Children of Men - Discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[Haggai]

All I meant was that some of those things that (to me) didn't add up actually did get in the way of the storytelling--why are these people over here chasing those people over there, what's going to happen if they catch them, why are these people double-crossing those people, etc. My favorite futuristic dystopian movies, e.g. Blade Runner and Brazil, don't spend much time explaining stuff either, but they always give you enough to keep the story going. I guess that's just a point of disagreement, when it comes to this movie; obviously it worked well enough for you in that sense.

 

[Blake Siefken]

It was clearly stated in the film that the rebels are against the government's rounding up of immigrants, and they want the baby to rally people to their cause. They killed Juliane Moore because she wanted to get the baby to the human project and not use it for their own intrests.

Something that wasn't clearly stated: who was that guy Clive Owen was with during the Pink Floyd floating pig scene? What was his son doing with that hand thing? What did any of that have to do with the rest of the film?

Oh, and why would the little suicide pill things come in such a big box? Why would you need more than one?

 

[Anthony_De]

 

[Mike.P]

Would seem an easy explanation for this would be that in a rather dystopian society, a large, easily identifiable box to end your life and get out of that miserable state of life.

 

[Mike.P]

OK, post didn't go through and got lost. Gonna try this again:

Finally caught this again, and properly framed this time!

Wow, what a film. I didn't find it moving from an emotional standpoint, but I'd rank it up there with one of my other favorite films, Blade Runner, as being a near perfect view of a dystopian future.

Few things I'd like to discuss:

Anyone else catch the continual focus on Theo's feet? He was needing shoes constantly, stepped on glass, etc. I'm sure this was just to emphasize the way our society takes something as banal as a comfortable pair of shoes can really make running around a dirty slum THAT much more difficult.

Second, did anyone else find Jaspers line about the bus that passes him and Theo at the beginning kind of out of place? According to Cuaron he doesn't really like when a movie comes out and explains something to you, but Jasper went ahead and explained what that bus was directly to Theo. Why wouldn't Theo know exactly what that was? He's not dumb. Something like "Ugh, roll up the window, since fugee's don't even know how to distinguish supports from capture's, they've thrown some ...." or something along those lines would seem much more fitting.

I really can't explain how much it helped seeing the movie framed correctly. I was set to rate the film much lower as I felt certain spots were akward. Well, they were akward because I couldn't tell what was going on in the bottom third of the screen! A guy leaving said it was the worst film he'd ever seen. I wish I could go back and tell him "You didn't see Children of Men tonight, buddy."

Can't wait to catch this one again. And Universal, releasing this sometime in say, May, on HD-DVD, would make me happy. Thank you.

 

[Terry St]

One thing about CoM that I felt really helped enhance the sense of realism was how it's characters paid attention to small details that are normally overlooked in most films. Theo's shoes were just one example. In most films he'd have just shown up in the next scene with new shoes and the audience would assume he got them from Jasper if they even thought about them at all. Losing your shoes isn't a big deal in most films, but in real life it's crippling to not have appropriate foot-wear. In a slightly more detailed film you might have seen Theo picking shoes up at Jaspers. In CoM we see Theo trying on various pairs of shoes and finally settling on some nasty looking flip-flops because they're the only things in the house that will fit him.

Even more interesting is how Theo's footwear is leveraged to convey the mindset of people living in what was probably one of the worst places in Britain. i.e. The body guard in the ghetto who provides Theo with some runners once he finds out about the baby. This did a fantastic job of showing how touched people were by this tiny glimmer of hope. In the middle of this every-man-for-himself hell-hole people could still see the importance of hope and do their bit to help out.

That's the sort of film CoM is. The details aren't just there. They're used to convey meaning with amazing economy and effect. There were several other examples of this that I can't think of off the top of my head, but it is something that really struck me while watching this film.

 

[Mike.P]

Few other things I picked up on and forgot to bring up -

Theo's sweatshirt - "London 2012" - I must have this .

The joke which Jasper tells early on - no one in the first theater I saw this in laughed, myself included. I couldn't hear what it was that he said the guy was eating, and I was struggling to pay attention already with the poor framing. Then when I heard it again, I almost lost it laughing.

The CG baby was my biggest complaint, as I don't feel it was pulled off well at all, but this was probably the best they can do so I'm not going to go crazy over it.

Lastly, I brought this up in my review, is that Hollywood needs to take notice how arguably its two most visually stunning films of 2006 both clocked in south of $100 million - The Fountain, at an incredible $35 million, and Children at $80. Meanwhile, summer blockbusters with boring, overused special effects are getting budgets north of $200 million and not looking nearly as good. Just goes to show you that in the hands of a talented director, alot more can be done with less (even though $80 million is hardly anything to sneeze at).

 

[Jason_V]

I definately love the attention to the details, particularly the newspaper pages covering the windows when Julian and Theo meet for the first time. There's so much information on the screen that I was interested in that I didn't know where to look first. There's almost too much there for one viewing.

 

[Henry Gale]

Most people aren't around when the credits roll, so, they missed Jarvis Cocker singing, "Running the World". Got to be one of the funniest songs I heard.

Someone mentioned the intense battle sequence, this and Blood Diamond both impressed me in that respect.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Well, I've seen my favorite film of 2006. Wow, what a masterpiece. Everything Cuaron did wrong with Prisoner of Azkaban, he did right here. Everything he did RIGHT with Prisoner of Azkaban, he did right here. Everything Ridley Scott did right with Black Hawk Down, he did right here. Beautiful film. Just posted my review here, which leaves out most of the wonderfully poetic moments simply because I thought they were too good to ruin.Indeed. I think they only reason the government has to be totalitarian at all is to give a mechanism for showing how humanity reacts to hopelessness. How or why the government is totalitarian doesn't really matter. What matters is that, in the absense of any real future, these people didn't have any reason to fight for the freedoms or traditions. There wasn't any new generation to pass them on to.

 

[Henry Gale]

Anyone notice the vast amount of pets in the film. Obviously serving the same purpose they do now, companions, members of the family and "children".

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Particularly as children. Not just as replacements for that affection, but also to show youth. We may not be able to reproduce any more but, judging by the kittens, cats surely still can.

 

[Tim Glover]

Man do I need to see this again. I was so intense the first time. Loved it....but would like another viewing.

 

[Stephen_L]

This is a great film that demands mutliple viewings. Cuaron is so masterful in filling the frame with telling details. I spent much of the movie rabidly reading newpaper headlines, graffiti, watching television broadcasts, etc.

I'm also thankful that Cuaron did not feel the need to endlessly explain every detail of this world. Too often films get bogged down in characters spouting exposition to bring the audience 'up to speed', but in the process they end up acting and talking like film characters and not real people. These film characters talked like real people (The only exception was Michael Caine's exposition on the refugee bus) The story is about Theo and Kee and a miracle. As long as the characters comfortably occupied their world and understood it, I could take many of the details for granted.

The refugee camp uprising was one of the most harrowing, gut-knotting sequences I've seen in a long time. Even the camera got spattered with water and blood like this was documentary filmaking

One final random comment. Michael Caine is like the greatest relief pitcher in the business. Now that he's older, he's mostly in character and supporting roles, but as soon as he shows up, the movie just gets better. He classes up every picture he's in.

 

[Tim Glover]

Amen. Caine elevates EVERYTHING he's in.

 

[Haggai]

I like Caine a lot as well, but what was that "pull my finger" business all about? Did nobody on the set realize how dumb that was?

 

[Patrick Sun]

It's just a character bit. I thought it was hilarious.

 

[Tim Glover]

 

[Stephen_L]

Yes, "pull my finger" is supposed to be dumb. In a gray, despairing world, Caine's defense was silly, subversive humor. I loved that he could still do it with automatic weapons pointed at him.

 

[Haggai]

Hilarious, subversive, heroic, sad...well, none of those things occurred to me. But OK, I'll stop raining on y'alls parade now.