Children of Men

Children of Men (2006)

Boston Common Theater, Boston, MA

January 27, 2007

*** / ****

by Scott Muoio

Children of Men is a brutally violent and disheartening movie. It depicts the world of 2027 as hopeless, tearing itself apart as one giant hateful cross-section of fascist governments and their destructive, corrupt law enforcement arms versus political idealists equally despotic and violent. In the middle, the majority of the world’s population, “immigrants,” a proletariat so far gone it would make Karl Marx blush. Along for the ride is Clive Owen, he of the permanent five o’clock shadow and sulking sincerity, who must escort the first pregnant woman in 18 years (Clare-Hope Ashitey) through a hellish nightmare world to the mysterious enigma of tomorrow’s future: The Human Project.

All seems well and good as far as dystopian movies go but Children of Men quickly develops a problem that compounds as the movie pessimistically charges ahead: it brings up lots of questions but answers very, very few. Humans have been sterile for 18 years, but why? The movie mentions environmental factors as a possible cause, but never ventures past this cursory response. The world is one gigantic ghetto save London where suicide via the mass-marketed drug Quietus is run-of-the mill, but what is it that this decayed city is even fighting to protect from the “immigrants”? Well, we see that the immigrant slums are far worse than the protected city but with the whole infertility thing and ever-escalating reduction in population why not just restart in some remote rural setting? The more I think about the world Children of Men portrays the more I find it misguided and the more I see it as a greater possible result of over-population than world wide sterility.

And what’s with all those animals with the hots for Owen? Sure, it makes sense that humans have taken more of an interest in pets as a pseudo-replacement for children, but why their overwhelming interest in Owen in particular? And why do we see their charred carcasses lying in open fields still smoldering? The movie never even throws us a hint. While the details director Alfonso Cuaron imbelishes the story with are certainly interesting, without any explanation they are more frustrating than clever.

Finally, what’s with the silly name, Children of Men? With a name like that you might imagine we’d be greeted with an ending where perhaps men have evolved to bear children or something similarly odd and provocative, but with this movie why would we expect anything so trivial as an ending to wrap anything up? And indeed, the movie looks at the choices it has made so far (silly inconclusive symbolism and blown-out-of-proportion sight gags) and chooses these more frustrating options for its conclusion.

All this and still I recommend Children of Men. Yes, the movie is disappointing and presents a scenario where perhaps a half dozen or more tangential stories would be more entertaining and fulfilling. And yes, the film sets up a scenario begging for a big philosophical revelation and never delivers even a murmur of such a thing. But despite those flaws, Children of Men is an imaginatively ambitious, well-crafted dystopia even as it remorselessly leaves us hanging throughout, frustrated and angry yet undeniably pensive. It also contains stupendous hand-held camera work, cinematography, and chillingly realistic and frightening sets. Add to that the most frighteningly horrific chase scene I have ever witnessed and it is a shame the lingering, open-ended nature of the film never quite gets to a point that satisfies. There is brilliance behind this work, but this is not a brilliant film.