Children of Men

[Revolutionary Souljah]

I saw it and I'd have to say it's full of Marxist rhetoric

anyone else see it?

[Red October]

i just saw it and loved it. there's a ton of anti-fascist stuff in there and some interesting parralels between the treatment of immigrants in future britain and how we treat immigrants and terrorism detainees here in america.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 06, 2007 10:33 pm
i just saw it and loved it. there's a ton of anti-fascist stuff in there and some interesting parralels between the treatment of immigrants in future britain and how we treat immigrants and terrorism detainees here in america.
Did you notice that at the jails, it said homeland security everywhere?

[Guerrilla22]

It's an intersting concept, is it based on a book?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Organic Revolution+January 07, 2007 06:17 pm--> (Organic Revolution @ January 07, 2007 06:17 pm)
Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 06, 2007 10:33 pm
i just saw it and loved it. there's a ton of anti-fascist stuff in there and some interesting parralels between the treatment of immigrants in future britain and how we treat immigrants and terrorism detainees here in america.
Did you notice that at the jails, it said homeland security everywhere? [/b]
not to mention that at one scene (just after that woman is pulled off the bus) look out of the window and you will see someone standing like this :
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/25/xin_25030225084965357213.jpg
In a cage.

EDIT:

Guerrilla22 Posted on January [email protected] 2007 08:12 pm
It's an intersting concept, is it based on a book?

Yeah its based off a novel by Phyllis Dorothy James (writen in 1992).

[bezdomni]

I heard it was really good, but I haven't seen it yet.

[Angry Young Man]

It's good. Wouldn't say it's full of Marxist rhetoric, but certainly a social commentary. It also seemed to be about trust.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:16 am
It's good. Wouldn't say it's full of Marxist rhetoric, but certainly a social commentary. It also seemed to be about trust.
yeah, i couldnt find anything that was particulaly marxist. and the only big group fighting for human rights are portrayed as backstabbing terrorists. i liked how they used art in certain shots too. did anyone notice the banksy? the use of guernica was interesting too.

[Vladislav]

Why "Children of Men" should be nominated for Best Picture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lfs1UIKALQ&eurl=)

[Comrade Marcel]

My comrade told me the movie is anti-gun, if this is so then it is certainly anti-Marxist.

The novel is supposes to be not anti-gun however. The author is known for contemporary detective/mystery novels and is a member of the House of Lords.

[encephalon]

There were at least three flashes of lenin busts in the film that I saw, but I don't think it was marxist because of it; I think it was more of a revolution-in-general idea, where everyone but the brits (except the revoluitionaries, of course) were rioting. There's a lot of islamic stuff in it as well.

It was actually the first movie in a very long time that I had enough interest in to actually drive to a theater for (most theaters around here didn't have it), and I wasn't disappointed for the most part--especially with the very long shot at the end. Just don't expect it to be some kind of revoloutionary propaganda.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15, 2007 06:21 am
My comrade told me the movie is anti-gun, if this is so then it is certainly anti-Marxist.

The novel is supposes to be not anti-gun however. The author is known for contemporary detective/mystery novels and is a member of the House of Lords.
i didnt notice anything anti-gun in it other than the protagonist never uses a gun to kill people (though he does use a car battery).

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I just saw it and I really Liked it. I didnt see anything particularly marxist in it either, but I did like how it portrayed the future. In one word, Bleak. There are also some badass scenes in the movie. The end I thought meant hope. Anyone else agree?

[Knight of Cydonia]

i haven't see it..but i saw the trailer and is all about human extinction, am i right?

[Red October]

its about the world in 2027 after women have been infertile for 18 years and suddenly a woman gets pregnant.

[BreadBros]

Long live The Fishes! Long live The Uprising!

Seriously, this movie kicked-ass. I wouldn't call it Marxist, but it was definitely awesome in many other respects. Not only did it have a great plot, the battle scenes were intense as hell. Go watch it! Theres nothing anti-gun in it, although there is some vaguely Christian imagery (the symbol of the Fishes resembles that Christian fish etc) but its overall pretty good.

[Red October]

the fishes were corrupt

[BreadBros]

I wasn't seriously lending my support to the fictitious political program of the Fishes, I was just joking around for those who have seen the movie. Anyway, they weren't really corrupt as much as they were misguided (thats all Ill say for risk of ruining the movie for some), and even then thats debatable (I could see some people arguing in their favor) as their long-term goals were right.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

yeah the main guy in it is supposed to be a revolutionary of some kind, though they dont actually give details.

I thought the film was great, and would recommend it to all.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:54 pm
I wasn't seriously lending my support to the fictitious political program of the Fishes, I was just joking around for those who have seen the movie. Anyway, they weren't really corrupt as much as they were misguided (thats all Ill say for risk of ruining the movie for some), and even then thats debatable (I could see some people arguing in their favor) as their long-term goals were right.
i know, it was a joke. there should be a thread about this.

[Guerrilla22]

It was very interesting, I loved how the director made parallels to today's US.

[socialistpunk]

i have seen that movie it's very disturbing and provocative aswell. shows what britain might become if it keeps on with the nanny state concept that everyone in britain keeps brining up.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

it also showed every other western nation (briefly) in an Iraq style mess.

[redflagfires]

I haven't seen it yet, but it looks rather fascinating!
is the book good?

[metalero]

Just watched it tonight. It's really nice, it deals with a lot of things actually happening in the world such as persecution against inmigrants and using them as scapegoat for capitalism problems, but portrayed in the future. But It directly makes you think about Palestine, Guanatamo, border fences, minutemen etc.

[bcbm]

I would totally be part of that barbarian horde living in the forest.

[Comrade Marcel]

Saw it last night and was much more impressed than I thought I would be, though it is worth noting that the hero of the movie isn't part of any resistance, which I think makes things clear about what view the movie takes.

My favourite character was Jasper, of course.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I saw it on saturday it was fucking great! I noticed some commie shit too. The protagonist had a Cultural Revolution poster on the wall, there was communist graffiti being cleaned at one point, and the movie was centered around a revolution of the oppressed.

[ahab]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 20, 2007 05:54 am
I would totally be part of that barbarian horde living in the forest.
lmao, yea that part actually made me happy cuz I fucking hate julianne moore.

It was a good movie the, end, of course, was the best, fucking war in the streets goddamnit!

[Red October]

the street battle in the refugee city was epic. it kind of makes you wish you could be a part of it right now.

[ahab]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 23, 2007 04:19 pm
the street battle in the refugee city was epic. it kind of makes you wish you could be a part of it right now.
seriously, fuck the rest of that movie that was the best part...

[Dante666]

I loved the movie it portrayed the realities of violent conflicts and I thought that same thing with the prison and the person with the black mask over his head the movie had a incredible story too and was very very well shot the cinematography was incredible I defiantly recommend this movie to everyone.

[redflagfires]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 20, 2007 05:54 am
I would totally be part of that barbarian horde living in the forest.
lmao.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Hammer and sickle (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/bloodysham8/vlcsnap-248403.png)

Lenin (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/bloodysham8/vlcsnap-246700.png)

Both from Children of men

there is probably more

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22, 2007 09:54 pm
it is worth noting that the hero of the movie isn't part of any resistance, which I think makes things clear about what view the movie takes.
That appreciating and protecting human life and freedom is more important than the power-grabbing of opportunistic ****s?

[The Feral Underclass]

I thought it was a very well made film. It was quite bathetic at times, but overall I thought it dealt with these subjects and being in the future in a more realist sense than most dystopia films.

Obviously there is allot of iconography of Abu Grahib but also it makes strong iconographic references to the way the Nazi's dealt with Jews - The throwing of belongings over the balconies in an apartment block, or what could easily of been a Ghetto housing "fugee's" - Schindlers list, anyone…?

I saw it at the Cinema originally, but just bought the DVD. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

besides the imagery pointed out already

i think the fishes were leninists trying to use the baby as a catalyst for what they called "the uprising" (the revolution)

and in one of jaspers cartoons they show it as a satire of the photograph from the paris commune with the dead communards in it, jasper draws it with uncle sam and the statue of liberty in the coffins

also take notice of a guerrilla squad on the roof of a building before the main battle pops off

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 03:54 am
Saw it last night and was much more impressed than I thought I would be, though it is worth noting that the hero of the movie isn't part of any resistance, which I think makes things clear about what view the movie takes.

My favourite character was Jasper, of course.
Actually according to the dialogue, the protagonist and the Julianne Moore character were both part of the anti-government movement when the fascist government was solidifying its power. For whatever reason he "dropped out" and became a beauracrat after the movement was lost and she became an armed fighter.

I also thought the battle scene in the refugee camp was intense and epic. Best part of the film. Im also surprised no one has mentioned the part where the cop (dressed in Middle Eastern garb) wakes them up to take them out of the camp himself for ransom and they escape but The Uprising has begun (I suppose the Fishes have begun distributing arms?) and you see a column of men dressed in black (w/ masks) with rifles and green headbands with Arabic writing on them. It was so clearly a reference to the Palestinian conflict with the refugee camp being a reference to Palestinian refugee camps. I thought it was brilliant how the film ties together the Holocaust, the Israeli occupation and the collapse of society together into a film about mass struggle.

I thought it was interesting that they showed most of the UK public indifferent to the plight of the refugees (and very caught up in stupid media-manufactured stories like Baby Diego), which mirrors the reality of a lot of Americans who dont care one bit about the plight of immigrants, but still shows the armed insurrection happening and in a lot of ways justified. No caveat necessary.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Revolutionary [email protected] 01, 2007 10:28 pm
i think the fishes were leninists trying to use the baby as a catalyst for what they called "the uprising" (the revolution)
I think you're probably right. One of the main Leninist strategies is to do whatever is necessary to achieve their objectives, regardless of how ethically justified they may be. For example, Stalin signing a pact with Hitler etc etc.

[EwokUtopia]

I saw this movie for the first time last night, and it was excellent, but extremely intense. Id like to know how everyone else felt about it. I was deffinately in a strange mood afterwards, but I really need to lay off the Apocalyptic fiction for a while.

[JazzRemington]

In the past, I would rank everything in one mass below the director's cut of Brazil. That doesn't mean I didn't like them, one mass was way above another mass (which happened to be quite larger than the former, mind you).

But after seeing Children of Men, I can say that I now have two masses of movies below TWO movies.

[A-S M.]

it was pretty good imo, got a bit too much at some times, too much action

[Free Left]

I was deffinately in a strange mood afterwards, but I really need to lay off the Apocalyptic fiction for a while.

I know what you mean. It makes you uneasy afterwards.

It definetly had it's moments, like the ambush near the start or the long one-take sequence at the end.

Has anyone read the book?

[BreadBros]

I absolutely loved it. I agree it was very intense and left me uneasy afterwards as well.

[Janus]

Merged.

[EwokUtopia]

Its not really showing any faction like the government or the fishes to be the undisputed bad guys, its saying that basically a world without hope is going to be fucked up. There was the one scene that showed all the cities in the world in ruins and ended with "Only Britain Soldiers On", but I think the point is that it is pointless to soldier on in that scenario. Its pointless to fight against a government or system in a world without a future, and its really pointless to do anything, thats why everyone in the movie, minus a few characters, is fucked up, because they all know that everything they do is pointless, so to compensate, they do that thing to a needless max.

Honestly, in a world where we knew we were the last generation, would any of you seriously still dedicate yourselves to socialism? Whats the point? Socialism is about creating a future, and its meaningless if there is no future. Thats why the fish's are fucked up.


I myself would simply go to all the mass orgies that undoubtably would occur, and take advantage of the fact that birth control is no longer a requirement.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by BreadBros+February 01, 2007 09:53 pm--> (BreadBros @ February 01, 2007 09:53 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 03:54 am
Saw it last night and was much more impressed than I thought I would be, though it is worth noting that the hero of the movie isn't part of any resistance, which I think makes things clear about what view the movie takes.

My favourite character was Jasper, of course.
Actually according to the dialogue, the protagonist and the Julianne Moore character were both part of the anti-government movement when the fascist government was solidifying its power. For whatever reason he "dropped out" and became a beauracrat after the movement was lost and she became an armed fighter.
[/b]
I was aware that he used to be part of a movement, but his character in the movie is basically a sell out who sort of accidentally becomes a hero because of circumstance. I find it sort of hard to believe, but not entirely implausible so I accepted it.

Actually, the character of Theodor is a lot more likable in the movie than in the book IMO. I actually read the book about a month ago or so.

A few things are different in the book:

Theodor was never part of any movement before hand. He is nothing but a middle class college professor who led an uneventful life and is accosted by the fishes because his cousin Xan is effectively the dictator of the country.

Jasper was the biggest disappointment in the book. In the movie, he's a kewl old school activist guy with old anti-war posters from circa 2003. Kind of like us in the future, you know? So, I can relate to the character. In the book, he is simply the professor Theo studied under and is sort of his prodigy. Jasper wants to move into his flat because eventually all people are to be moved to urban centres as the population decreases. Other than that there is absolutely nothing interesting about him in the book.

Thoe's ex-wife is nothing more some petty-bourgeois living in a townhouse. She was never part of anything significant.

Julia is the name of the person who is pregnant, a women with a disfigured hand. Theo falls for her. Her husband wants to gain political power by using the baby. There are only 5 fishes.

The baby idiot who dies in the beginning is not really such a big event in the book. I thought the movie making this a big thing was more realistic, since celebrity worship would probably be increased in an infertile world.

Events called "Quietus" take place. These are ritualistic euthanasia of old folks, kind of Platonian.

The ending is quite good in the book; but I won't give it away. I will say that it is very different from the movie, and that it isn't very revolutionary or any real portrayal of a mass movement, but a good ending never-the-less.

The book is very enjoyable to read, well written and hard to put down. I would say you should read it if you have seen the film.

[TC]

lol theres nothing remotely Marxist about the film.

In fact, the entire premise of the thing made very little sense; why would society collapse just because there was no children? It wouldn't affect the work force at all, apart from out of work elementary school teachers and pediatricians. Why would the UK not collapse? If anything, the very reverse makes sense, the UK would be one of the *first* economies to collapse because they import the vast majority of their goods both food, consumer goods, and necessary equipment. And, if they couldn't have any children, and they wanted some, wouldn't they *want* immigrants?

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:25 am
lol theres nothing remotely Marxist about the film.

In fact, the entire premise of the thing made very little sense; why would society collapse just because there was no children? It wouldn't affect the work force at all, apart from out of work elementary school teachers and pediatricians. Why would the UK not collapse? If anything, the very reverse makes sense, the UK would be one of the *first* economies to collapse because they import the vast majority of their goods both food, consumer goods, and necessary equipment. And, if they couldn't have any children, and they wanted some, wouldn't they *want* immigrants?
For me, the story about humanity being infertile is just a cover.
The film is just to show people that western governments treat immigrants like shit, that they help feed religious fundementalism that way and that 'what you reap is what you sow'.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:25 am
lol theres nothing remotely Marxist about the film.

In fact, the entire premise of the thing made very little sense; why would society collapse just because there was no children? It wouldn't affect the work force at all, apart from out of work elementary school teachers and pediatricians. Why would the UK not collapse? If anything, the very reverse makes sense, the UK would be one of the *first* economies to collapse because they import the vast majority of their goods both food, consumer goods, and necessary equipment. And, if they couldn't have any children, and they wanted some, wouldn't they *want* immigrants?
Think about it, if you knew that you were a member of the last generation of homo sapiens ever, would you calmly go to work or fight for a revolutionary future? You'd most likely go nuts like practically everyone else in the film. It doesnt matter if you want to have children yourself or not, we all want people in general to keep having children, otherwise we would all live out our years surrounded by nothing but old people. I mean, think of how most old people feel when the members of their generation start dropping like flies. Now imagine that there are no people to replace them, there simply wouldnt be a future for humanity.

All society rests upon the assumption that there is a future. Without a future, the present is meaningless, so why go to work and continue society for the next 20 years (until everyone is too old to make it work) ? Why fight for a revolution if at best its going to last a few years? The only thing that would make sense at this point is hedonism or suicide.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+July 16, 2007 09:43 am--> (Comrade Marcel @ July 16, 2007 09:43 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:53 pm

Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 03:54 am
Saw it last night and was much more impressed than I thought I would be, though it is worth noting that the hero of the movie isn't part of any resistance, which I think makes things clear about what view the movie takes.

My favourite character was Jasper, of course.
Actually according to the dialogue, the protagonist and the Julianne Moore character were both part of the anti-government movement when the fascist government was solidifying its power. For whatever reason he "dropped out" and became a beauracrat after the movement was lost and she became an armed fighter.

I was aware that he used to be part of a movement, but his character in the movie is basically a sell out who sort of accidentally becomes a hero because of circumstance. I find it sort of hard to believe, but not entirely implausible so I accepted it.

Actually, the character of Theodor is a lot more likable in the movie than in the book IMO. I actually read the book about a month ago or so.

A few things are different in the book:

Theodor was never part of any movement before hand. He is nothing but a middle class college professor who led an uneventful life and is accosted by the fishes because his cousin Xan is effectively the dictator of the country.

Jasper was the biggest disappointment in the book. In the movie, he's a kewl old school activist guy with old anti-war posters from circa 2003. Kind of like us in the future, you know? So, I can relate to the character. In the book, he is simply the professor Theo studied under and is sort of his prodigy. Jasper wants to move into his flat because eventually all people are to be moved to urban centres as the population decreases. Other than that there is absolutely nothing interesting about him in the book.

Thoe's ex-wife is nothing more some petty-bourgeois living in a townhouse. She was never part of anything significant.

Julia is the name of the person who is pregnant, a women with a disfigured hand. Theo falls for her. Her husband wants to gain political power by using the baby. There are only 5 fishes.

The baby idiot who dies in the beginning is not really such a big event in the book. I thought the movie making this a big thing was more realistic, since celebrity worship would probably be increased in an infertile world.

Events called "Quietus" take place. These are ritualistic euthanasia of old folks, kind of Platonian.

The ending is quite good in the book; but I won't give it away. I will say that it is very different from the movie, and that it isn't very revolutionary or any real portrayal of a mass movement, but a good ending never-the-less.

The book is very enjoyable to read, well written and hard to put down. I would say you should read it if you have seen the film. [/b]
I loved the movie, but i tried reading the book and i just couldn't get into it. It moved to slow and i just didn't like the stylistics. His way of writing was extremely bland to me. Maybe one day i'll try to reread it again(i've attempted a few times) and i'll see how that goes.

Me personally, i thought there was something to be said about the African immigrant being the one to finally give birth and restart humanity..

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:26 pm
I loved the movie, but i tried reading the book and i just couldn't get into it. It moved to slow and i just didn't like the stylistics. His way of writing was extremely bland to me. Maybe one day i'll try to reread it again(i've attempted a few times) and i'll see how that goes.

Me personally, i thought there was something to be said about the African immigrant being the one to finally give birth and restart humanity..
I've got to disagree, comrade. I actually enjoyed James' writing style and that's what kept me reading the book despite it's lack of revolutionary content, I did find it intense enough to keep me wondering what was going to happen next, even though I had some idea from having seen the film.

Also, P.D. James is a woman. She is a member of the House of Lords and is mostly known for mystery/detective novels.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+July 24, 2007 04:11 pm--> (Comrade Marcel @ July 24, 2007 04:11 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:26 pm
I loved the movie, but i tried reading the book and i just couldn't get into it. It moved to slow and i just didn't like the stylistics. His way of writing was extremely bland to me. Maybe one day i'll try to reread it again(i've attempted a few times) and i'll see how that goes.

Me personally, i thought there was something to be said about the African immigrant being the one to finally give birth and restart humanity..
I've got to disagree, comrade. I actually enjoyed James' writing style and that's what kept me reading the book despite it's lack of revolutionary content, I did find it intense enough to keep me wondering what was going to happen next, even though I had some idea from having seen the film.

Also, P.D. James is a woman. She is a member of the House of Lords and is mostly known for mystery/detective novels. [/b]
LOL, i think the James through me off!