugh thing (as a libertarian-conservative), but I refuse to again take the discussion of such a great film further off point.

Posted by Josh Massey at January 8, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #82

Craig Kennedy says ...

Unless you have more to add about CoM, I say go for it. Anyone still reading the thread can always turn the conversation back again.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 1:32 PM

comment #83

DavidF says ...

I agree with cjKennedy - it's been interesting.
I wish this board had been around when 12 Monkeys had been out because that is the closest thing I can think of to CoM in many respects.

No doubt Matthew would be suggesting it was a downer cuz (SPOILER!) Bruce Wills gets killed and we know millions of people are going to die in a plague so nothing changed etc etc etc.

Nonetheless, (against his wishes!) Terry Gilliam lets us know that there IS hope. He doesn't spell it out - most people probably figured it out talking with friends on the way to the car after the movie - but it is unmistakably there.

If you want to poke holes in that ending, or focus on things like the hero dying etc. or say, "What if Bruce Willis really WAS insane and none of that every happened!?" that is your prerogative. But, objectively, that is NOT what you have been given by the film.

In 12 Monkeys you see the scientist on the plane.
In CoM you see the boat and hear children. For me that's quite sufficient having spent 2 hours wondering if the boat will come and having not so much as seen a child. It's the storytelling equivalent of Dorothy stepping out into the colour of Oz.

If it's not the same for you, maybe the film has failed on some level. But it's still there.

p.s. I'm not a doctor but given that he JUST passed out from blood loss one could speculate that Theo is not actually dead and the Human Project people are able to save him. I would guess he is dead but there is ambiguity in how it is filmed.

Posted by DavidF at January 8, 2007 1:36 PM

comment #84

DavidF says ...

I agree with cjKennedy - it's been interesting.
I wish this board had been around when 12 Monkeys had been out because that is the closest thing I can think of to CoM in many respects.

No doubt Matthew would be suggesting it was a downer cuz (SPOILER!) Bruce Wills gets killed and we know millions of people are going to die in a plague so nothing changed etc etc etc.

If you want to poke holes in that ending, or focus on things like the hero dying or say, "What if Bruce Willis really WAS insane and none of that every happened!?" that is your prerogative. But, objectively, that is NOT what you have been given by the film.

If it's not the same for you, maybe the film has failed on some level. But it's still there. It is unabashedly hopeful even if it doesn't use Hollywood hysterics to make that clear.

Posted by DavidF at January 8, 2007 1:38 PM

comment #85

Ju-osh says ...

To dismiss talk radio as being the same as professional wrestling is wishful thinking, I'm afraid. While the wrestlers would freely admit to faking their actions and emotions, Rush, Imus, etc (liberal hosts included) would not admit to such parody, exaggeration or lies. Also, unfortuantely, most of the listeners do not see the ridiculousness of the majority of political talk radio, whereas the average wrestling fan over 10 years of age understands the theatrics of the 'sport'.

Posted by Ju-osh at January 8, 2007 1:40 PM

comment #86

Colin says ...

* Spoilers *

On an earlier thread, a few people were saying that a big flaw with the movie was Julianne Moore's flat acting. I disagree. I think it's clear from the movie that 1) the Fish started out as a violent group, 2) they ostensibly became less violent with Moore's character taking the leadership position, and 3) with the arrival of Kee, they decided to become more extreme again, with Chiwetel Ejiofor's character taking over after they have Moore's character killed.

When Moore contacts Theo, I think she knows or suspects that stage 3 is happening. Of course, Kee tells Theo in the barn after Moore's character is shot that she told Kee only to trust Theo, which I think supports this theory. This would explain her being a bit flat as she likely was thrilled at the hope that Kee's pregnancy brought only to be disheartened with the prospect that the Fish will ruin things.

So, what do you all think? Was this a bad performance by Moore, or was her less than enthusiastic acting purposeful?

Posted by Colin at January 8, 2007 1:41 PM

comment #87

MathewM says ...

"I'm not sure what you really expected from the ending -- a friggin rainbow?"

Ha, ha...I still had more emotional connection to the puppy dog in Apocalypse Now than little baby Dylan. Did you also notice the baby was pretty good at crying on cue? Hopefully her momma figured out how to breast feed--the baby that saves humanity needs all the nourishment it can get.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 1:47 PM

comment #88

MathewM says ...

I'm not really a fan of Julianne Moore and I didn't think she was all that great in Children of Men.

Posted by MathewM at January 8, 2007 1:53 PM

comment #89

Ju-osh says ...

Okay, back on topic:
I love Curon's dirty and imperfect visual aesthetic. It's been there as far back as his version of 'The Little Princess' (the earliest film of his that I've seen), and is only getting better. It makes everything -- from a station wagon to a boarding school to a semi-apocalyptic England -- so beautifully scruffy and easy to be immersed in.
Among the many other thoughts reeling through my mind upon leaving the theatre last night was a comparison of Curon's London in COM to Speilberg's Boston in WOW.
There really is no comparison, is there?

Posted by Ju-osh at January 8, 2007 1:55 PM

comment #90

Midwest Doug says ...

I thought Moore was fine, and reflected sort of a different version of what Theo could have been. She kept up her activism, but you could tell she too was in a way going through the motions of life. Her death, by the way, was shocking, as I expected her to be in much more of the film.

MovieBob brings up a great point about Theo's (theo-logy?) relative pacifism. He does one genuinely violent thing, which is clubbing Sid with the car battery. He doesn't even take Sid's gun after Farika brickbats him. Everything else is about chasing/running/avoiding (Ok, he opened the car door on the motorcycle, but that seemed non-pre-meditated). Theo's lack of defenses (symbolized in part by his lack of footwear) makes his struggle all the more compelling.

Posted by Midwest Doug at January 8, 2007 1:56 PM

comment #91

bmcintire says ...

I think the downplay of Julianne Morre's character was a very calculated move on the part of both the actress and Cuaron. The reasons Ju-osh posted hit it on the head, but there is also that brief glimmer of light when she and Owen "toss" the ping pong ball back and forth, just moments before she is killed. That made it all the more surprising and devastating, and ratcheded up the tension of a scene that you kept expecting end and give you some relief. Brilliantly played.

Posted by bmcintire at January 8, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #92

K. Bowen says ...

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

A few random comments that pertained to where the discussion was this morning. Perhaps it's moved on. I'll let you all judge.
1) I think religious allusions help explain a couple things. One reason for the presence of animals in the gleaming inner compound of the wealthy is, I think, because it's an allusion to Noah's Ark. Julianne Moore even refers to the cousin's art collecting project as "The ark of the arts." The point of the compound is partly as a cultural ark (and perhaps a zoological one) created with the intention of being a last fortress of sanity and civilization (which, in the end, might not be a very sane or civilized act).
2) Likewise, I think the choice of infertility came partly due to the ease with which it fosters an allusion to the birth of Christ, lending the birth a redemptive quality. I don't think that's any earth-shattering insight, but it's important to note when you consider whether or not it's a McGuffin, and whether or not any other apocalyptic cause-and-effect would serve the story as well.
3) As someone else noted, "Theo" comes from the same root as "theology." Theodore actually means "gift from God." At one point, I think Moore calls him Thelonius. Apparently Thelonius was a sixth or seventh century saint who had some sort of fairly severe test of faith. (Don't quote me too strictly; the details are a bit fuzzy to me right now). Either choice seems pretty fitting. (No, I didn't know any of this beforehand. I Googled it.)
4) The ending - I took it as ambiguous. There's certainly enough there for you to think that she made it to safety and helped to re-start human reproduction. But because you never see her explicitly picked up and into the boat, and because of the thickness of the fog, I think it's possible for one to conclude that they might not find her. Cuaron certainly implies that they do, but I don't think he closes off the other possibility.
Thematically, I think that scene echoes the exit from the building during the battle. There's that moment when soldiers on both sides cease fire, gaze upon the child momentarily in awe. Then the baby moves a certain distance away and it's right back to fighting.
What I took from these scenes is that hope exists in the world, and while we might glimpse it, it's another long journey before we grasp it, and that there's a real danger that even if we find a source of hope, we won't be able to secure it.
4) As much as I really like the film, if there are two weaker characters among this year's top 10 films than Sid the Fascist Pig and Marika, the gypsy guide in Bexhill, I don't know which ones they are. And as people noted, Kee isn't much more deeply drawn either, just with a nicer personality.

Posted by K. Bowen at January 8, 2007 5:07 PM

comment #93

Craig Kennedy says ...

Excellent points all K. Bowen. I've been thinking more about some of the theological parallels as well though it's something I generally avoid. They are all over this film but Cuaron doesn't really hit you in the face with them. At least I don't feel like he did. It gives the film a deeper resonance though.

Thelonious is also the name of a pretty swell Jazz musician, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't
apply.

Forgive me if this point has been gone over in previous threads (this is the first CoM thread I've participated in in a while) but when I think about the ending, I still have huge questions about the very nature of the group to whom (or is it 'who'? I can never remember) Clive Owen is trying to deliver Kee. Even if they do pick her up, what are their real motives? They seem shadowy and suspicious to me, but maybe I missed a key point in the film because the creepy old man next to me was applauding spasmodically and laughing at inappropriate moments.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 6:33 PM

comment #94

Midwest Doug says ...

The Human Group seems to have the implicit endorsement of Jasper, which is probably good enough for Theo. K Bowen, interesting stuff.

Posted by Midwest Doug at January 8, 2007 6:39 PM

comment #95

Craig Kennedy says ...

If they're ok with Michael Caine then they're ok with me.

This is the longest thread I can remember that wasn't about politics and didn't have a single comment from NYCBusybody.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 8, 2007 6:46 PM

comment #96

mitch says ...

Other than a bit of name calling (me included with the 'hypocrite' comment) this has been a very well thought out thread. Best I've read within this forum.

Posted by mitch at January 8, 2007 7:16 PM

comment #97

AlexStroup says ...

I didn't read all the commens so this has probably been mentioned.

I don't think it is important to know why it happened but I thought a clue was given when it was revealed that the child of Owens and Moore died in a flu pandemic the year before the sterility began.

I just decided to assume that that flu pandemic did it (of course it doesn't close off the genetic warfare possibilities) but it would be a reasonable vector.

Posted by AlexStroup at January 8, 2007 10:06 PM

comment #98

gatsby1040 says ...

things to consider:
-All the animals int the film gravitate towards theo. Think about the cat, a few dogs, the kitten, etc etc. Theo himself may be a kind of Ark, who will protect the future of mankind.
-Kee. Say her name out loud. Get it? Also, she felt perfectly well-drawn to me (as did Syd and Marika.)
-Watch the way the environments of the film change from the opening shot to the final shot. Civilization slowly breaks down -- starting in the city, moving to the country, moving to Bexhill, which is a kind of medieval village, with all the animals etc etc, and then when they leave Bexhill on a boat through a tunnel, the tunnel walls are covered in cave paintings and murals, one of which echoes "Guernica," which we saw earlier. The baby-in-the-boat-on-the-water is a very significant image, echoing the ark, again, as well as Moses (remember the beginning of the Ten Commandments?)
-Theo - theology, theologian, etc
-Jasper is basically meant to be John Lennon. Look at the decor around him, and the beatles references he makes. It is said that Caine and Lennon were friends in the 70s.
-Kee shows Theo her pregnancy in a Barn (manger), surrounded by cows and milking devices (fertility symbols).
-in the ministry of Art we see David, and Theo's cousin mentions that they were too late to save The Pieta. Watch for a Pieta--it appears later in the film.
-watch for the moment when Marika, the gypsy, steals Kee's baby (as in the old stereotype)... then brings it right back.
There are many, many more. The film is loaded with images and symbols and visual detail. People who hate the film don't know how to watch movies.

Posted by gatsby1040 at January 9, 2007 7:09 AM

comment #99