Dec 22, 2006,
MaryAnn Johanson
Looked at as an Oscar contender, and mentioned "as one of the best films of the year," Children of Men takes place in a futuristic society that faces extinction when the human race loses the ability to reproduce. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron and starring Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Charlie Hunnam, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman, Children of Men opens Christmas Day.
Film.com asked MaryAnn and Cargill to cast a critical eye on the film by answering these five hard-hitting questions.
How does this film rank in the genre of dystopian science fiction?
Cargill:
Rather well, actually. Unlike most films detailing a bleak yet forseeable future, Children of Men doesn't strive to specifially politicize one point (the environment, the economy, foreign powers) and instead simply attempts to examine the human condition during the state of the collapse of life as we know it. The result is a film which has a lot to say and speaks to a great many political viewpoints instead of preaching to one. It is a very even-handed film that condemns pretty much everyone in the political spectrum, showcasing both our failings as a species and our triumphs.
MaryAnn:
It's right up there with the best of them -- though CoM is not satire, I was reminded of Brazil more than once, in the film's overall sense of a gloom and an oppression of the human spirit that seems perpetual, seems incurable. So many aspects of the culture represented in the film are just a single step away from where we are today, which makes this even more gut-level horrifying than a film like Brazil or 1984 -- we may not be on the brink of seeing the human race become incapable of reproducing, but it's easy to see how one single crisis could make us react in the way the terrified people of the film do.
How important is production design in pulling off this kind of film?
Cargill:
Science fiction is always tough. Trying to envision a possible future requires both convincing the audience that this could in fact happen and sticking close enough to reality that it isn't laughable five years down the road. Children of Men is fortunate in that the story is set so close to our own time that the advances don't seem too far out of the realm of possibility.
MaryAnn:
It's absolutely vital, because the viewer must feel like they are visiting a different place and/or time. And it works here, spectacularly. There aren't too many things on the screen that are obviously technologically beyond us -- which in itself makes logical sense, even though this is taking place a quarter century down the road, because part of the world's reaction to the shock of seeing that everything is going to come to a halt before the end of the century is an understandable stagnation. What works so well here is the mood of despair that is wonderfully supported by a world that really looks like it's going to hell: everything is clearly crumbling, gray, and abandoned.
There is currently a very public "for your consideration" campaign by the film company to get this some Oscar nods. Is it worthy of such a distinction?
Cargill:
Definitely. Children of Men is one of those rare genre films that spends more time focusing upon the human condition than it does being a 'blockbuster,' ultimately proving to be a highly affecting, provocative film bound to generate more than a few discussions. The performances are top-notch, the direction is superior to almost every other science fiction film recently released, and the subject matter is intense enough for the most sophisticated of tastes.
MaryAnn:
This is one of the best films of the year, period. There is no praise it does not deserve. The performances are fantastic, the direction is astonishing, it is provocative and timely (but will also, I suspect, prove to be timeless), and its appeal should be nearly universal. This is one of those films that people who say they don't like science fiction will like, and they will say things after they see it like, "I don't like science fiction, but I loved this." That's because most moviegoers won't realize that this is what real science fiction looks like -- most movies slapped with the label don't qualify because they focus more on the trappings (spaceships, robots, whatever) than on the speculative ideas. In that sense, CoM is even better than the excellent P.D. James novel it's based on. And how often can you honestly say that the movie is better than the book?
How does this fit into the filmography of Alfonso Cuaron?
Cargill:
This film cements Cuaron in the pantheon of rare directors who change their style with every film and manage to perfectly adapt to the new style without a hitch. This is visually arresting, as most of his films are, but with a style unlike anything he's attempted before. This has a very gritty, almost documentary feel to its cinematography and evokes a bleak, harsh mood -- far removed from his other, more widely seen films Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and The Little Princess.
MaryAnn:
It will put him among the ranks of directors who are masters of their medium. CoM demonstrates, once again, that Cuaron is making some of the most intriguing movies today -- who'd have thought that his Harry Potter could look so different from the others without throwing away the visual style they had created? But he is also a fantastic creator of mood that you just can't shake: I'm still haunted by Y Tu Mama Tambien years later. And that'll be true of CoM, too.
Would you recommend this, and to whom?
Cargill:
Definitely. Children of Men will be constantly referred to as one of the best films of the year and will no doubt garner a few Oscar nods. Anyone who enjoys thoughtful, provocative filmmaking or likes a good science fiction film NEEDS to see this as soon as possible.
MaryAnn:
Anyone who doesn't believe that you should have to turn your brain off when you step into the multiplex will love this as a cinematic experience. And anyone who wants to see where film is headed needs to see this, because Cuaron is the future, in a lot of ways. Not only will his name be far better known than it is now among more casual movie fans, but we're going to see attempts to recreate his eclectic style. It won't work, because his is a unique voice, but wannabes are gonna be trying anyway.
Thanks, MaryAnn and Cargill!
MaryAnn Johanson contributes her geeky movie and TV insight to Film.com twice a day.
Austin-based Cargill, who "not only loves, but owns, The Cutting Edge," writes on movies and DVD two times a week.
