Children of Men
 
    'Children of Men', an adaptation of a novel I had never heard of by P.D. James, asks the question: what would happen if we stopped having children? If one day, nature decided to play a cruel joke on the human race and strike down all women with infertility? And it answers it not with big speeches or overlong narration, but by doing what film has always done: it shows us.
 
Consequence free sex? Sign me up!
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Caine
Written by: Alfonso Cuaron, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby; based on the novel by P.D. James
Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron
Runtime: 109 minutes
Rated: ‘R’ for violence, language and a despair you have never witnessed in film before.
ZERO SHOTS
    I always hear the older folks, our parents and theirs', say that they hope to leave the world a better place for their children. A noble statement. But in 'Children', there is no new generation, and with it, dies hope. Without that, we recess, we devolve into our baser natures and we become gripped by the sad
fact that everything around us, 8000 thousand years of advancement, of cities and civilization, will be suddenly, eerily quiet.
    Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is one such man. He used to be active in politics and changing the world, now he's simply fallen apart. Everyday is the same to him, wake, work, sleep. Repeat. He's no longer living, he merely exists. Hope is rekindled when his ex-wife, Julian (Julianne Moore), asks him to help ferry a girl to the coast of England. The girl, Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) is special: she's pregnant, and with her ride the hopes and dreams of not just a country or a people, but the entire world. As with all miracle babies, it becomes more a tool for power than for hope, and on one side, there is the rebel faction, called Fishes, headed by Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofore), and on the other, the government, which, if it can get its hands on a baby, can hold control for literally an entire generation. The middle ground exists with The Human League, a mysterious coalition of scientists that many do not believe even exists. They're to meet Kee at the coast and, hopefully, solve the greatest problem in history.
    I can think of no one else to play a man like Theo than Clive Owen. He is one of the best actors working today and not only because he can read a line; it's his eyes. They're sunken, weary, tired. Behind them there is only hopelessness. He's the kind of man who can watch the report that the youngest person in the world was just killed and go about his cup of coffee. Julianne Moore makes the most of what she is given and creates a living, breathing character out of what would normally be a plot contrivance to serve her purpose and disappear. Julian and Theo have a history, and it's not a happy one at that, either. Complementing Moore in the underused, but powerful character category is the ubiquitous Michael Caine, who brings a humanity and grace to Jasper, the aging hippy who helps shelter Theo and Kee.
    London in 2027 sucks. I mean, it really, really sucks. It reminded me of the post-WWII years, but with bigger guns and less hope walking around. Anarchy is slowly creeping in. Central services are shaky at best, and the police seem more content on rounding up 'fugees, foreigners, than doing any
Foreigners are not trusted and are detained immediately in preparation for deportation or worse. Like 'V for Vendetta' earlier this year, the rest of the world is in even worse shape, so I can only imagine what life must be like anywhere else. The Fishes aim to aid these fugees, but seem little better than the government they're trying to overthrow. Luke, the leader, is a man blinded by the power that the baby will give him and the other Fishes. He's a prisoner to radical ideology and sees Kee's child as the way to enforce his strength.
    Some movies feel directed, an action movie is big on blocking and blowing shit up and extravagant set pieces involving lots of people. Other movies are acted, wherein the director steps back, gives instruction and lets the actors live inside the frame. 'Children of Men' is a movie that's both. Cuaron asserts himself when he needs to. And that comes in the presence of Emanuel Lubezki, the cinematographer. When watching you may be too engrossed to notice it at times, but he lets the camera float through the proceedings, sometimes not breaking for minutes. The camera swivels in a car from passenger to passenger, records a riot in stunning brutality occurring outside, then slips out of the car seamlessly. One take. Dozens of lines to remember and lots and lots of actors to coordinate. Scorsese would be proud. The colors are desaturated, reminding us of the multitude of war films to come out in the last ten years.
    And make no mistake, there is war going on constantly. People disappear. Police run amok, drunk with power. Soldiers infest the streets. Baghdad is brought to London. Moreso than any slasher film released, I felt scared. I saw this as a cautionary instruction to us. Maybe the reason why will be different, but the outcome invariably will be the same: chaos.
    One of the most affecting moments for me isn't even really a moment, it's a scene. Theo is waiting for a contact with Kee and her friend, Miriam (actress) and they're wandering about an empty school. The silence in the halls was deafening. No children. No laughter. The building was shut down ages ago: what use is there for it now?
    The film can be classified as a science fiction, but less the phasers and starships and more of the H.G. Wells variety, where an external force was used to
    At 109 minutes, it's lean, but it never feels rushed. Things happen as they happen and we are taken along for the ride. It's a chase movie in essence, but unlike 'Apocalypto', it never feels cliché. The characters drive the story, and not the other way around. And we feel for these characters, during all the running we're given pauses of quiet grief and pain and, even hope, that help us to stay in the world we are presented. As often with "sci-fi" films, we can get lost in the surroundings of whatever world has been cooked up. Thankfully, all the actors are too good to let themselves be upstaged by minor bits such as that.
    'Children of Men' is a masterpiece. We may bandy that word about all too often in these mediocre days, but we're still keen to what makes something truly grand when it decides to come along. It is well acted, directed and amazingly shot, and ACuaron, who previously gave us the best of the Harry Potters, 'The Prisoner of Azkaban', steps up the plate and cements himself as one of the master storytellers of our time. While it's not as politically charged as 'V for Vendetta' another London dystopia set in the future, it feels all the more human. We don't all live in under a military regime, but we all know, from some point or another, the sound of a house with no children in it. Moreso than any other bullet or explosion, that is a sound that deafens.
actual real work. The streets are unkempt, the sky is a muddied, foggy gray twilight that's slowly descending on the world. Alfonso Cuaron, however, never loses sight of the personal touches; little things here and there flesh out the world: advanced game controllers and government sponsored assisted suicide kits for one. Michelangelo's David stands with a broken leg in the apartment of an art collector, alongside Picasso's Guernica, a fitting caution to what inevitably will happen when the dark cloud truly begins to descend upon us.
allegorize the present state of the world and maybe, just maybe, try and fix it.