"Children of Men"/"Temptation of wolves"

[alexandral]

I watched “Children of Men” from trailer_spot’s recommendation and keep returning to it in my thoughts already for two weeks. In a way, this film turned my world upside down. If you haven’t seen it yet – this is definitely must-see of this winter.

Synopsis In the future world where women lost the ability to bare children, Theodore Faron (Clive Owen) is helping a woman pregnant with child to find a safe place. The story takes place in England 2027 where any emigration is illegal and where anyone who is an illegal immigrant is put into immigration camps, no much better then concentration camps.

Director and cinematography Mexican-born director Alfonso Cuarón is known for his adaptation of “Harry Porter and the Prizoner of Askaban”. It is difficult for me to judge because I have never read any of “Harry Porter” books, but this is my favourite out of the Harry Porter movies so far.
His latest film, “Children of Men” is filmed in experimental and very unusual way. This includes innovative camera angles and amazing feel for colour and composition. The film starts as autumnal story of dying and decay, but towards the end this mood changes for something new. One of the final scenes of street-battle was filmed in one take with the clever use of pyrothecnics and this gives it a goose-bumps inducing feel of something happening before your very eyes, and this feeling followed me through the whole film , it felt like this is really happening. The other interesting thing was to convey information with objects and composition as well as with the dialogue.



Review

This film is a free adaptation of P.D.James novel “The Children of Men”, but it is a film of its own. One of the things that practically “jump at you” when you watch this film is that “Children of Men” encompasses many Biblical elements. This is everywhere – in the title, in the birth of a special child, in the long journey through the wilderness, in the crossing of the sea and in the similarity of long years of bareness with the prophecies that “the Earth will be barren”.

Is this to be our future? The future we are making ourselves with our own hands by exploiting our planet?

But the thing that affected me the most, even more then fabulous cinematography or brilliant acting (especially in Clive Owen’s part) was the honest and even brutal way of looking at the xenophobia and racism problem. I don’t know the situation in the other countries from the first hand, but in England of recent years the immigration issue has risen into being something of HUGE proportions. You can’t help but see the articles in the certain type of press where immigrants and asylum-seekers are presented as a threat to Britain, as some people who just come in millions to poor UK to consume our tax resources. Take me right, I don’t think that free emigration is the answer to everyone’s problem, but at the same time I find this way of thinking “they are here to rob us” to be really terrible and unfair. And I am glad that “Children of Men” makes us look what is an extreme point of the fear of emigrants, the way our country can go.

Screencaps from the film

























Soundtrack Is just out of this world. My favourite is Italian singer Franco Battiato’s take of “Ruby Tuesday”. One of the strange facts I found while looking for Ruby Tuesday’s lyrics is that this song was one of the songs that were forbidden to broadcast in US during the period following 11 of September 2001. I don’t understand why, I must say!!

"Temptation of Wolves"
I have also watched Korean film "Temptation of Wolves" and didn't like it very much at all. My thoughts on it are Here, in dorama_chat

Comments

[teh-haley.livejournal.com]

I checked out the lyrics of 'Ruby Tuesday' maybe to find an answer to your question, but after reading it, I can't see why it was forbidden to broadcast, but now I'm curious about it. Wanna find out the reason.
I must watch this movie, I'm curious and excited about it, and Clive Owen is one of the best actors out there, I think!

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I think it is connected with the fact that 11/09 was Tuesday and that "Ruby" can be read as "bloody", though this doesn't make much sense at all.

I must watch this movie, I'm curious and excited about it, and Clive Owen is one of the best actors out there, I think!

Oh,yes!!!!!

[teh-haley.livejournal.com]

You said right, okay, it was tuesday but it was no-sense to avoid broadcasting it. People worry a lot about senseless stuff, sometimes, when there'd be so many real problems. Meh.
I'm persuading Luca to bring me to the cinema next weel to see Children Of Men ;)

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I don't think Luca can resist your pulling power. The only thing I must warn you about - there is some violence in this film.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Sounds interesting. I am a sucker for dystopian movies and it just opened here, so must check it out now.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

This is a really great film. Clive Owen is back to his best form. Actually I loved him in "Closer" too, he almost broke my heart to pieces.

[ambergold.livejournal.com]

I was already planning on watching this-I just saw the trailer today and went "OOh!" but I'm glad you give it a good recommendation. I've recently been converted to Clive Owen and have always liked Julianne Moore. It's not playing in my theater yet, though, I don't know why...:( Oh well. My brother tells me Blood Diamond is fabulous so I guess I'll watch that first.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Have you seen "Croupier"? My heart was sealed and sold after this film, and it is fabulous in many other ways too. Julianne Moore is an excellent actress, the relationship between two of the main characters is so bright and so painful to watch at the same time.

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

What can I saw, it's probably my favourite movie of the year. The gripping story, the great actors and the excellent camera work (the many uncut scenes, the 360° shot inside the car during the chase scene) as well as the whole production design, all of which creating a fascinating movie.

I like how it tells you a straight story and leaves a lot of small clues with things that go on in the background, on posters, graffiti etc. Some reviews have critised that there isn't much backstory and the movie isn't properly set up. But I think it's one of its strengths that it doesn't try to push things on you and provides all the answers but that you can fill out the gaps yourself. That way it treats me as an intelligent individual.

I already watched it twice and I have a feeling I will do so again many times. Be it for the story, the camera work, or trying to focus on the religious elements you've mentioned, or the role animals play in the movie, or ... You get the picture.

Speaking of pictures, if you're looking for some more hi-res pictures, have a look here (http://outnow.ch/Media/Img/2006/ChildrenOfMen/). Clicking on the 'Bild in Originalgröße zeigen' link (when available) leads to the hi-res version (although I have a feeling you understand at least some German :) ).

I think that's enough for a first comment. :)

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

And I must say thank you for recommending it. :D And thank you for the link!!

I like how it tells you a straight story and leaves a lot of small clues with things that go on in the background, on posters, graffiti etc. Some reviews have critised that there isn't much backstory and the movie isn't properly set up.

I agree with you – I thought it was very innovative and effective way to introduce the details and the background. I didn’t have a problem in understanding what the backstory was; I usually feel tired by the normal way of explaining things in movies. The way when the characters recite history to each other, I am not keen on this. And I am even less keen on flash-backs.
It was definitely film that must be watched, and not a popcorn variety we see so often. I loved this in particular, that every frame was important.

I think that's enough for a first comment. :)

What do you think Theo’s future is? Has he survived? I think he has, but I am a terrible optimist and if there is a doubt, it works for me. I also hope that the child that is born is not the only one, but one among many.

or the role animals play in the movie

Actually I missed this, I would love to hear if you have some theories about this that you can share!!!

although I have a feeling you understand at least some German

Oh, no! My friend tried to teach me some German, but I am not very good at languages, I am afraid. :D

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

What do you think Theo's future is? Has he survived?
I also like how the movie has a somewhat vague ending. Everybody can speculate what will happen next. In general I would say that the movie has a happy ending (as indicated by the children's noises during the end credit) and that there's hope that mankind will survive. To me it's even, despite the bleak circumstances, a positive movie in general. However, I think Theo is dead, he sacrificed his life for the cause (another religious/'christ'-like thing of the movie).
Speaking of people who die: Another reason why I find the movie so special is that every popular actor in the movie (whose name is familiar) dies during the movie which I think is a remarkable thing for a big (or at least mid-) budget movie like this.
What would you say? Would you describe it as a movie with a positive or a negative story?

the role animals play in the movie
I would say that there are a lot of animals in the movie. Partly because they are probably now more often used as a replacement for having children. They also seem to be very friendly towards Theo which can be interpreted that he can be trusted which the animals (mostly dogs) automatically feel.

I thought that since you are from Russia you might perhaps speak some German since I know a lot of people from East Germany learned some Russian and vice versa. :)

What I forgot to mention, and by now you already said so yourself in another comment reply above, the reason for the banning of 'Ruby Tuesday' is probably because of the use of Tuesday in the title. When I googled I found this wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_deemed_inappropriate_by_Clear_Channel_following_the_September_11,_2001_attacks) that mentions the 'Tuesday' problem of another song (not even in its title).

I also wanted to say one more thing about the novel (assuming that you haven't read it), I haven't read it myself but by now I read a couple of interviews with Cuarón and it's really just loosely based on the novel, just the main idea. Even the characters differ from the book. The book covers much more ground and should be read as a different story and not compared to the movie (which in my view should almost always be avoided anyway).

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

To me it's even, despite the bleak circumstances, a positive movie in general. However, I think Theo is dead, he sacrificed his life for the cause (another religious/'christ'-like thing of the movie).

I think you are right, considering religious parallels, though I would compare his death more with Moses’s death on the doorstep of the Promise Land. I like this ending too, I think, it is very symbolic. I don’t mind bad endings in the good films like “Children of Men”, because they are never really depressing.

Speaking of people who die: Another reason why I find the movie so special is that every popular actor in the movie (whose name is familiar) dies during the movie which I think is a remarkable thing for a big (or at least mid-) budget movie like this.
What would you say? Would you describe it as a movie with a positive or a negative story?

I think it is definitely a positive story, because though people are dying, their goal is achieved at the end. The movie gives that message “there are things in life worthy to die for” and also “not every death is a tragedy, not when it achieves something better”. I admire this. As you, I am not a little fed up with the predictability of many Hollywood movies.

I would say that there are a lot of animals in the movie. Partly because they are probably now more often used as a replacement for having children. They also seem to be very friendly towards Theo which can be interpreted that he can be trusted which the animals (mostly dogs) automatically feel.

I like this. I was also wondering – the animals weren’t barren, or were they? Was the kitten in one of the scenes “the first kitten” after many years? I guess I am wrong because animal live much shorter lives.

I thought that since you are from Russia you might perhaps speak some German since I know a lot of people from East Germany learned some Russian and vice versa. :)

I think there was quite a big migration into Germany from Russia. Quite a number of German people I knew emigrated from Russia to Germany. There must be a large population of Russian-speaking people in Germany now. I studied English at school and university. (But I wish I made a better effort back then :D)

When I googled I found this wikipedia entry that mentions the 'Tuesday' problem of another song (not even in its title).

I must say this reminds me some of the crazy reasons that Russian censorship used to use. :D

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

though I would compare his death more with Moses's death

Of course! I just keep thinking of him as Jesus because during the movie he's starting to wear those shoes, I think they are called flip-flops in English (actually one of the few things I didn't really like in the movie), and in German they are casually called something like Jesus-slippers. :D

the animals weren’t barren, or were they?

No, I think for the most part they weren't (as far as I remember). Though a lot of them were on the farm and in places where they would probably be running around freely anyway (the camp, Jasper Palmer's house).

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I think they are called flip-flops in English (actually one of the few things I didn't really like in the movie

I missed the significance of Theo's loosing his shoes, but I think now that there was some symbolism in it, like Tho loosing the protection of his old ways. It is interesting that you don't like it. Why? What else did you think was not so good?

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

I don't think the shoe episode was necessary. I thought that was a little bit too much symbolism. The thought that he's practically wearing no shoes during the second half of the movie became a bit distracting to me. But don't get me wrong, it's no big thing. I just would've preferred it otherwise.

I thought there was another (minor) thing I didn't like. I tried to remember during the day but without success. I think it was something when they fled the rebel farm. Obviously it wasn't important otherwise I would remember. :)
Anything you weren't satisfied with?

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I think an Edwardian in me could do just fine without of the gory details of the birth itself, but this is "just me". Similar to you, I didn't think it was quite necessary to the story and really it didn't worry me too much.

** And that icon of yours always makes me laugh, may be because my daughter went through thumb-sucking. :D

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

I am bit surprised to hear that from a woman and mother :). As a male and non-father I can say that I didn't have a problem with that. Though that doesn't mean that I would be able to be present at a real birth (I really don't know if I could). :)

Even though I just like the icon on its own, 'Robin Hood' is one of my earliest childhood memories of seeing a movie at the theatre. :)

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I am bit surprised to hear that from a woman and mother

I just didn't think it was necessary for the story. :D

Though that doesn't mean that I would be able to be present at a real birth (I really don't know if I could). :)

This what my husband used to say. :D But I guess he was very happy that he saw the moment when our daughter was born. He cried, and this was the first time I saw him in tears.