Children of Men
Children of Men (new on DVD) is a sci-fi thriller set in the dystopian world of 2027. Women are barren; everyone is at war; and no child has been born for 18 years. It is not clear why procreation no longer works or why anyone is fighting, but that is not the point—those intentionally vague details lay beyond the film’s rather narrow focus.
Brutal, chaotic and relentlessly violent imagery of a war torn planet recalls real world news headlines of nearly every modern Western conflict such as the guerilla warfare of Somalia, the concentration camps of WWII, and the suicide bombings of Iraq. The similarities force the viewer to call to mind the present state of the world as a miraculous child is born into a 2027 world where children have long since vanished from normal decision making processes.
The goal: deliver the child through the anarchy to a ship named, ‘Tomorrow,’ which will deliver the child to a mysterious organization called, The Human Project. A somewhat depressing ending reflects the audience’s own emotional state as they are forced to re-examine the present world through a new viewfinder.
Ultimately, that is what Children of Men intends: to create a new vantage point by which we can engage and evaluate human action in a world of conflict. Creating a world in which children are absent increases human sensitivity towards preserving a child’s future in a violent world not unimaginable by today’s realities. What type of future do we want for our children? If ‘The Human Project’ was in our hands and we drove the ship of ‘Tomorrow,’ then, what would we do?
Children of Men is shameless in advocating a moral for its story, however, it stops short of giving the moral to the audience. It is an existential film that leaves the audience to imagine its own ending; it is a future setting that encourages participants to choose their own adventure in the present—an adventure that will preserve the best possible world for humanity’s children.
Children of Men succeeds on two levels: it is a fast moving action film that doesn’t disappoint—it leaves everyone guessing about who is trustworthy and who will make it to the end; it is also engaging enough to surpass any cheesy symbolism (i.e. The Human Project and a ship called, Tomorrow)—actually granting a new place to evaluate old problems. One child may indeed serve as a warning beacon to guide humanity in a reexamination of human action in a depraved world. It has happened before….
April 26th, 2007 at 12:08 am
By all local accounts, I’ve heard this movie sucks. But you make it sound palatable.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I have heard that too…but Rotten Tomatoes gives it 8 tomatoes out of 10. I am typically not a fan of such overt efforts to direct my political thinking (like this movie intends to do) but the fact that it stops short of explaining exactly ‘how’ I should think saves the film for me. That being said, I am happy to have seen it, but I probably won’t add it to my personal collection.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:15 am
This is one of my favorite films of last year and has quickly moved into one of my all time favorites. The cinematography was incredible and many of the action sequences are some of the best I’ve ever seen. Politically, it doesn’t condone a particular party or philosophy - indeed, any party structure is absent, replaced instead by “the government” and an activist group “the fishes.” Both of these parties are seriously indicted, though the fishes are treated fairly as trying to do the right thing exactly the wrong way (which of course inevitably turns them into the main antagonists of the film). What we are faced with then, is an examination of individual and group responsibility. Our choices as individuals, and the values underlying these choices, make as much difference in the world as do the choices of groups (governmental or otherwise). This is a serious message that Christians need to think seriously about and we must move away from self-interested religious propoganda and sacrifice everything, including our lives as Clive Owen’s protagonist did, to protect and spread beauty, wonder, and life in a world torn by war, hate, paranoia, misplaced patriotism, and self-interested religious propoganda.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 am
The lady and I thought it was an alright film, and appreciated the prophetic heads up to our culture. After all that Jesus guys liked to talk alot about fairy tales to get his points across..maybe there’s something to that.
But I was particularly struck the day after. while painting a house and listening to my man Johnny Cash read the New Testament to me (you can get your copy on Amazon) I heard a line from the book of Revelation talking about women actually not being able to bear children in the end! Maybe the movie was more prophetic than we knew.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
What exactly is an “existential film”?
As anyone here read the book from which the movie is based? I am curious how close it is to the original story.
If the movie is shameless in advocating a moral, but doesn’t give that moral to the audience, is it really advocating a moral? What is the moral to the movie?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
JT, you may have some thoughts of your own about this…. The film may have several morals that you could propose, but I think the most obvious moral (the one that it advocates) is the one that it leaves out. The film leaves the audience to develop a moral which then presumably can be acted out. The film’s ending serves as a ‘beacon’ towards action. That is why I call it an ‘existential film;’ it demands action (or at least interaction) to be best understood.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:19 am
I still can’t quite wrap my mind around “the most obvious moral (the one that it advocates) is the one that it leaves out.
Are you suggesting that the “moral” of the film is that there is no moral? That we all need to enter into the story and follow the beacon towards action? Is the “most obvious moral” that there is no universal morality? Interesting
I still don’t know if I follow the existential nature of the film. If it means that “it demands action (or at least interaction) to be best understood”, then I suppose every movie is existential. Every experience with art requires interaction to be understood. Perhaps you were meaning that this movie is MORE existential than others? Why did you feel you needed to use that descriptor with this particular film? I think when I saw spiderman 3 last night (wife is out of town), I was watching an existential film…they even tell the audience in the end they have the power to choose their destiny…what could be more existential then that?
I greatly enjoyed Children Of Men, and when I say enjoy, I don’t mean it in the “Tommy Boy” sense, but in was deeply disturbed and thought provoked sense (ala Shindler’s list). I agree with you that there was not a specific political party being attacked in the movie…but it did seem to draw our attention to the negative aspects of military action and an authoritarian state. It is ironic that the movie is at one moment quasi anti-military (for the sake of argument call that anti-republican) and the next moment quasi pro-life (read pro-republican). Powerful scene when the baby cries and all military action stops, great cinematography in that scene…watching the soldiers and civilians wanting to touch the child, music change, lighting change…then as soon as “life” is out of the picture, back to battle. Perhaps that scene is powerful not so much in the fact the baby lived, but that in the absence of hope the world goes back to chaos. It was incredible that as soon as they crossed the military line, it was as if the soldiers had never seen the child and got back to business. Hope…perhaps it is like beauty, a really difficult concept to articulate or “prove”, yet essential to survival.