Children of Men (really, this time)
Jan. 7th, 2007 04:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinLet's get this over with first: If you have a low tolerance for shooting, onscreen death, really vile human behaviour, or a carpet campaign of f-bombs, you will probably not want to see this movie.
If you are at all curious beyond that ...
If you've seen the trailer, which was pretty broadly distributed this spring/summer, you've pretty much got the premise and the atmosphere: No children have been born for eighteen years, the world's pretty much gone to pot as humanity despairs, blows stuff up, doesn't pick up its litter, etc. Civilisation is collapsing. Then along comes a pregnant girl! Plot ensues! They have to get her to the 'Human Project' before anyone else can get to her, and considering that nearly the whole world is set against them in one way or another, and they're all heavily armed, this is no easy task.
Now, this setup sounds like it could easily spawn a movie in the archetypical 'epic quest' strain, but this movie rarely comes across as such. All the ingredients are there, but the writing, acting, and directing bury them about three feet under the surface; enough to influence the topography of the plot but sufficiently hidden so as to not know what will happen next or pigeonhole the characters.
Children of Men also manages to set and maintain an intensely desperate and gritty tone which keeps tension high even when nothing is apparently happening. It falls somewhere between V for Vendetta and Day of the Triffids (the book, anyway) in flavour; civilisation has fallen further apart than in V (where, it seems, sheer bloodymindedness or denial keeps it running) but not as suddenly or completely as in Triffids. Also unlike Triffids, the visible, physical decay is all artificial – there is no ivy entwining Picadilly, just layers of graffiti an inch thick and no one's bothered to collect the rubbish in about a year. However, it does have Triffids' gangs of heavily armed people looking out for their own interests, some degree of its tribalisation of society, and a lot of its formerly-decent-folks-gone-savage. Nevertheless there is still some form of central government and, with the country weakened, it has tightened its grip and become a little like the one in V, scapegoating 'undesireables' and brainwashing the populace in an effort to hold things together. It's not so central a presence or as thoroughly explained as V's, but it doesn't need to be for the plot at hand.
In keeping with its bleak realism, the acting is very restrained and subtle but nevertheless very real and convincing. Characters are solid even if you don't know much about them and no one's really a caricature ... even ones relegated to 'type' just seem like that's how they are regardless of what the writer makes them do.* The realism is continued into the camera work which is largely handheld and frequently – astonishingly – one long shot. Rehearsals must have been arduous. Lighting and staging were similarly realistic, to the point of being dull, but this served a purpose by giving what happens a sort of credibility that might have been lost if the director of photography had gotten in the way. Acting, writing, directing, sound, and cinematography all combine to give the film an almost documentary quality, as if it were recorded by an invisible 'embedded' reporter. Sometimes the shakiness got annoying, in the theatre, sitting as close to the screen as I was ... there were times when I even felt a little queasy but I'm not sure if it was pseudo-motion-sickness, having my stomach churned by the plot, or the fact that I hadn't had dinner. Regardless, the choice of style was effective without being obtrusive or calling too much attention to itself.
An interesting thing to note is the animal imagery. There are animals everywhere. Even when you don't see them, they're present in ambient sound effects. I could understand people having pets instead of children – goodness knows they do that now – but this went beyond cats and dogs. Is it a reminder that, whatever happens to humanity, the animals will keep going without us? Is it rubbing salt in the film society's wound by reminding them that animals can reproduce but they can't? (I would have expected to see more baby animals if that were the case but maybe they were being subtle about it.) Is it a subconscious reminder that, for all humanity's cerebral navel-gazing, we are, when it comes down to it, animals? Is it an audio/visual accompaniment to man's descent into bestiality? I was reminded a bit of the seemingly arbitrary animal noises throughout Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which I still don't know how to decode. An interesting thing to throw in.
One final detail caught my attention, though this might be a personal thing. I gave up on TV news years ago, preferring radio, but have kept up a passing acquaintance with it as my roommates have been relatively assiduous newswatchers. I moved out on my own, though, forfeited cable, and my TV's got no antenna, so I haven't watched a proper newscast in months. This might have re-sensitized me in areas that would otherwise have been heavily calloused by repeated exposure to news footage. BUT. There was something to the way firearms were treated in this movie that really strongly conveyed their force and concentrated fierceness in such a way that I have never seen in any action movie or shootout scene. This may have been down to some excellent pantomime by the people involved, very good direction on how to physically react to being shot, or utterly brilliant timing by the effects people. When someone pulled a trigger, I really believed that a small, hard object came flying out the other end with extreme force. I suspect a lot of the credit goes to the sound department, who seem to have emphasized the percussive end of the explosion sound spectrum: gunshots were much closer to a 'crack' than a 'bang'; even when the tank was firing rounds into a building there was more sound of the initial explosion and shattering debris than a viscerally satisfying 'boom' as one would expect. And there is a LOT of ammunition fire. A LOT. It only keeps increasing towards the end. LOTS and LOTS of people die. Onscreen. Quite blatantly. Quite realistically. No Hollywood throw-your-arms-in-the-air-and-prat-fall soldiers. No gallant stoicism or serenity. It's brutal, it's ugly, and, in keeping with the style of the rest of the movie, it's just that little bit too real.
*I don't know how much of this is down to the script or actors or director, but if Alfonso Cuaron can get this solid a performance out of his actors, it makes me wonder who or what else was responsible for Azkaban having such lacklustre performances in it.
If you are at all curious beyond that ...
If you've seen the trailer, which was pretty broadly distributed this spring/summer, you've pretty much got the premise and the atmosphere: No children have been born for eighteen years, the world's pretty much gone to pot as humanity despairs, blows stuff up, doesn't pick up its litter, etc. Civilisation is collapsing. Then along comes a pregnant girl! Plot ensues! They have to get her to the 'Human Project' before anyone else can get to her, and considering that nearly the whole world is set against them in one way or another, and they're all heavily armed, this is no easy task.
Now, this setup sounds like it could easily spawn a movie in the archetypical 'epic quest' strain, but this movie rarely comes across as such. All the ingredients are there, but the writing, acting, and directing bury them about three feet under the surface; enough to influence the topography of the plot but sufficiently hidden so as to not know what will happen next or pigeonhole the characters.
Children of Men also manages to set and maintain an intensely desperate and gritty tone which keeps tension high even when nothing is apparently happening. It falls somewhere between V for Vendetta and Day of the Triffids (the book, anyway) in flavour; civilisation has fallen further apart than in V (where, it seems, sheer bloodymindedness or denial keeps it running) but not as suddenly or completely as in Triffids. Also unlike Triffids, the visible, physical decay is all artificial – there is no ivy entwining Picadilly, just layers of graffiti an inch thick and no one's bothered to collect the rubbish in about a year. However, it does have Triffids' gangs of heavily armed people looking out for their own interests, some degree of its tribalisation of society, and a lot of its formerly-decent-folks-gone-savage. Nevertheless there is still some form of central government and, with the country weakened, it has tightened its grip and become a little like the one in V, scapegoating 'undesireables' and brainwashing the populace in an effort to hold things together. It's not so central a presence or as thoroughly explained as V's, but it doesn't need to be for the plot at hand.
In keeping with its bleak realism, the acting is very restrained and subtle but nevertheless very real and convincing. Characters are solid even if you don't know much about them and no one's really a caricature ... even ones relegated to 'type' just seem like that's how they are regardless of what the writer makes them do.* The realism is continued into the camera work which is largely handheld and frequently – astonishingly – one long shot. Rehearsals must have been arduous. Lighting and staging were similarly realistic, to the point of being dull, but this served a purpose by giving what happens a sort of credibility that might have been lost if the director of photography had gotten in the way. Acting, writing, directing, sound, and cinematography all combine to give the film an almost documentary quality, as if it were recorded by an invisible 'embedded' reporter. Sometimes the shakiness got annoying, in the theatre, sitting as close to the screen as I was ... there were times when I even felt a little queasy but I'm not sure if it was pseudo-motion-sickness, having my stomach churned by the plot, or the fact that I hadn't had dinner. Regardless, the choice of style was effective without being obtrusive or calling too much attention to itself.
An interesting thing to note is the animal imagery. There are animals everywhere. Even when you don't see them, they're present in ambient sound effects. I could understand people having pets instead of children – goodness knows they do that now – but this went beyond cats and dogs. Is it a reminder that, whatever happens to humanity, the animals will keep going without us? Is it rubbing salt in the film society's wound by reminding them that animals can reproduce but they can't? (I would have expected to see more baby animals if that were the case but maybe they were being subtle about it.) Is it a subconscious reminder that, for all humanity's cerebral navel-gazing, we are, when it comes down to it, animals? Is it an audio/visual accompaniment to man's descent into bestiality? I was reminded a bit of the seemingly arbitrary animal noises throughout Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which I still don't know how to decode. An interesting thing to throw in.
One final detail caught my attention, though this might be a personal thing. I gave up on TV news years ago, preferring radio, but have kept up a passing acquaintance with it as my roommates have been relatively assiduous newswatchers. I moved out on my own, though, forfeited cable, and my TV's got no antenna, so I haven't watched a proper newscast in months. This might have re-sensitized me in areas that would otherwise have been heavily calloused by repeated exposure to news footage. BUT. There was something to the way firearms were treated in this movie that really strongly conveyed their force and concentrated fierceness in such a way that I have never seen in any action movie or shootout scene. This may have been down to some excellent pantomime by the people involved, very good direction on how to physically react to being shot, or utterly brilliant timing by the effects people. When someone pulled a trigger, I really believed that a small, hard object came flying out the other end with extreme force. I suspect a lot of the credit goes to the sound department, who seem to have emphasized the percussive end of the explosion sound spectrum: gunshots were much closer to a 'crack' than a 'bang'; even when the tank was firing rounds into a building there was more sound of the initial explosion and shattering debris than a viscerally satisfying 'boom' as one would expect. And there is a LOT of ammunition fire. A LOT. It only keeps increasing towards the end. LOTS and LOTS of people die. Onscreen. Quite blatantly. Quite realistically. No Hollywood throw-your-arms-in-the-air-and-prat-fall soldiers. No gallant stoicism or serenity. It's brutal, it's ugly, and, in keeping with the style of the rest of the movie, it's just that little bit too real.
*I don't know how much of this is down to the script or actors or director, but if Alfonso Cuaron can get this solid a performance out of his actors, it makes me wonder who or what else was responsible for Azkaban having such lacklustre performances in it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 05:31 am (UTC)Great review, I'm glad somebody was really thorough with this film. In NZ it was only in cinemas for about three or four weeks, to my huge disappointment. I absolutely loved Children even though I came out of it feeling like someone put me in a tin can and shook it for two hours. Like you said, it was so realistic: it came so close to breaking my tolerance levels, but not quite.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 05:32 am (UTC)Children of Men is probably the best movie I’ve seen all year, but its definitely the most frightening movie I’ve seen in a very long time.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 07:38 am (UTC)Yes, very frightening.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 03:15 pm (UTC)Also, the whole 'undesirables in concentration camps' was a little too realistic for me, so it scared the hell out of me. It's what you see in films set during World War 2, except during 'now', and thus all too close for comfort!
On the other hand, I also loved the realism in that it just made a very convincing movie. With V, yes, it's a good movie but you're always aware that you're watching a movie and the message is more wrapped up in a symbol (the masked freedom fighter) than actually THERE. With CoM, sometimes it almost felt like a documentary. Especially during the STUNNING minutes-long shot following Theo through the 'battle' into the apartment building! I don't think there was a single cut during, what, 8 minutes? Amazing.
Oh, and re: the animals. APPARENTLY (I didn't notice it myself but there's some discussion about it on IMDb), the animals were also significant in that they were constantly drawn towards Theo, signalling that he is a Good Guy despite his somewhat chagrined appearance. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 03:18 pm (UTC)it's Cabin Fever all over again lol
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 04:55 pm (UTC)This once proud vessel has become a floating psycho ward.
We were sailing, sailing, barreling who knows where,
But not though we're all here ... we're not all there!
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 12:41 am (UTC)Hi there, I'm a first-time-commenting, 19 year old animation student from Sydney, 1 year into a 3-year course of CG Animation. I was just wondering, what was the name of the college where you studied? Over here in Australia, we ( regrettably ) seem to have lost all ability to train and produce 2D animators, and I'm looking for options other than a life confined simply to CGI, as drawing has and will always be my favourite thing. Any help would be very much appreciated!! ( Oh, and just to add my obligatory 'newby' comment: Your art made me take a long, hard look at the rubbish I was drawing, and, thanks to that, I'm now on the road to actually trying to learn HOW to draw! Thankyou!!! )
no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 02:34 am (UTC)This sounds interesting; if nothing else, I might rent it when it comes out.
TMI!
Date: 2007-01-09 08:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 09:33 pm (UTC)I guess I should go watch the trailer, huh?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 06:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 04:03 am (UTC)