Children of Men
While Children of Men is by no means flawless, it is one of the few films I've seen in from 2006 that is clearly the product of a masterful director -- Mexico's Alfonso Cuarón.1 I loved Y tu mamá también and find his Harry Potter entry to be the best so far in the series, but with Children of Men he enters the territory of classic sci-fi films such as Brazil and 12 Monkeys: the near-future dystopia.
The dystopic premise -- a world where for unknown reasons no child has been born in 18 years and where only Britain has maintained a semblance of civilization as we know it now by means of a fascist and sometimes genocidal government -- is handled with such realism that it's almost alarming. We're not talking here about robot armies or advanced Big Brother technologies; these are broken versions of the very political situations we read about every day, the logical extension of terrorism and insurrection when precipitated by an apocalyptic disease. I won't say more about this dystopic world, except to say that the story both flourishes and, in the end, finds its flaws in how the main characters live in it.
But the premise is not where I found Cuarón's masterful direction, because in many ways Children of Men is actually an action/war film. The two lengthy single-shot sequences2 have already been much ballyhooed by critics, but I can only corroborate what's already been said -- these sequences aren't just an opportunity for Cuarón and his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki to show off, but actually add to the suspense of the action on screen. Much of the film, and especially in these sequences, comes off as balletic, with each gunshot, explosion, Clive Owen expression, spoken line, and swing of the camera precisely enacted as in the effects of a large-scale Broadway show.
It may sound contrived here, but I can only say that this technique actually enhances the realism of the scene, as opposed to the effect of the quick-cutting approach used so bluntly by most action and war films of our day. The closest comparison I can come up with is the mid-career work of Francis Ford Coppola, especially the electric first half of Apocalypse Now3 and his early-80's flop, the Las Vegas musical One from the Heart.4 Cuarón really is that talented.
I'd like to end with a brief mention of one of the most important building blocks for making true cinema: the car chase. Children of Men has an incredibly suspenseful car chase ranking high up with the best, and I don't think anything ever goes more than 10 miles per hour. It's the anti-Speed, and only a truly skilled director could make them this fun without resorting to pretty cars, fast cuts, and flame-riddled explosions.
Children of Men is one of the best films of 2006, and I can't wait to see what Cuarón does next.
------------
1 The others were lesser films, relative to their respective pantheons, by Martin Scorsese and Darren Aronofsky, and Spike Lee's excellent Katrina documentary. (return)
2 Including a ten-minute battle involving tanks, bombs, soldiers, and a chase sequence where, yes, the shot never once cuts. (return)
3 Which in my book, contains some of the finest cinematic direction in film history. (return)
4 Which is an incredible technical feat -- Coppola basically built downtown Las Vegas on a soundstage with an obsessively constructed lighting design -- but fails on so many other levels. (return)
<<< Transgenderism in Iran Jim Cameron goes forward with Avatar >>>
Haven't seen it yet and looking forward to it, which is rare this year. But I must say, while I am always impressed by single long shots, rumor has it that those "long shots" are actually a series of short shorts put together digitally. In a way, CG has killed breathtaking cinema in that all feats are possible when you have a computer. I miss that days of real long shots with break away sets and crazy jibs. Adios.
See, but I don't really mind if what you're saying about the construction of the shots is true. What's important is that they look like long-shots -- as long as I can't see the seams, I could care less if they're there, especially if it makes for really great action sequences. I love some Hong Kong action sequences, even if wires are used to heighten reality. The underlying technology should have no effect on whether something is deemed breathtaking cinema.
But you're right about one thing -- if it then becomes too easy to construct long-shots, suddenly you'll have a bunch of B-grade action directors using shoddily designed long-shots. But that easily extends metaphorically to filmmaking in general, so c'est la vie.
well i guess we can't convince you to see it with us when you're in LA, huh?
By the way, the wikipedia article on the movie makes it clear that the long shots were done 5-7 times, and then the best parts stitched together in post. So I think they still had to undergo all the complex arrangements traditionally used to shoot long takes, but took advantage of CG to add in the explosions and bullets, and to avoid doing it over 30 times due to inconsequential errors.
Interesting. I think you are right that the shots imporatance and reason trumps the technology behind it. But I was just saying that filmmaking has lost a little oomph with the onset of mass CGI. And Jon May, who are you talking to. I am in LA and I really want to see the movie. Give me a call. Or is crazymonk coming to LA soon?
I read a review where someone said that the first long shot sequence reminded them of a similar scene in War of the Worlds, but without the CG. I think that's funny, because it turns out that Children of Men used CG, too -- it just did it well, in service of the story. I think mass CG leads to bad movies as much as stunt men and explosions led to a lot of bad movies in the 70's and 80's. The best movies with CG are those that you don't even realize are using it -- which hinders movies involving dinosaurs and space ships, but hey, that's the way it is.
LA: We are considering coming this weekend, but it depends on a few things.
CM, it's 2007.
Also, I have one question about the film: what was the symbolic importance of all the animals in "Children of Men"? There are dozens of cats and dogs throughout the movie (most of whom are quite drawn to Theo), and I cannot figure out why. Part of me thinks that it has something to do with the idea that individuals often use pets as surrogates for children, but I'd like to think there's more to it than just that. Any thoughts?
I know it's 2007, but it was officially released in 2006, so I consider it a 2006 film. (It will be eligible for the 2006 Oscars, for one. An arbitrary standard, maybe, but the generally accepted one.)
The animals: In the PD James novel from the mid-90's that the movie is loosely based on, childless women turn to animals as surrogates, as you suggest. From the summary I read, there's even a movement to have clergymen baptize these animals to make them official "children." So I think your initial impression is correct. I have a couple of interesting links about the book that I'll put up in the near future.
Apologies, Alina, I fixed the error in the initial sentence. Thanks.
Darn it, Jon May beat me to the comment about how we were hoping to make you see this with us. How about Pan's Labyrinth?
Also, I just finished the novel, which I got from the library explicitly because I was really looking forward to the movie. They have, like, viewing parties when their animals give birth in this movie. Also, there are a couple of creepy scenes in which crazy women push dolls around in prams and act like they're real babies. And the protagonist is cynical and snobby. I recommend reading it.
Also also, hell yes to LA Anthony.
Pan's Labyrinth is at the top of my list.
Of things to see.
By the way, I totally agree that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best Potter movie to date. I have heard rumors Cuaron might come back for Half-Blood Prince... fingers crossed.
With apologies to May and Lorelei, I went to see this film tonight. Strike what I said above. Films, even films with CGI, can still wow me. And that is my response to this film. Just wow. Amazing. By far the best and most accomplished film of 2006. And one of the best films I have seen in years. I wanted to see the film again the second I walked out of the theater. It is filled with such amazing, dark, and uplifting things. So go see it.
My post got lost in the cyberspace... damned cyberspace. I saw it last night and I really really liked it. The whole war scene was amazing.
I have one symbolism question is someone's feeling explanatory: what's the deal with all the extremities? The movie paid a lot of attention to legs, arms, hands and feet. It was sort of like how Blade Runner treated eyes. There was parts missing, focused on, injured, broken, falling off... all over the place. I couldn't figure out what they were going for with that.
Anthony, you couldn't call, maybe?
It was a date with my lady. And it was hot.
Not that anyone cares anymore, but now that I've seen it, I've decided that all the animals were there to remind us that animals would OWN THE PLANET in 80 years. Also that kittens are cute.
Hey! Someone has a theory about the limbs:
"Throughout it all, Cuaron intersperses comic lines that show man laughing at his own follies, complemented by a recurring visual motif of crippled society -- the one-legged David, the hero limping in flip flops, a terrorist bleeding to death from a leg wound."
Way to go ReelPop.
Post new comment