I was content to simply sit with the religious imagery in a godless film. So content, I haven't even read the book. But for once here's an article I wholly agree with. Your insight on the tension unresolved has taken the scales from my eyes.
Children of Men is one of the only movies I mention when asked what a favorite is. I've seen it twice, and scenes and dialogue from it are easy to recall.
Also, could we get this line into the immigration discourse?
- "The primary reason that refugees and other migrants move from one country to another, however is to seek a better life for themselves and their children. By contrast, the primary concern of immigration restrictionists is that such migrants will reduce the quality of life for their children."
Theo means God, who dies to achieve the redemption/salvation . . . at the discovery of the pregnancy, two different characters blurt out, "Jesus Christ" . . . the rescue ship is named Tomorrow (which never arrives in the material world) . . . the cease fire scene mirrors the entry into the world by Christ, and the world's resumption of its 'rebellion against God' . . . the leap of faith is narrated in the scene: "Human project? Real?" "It better be." . . . the film is packed with Christian resonance
I don't disagree about the "doctus ex machina" ending, but Roger Ebert had a different view: “The [birth crisis] is simply a dramatic device to avoid actual politics while showing how the world is slipping away from civility and co-existence. The film is not really about children.” So if you take the movie on its own terms it doesn’t quite work, but if you disregard some of the terms, it works better: you can basically ignore the ending.
I got the uncanny feeling as I reached the end of this film review, that it was written because the phrase "a prophetic film that doesn’t believe its own prophecy" had popped into the author’s head, he fell in love with it and he needed to write something about it.
I don't believe that a film ever has to match up with a book that it is based on. The film may draw inspiration, but decide to go in a different direction, sometimes completely different. Salo by Pasolini is an example of a film that does not match up, in that case with The 100 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade.
As environmental dystopia is a backdrop for the film, the concept of "radical hope" is a posture to be considered. This concept, explored by thinkers like Jonathan Lear, suggests that even in the face of profound adversity and despair, one can choose to act with hope, embracing the uncertainty of the future and striving for a better outcome, even when the path is not clear. This doesn't mean denying the bleak realities but rather acknowledging them and still choosing to move forward, to resist the urge to give up, and to act in a way that suggests hope for a more just future. It is a secular idea, in as much as hope can ever be secular (I believe that hope can be either secular or religious or a bit of both on a semantic level, and by definition it is ideological, from a dialectical materialist stance).
The concept was something that I was holding in my head as I watched the film. David Polansky seems not to have done so. If he did, he might have written a different review, because imho he may have missed something. I find it is an otherwise thoughtful review.
I appreciate this reflection and I hope it encourages more people to read the book, which is really incredible. Sometimes I assume if I saw a film I won't get much out of going back to read the source material (sometimes true!) but in this case that would be quite a shame.
Cuarón has stated in interviews that he was inspired by the synopsis of the book and could see the whole story in his head so he intentionally decided not to read the book in order to avoid losing confidence in his vision. His film is much more concerned with immigration and the treatment of refugees, and I think there is a lot to appreciate about it on its own merits. He does capture some aspects of the spiritual malaise that permeates the novel, but I think James's version reaches much deeper into the soul. Her final paragraph is one of the most perfect endings I've ever read, down to the very last word.
As others have commented here, and made note of particular moments that I won't repeat, Children of Men's depictions of religious faith are conspicuous in the film. I'm puzzled by this review.
I saw the film before I read the book. I didn’t like it! It came across as rather ridiculous. The book is much stronger and more coherent.The movie didn’t strike me as being “ about “ much of anything.
I was content to simply sit with the religious imagery in a godless film. So content, I haven't even read the book. But for once here's an article I wholly agree with. Your insight on the tension unresolved has taken the scales from my eyes.
Children of Men is one of the only movies I mention when asked what a favorite is. I've seen it twice, and scenes and dialogue from it are easy to recall.
Also, could we get this line into the immigration discourse?
- "The primary reason that refugees and other migrants move from one country to another, however is to seek a better life for themselves and their children. By contrast, the primary concern of immigration restrictionists is that such migrants will reduce the quality of life for their children."
Talk about a clarifying summary of the problem!
Theo means God, who dies to achieve the redemption/salvation . . . at the discovery of the pregnancy, two different characters blurt out, "Jesus Christ" . . . the rescue ship is named Tomorrow (which never arrives in the material world) . . . the cease fire scene mirrors the entry into the world by Christ, and the world's resumption of its 'rebellion against God' . . . the leap of faith is narrated in the scene: "Human project? Real?" "It better be." . . . the film is packed with Christian resonance
I don't disagree about the "doctus ex machina" ending, but Roger Ebert had a different view: “The [birth crisis] is simply a dramatic device to avoid actual politics while showing how the world is slipping away from civility and co-existence. The film is not really about children.” So if you take the movie on its own terms it doesn’t quite work, but if you disregard some of the terms, it works better: you can basically ignore the ending.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/children-of-men-2007
I got the uncanny feeling as I reached the end of this film review, that it was written because the phrase "a prophetic film that doesn’t believe its own prophecy" had popped into the author’s head, he fell in love with it and he needed to write something about it.
I don't believe that a film ever has to match up with a book that it is based on. The film may draw inspiration, but decide to go in a different direction, sometimes completely different. Salo by Pasolini is an example of a film that does not match up, in that case with The 100 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade.
As environmental dystopia is a backdrop for the film, the concept of "radical hope" is a posture to be considered. This concept, explored by thinkers like Jonathan Lear, suggests that even in the face of profound adversity and despair, one can choose to act with hope, embracing the uncertainty of the future and striving for a better outcome, even when the path is not clear. This doesn't mean denying the bleak realities but rather acknowledging them and still choosing to move forward, to resist the urge to give up, and to act in a way that suggests hope for a more just future. It is a secular idea, in as much as hope can ever be secular (I believe that hope can be either secular or religious or a bit of both on a semantic level, and by definition it is ideological, from a dialectical materialist stance).
The concept was something that I was holding in my head as I watched the film. David Polansky seems not to have done so. If he did, he might have written a different review, because imho he may have missed something. I find it is an otherwise thoughtful review.
You just gotta turn it off before the ship shows up.
The film was "an act of vandalism" on a great novel:
https://firstthings.com/sacramone-children-of-men/
I appreciate this reflection and I hope it encourages more people to read the book, which is really incredible. Sometimes I assume if I saw a film I won't get much out of going back to read the source material (sometimes true!) but in this case that would be quite a shame.
Cuarón has stated in interviews that he was inspired by the synopsis of the book and could see the whole story in his head so he intentionally decided not to read the book in order to avoid losing confidence in his vision. His film is much more concerned with immigration and the treatment of refugees, and I think there is a lot to appreciate about it on its own merits. He does capture some aspects of the spiritual malaise that permeates the novel, but I think James's version reaches much deeper into the soul. Her final paragraph is one of the most perfect endings I've ever read, down to the very last word.
As others have commented here, and made note of particular moments that I won't repeat, Children of Men's depictions of religious faith are conspicuous in the film. I'm puzzled by this review.
I saw the film before I read the book. I didn’t like it! It came across as rather ridiculous. The book is much stronger and more coherent.The movie didn’t strike me as being “ about “ much of anything.