It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Well, it shows images from the last minute or so of the film, so I’d say that constitutes a spoiler.
It also shows the fates of several characters, if you’re quick enough to catch the images.
For anyone who hasn’t seen this film, I suggest you watch and read absolutely nothing about it and go see it RIGHT NOW.
I’m starting to think we may see Cuaron or Del Tor or both nominated for best director (but not picture), while Innaritu will probably be nominated for both. So if all three get nominated, which two get left out, Eastwood, Condon or Frears?
Yes, if you have not seen the film and plan to, do NOT watch the above promo.
I saw the movie last night and while I liked it very much, this will not do much to help it out. The shot selections seem arbitrary, there’s no dialogue, and for the blurbs, is that they best they could find? ‘Masterpiece of misery’ wouldn’t get me excited, if I was an Oscar voter.
I don’t get the ‘goes viral’ joke that DP is laughing at.
I see Little Miss Sunshine as the “Picture Without Director” nominee this year, with either Cuaron or Del Toro (more likely Cuaron, because the Academy ain’t going to take a guy whose prior recent credits include “Blade II” and “Hellboy” seriously) getting that empty slot. Next would be Frears, since the film reads less as a directorial achievement than an acting/writing one.
Also, I’m starting to have doubts about Iwo Jima making the cut. While it’s clearly got very strong support among critics, I’m not sure if that translates to support among Academy voters. Also, even though “Pan’s” is wider, it’s out-PSAing Iwo Jima.
I just saw CHILDREN OF MEN today and liked it a whole helluva lot. I really want to see it again because I found myself getting lost in those amazing long takes and not paying attention to the story as much as I should have been.
When I left the theater I couldn’t get past the feeling that we’re in the midst of another great revolution in filmmaking ala the 70’s and 90’s…only this time it’s the Mexican New Wave. Although BABEL isn’t in my best of for the year, it’s still pretty great. PAN’S LABYRINTH and CHILDREN OF MEN are just plain special. Can’t wait to see whatever these guys come up with next…except for HELLBOY 2.
The first words out of my friends mouth when the credits rolled were “Director’s nomination, and best adapted screenplay… Easy.”
He’s right. Cuaron directed the SHIT out of this film, and it actually does build very well on the more classically sci-fi book.
Oh, and the “Bleakest film you’ll want to see twice” line couldn’t be more true.
As much as I love me some Jarvis Cocker, and think his song “Cunts are Ruling the World” is pretty darn great, surely this guy could’ve chosen a more appropriate song? Right? Like, one of the arias from the film or something?
I really want both Greengrass and Cuaron to get Director nominations, but know it’s almost impossible. If Greengrass’ film somehow snags a BP spot and a BD spot then I can’t see Cuaron making it for a lone director spot. Ugh. Damn these guys trying to compete with Oscar hogs.
*shrug*
Running the World is the last track on the Parental Advisory labeled original score. Again, this is why CoM was so hard to advertise in the first place. It is simply at its best when it can be the R-Rated feature it was designed to be.
We really are in the middle of discombombulated movie hell.
Can anyone else imagine the ‘single take’ version of the cavern scene near the end of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince if Cuaron were to direct it? Damn, give the man the franchise back.
my DGA predictions:
Condon
Cuaron
Eastwood
Innaritu
Scorsese
with del Toro as a possible spoiler to knock out Eastwood–but I think Eastwood has too much clout and love not be nominated.
What exactly did Cuaron do in those ‘single-take’ shots that hadn’t already been done in Panic Room or War of the Worlds, among others?…
I prefered the song when it had it’s entire name still attached and not the PG title like it does now.
I wonder if Bill O’Reilly or Michael Medved et al will have anything to say if the DGA nominees are 40% Mexican.
How are they burying a movie that just made $10 million this weekend and will likely be the #3 movie with only a moderate expansion? That comes from Universal’s marketing department and the tons of money they spent on ads that ran everywhere. I think they’ve done a good job *not* burying it and I’d be really surprised if it doesn’t expand even more this weekend.
It could have easily made $5mil and then vanished forever. Alas, it turns out some people still want their sci-fi with a brain.
Hey Jeff, the real question is what will Lou Dobbs say!
movielocke, I’m not sure about the cavern, but the Felix Felicis potion and ending chase over the school grounds with Snape & Harry are pure one shot material.
Cuaron however at this point is holding out to direct the last movie, not the sixth.
mutinyco, there were special camera devices and setups made just for CoM so that the creators could use real locations at all times, unlike War of the Worlds. In pure length and technicalities, it will be hard to top CoM in those departments.
EDouglas, people are used to these types of movies opening in March or April in the 20s, and then finishing in the 70s. Why it was released in ALL foreign markets over the last four months, skipping crucial North American media and internet buzz, is a big question mark for others.
The question was rhetorical.
Besides, my point was, conceptually there’s not much of a difference. We’re still talking about shootin segments, then digitally seaming them together. Yes, it’s technically impressive that it was done in a car or out in the street. But it’s not impressive in concept, becuase I’ve seen it before.
Why does it have to be “any different” mutinyco? Can’t they all just be really great and highly enjoyable?
Sure. My bigest argument with the way this film is being treated is that it really doesn’t do anything I haven’t seen before. The ideas are nothing new to dystopian futures. The long tracking shots have been done in at least the two movies mentioned above. And even the idea of shooting handheld without typical coverage has been done (Mr. Lazarescu, where are you?).
I think the media were sold those shots and Cuaron talked up his artistic intent, and the media bit into a nice…sandwhich, so to speak.
“I think the media were sold those shots and Cuaron talked up his artistic intent, and the media bit into a nice…sandwhich, so to speak.”
Not being part of the media, I wouldn’t know. But when I saw the movie in September, I went in completely cold. I hadn’t read any reviews or watched a single trailer, and I only had a vague idea of what the movie was even about (sci-fi, everyone’s infertile, Clive Owen and a pregnant lady).
Upon seeing it, I was convinced it was one of the best films I’d ever seen. Still am. As far as I’m concerned, the shots sold themselves, and Cuaron’s artistic intent is clear throughout. I didn’t need to be fed that by Universal’s marketing people, and while I can’t speak for all the press, I don’t think it’s fair to paint them all with that brush.
The movie has yet to rise above being lightweight for me.
I think you just didn’t like the movie and are looking for any and everything to grouse about it.
That said, I think the one-shot-in-a-car thing was perhaps better done in War of the Worlds – there was something a little awkward about he practical camera rig in the Children of Men shot.
I didn’t dislike it. I was just very underwhelmed in relation to the critical fellatio taking place (along with all the blog plants talking it up). If nobody else was going to question the praise, might as well be me.
Well, I agree that it’s not the greatest movie ever made, too.
Common ground!
I’ve seen the questioning of praise in many discussions, but in the end the main complaint is that the ending was either too hot, or too cold. That and it didn’t play out like a speak-and-spell exposition fest.
I was never totally sold on the War of the Worlds one-shot because I doubted the highway could be cleared that well in such a small amount of time. Oh well.
I’ve seen War of the Worlds and Panic Room and I vaguely remembers a long shot around a car in the former. I don’t remember anything specific about the camerawork in Panic Room.
When I saw Children of Men, my jaw was on the floor during two shots. I felt, and still feel, they were the most impressive feats of single-take action I’ve ever seen in a movie.
The cinematography throughout the film is on such a high level, I’m hard-pressed to come up with any rivals to the throne. And it was not done to show off. The camerawork involves you in the action to a degree I’ve never experienced in a war film, action film or drama before.
It also allows the environment to play almost as big a role as the characters (this is something the film shares in common with the brilliant Y Tu Mama Tambien). Cuaron shows so much through his lens without telegraphing anything.
You don’t remember the shots in War of the Worlds and Panic Room exactly because they weren’t done to show off. You remember (and were aware of) the shots in Children of Men because they did call attention to themselves.
Go rewatch the two other movies.
Hey Mutinyco, why don’t you save us the four hours it would take to watch both of those movies by mentioning what you think is so vital about both of them? What I remember about WotW is a lot of steadicam and that one car shot. What I remember about Panic Room, which I saw once upon its initial release and never felt a need to see again, was a lot of Fincheresque CGI swooping around ducts and through keyholes – which is _very_ self-concious.
Very simple. People are acting as if they’ve never seen long takes, or takes that digitally splice together pieces of shots before. And, having seen it before, I don’t see what the big fuss is.
Yes, War had the car shot. Panic Room had the elaborate break-in shot combining dollies, booms, CGI, etc.
Neither of those movies wore those shots on their sleeves. Chiildren does. Cuaron/Chivo deserve compliments for the practicality of the car, for sure. (In fact, the car shot reminded me of Karma Police) But they do very much stand out. I just feel that, like the movie itself, the hype is out of whack.
Panic Room definitely wore its shooting style on its sleeve.
I loved the long take car chase shot in WAR OF THE WORLDS and distinctly remember wondering “how the hell did they do that!?!?!” But, the one in CoM is just all around a better shot in terms of how it’s done and how it fits. Same for the other long take where Owen is going into the building.
All that being said, CoM isn’t life changing or “the best movie” *I* ever saw. I’m firmly behind those who think it is-as in, I can’t argue because I loved the film…but it’s wasn’t thatgreat…
I said ‘shots’ not ‘shooting style.’
Okay, Panic Room definitely wore its shooting style AND its shots on its sleeve. Better?
What’s more interesting than simply arguing over which shot is cooler is the reasoning behind the shot creation.
Cuaron has taken a very Tarkovskian approach to how and why he conceived the shots — to me, that’s far more intriguing than the technical coolness of it (admittedly, they’re quite cool).
I hope you didn’t throw out your back.
Long takes were the norm back in the old days, and directors like Hawks, Ford, Preston Sturges, Cukor, and of course Hitchcock and Welles used them often; we just seldom notice because we’re so absorbed by the actors and what they’re saying and doing. Peter Bogdanovich (also a practitioner) relates that when he once asked Preminger why he favored long takes, the director replied, “Because every cut is an interruption!” Too bad most of today’s directors don’t share that philosophy.
War of the Worlds and Panic Room wear their shooting styles/shots on their sleeves is such a cumbersome manner that it should render their arms immobile. Cameras breaking with physics by going through closed windows and the handles of teapots blow any sense of suspended disbelief and become elaborate computer-programmed cumshots. Just like Matrix Reloaded dropped the ball during what should have been a landmark highway chase scene by tipping its digital hat and sending the camera and stunt vehicles through clearly GCI debris. You lost any sense of danger by knowing everything you were watching was harmlessly, digitally rendered. Children of Men seamlessly throws a carful of actors into what at least appears to be practical explosives, gunshots and incredibly dangerous but beautifully executed motorcycle stunts. And Zemeckis already did the in-and-out of the not-really-a-car-at-all thing in What Lies Beneath. Cuaron’s accomplishment lies as much in planning and choreography as it does the “trick” photography of the disappearing edit.
The car is impressive, but not nearly as much as the battle sequence at the end of the film — the scale of planning and executing that shot is mindblowing, even though it was several shots digitally combined.
Nobody said the CoM shots were unimpressive. They’re just not as revelatory as the hype is suggesting, regardless of the physics. Where I break is the action in King Kong or LOtR, where everything is CGI to the point of feeling like a video game. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum, there’s something like Russian Ark, where you’ve got 90 minutes of uninterrupted Stedicam. If you want to get into long takes.
This is starting to slide into semantics.
I sort of feel CoM was made by somebody not terribly interested in sci-fi for people not terribly interested in sci-fi generally. Maybe that’s loaded.
May or may not be loaded, but it definitely demands a little more elaboration. It wasn’t really a ‘sci-fi’ movie in that it didn’t have a lot of gadgets or aliens or robots or whatnot, if those are the things you’re missing.
I think the movie was interested in sci-fi only as a MacGuffin, basically. And I think the reason so many critics are talking about its “ideas” is because it was pitched to them as more a social allegory from the start. Which is fine.
Normally critics don’t get so enthusiastically behind sci-fi thrillers. And for me, this movie didn’t really deal with anything I haven’t seen before or contemplated before. So, by downplaying the genre and talking about the social allegory, I think the filmmakers kind of took a clever tract by convincing critics this was something more than it was — which to me, was kind of a rehash of dystopian ideas and aesthetics. And by not being terribly interested in sci-fi beyond the initial setup I think the filmmakers missed a lot of opportunities for creative exploration of their topic.
I agree with most of what you say, but the filmmakers’ topic was to explore what it looks like when civilization crumbles. I don’t know how more sci-fi concepts would have improved that. And no, none of the movie’s concepts are all that original, since they all boil to ‘things are going to suck pretty hard’, but I think it’s the execution and presentation of that world, in experiential form, that most people are responding to.
The other thing. The movie seemed to have no interest in technology. And for something set several decades in the future, the lack of technology, aside from cliche monitors and billboards, was a bit odd. I would think that a wretched society like that would use all of the technology possible as a crutch, not unlike how A.I. portrayed human reliance — a reliance that ultimately gave birth to our successors once we’d gone extinct. Whether you think A.I. worked entirely on a dramatic level is certainly debatable. But in terms of issues and the depiction of humanity facing its end, it strikes me as much more cogently observed. These things happen over a period of time. Not all at once.
I agree that there’s not that much that’s special about long tracking shots anymore. Although, my favourite recently was the opening scene of 2005’s Pride and Prejudice. A wonderful introduction to the film, the characters and it’s setting.
I will say that I didn’t really notice the long tracking shots in Children of Men until the one at the end.
I could care less if a movie is “truly” sci-fi or truly horror or whatever. Is Jaws a horror movie? I don’t know… you could make the argument either way. But it’s a GREAT movie, and that’s what counts.
Children of Men is set in the future and has the premise that human beings are infertile. By definition, I guess that makes it sci-fi. Thematically, it is very much about the world we live in today (which is true of much good science fiction). Plot-wise, it doesn’t deal much with the science fiction elements, but I don’t see why it should. That’s the least interesting part of the film.
As for the long takes, this has been Cuaron’s style for some time. Y Tu Mama Tambien has several multiple minute takes, including one that is shot from the outside of a moving car. He is very much interested in exploring the environments characters move through, and the perspective of his camera serves almost as another character in the film, turning away from the main actors to look at action to the side of the frame (think of the two dead cops, the people in cages, the woman cradling her dead husband).
This camera character (is it the viewer? the filmmaker?) is IN that car throughout the whole ambush. It is WITH Theo as he crosses that battlefield to save Key. It is present for the entirety of the baby’s birth. Cuts would minimize that effect.
The camera as character — moving away from the main action — worked fine in Y tu mama tambien. It showed the world surrounding the self-centered characters and was often accompanied by narration. It didn’t work here. It broke the moment and called attention to things that were already in plain sight for the most part.
In fact, if you read the American Cinematographer article, Chivo argued against it and still thinks that was a bad decision.
Worked splendidly for me, in both films.
Re: lack of technology, this was probably done (a) to illustrate the lack of progress or forward-momentum in the society depicted, a stagnant world with little technological development, and (b) to not be distracting. Cuaron wants the world of the movie to look as much like our own world as possible.
A.I. didn’t have a lot of technology present in that world either, aside from the obvious robots.
Otherwise, have to agree to disagree.
The whole point of A.I. was technology. And our relationship to it. And how it will survive us.
The lack of technology in CoM wasn’t believable. I would think technology would be even more pronounced in a rotting future as a means of overcompensation.
First of all, we’re talking about 20 years from now. Do you think we’ll all be picking up robotic hookers in flying cars in two decades?
Second, the world has clearly been in turmoil, even before the infertility. Do you think technology in Middle Eastern war zones today is up to the standards of technology in Silicone Valley? Constant conflict stifles technological advancemments.
I think the lack of technology was totally purposeful. Since the youngest living human was 18 and the film was set in 2027, it would be around our current time that infertility swept the world. What’s the point of creating new technology if the whole race is going kaput?
I would think most people would want to find a cure for infertility or find a way to cheer up rather than create the Playstation 9.
Just the opposite. Conflict in the Middle East is going to provide many of the most important technological breakthroughs — designed by the US military and it subcontractors — that we’ll have for the next 20 years.
And I’m not talking about hookers in flying cars. Though I’d dig that. No, I’m talking about basic day to day technologies. Things that supposedly make our routines easier. Things that point to how great humans can be at creating things. Technologies that make humans feel more important and advanced than they are. Like they always do.
Pet –
Human denial. Humans would never accept that they’re going to be extinct.
Besides, if you erase procreation (morality) from sex, I’d think the market for pornography and mechanical sexual devices would explode.
In a world without children, they might.
And do you really think the world 20 years from now will look substantially different from the world today? Especially in a war zone? This seems like such nit-picky stuff!
And how many of those important Mideast technological breakthroughs do we have right now, in this country? In the middle of World War II, there was rationing and shortages – not new gizmos for the home consumer.
Yes. They have pets because they don’t have robot hookers. And they’re cheaper.
A.I. was about technology, yes, but aside from the robots and the flying cars, there was very little gizmo-related technology in it. About as much as CoM.
So one of your primary problems with the film was the lack of an Orgasmatron? 🙂
LOL, Melquiades.
Jeff, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
If it had an Orgasmatron I’d go back for seconds.
Yes I do. That s— was funny.
But seriously: explain what I don’t know, because obviously I don’t know it.
the above YouTube has spoilers, yeah, but they would go over most peeps heads unless the movie was already seen, then they are pretty easy to catch.
99.9% species have gone extinct in the last ~3 billion years, so humans will be no different, we aren;t generalists like horseshoe crabs. It is a matter of how we approach the end that will be interesting/critical–or if there will be a genuine wish to prevent it that’s pervasive at all societal levels. I’d like to be optimistic. But then I’ve seen what Medicin sans frontieres has to work with when I worked abroad, or I see 10 minutes of inane Fox news commentary in the USA and I can;t be so optimistic.
I liked the adaptation even though it missed some nuances of the book, inevitable given how much tweaking it had in ‘development’.
at least “I cared” by the end, can;t say I cared about too many movie characters this year, except Lino Ventura & SImone Signoret who really rocked L’Arm
Sorry. You’re on your own.
If you can’t explain why I’m wrong…then by default, I’m right.
Faced!
But seriously again: if you’re interested in communicating your ideas, I’ll listen. Stubborn silence gets nobody anywhere.
Ever hear the saying: necessity is the mother of invention? This movie’s scenario has got a hell of a lot of necessity.
A society’s status is based upon it’s technology. If Britain in the future is considered a success, it would certainly have an advanced sense of technology.
To create a situation like this film does and not explore how muhans are using technology to make their lives better is, in my opinion, irresponsible. It’s just that obvious an area of exploration.
BTW/God bless the military, Jeff. Otherwise we wouldn’t have this wonderful internet to communiate with.
Besides, if humans can’t reproduce, and derive pride from their offspring,,,well, something’s going to have to take its place.
Britain in the future is only, it would seem, a success relative to the rest of the world. And even then, it’s teetering on the brink.
The internet started development decades ago. So by that logic, whatever advances are currently happening in Iraq would just now be filtering to the populace in 2027.
I think it’s wrong to say the movie is ‘irresponsible’ for not doing what you suggest; that’s a different movie, not this one. You could argue that your theoretical movie is more interesting or rigorous, but that’s a different topic of discussion from talking about what this movie actually is or says or does.
You already answered your 7:33 post at 6:59.
“if humans can’t reproduce, and derive pride from their offspring,,,well, something’s going to have to take its place”
yeah, they’ll take our places:
simple plants(archaea) and animals(sub-surface bacteria) that have hidden from exposure to our current world for more than 3 billion years–they’ll outlive us as species.
GM organisms (bacteria) are more tuned in to our ‘present’ environment that we are.
A number of insects and Arachnids–At least many seem to have a high resistance to high energy UV, heavy nuclei, and chemicals (not abating, and on the increase).
This thread has become incredibly infertile.
I’m signing out.
Mutiny-I find it ironic that you say: “A society’s status is based upon it’s technology. If Britain in the future is considered a success, it would certainly have an advanced sense of technology.”
Clearly, Britain is the last man standing…it’s not “a success.” It’s a shithole. It is, as you mentioned a dystopia. It’s the worst society ever. If a societies staus is truly based on it’s technological advances then Cuaron got it dead right because Britain in CoM is horrendous.
I’m starting to think your issue with the film, mutiny, is that you don’t like it simply because you “wouldn’t have done it that way.” That’s my least favorite kind of criticism. It’s just…lame and rude. That’s like me looking at one of your shorts and reowrking it to a way I would like in my criticism of it. What’s the point?
it isn;t infertile at all. also, the assertion
“the lack of technology, aside from cliche monitors and billboards, was a bit odd. I would think that a wretched society like that would use all of the technology possible as a crutch”
is a interesting one, in that poorer parts of the world that I have been in seem to be slipping into a De-evolution of technology since they can;t afford the new basics. Maybe parts of the world including subcultures of our own country are slipping into Dickensian times, comparatively.
low technology for reasons of not being to afford the basic “interface”
…and infertility (naturally and by Selection) continues to rise in Europe & USA at younger ages which is a little worrying
“infertility (naturally and by Selection) continues to rise in Europe & USA at younger ages which is a little worrying”
As long as it doesn’t go as far as it has gotten in the movie, this sounds like a beneficial trend – fewer teenage mothers.
prime age for the drop–20-28, Jeff
I still don’t see how that’s a problem, especially for women choosing to postpone child-bearing…this is one of the hallmarks of modern economic development.
No Jeff, it is a real problem. What statisticians are finding is that due to the fact that a) fewer European women are choosing to have children and 2) those that do are having only one it means European cuture as we know it is actually slowly dwindling away.
Younger people are not having children in rates that compensates for older generations dying off. Of course all of this does not happen over night, but over the course of generations.
The novel Children of Men was actually explicitly written to address this problem. Of course the movie couldn’t really care about it and just turns into another left-wing wank fest (sorry to break it to the fans); but it is a much more serious problem then perhaps you care to admit.
The novel is very different from the film and has different goals…you should read it.
Nicol, I am aware of the demographic and labor issues of which you speak. But when you say “European culture is slowly dwindling away” why does it make me think that what you’re really saying is “not enough white people” ?
I’m curious to hear you elaborate on ‘wank fest’, but I don’t read a lot of fiction these days, so the book will have to wait.
Sorry, that was probably unnecessarily provocative…but I don’t know what else to say about ‘European culture is dwindling away’. That’s a problem for European parents and doesn’t concern me, and is an obvious result of centuries of economic development, and female reproductive empowerment and economic parity, and happens in every nation on the planet when they reach a certain stage of development. Even India’s population growth is shrinking, currently less than 2%/year.
i said infertility not choice. There is a bimodal distribution of births in most countries with very young women having kids, then another peak at ~35, so that’s the choice & accidents, but in the big cities of industrialized nations (Europe, Japan, USA) there is a growing problem with low sperm count in males, and infertility in women as well which is why fertility clinics have been growing since late 1980s as a medical industry (that and plastic surgery).
anything you don;t like seems to be a left wing wank fest Nicol.
future dystopia is here, and it wasn;t brought on by “left wing” anything–they don;t run things. last time I checked the pinkos and Marxists didn;t have many seats in HR (they have one) or in the Senate (zero).
Yes Nicol has made it perfectly clear that anything he does not like is automatically a “left-wing wank fest.”
you know what mutinyco, get off this thread, go outside, get a real job, stop living on friends’ couches, stop thinking of everything in terms of how it compares to spielberg or fincher and recognize that there is a war on which is disengaged from the general public with no clear purpose or reason which has caused two starkly opposing extremist ideologies to entrench themselves further, which has not led to any technlogical advances as it was underfunded and subcontracted (that’d be great if DARPA had been devising new body armor but it’s up to families to buy kevlar vests at home and hopefully ceramic plates). Know that our interntational reputation as a force of good in the world is in tatters, our democracy is in tatters, and cherry blossoms are blooming in Brooklyn in January. In other words, think about life and reality instead of relating everything in the universe to Spielberg and Fincher. Stop living on friends’ couches and think past movies. Then maybe you’d understand the iconographic relevance of Children of Men, its summation of mood and feeling that a lot of people have, an absence of hope and eschatological fear for lack of a future.
And btw that shot in War of the World was absolute gimmicky b.s. that served no purpose and I remember it from the movie because it was wholly pointless. Panic Room was Home Alone gone bad with way too many animatics beforehand. Children of Men’s one take car shot was absolutely stunning not just for its audacity and choreography but for pointing out the safety of a cut – the ability to blink, rephrase, recenter, and take in from a different point of view. This time you’re trapped in that car and when violence erupts and someone comes to harm there’s no safety or reframing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a shot which has made me more stuck between film geek appreciation and total engagement with what’s going on at the same time.
The film radically and sometimes reactionarily changes the grammar we’ve become way too used to – minimal edits, no traditional A and B, no real closeups, unmotivated direction, very little artifical lighting. And Chivo doesn’t say he still thinks it’s bad; he’s just uncertain now.
Likewise your attempts to narrowly define scifi are what has kept such a relevant and ubiquitious genre continually defined as a sort of literary ghetto not worth serious study. We’re way past that hangover. Only the really nerdy persist in viewing it still as a domain obsessed with constraints.
It’s funny that you think we’ve all fallen for something heedlessly when I know for an absolute fact looking at your work you will never deliver a single shot as impressive as any single one in CoM. Anyone who’s a filmmaker who doesn’t recognize at least the attempt and absolute gutsy skill shown off here is jealous and or daunted.
Well said, otakuhouse.
Does anybody know if this American Cinematographer article exists anywhere online? I checked their site but couldn’t find it.
Damn, Otak…sick em! Too bad mutinyco sensed the end of his reasoning and bailed on the convo yesterday.
Also,
Nicol D. = Armond White. I know it’s you Mondy!!
I loved the movie, though I admit I’ve been predisposed to do so since I heard Cuaron talking about it last summer.
In the first half hour, I really liked all the things you saw on the periphery of the screen — the old newspaper headlines, what was on the TV sets, etc. And I thought it was very telling that the only things that appeared to be working well, by our standards were advertising and the military.
I am surprised that even Nicol would consider this movie a ‘left wing wank fest’ — the ‘left’ in the film are portrayed as terrorist fanatics.
Otakuhouse. I should be mature enough to let this slide. I am. But that would deprive me of having a little fun during lunch.
You seem to know me. I do not know who you are. You are hiding. This makes you a pussy. A sagging Dumbo-eared labia pussy.
I know very well what’s going on in this world. I live in it. And it’s pretty much all I think about. And have thought about since whenever. And if you knew anything more about me and my work than you do, which apparently isn’t much, you’d know this.
Now then. I haven’t launched a single personal attack on Alfonso Cuaron, Chivo, or anybody else associated with Children of Men. I’ve liked their work in the past. I have maintained that the picture isn’t bad, that the shots are impressive. Just that in no way shape or form does the picture or those shots approach the critical shrill currently reverberating throughout the media. It doesn’t. It’s an okay B-movie. But as certain critics have pointed out, including Poland, this movie doesn’t have any serious ideas and it only works as a thriller. Like I said, issues like the ones presented in this movie are pretty much where my head is. And that’s why none of this is interesting to me. It’s not new. It doesn’t explore them. And the setup doesn’t work, not because there isn’t exposition to justify it — a movie can survive that — but because in its absence one cannot logically fill in the blanks. The setup is an impossibility as it’s presented. The only reason this movie is getting noticed by critics is the timing. We’re far enough along in the War on Terror and Iraq that the uncertainty has finally seriously permeated people’s thoughts. However, a year earlier, when Spielberg (oh, my God, a Spielberg reference) used similar imagery in War of the Worlds he was criticized for it. The fact remains, War is probably the most conceptually audacious film so far this decade — a bleak, fatalistic commentary not just on the collapsing world around us and humanity’s extinction, whether by aliens, terrorists or micro organisms, but a juxtaposition of these real world fears against what we typically associate with blockbuster movies and entertainment.
Now, your post was really nothing more than a right-wing Limbaugh-type attack on me and my character. Because neither you nor anybody else has yet to refute any of the arguments I’ve posted here or at Risky. And boy are you taking a disagreement over a movie personally. This makes YOUR argument a steaming pile of ass juice. If you’d like to debate the movie’s merits fine. You come after me, though, because you have nothing to say.
Children of Men is not what it’s been billed as. And I’m glad I said so. Somebody had to.
Lota, you said ‘infertility (naturally and by selection)’. I still don’t see how infertility in industrialized countries is a social or ‘dystopic’ problem except for those couples afflicted by it; there would seem to be more than enough children for such people to adopt.
The one Socialist in the House of Representatives got elected to the Senate a couple months ago, BTW.
it is a dystopic problem in that it is a health problem, even though yes there are too many people having kids they either don;t want &/or don;t care for. Infertility is one of the first signs of many types of environmental ‘poisoning’–it affects many wildlife species already, since the late 1800s which is why many species have disappeared since then.
forgot about Bernie S getting into the Senate. There goes the neighborhood. He;s a nice man. I used to talk to him for a past job. He and Mark Hatfiled (a Republican, but still a lefty to me and in his social deeds) were very good statesmen to work with and looked beyond “no new taxes” nonsense and cared something for the future.
Well in a sense, then, human infertility is a good thing because it’ll make more people notice what’s happening to the ecosystem as a whole. Certainly more than if it was just owls or bears having trouble reproducing.
Hey mr mutinyco,
I’ve been trying to post something of an apology intermittently throughout the day but technical silliness in safari prevented that.
As someone who gets paid (albeit meagerly and without any real recognition) to direct things I humbly submit that I know I will never, ever pull off some of the work in CoM on a technical, directorial level. I think every director who sees this knows that.
I did realize shortly after posting that I was a harsh in how directly I attacked you for your opinion about this movie, but I also think your problems with it are emblematic of a narrowness of mindset that’s obsessed with life as seen through movies instead of how it should be, movies reflecting upon life. This is also the first movie in quite awhile that’s so passionately gripped me, and many others. Like it or hate it, there are strong reactions to the film and that is a good thing.
Your incessant comments though seem so contrarian for their own sake and based upon an enshrinement of Spielberg that’s just neither here nor there given general reaction to his work in recent years. War of the Worlds has some great moments but it just doesn’t cohere as a film emotionally or otherwise because what it attempts to do tonally isn’t consistent and it has a really odd lead performance… And ultimately an ending that’s far less earned. Most people I know have forgotten War of the Worlds. I don’t expect them to do so with this movie. It may do some of the same, but it does it right. I don’t remember a reaction like this to War of the World because I don’t think it struck the same nerves and isn’t about as much. To say Children of Men is empty and about nothing is so naive as to be mind boggling. Children of Men’s philosophical antecedents are minds like Zizek.
Panic Room, the less said the better. Though Jared Leto’s cornrows willd forever be amusing.
As for my cowardice, you consistently put yourself out there with very declarative statements and a body of work which makes you fair game. I’m far too chickenshit for such. I am always, however, as someone who barely dabbled in film journalism going to be offended by someone who brags about using press junkets to pitch a script. That’s just uncouth. I feel like if you took your talents, which you do have some of, and holed up and stopped obsessing over movies and more about life you’d come up with something. Making it isn’t as important as making it well.
Here’s a Lubezki anecdote though, and we really should refrain from calling him Chivo as we’re not his friend and that’s the kind of thing you should be a friend to say… While in film school in london we had Piotr Sobocinski come to lecture us on his cinematography in our meager shabby screening room. There was an unusual face amongst us, and someone got the druthers to ask the man who he was. It was Lubezki, in London to shoot Sleepy Hollow. Here he is making this huge Tim Burton movie and he’s taking his time to come and watch another master teach. I’ve never forgotten that and how humbly impressed I was, and it was no surprise that his work as a DP became my favorite over the years. That shot of real lightning as real lightning in The New World… Wow.
p.s. i love vaginas so i’m not offended by your attempts to describe me as such. try harder.
Two other things –
Your position about plausibility in relation to being unable to fill in the blanks make no sense. Because the movie very obviously attempts to isolate us as much as the character is – stuck in a situation without being conveniently situated to learn all there is about it. This is mirrored even in the camerawork where we are often isolated with Theo without wider establishing shots as he traverses the chaos around him.
The fact is, let’s say tommorrow a viral outbreak started in Madagascar that with transcontinental flight turned into a global pandemic in a few short days that reduced the population by 98% and left us unable to procreate. What would your experience of such a situation be? Would you have all the information to make sense of it? No. Most of us don’t whenever the sweep of global powers wash over us. In fact most of us spend our lives only peripherally aware of the forces and confluences that really determine outcomes.
I mean, damn, War of the Worlds does the exact same thing. The difference with the two movies is that War of the Worlds really can’t figure out if it’s a Hollywood blockbuster or a serious examination of refugee tropes, like say Paul Auster’s In The Country of Last things. And seriously if you buy the ending of that movie… I don’t know what to say.
Sorry you set yourself up for this. But… it shouldn’t be difficult to fuck yourself then…
Just to note. I didn’t pitch a script. There was never any intention to actually make it. Just garner a little attention. That was the point of that anecdote.
As for War of the Worlds, I don’t think most people had that type of reaction because they went to it expecting to see something other than what it was. But there actually are quite a few people who harbor the same opinion as me.
And one more note on Children of Men. It isn’t realistic. It’s very unrealistic. And by shooting it handheld to make it feel more documentary-like, as opposed to most dystopian fantasies which knowingly use abstracted stylization, this chasm was only more obvious to me. It felt like the filmmaking was on the wrong foot, or at least not entirely properly balanced. And…dunno…maybe it’s youthful naivete, but I don’t really find those shots so technically or conceptually intimidating. Personally, I prefer sequences to shots (I’m not talking Eisensteinian montage, per se), in the sense that although each shot should be good, it’s more important how things fit together, and it’s better if things don’t stand out so much. That said, I could easily see myself, should I have access to the budget required, concepting shots like that — if there was a proper use for them.
Anyhow. Peace.
I fully understand the concept of limiting the action to the character’s POV — and his limited knowledge of what’s happening. I’ve used that approach in my writing. It was used quite well in Eyes Wide Shut.
Just didn’t work here for me.
I think War of the Worlds is, like I said, a juxtaposition between real world fears and blockbuster entertainment. That’s the point. It’s not a blockbuster or a serious discussion — it’s using one to deal with the other, critiquing its form (and what’s expected from Spielberg) in the process. I don’t take the ending seriously, because I don’t think it’s meant to be taken seriously. What Cruise and his family go through — how they survive EVERYTHING — becomes almost a running joke to the point of distancing the viewer. And the conclusion is the capper. Though the focus on micro organisms and bacteria at the end points the way to humanity’s true greatest threat.
Sorry to add to this, but Mutinyco, it sounds like your comments on this movie are approaching your comments on Munich in the sense of ‘I know how to direct this movie better than the director did’. Is this a fair characterization?
By the way, I don’t think ‘most dystopian fantasies use abstracted stylization’. For every The Matrix there’s a Blade Runner or Twelve Monkeys, both of which are stylized, yet gritty and realistic, or 28 Days Later, which is purely handheld/realistic. And all of those movies are less realistic than CoM.
I don’t think Blade Runner or Twelve Monkeys are realistic. Not in the slightest. Gritty maybe. Realistic no. And 28 Days Later wasn’t handheld. It was just shot using mini-DV, which, by virtue of a degraded video image made it seem possibly more immediate. But in terms of its camera usage, it’s extremely stylized.
I’m not saying I’d do a better job. I’m not that big an asshole. I do disagree with a lot of the choices, but I think both movies you’re talking about were hobbled long before they were directed by their screenplays.
You did just bring up an interesting point. I’m in an awkward position talking about movies sometimes because I’m a filmmaker. But I think the criticisms I’m leveling are fair — AND THAT THIS IS WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
Yes, that is what critics are supposed to be doing. So why is it that when you do it, I just want to hit something?
Anyway, I disagree. One of the reasons Blade Runner flopped upon its release was that it didn’t fit the post-Star Wars mold of sci-fi fantasy; aside from the trancy Vangelis music and Ridley Scott cinematography, it’s street-level, grungy, dirty, realistic. Saying 28 Days Later is not realistic is hard to argue with because I can’t imagine what possibly basis you have for that argument; until it gets dramatically dippy in the end, it’s as unstylized as The Blair Witch Project.
I don’t believe you’ve ever watched either of those movies.
I mentioned 4 movies in the above post and I have seen all of them.
here i was going to spend my evening cursing & drinkin’ in a dive bar but now I have to watch Blade Runner again.
it seemed realistic to me as a youngster! Roy even asks about EMS recombination. good stuff.
Actually, I just remembered one of the reasons why I think of Blade Runner as realistic – because it’s so boring! Especially the scene halfway through that consists of nothing happening for ten minutes except a photo is enlarged.
no Jeff. not boring. Gumshoe work is ‘painstaking’ and in that scene he got a major piece of the puzzle.
how can you say all he did was enlarge a photo–he digitally mapped it, he went around corners, he peered into mirrors and behind doors. I thought that scene was brilliantly done, one of the the best of the entire movie.
I politely disagree. I suppose you can suppose in retrospect that he was ‘digitally mapping’ it, which is about as plausible as the time travel in Deja Vu, but in the movie itself there is no indication that anything is happening except that a few images get bigger and clearer, on a photograph that comes from nowhere and has no relation to anything else in the movie. And the scene literally takes a tedious four minutes to wrap up. Where did you get this from?
The visuals in that movie are ahead of their time, but the plot/screenplay/characterization leave a lot to be desired.
it was so ahead of its time he was digitally mapping it before i had knowledge of the word. It was a pretty cool grid. I still say it is the best scene.
i impolitely disagree and say BR the best sci fi/future dystopia in my lifetime. and the acting is first rate which there are few sci fis I can say that about, definitely. I read the PKD story when I was a kid and thought the movie was a brilliant adaptatin of it even though it wasn;t anything like the text. It had the right spirit.
But then, you don;t like LA confidential like I do so…
So how did you know he was digitally mapping it if you didn’t know what digital mapping is? I think a good scene requires perhaps dialogue, or thematic relevance, or at the very least that you have some reason to care about what is going on.
The acting is not first-rate. Harrison Ford sleepwalks through the movie, Sean Young is as bad as she was in anything, and Rutger Hauer is hammy. Only Edward James Olmos does a good job.
No, I don’t like LAC. Clearly we have different tastes at large.
This thread gets a big LOL from me. It’s like Ebert’s thumbs up, just more technilogically savvy.
After an interesting beginning, a noisy, technically sophisticated, and generally childish chase movie. Boy, if you consider the above video a spoiler you haven’t seen many movies. Predictable from the git go … or, at least, after the first 20 minutes.
It is a spoiler. It shows important plot points in the middle and end of the movie.