KurtFF8
20th September 2012, 19:59
Source (http://wp.me/pBY1I-ac) (From the Left Film Review of course)
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom1.png?w=300&h=187 (http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom1.png)Children of Men is a science fiction film that paints a picture of a “hopeless future.” Like most dystopian fiction, the “purpose” of the film is social commentary. The premise of the film is that women have en masse become infertile and as a result, much of the world has “devolved” into chaos and war except for the United Kingdom which is supposedly the “only remaining” stable civilized society. This stable civil society is exposed throughout the film to be based on repression and organized violence against the victims of the worldwide troubles which leads the viewer to believe that this so called stable society is living in a state of denial.
Of course the concept of a chaotic violent world doesn’t require science fiction to showcase, yet as with most science fiction: painting it as an alternate reality or possible future to an extent gives room for commentary. So we see the British military kettling people from around the world, who have moved to the UK to find refuge from the tumult of their place of origin, into cages and camps while sending them off to a ghetto that is separated from the rest of society. We are lead to believe that this is a “possible world.” If the film had taken place in contemporary Afghanistan or Iraq, showing the same actions, the response to the film would be much different, even though the film itself is inspired directly by those very real events. In an interview, Cuarón says that “[e]verything has to have a reference to the state of our times, (http://web.archive.org/web/20070927191655/http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Arts/Film/2007/01/11/The_Connecting_of_Heartbeats/index.shtml)” which demonstrates the role that the style and particular depiction of this future plays.
There are many social issues dealt with the film, and the infertility question ends up to an extent merely being a plot device to explore these issues. For example, the main character (who is the first pregnant woman in over a decade) is a refugee named Kee and is being escorted by a resistance group called the “fishers” who want to use her pregnancy as part of the resistance to the British state. http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom2.png?w=300&h=187 (http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom2.png)While the theme of gender seems to be de-emphasized, this usage of the main character who is a woman to simply achieve the aims of political groups could be seen as an exposing the gendered nature of both oppression and resistance (one need not look far for feminist critiques of the Left). These issues playing the primary role in the film shows that the film is not about the future per sey, but rather our current social situation. For example, the director himself said that while making the film, they “didn’t want [the audience] to be distracted by the future. We didn’t want to transport the audience into another reality (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/19/entertainment/et-children19).”
This sense of not wanting the audience to be distracted by the future contrasts the film with a film like Blade Runner which is the sort of dystopia that focuses on the affects of technology on social change directly. Cuarón actually even said that Children of Men was “the anti-Blade Runner (http://web.archive.org/web/20070927191655/http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Arts/Film/2007/01/11/The_Connecting_of_Heartbeats/index.shtml)” in terms of the mise en scene (or art and visual standards of the film). This different take on the future offers contrasting visions of how social commentary and science fiction can play out, and Children of Men‘s attempt proves quite successful both politically and in terms of film making. It demonstrates the potential that science fiction has as a tool for exposing social relations of today and what film makers who understand this are capable of doing.
Such a great film.
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom1.png?w=300&h=187 (http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom1.png)Children of Men is a science fiction film that paints a picture of a “hopeless future.” Like most dystopian fiction, the “purpose” of the film is social commentary. The premise of the film is that women have en masse become infertile and as a result, much of the world has “devolved” into chaos and war except for the United Kingdom which is supposedly the “only remaining” stable civilized society. This stable civil society is exposed throughout the film to be based on repression and organized violence against the victims of the worldwide troubles which leads the viewer to believe that this so called stable society is living in a state of denial.
Of course the concept of a chaotic violent world doesn’t require science fiction to showcase, yet as with most science fiction: painting it as an alternate reality or possible future to an extent gives room for commentary. So we see the British military kettling people from around the world, who have moved to the UK to find refuge from the tumult of their place of origin, into cages and camps while sending them off to a ghetto that is separated from the rest of society. We are lead to believe that this is a “possible world.” If the film had taken place in contemporary Afghanistan or Iraq, showing the same actions, the response to the film would be much different, even though the film itself is inspired directly by those very real events. In an interview, Cuarón says that “[e]verything has to have a reference to the state of our times, (http://web.archive.org/web/20070927191655/http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Arts/Film/2007/01/11/The_Connecting_of_Heartbeats/index.shtml)” which demonstrates the role that the style and particular depiction of this future plays.
There are many social issues dealt with the film, and the infertility question ends up to an extent merely being a plot device to explore these issues. For example, the main character (who is the first pregnant woman in over a decade) is a refugee named Kee and is being escorted by a resistance group called the “fishers” who want to use her pregnancy as part of the resistance to the British state. http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom2.png?w=300&h=187 (http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chom2.png)While the theme of gender seems to be de-emphasized, this usage of the main character who is a woman to simply achieve the aims of political groups could be seen as an exposing the gendered nature of both oppression and resistance (one need not look far for feminist critiques of the Left). These issues playing the primary role in the film shows that the film is not about the future per sey, but rather our current social situation. For example, the director himself said that while making the film, they “didn’t want [the audience] to be distracted by the future. We didn’t want to transport the audience into another reality (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/19/entertainment/et-children19).”
This sense of not wanting the audience to be distracted by the future contrasts the film with a film like Blade Runner which is the sort of dystopia that focuses on the affects of technology on social change directly. Cuarón actually even said that Children of Men was “the anti-Blade Runner (http://web.archive.org/web/20070927191655/http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Arts/Film/2007/01/11/The_Connecting_of_Heartbeats/index.shtml)” in terms of the mise en scene (or art and visual standards of the film). This different take on the future offers contrasting visions of how social commentary and science fiction can play out, and Children of Men‘s attempt proves quite successful both politically and in terms of film making. It demonstrates the potential that science fiction has as a tool for exposing social relations of today and what film makers who understand this are capable of doing.
Such a great film.