Children of Men - Page 3

In fact, it is laughable to compare this movie with 2001 or Blade Runner as others have done.

Well, I guess it's me who have done. Normally I won't argue too much around here, as everyone has the right to his or her opinion.

But why is this laughable? Is because no one goes into outer space, or we are not presented with androids running amuck amid smoggy ziggurats? Maybe it's true this is a bit more like A Clockwork Orange than 2001, and Orange doesn't really come up as something in the sci-fi canon. But it too was a vision of the future.

2001 was a revelation due to its incredible production design and its enigmatic ending. It affected every outer space film made after it. But its drama was murky, showing Kubrick's obsession with showing the humanity of the individual being erased by the modern state. HAL was widely perceived to be the most "human" of the participants, which was a neat trick, but the people could put you to sleep.

I argue that Blade Runner was a revelation due to its incredible production design (with f/x by 2001's Douglas Trumbull). Its evocation of the world of forties film noir was also fascinating, but it was full of people that were unattractive and unsympathetic, and its story was essentially just "kill the androids". It lost an incredible amount of money in its first release due to its darkness and impenetrablity and its inflated budget: it was one of the most expensive movies made up to its time. Children of Men might also fail to find a wide audience, though it probably didn't cost nearly as much to film.

So what is Children of Men? It's a dystopic futuristic saga, which, as Josh points out, gives a pretty believable view of what 20 years on might look like. Kubrick's view of thirty years from now extrapolated the constant advance of space technology which didn't happen, and Scott's future also overestimated development. What Children of Men brings to the party is a wealth of characterization in its cast that neither of the other two acknowledged classics had. We dread what happens to the people in Children of Men. In 2001 they were barely people at all. In addition, Children of Men functions also as a dandy thriller, chase film, and war film, with remarkable set pieces in all three of these forms.

Finally, Children of Men, like the other two war horses, is the triumph of special effects and production design. It creates a world as fully detailed and fleshed out as 2001 or Blade Runner. It just shows us things in the nature of the modern world that we don't like to look at.

Huh? Watch Blade Runner again, it's a lot more interesting than that.

I admit I'm being a little unfair in my Blade Runner synopsis. There's more going on, but I can't find a whole lot of the profundity that others seem to, particularly in the interminable argument that frequently pops up of whether Deckerd (sp?) is a replicant. (On one hand he's so one-note, who cares? And more seriously, it seems to be meant to be enigmatic as to what he is, and if Scott was cannier he would refuse to comment on it and give the picture a little ambiguity). Blade Runner showed up really high on that best sci-fi film list- probably compiled by young computer nerds- but so did that seventies B-grade snoozefest Soylent Green.

I still maintain Blade Runner's fascination is primarily due to how it looks and not what's inside.

And as a further aside and ramble, I think Blade Runner is a member of the sort of movie whose pleasure is remembered more fondly than experienced in seeing it again. Others that fit this for me are 2001, Fantasia, Vertigo, Strangers on a Train. Journey to the Center of the Earth, most Harryhausen films, and several of the Star Wars films. This is not really fair to the films, because for many people, they see a film once and that is it. I love all of these films, all are acknowledged as classics to some degree or other, but I find as I rewatch them I find great stretches of tedium.

But we all know many of us like to watch films again and again, and modern super-colossal films depend upon being watched again and again (or being seen in the theater once and then bought on DVD). Lots of films' effects- not just f/x, but their whole structure, the setup of situations, etc- cease to work so well the more one sees them (I find this beginning to happen to me with the Fellowship of the Ring films. And if you love Hitchcock films, take it from someone who also does and has watched some of his films to death- limit your viewing.) And some films, especially those filled with Jungian archetypes and symbols, films whose viewings are almost a rite, these films hold up rather well.

I maintain Blade Runner will not hold up over time that well. But your mileage may vary.

2001 and BR struck me as great movies from the first time I saw them to the zillionth time I saw therm. I will never watch Children of Men again. Not because it's a bad moviie -- it's ok -- just that it's not that interesting. The story just isn't there.

That is why I think it's laughable to compare this movie to the other two.

You liked the 2001 and Blade Runner and didn't much care for Children of Men, which you don't think is science fiction. That's okay. But for this to be the reason to call a comparison laughable is just a matter of opinion.

I'll grant this comparison may be a questionable assertion given that Children of Men has not stood the test of time. But I'm sticking my neck out, having read science fiction and watched science fiction movies for almost fifty years.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You say this 25 years after its release. Interesting. How long exactly does it take to justify "holding up over time"?

Well, let's see. As I recall, people had pretty much forgotten Bach until Mendelssohn resurrected his reputation a hundred years or more after his death.

When I was a young person, The Birth of a Nation was regarded as a great classic (granted, I grew up in Georgia). This was fifty years after it was filmed. Now its dreadful treatment of African-Americans has destroyed its reputation (Intolerance has taken its place). Likewise, John Ford's The Informer was also thought to be a truly great film; it's no longer regarded as one of Ford's best anymore. Keaton was almost forgotten until the sixties, almost forty years after he did his best work. Things like The Song of Bernadette and Going My Way used to be considered great films in their day but are no longer taken very seriously.

Tastes change over time. Every generation choses what it considers great. This is why conservators are striving to save as much as they can from film libraries- we don't know what people to come are going to regard as worthy. Some things remain constant and have never fallen from favor while other things rise and fall.

Look, love Blade Runner if you want to. I have a soft spot for it myself; it looks great. But this forum is in the midst of fanboys and young people, and these people worship this film, partly due to fond childhood memories and accumulated good will for its star, Harrison Ford. Maybe it's the favorite of international film critics too and people of all ages. I don't know. I play devil's advocate on it and other films partly to make people think.

And I still consider Children of Men to be the better picture, with no time testing whatsoever. So there.

Why?

I assume, hun, you mean why go see it in a theater? Well, it's exceptionally well photographed on, as I recall, fairly fine grained film stock, and the CGI is extraordinary. It's designed to provoke shock and awe, and being in a theater means it's harder to avoid what's happening. Sometimes there is just something about seeing a film in the midst of a community (for comedies in particular, though this is assuredly not one of those).

And you might want to get on the bandwagon for this one early. I know I had never even heard of it until my sister and her boyfriend wanted to go see a movie a day or two after Christmas and its high Rotten Tomatoes eval piqued my interest. Let's just say I enjoyed it.

I'll tell you what, let's check back in with one another in 100 years and see who's right.


I'm there. I'll bring the popcorn.