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
All very true, but if Children of Men had launched exclusive in October and never went further than semi wide until last weekend would it be in a similar position with Babel? I think that’s the jist of some people’s wishful thinking, the release date bump to December hurt the film’s chances at building awareness and consensus.
Pundit cage match time.
Alternatively: Where will they find enough high horses for everyone?
Well, one problem for Universal, movielocke, is that the film cost twice what Babel did. And Babel was insanely expensive for an indie and will most likely lose money.
Personally, I think the best choice would have been a wide release (At least 1500 screens) in early November or hold the movie for March 2007, hope it catches on and does $100 million, and let it be next year’s candidate.
But as is, the movie is soft at the box office AND weak for awards… too late to make an impact and always Oscar unfriendly, with its dark nature. If Babel gets in, it will still surprise me (though it is looking very likely now) because there is a real resisitance to the darkness, whenever the dark film is released. Babel & Children of Men… which also have similar themes? Unlikely from “go.”
Comparing Chlidren of Men to Kill Bill and Sin City is just plain stupid and beneath you, Dave.
Not at all, Mel.
First, I think those two films are actually more successful at achieving their goals.
Secondly, the same things being said about COM, re: its unique position in movie history, is EXACTLY what was said about those films.
But you also make my point… your personal tastes are what matter in this discussion… not DVD delivery or xenophobia or whatever other rationalization. I don’t think any of them will stand up to time. You think COM is, apparently, far superior. Others would say the other titles are better. All “I like…” not that there’s anything wrong with that.
To elaborate, whether you like the film or not, and whether you find it “important” or not, it was clearly intended to make viewers think. It is a thematically resonant film that has deeply moved A LOT of people, as it was designed to do.
Kill Bill and Sin City were designed to be cool. And the are, more or less. But neither director will suggest they were aiming any higher than that. And no viewers will suggest they are any more meaningful than that.
I agree, I think the last paragraph is fairly insulting (and beside the larger point).
I think Wells and Poland manufacture these online pissing matches just to grow traffic.
But I’m a paranoid cynic, so take it with a grain of salt.
Dave, come on. I accept people don’t like Children of Men. But I know for a fact they’ll be teaching it in film school. They won’t be doing that for Kill Bill. For a film school teacher Children of Men is a goldmine; most of its stylization is a reaction to what has become established in terms of mise en scene. And you’re also failing to see (despite posting about it) that it’s one of those odd movies like The New World that just absolutely causes some people to become raving rabid lunatics about the thing. Friends of mine (mid 20s to early 30s) who are cynical about nearly every damn movie released (and not generally heavy moviegoers and would have no idea what this website is) are raving about it. I honestly can’t believe it opened at number 3 – it should’ve fared much worse. And a grassroots campaign to advertise it for awards virally that as far as we know wasn’t engineered by the studio? Unprecedented. This movie is striking a chord with some people, and not in the way Kill Bill or Sin City did for fuck’s sake and you know it.
I’m in your camp here, Dave, and I happen to love the hell out of COM. I’m not really sure what people expected — a personal DGA wishlist?
That said, Poland vs. Welles matches are almost as entertaining as refreshing MCN to see the term “diaper dandies” swapped for “kids.” Speaking of which, for shame! That title is as irritating and smug as the snarky article it’s critiquing. Tit for tat?
Seriously, Poland, you seriously think that Little Miss Sunshine is a better achievement in DIRECTION than Children of Men? All of Wells’ hype aside can you answer me that?
Hey Wrecktum, I had a similar thought last year regarding Hicksville and how he was tolerated.
I hated Kill Bill and loved Sin City (Marv convinced me), so I’m not sure where to put CoM in that list Dave!
I think Sin City and CoM have a chance of future cult worship & revivals, (and I hope Not Kill Bill).
in a uninspiring year I think CoM is a breath of fresh air comparatively. The DGA choices were disappointing in that respect. I actually expected Cuar
I have no problem with anyone preferring Children of Men to whatever else. You guys keep missing the point. I am not making up the reaction to Kill Bill and Sin City. They were called revolutionary. They were said to be films that would change the face of cinema.
And no, ota, I don’t think that these are the 5 best directed films of the year. But as I wrote above… that is not the issue. And if you want to make it an issue, make it an issue. But don’t pretend it is anything but your preference.
I though Dayton/Faris had a shot because they were DGA regs and the film is popular and for people who like something light, it was one of the few choices. But i also thought it might be left out because it is comedy flat filmmaking.
On the other hand, it’s not easy to make an ensemble comedy work. And though I have real issues with the movie, for the most part, they did. Is that harder than shooting a really cool war sequence with digital cuts? A matter of opinion. Dying is easy, comedy hard, etc.
I am not suggesting that debate about what films were better directed is not appropriate. What I am saying is that off-the-point, rage-induced, self-serving spin is not appropriate.
And Wreck… I mention Wells’ name in here about 10 times a year. Had Sheigh Crabtree not pushed the issue on Risky Blog, this too would have passed. If I relied on him for traffic, I would have 8 people here.
Well, since people are pissed about “Children of Men” being inferior to “Blade Runner” I’ll comment and say that I know where they are coming from in that there seems to be a tide of love for the film upon multiple viewings and time after seeing it. Those thoughts can be echoed in a few reviews of the film. I’m not sure how it’ll stand the test of time, whether it’s in “Blade Runner” territory or whatnot. How about establishing at least a “12 Monkeys” territory for it to claim? I don’t know. Let’s just say there’s a lot of love for the film, and the film itself seems to be far more impressionable in retrospect. I think a lot of it has to do with it being told from a single point of view, with the viewer having to sort out the world (and story) of the main character after they’ve experienced his journey. That’s unique enough in the realm of sci-fi adventure, let alone most film narratives. Maybe unique enough to remembered.
Well, I read both Poland and Wells, and both offer completely different things.
If I want a spirited defence of the system and everything it stands for, I can come here. If I want a curmudgeonly disregard for anything even approaching mainstream group thought, I can go there.
By doing so, I manage to maintain a happy (and logical) medium.
Clearly the only reason the DGA nominated Inarritu is because they thought he was Japanese.
Nice to see you, Jim.
“Pan’s” would not be an Oscar nom favorite for picture. Maybe for director but not picture. The Academy spurns “dark” “violent” movies like Pans, no matter how well it’s made. Remember Pans is mostly a critics’ fave.
Honestly, can you see Pan’s being a contender for best picture? With all the brutality, darkness, and the last scene where the ch**** is shot?
No way Jose.
I know you think this part of the discussion is ‘off-topic’, DP, but I don’t remember anyone saying that Kill Bill was ‘revolutionary’ and I’m fairly sure that it was the technique and not the content of Sin City that was considered ‘cinema-changing’. I think both movies were considered to be entertaining and stylish by those who liked them, but neither one of them were regarded as highly with the critics as Children of Men is right now.
J-Mc… you don’t remember.
Right now, the heavy breathing on COM has a lot to do with people feeling like they discovered something important. It’s a lot more exciting to play the self-righteous rebel against what you know can never be than to simply love a movie on its own terms.
You are right. Neither film was intensely regarded in the way COM is right now. The fever for those films was much greater. I think – think – a big part of the reason for that is that those films were not encased in the presumption of importance. When confronted, COM supporters really can’t answer the big questions about why the film is allegedly so deep. And so, they are not as aggressive about defending it.
They like it. They really, really like it. And that is fine.
And when Grindhouse does double the COM box office on the same amount of P&A and production cost and it is called important, even though it is called Grindhouse, we will discuss again.
Thank you for your generous response. I looked up the Village Voice year-end polls from 2003 and 2005, and found that Sin City was tied for 62nd place, in comparison with Children of Men’s 9th place in the equivalent Indiewire poll. Surprisingly to me, Kill Bill was also 9th place in the Voice 2003 poll, so maybe you have a point there.
I agree, Children of Men has both the aura and the reception as ‘important’ that neither KB or SC had…which is why I’m even more puzzled that you are grouping them together, except that they have the common trait that you didn’t like them.
And that is also fine.
“When confronted, COM supporters really can’t answer the big questions about why the film is allegedly so deep. And so, they are not as aggressive about defending it.”
To borrow someone else’s words, I want to clearly and loudly say, “BULLSHIT.”
Some relevant excerpts:
“There are, Mr. Cuar
You still haven’t answered how it’s so deep.
Exactly, qwigggles. It always comes back to really cool shots… and a lot of mumbo jumbo.
“Children of Men shows us a world where angels fear to tread, and babies have stopped coming, too. But there’s always the hope that the right lullaby could bring them back.”
Oh, fucking please!
They will most certainly be showing and discussing Kill Bill in film school 10-20 years from now…Sin City perhaps not.
COM is a good film but it is most certainly not a “masterpiece” or the best film of this decade as many pundits have spouted. In terms of set design and direction it is magnificent. In terms of characters, story, and emotional depth it is lacking.
Of all the films released this year, the one which most likely will still have a large impact in years to come will be the one that may not even get a best picture nomination…
United 93.
but hey, thank god we made sure to get Dreamgirls in there instead.
On a sidenote, reading crap like this
“In “Children of Men,” nature and civilization, never comfortable bedmates, have completely stopped speaking to each other. And if doing “the natural thing to do” no longer results in babies, then what is there left to do? Lubezki’s camera, often in long, unbroken takes, shows us crumbling city buildings where people cluster together, clinging to whatever life they have left. But at one point he also aims his camera up toward the sky, through a stand of tall trees, their branches creaking in the indecisive wind. Is this an image of pure desolation, or a wordless invocation? “Children of Men” shows us a world where angels fear to tread, and babies have stopped coming, too. But there’s always the hope that the right lullaby could bring them back.”
makes me miss Roger Ebert.
You miss this…
“Not many films have the possibility of making their audiences better people. I don’t expect “Crash” to work any miracles, but I believe anyone seeing it is likely to be moved to have a little more sympathy for people not like themselves.”
Hehe…
Let’s pretend like Ebert was sick when he wrote that and move on.
Anyway, we seem to have reached the ‘those who like it like it, those who don’t like it never will’ phase of the argument. Time to move on.
If you want to get into a serious discussion about what constitutes valid criticism versus “mumbo jumbo” instead of presupposing that the latter is obviously on display in what I quoted, I’d be happy to respond further, but as such, your comment is exactly the kind of vague fluff you’re accusing CoM supporters of putting forth. Seems to me you’re opening a fairly large can of worms here; we might have to comb through every review written lately to see what is or is not up to whatever invisible standards you’re using.
As for Zacharek, I admire her go-for-broke enthusiasm even when she gets lyrical, and her look at how animals and nature factor into the film reveal much more about its weatherbeaten atmosphere — the depth you aren’t finding, I’d argue — than your frequent dismissal of it as being about “cool” shots. The clumsy bit about branches “creaking in the indecisive wind” aside, I don’t see what’s so obviously ridiculous about this paragraph, either: there is indeed a Pied Paper-esque folkloric aspect to CoM, so it’s world is the sort of place where a lullaby just might do it.
I’m especially curious as to how you can still maintain (by virtue of not exploring it further) your charge that its defenders are not “agressive” after the “bullet-strewn valentine” bit, among others. Silly me, I guess, for finding that mumbo jumbo impassioned.
Mutinyco…Ebert is pointing out the obvious, especially given how hard Haggis pounded you in the head with that “racism is bad” hammer. Now Roger seems to have bought it…personally I think its retarded and hurts the film.
Some of these COM critics seem desperate to find some huge deep emotional/philosophical meaning behind every single camera shot or piece of set in COM.
I know plenty of people who saw Apocolypse Now, Blade Runner, Full Metal, 2001 etc etc…and they may not be a fan of it…and they may despise it…but they do realize it is a great film even if its not their cup of tea.
COM is not one of those films.
Its a great looking film, and a pretty good story.
*its.
*aggressive.
I’ll take this moment of shame to argue first that Ebert often wrote on autopilot — see his review of “Blue,” which suggests he had no idea what to make of it at the time except that it was subtle and that Juliette Binoche’s face was very pretty, and convincing — and lastly that calling something “crap” and leaving it at that isn’t the clearest way to go about discussing it.
Quiggles,
You obviously love COM and hey thats cool.
But I’ll put $20 that in 5 or 6 years..no one will ever mention the characters from this movie like they do the ones in Blade Runner, FMJ, any Kubrick film, hell even Fight Club etc. They won’t mention the story or the ideas that the film forced you to question/think about.
What will they discuss about COM?
The technical aspects..the amazing camera work, the great set design, the long takes etc…even the end battle sequence pails compared to others except its all one take.
Characterization is not the primary point of Children of Men – nor is it, really, in Blade Runner or Full Metal Jacket (except Ermey). All three movies are more about experiences, sights, sounds, and concepts.
Well, I’m not in the business of hailing anything a long distance runner and future film school masterpiece in the first place, so I’ll see your bet and raise you a shrug: OK, granted, fine.
But I’m a little puzzled by the rewriting of past glories I sometimes see when people are staking out a “this film won’t endure, like this one has” argument. I seem to recall FMJ getting slammed by a few critics at the time as numbing and phoned in, and most talk I hear of Blade Runner these days is about the great set design and apocalyptic vision rather than the existential themes, characters or what have you — the same deal as CoM’s praise, only more focused on its bleak outlook.
And here’s Ebert on Blade Runner’s director’s cut:
“I watched the original “Blade Runner” on video a few years ago, and now, watching the director’s cut, I am left with the same over-all opinion of the movie: It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story.”
Its all subjective I guess.
I may just be over reacting to what I view as the over hype of late for COM.
The best thing about Children of Men is its hero. A guy who runs around in flip flops and sprains his ankle on rubble during a bloody gunfight. His brother is richer, more stylish, better looking. He tolerates a supremely annoying white rasta midwife. He helps a stranger birth a baby. Dogs love him. He smokes pot with an old political cartoonist. Doesn’t realize he’s supposed to jumpstart the getaway ride. He mourns the loss of his baby son. He’s cool, trustworthy, totally believable and not at all a macho asshole.
He’s a nihilistic drunk who ran over his child backing up in his driveway… but that’s just what the book says…
Full Metal Jacket is only mentioned because it’s part of Kubrick’s filmography. The basic training scenes aside (which are completely independent of anything having to do with Vietnam), it doesn’t add much to War in Cinema. Certainly it doesn’t get mentioned as a masterpiece in the way that 2001, Clockwork, Strangelove are.
And I’d like to know what DP thinks is so deep about Blade Runner? Because it is ALL visuals, and most of the thematic stuff from Dick’s novel was removed. It’s a beautiful film but a terrible adaptation. If that was good enough to stand the test of time and influence people, I don’t think Children of Men will have much trouble following suit. It may not be as deep as its biggest fans want it to be, but it’s a hell of a lot deeper than Scott’s film.
Most works that are ahead of their time or more prescient than some would care to admit aren’t fully appreciated until later. Just look at the work of the aforementioned Philip K. Dick, whose work COM very closely resembles (you could say this about any good modern sci-fi, like 12 Monkeys).
Perhaps we should find out what the French think of the film. They’re usually way ahead of us on this kind of thing.
FMJ was the first film about modern American warfare.
Yes, Blade Runner is influential solely for its aesthetics. But they were THAT influential. Sometimes that’s enough.
FMJ best nam film and one of the best war films eva.
the whole replicant/human, I want to live theme was pretty deep in my view
I’m not sure why people are saying that Children of Men’s late release was an issue. I saw the movie back in November and there were a number of DGA members in that screening, as these were official FYC screenings, and the reaction to the guild members after the movie ranged from “I don’t get it” to “that was stupid!” I’m not making this up. Not sure why everyone expects members of a guild made up of many older, retired TV directors to understand hipper films like Children of Men.
lol..I’m quoting this from the Hwelsewhere COM discussion…but I thought it was pretty funny.
Shorthand Summary of COM:
owen: lol julian u r teh hawt
julian: thxu
owen: no rly, can we plz have some sex
julian: maybe l8r, i need u 2 deliver this girl across country
terrorists: LOL POZZED…julian down
…
owen: (to girl) i see ur pregnant, this development has exciting implications
owen: we need 2 leave these ppl are crazy
owen: lol lets just put a big coat on u no1 will
notice ur preggo
…
girl: i cant [censored] do it
owen: lol u can do it bro
girl: I CANT [censored] DO IT
owen: wtf yes u can
girl: loltrickedu
…
army: lol we r pozzing the terrorists
head terrorist: wow we r [censored]
baby: WAHHHHHHHHHHHH
entire movie cast: yo wtf baby?
entire movie cast: YO, WTF, BABY!
army: u may pass.
…
owen: lol i am tired from rowing this boat.
owen: ps i got shot im dying
girl: hey im going to name the baby after ur son.
owen: ty, but ttyl, its been really real
girl: heh how am i going 2 row the boat
“He’s a nihilistic drunk who ran over his child backing up in his driveway… but that’s just what the book says…”
Not in the film, he isn’t. Not sure what you’re getting at — since when is the original book scripture in cases like this, where the source material is radically altered?
The bus conversation would be about guilt rather than who mourned more if he was at all responsible for his child’s death, which he can’t be anyway, since Jasper gives an account of how he died. Theo, for that matter, is not a nihilist (a lot of the reviews, including the raves, mislabel him as such) but a disheartened former idealist who once was quite political and believed in “changing the world,” and who has, we learn, become that man again.
Ho hum — nothing new there, but little_miss_moonshine points out what makes him more character than type.
“owen: lol i am tired from rowing this boat.
owen: ps i got shot im dying”
Ha!
Speaking of Hollywood Elsewhere, someone posed a good question there: “What about DGA members that belong to the Academy – are they also blocked from getting DVDs in the mail that are intended for their Oscar vote?”
I hope someone answers this before we hear the same unfounded complaint in a few weeks.
He’s a nihilistic drunk who ran over his child backing up in his driveway… but that’s just what the book says…
BOOK SPOILER…
and in the book, he basically becomes the new dictator of England at the end due to family connections, and does not get fatally injured. Clearly a different character in the film.
I do recall that I got pilloried in some circles for putting Sin City on my ten best list last year…and no-one had a problem with me putting Children of Men on it this year. I think any memory of it being more highly praised than COM is highly subjective.
But Sin City is more technically groundbreaking, for sure. Kill Bill, not so much…it’s blatantly derivative and doesn’t pretend otherwise.
David, David, David…
I know that you thought THE TEXAS CHAINSAW BLAIR WITCH MASSACRE REMAKE was a better film than KILL BILL VOL. 1, but you don’t have to lie about the critical reaction in order to raw dog CHILDREN OF MEN.
May I direct you to this link?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kill_bill_vol_1/
Or perhaps this one?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kill_bill_vol_2/
Feel free to browse the reviews and then come back and quote how many critics were calling either film “world-changing.”
I’ll bet you can’t find any.
Because you made it up.
And for the record… I’m not bringing this up because of CHILDREN OF MEN or my feelings about it.
I just hate the sort of strawman argument that this is, where you feel like you have to bring in not only reactions to other movies, but genuinely non-existant reactions to those films.
You’ve said before that criticism shouldn’t be about reacting to what others think.
But what else can you call a piece like this, where all you’re doing is trying to belittle the opinions of anyone who considers CHILDREN OF MEN worthy of a statue that you spend way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too much time thinking about?
Punctuation corrected:
And for the record… I’m not bringing this up because of CHILDREN OF MEN or my feelings about it!!!
I just hate the sort of strawman argument that this is, where you feel like you have to bring in not only reactions to other movies, but genuinely non-existant reactions to those films!!!!!!
You’ve said before that criticism shouldn’t be about reacting to what others think!!!!!!!
But what else can you call a piece like this, where all you’re doing is trying to belittle the opinions of anyone who considers CHILDREN OF MEN worthy of a statue that you spend way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too much time thinking about?!!!!!!!
So even though Poland has admitted himself despite his distaste for the film that it is an amazing achievement in direction, this has become about how people who like the film have been deceived and only feel this way beccause they ‘discovered’ it.
I heard about Children of Men at SD comic con which i missed due to my own work duties out there. When I heard Cuaron was making a scifi film I flipped my lid.
Why is there such a strong reaction to this film? I think it’s because it’s externalized a lot of people’s worst fears but gives them a sort of mirror for hope. It’s RELEVEANT to the real world and brave enough to be so. This is what you aren’t getting. Sin City and Kill Bill have nothing to say about our situation today. Nothing at all. It’s blindingly obvious that Children of Men is very very much about today.
That’s what’s ridiculous about this conversation. It’s obvious that Children of Men is a collosal achievement in direction. It also should be blindingly obvious that people have reacted to this film not for the specious, cynical reasons you state but because we’re hungry for something that’s a summation of the overwhelmingly bleak situation we see in the world but want a fable that doesn’t give up on hope. Again, there’s some pretty worrying shit going on outside your window if you’d take your head out of your self absorbed movie obsessed ass.
That’s another thing – it’s really wonderful to see a movie that isn’t an ironic postmodern movie about movies.
Don’t you have a navelgazing video piece to do about how hard it is to be a serious artist who dresses in black and hovers at the fringe of New York film, Jamie?
Wow, mutinyco is an asshole.
As are you, Dave. There was a topic on Children of Men here recently where many – if not the majority – of the posters here discussed the themes and topics outlined in Children of Men. At length. And yet you still say that its defenders somehow fog up when pressed to go into detail about the film? They don’t, unless you think we’re all idiots and you didn’t read that whole feedback.
It’s ironic, because when there were those few negative Borat reviews, you railed against their implication that people who laughed at the movie were somehow “in the wrong.” And yet, that is exactly what you are doing here, implying that the people who liked Children of Men are in the wrong and are clearly mistaken and confused and unable to defend it. I guess it only works when it’s for a movie you like, huh?
And you know that no fucking critical consensus said that Kill Bill would “change the face of cinema.” How was it even supposed to? Your straw man arguments are about to break the camel’s back.
James, mutinyco isn’t an asshole. He’s just hyperdefensive because David is the only one who will publish, broadcast, or even watch the short films he makes.
You don’t shit where you eat.
COM is not as bad as many of its detractors make out nor is it as brilliant as many of its proponents make out.
Its doesn’t speak to us about our times lol…the concept itself is somewhat ludicrious. Its obvious the directors attempting to do so..especially when he says this is where he sees us going. But that notion is a joke and probably just b.s. and a PR attempt on his part.
Blood Diamond/LOIJ speaks more about our current times than COM.
Drew, I don’t like you sometimes, but I like you today.
As much as I love Full Metal Jacket (and I think it may have surpassed Clockwork Orange in the Kubrick Masterpiece Pantheon) I don’t think it was the ‘first movie about modern warfare’. Doesn’t Apocalypse Now count? Platoon? Hell, The Battle of Algiers?
Drew –
Refer to the other discusssion where mutinyco says that in he could’ve directed the same shots in Children of Men.
Almost as fun to hear as his declaration that he defined digital indie filmmaking.
http://www.moviecitynews.com/voices/2005/stuart.html
Sorry, Drew. Yes, I made it up because with thousands of films to choose from, I just needed to get you to search Rotten Tomatoes.
Funny how so many others could comment sanely… agreeing, disagreeing… civil. You show up shit talking and all of a sudden, people are name calling. You really light up a room, pal.
But really…
Do you, Drew, think that claiming that DGA members didn’t see the film and are xenophobes is a good argument… or not?
Do you want to offer an opinion about the actual topic of this thread or are you just dedicated to finding me wrong?
P.S. MCN hasn’t run one of Jamie’s films in over a year. (Wish we had.) Get your slander straight.
And without even starting on, “A colossal achievement in direction,” is that really your position, otakuhouse? That not feeling the way you do about Children of Men requires ignorance and self-absorbtion? Just asking for clarity…
Why on earth would xenophobia be behind anything? They nominated Inarritu! And a movie with an all-black cast! Or am I misunderstanding (I skipped long passages of this thread. it’s too stinkin’ hot to give two hoots about most of this)
Besides, how much evidence is there of DGA supporting a film like Pan’s Labyrinth? Not much, I presume.
The funny thing is that DP, you’re probably right about the Mexican/xenophobia thing. But it’s the way you express your rightness that I think is what people are arguing about.
Children of Men absolutely speaks about our times. Did you not see an exact reenactment of a famous Abu Ghraib photo when the midwife was taken off the bus? There’s an “old” newspaper article in Jasper’s room about protesting the Iraq War. The bus taking refugees is called Homeland Security. Cuaron, being from Mexico, appears to be not only after the Iraq War but also commenting on immigration, illegal or otherwise.
Of course, maybe in the end it only has the same message as Ron Howard’s Parenthood that all we really need is more babies.
Dave,
Your original point seems to be that Wells’ claim (that the late release dates of COM and Pan’s were the key factor in the lack of a DGA nom) was “bullshit”. But setting aside, your obvious personal disaffection for COM expressed here in the comments, don’t you concede the point yourself when you say “Sitting here after the fact, spinning yarns about how our favorites
Whether or not you like Children of Men, saying that it isn’t an achievement in directing is just naive and you know it. Think about what a director’s job is – often trumpeted to be much more than it actually is given the amount of collaboration and other key personnel that get a movie made – and you know it’s damn ignorant to claim it isn’t directed well. Even if you dislike the story, the script, the characters… It is a remarkably well directed movie and you know it and so does everyone – especially given the critical consensus out there. Even Terry Needham the first AD deserves enormous praise for what is entailed in direction. You’re being blind to truth and what’s obvious in order to basically call out Jeffrey Wells over one of his trivial overreactionary stupid comments. The fact that you’re willing to go so far over that is sort of creeping me out. What matters more – the realistic fact that given the unanimous critical praise and the number of people who have responded to the film that the film will go on to be remembered? Or you continuing your petty juvenile pissing match with Wells?
I like to think this site’s value is worth getting past its superior, self obsessed tone where it has to point out every day it’s the only single bastion of truth… So I guess I’m wrong, along with 90 odd percent of the critics out there and the regular posters here who have liked that movie and insist to you it’s meant something to them.
I think Little Miss Sunshine is a wonderfully directed film with a lot of skill that makes it look effortless and delicate management of tone, but it’s been done before.
Hmmm…I can’t say that I remember the critical reaction to Kill Bill and Sin City, but I do remember the reaction of myself and my friends. For the most part, we thought that they had great style, that they had not so much substance, and that the style took away from the substance to some degree. I don’t think that anyone I knew had either in their top 5 for the year.
Meanwhile, a lot of people I know think that COM had great style, that it had great substance, and that the style added to the substance of the film. Most people have it as their #1 for the year, and a decent number have it as their #1 for the decade. And, as some others have commented, unlike Kill Bill or Sin City, it speaks to the current state of the world and where it is going.
Maybe this is a film that fades away, but based upon the reaction I’ve seen, I find it highly doubtful.
“Don’t you have a navelgazing video piece to do about how hard it is to be a serious artist who dresses in black and hovers at the fringe of New York film, Jamie?”
The most painfully funny thing I’ve read here in ages. Thanks, Drew.
I don’t know what’s worse, mutinyco’s remarks or DP’s feeble effort to defend him in some way.
“P.S. MCN hasn’t run one of Jamie’s films in over a year. (Wish we had.) Get your slander straight.”
All Drew said was that you’re the only one who will show or watch his films, and your comment only serves to prove it.
DP’s original point in response to Wells was actually a good one, but you know he’s beating his head right now for dragging Kill Bill and Sin City into this argument. Talk about biting off more than you can chew. I loved both of those films but they were NEVER considered awards contenders outside the techies and Uma, and not anywhere near Best of the Year acclaim (the #9 ranking on the Village Voice poll notwithstanding; a weak year, and #9 ain’t Top 3).
Was DP calling Meirelles’ work on The Constant Gardener a colossal achievement in directing, or some such hyperbole? I’d love for someone to go back and research that one, because I imagine he did exactly what he’s accusing others of doing over COM.
In Dave’s defense — and, boy, there’s a phrase I never thought I would type — as I recall, there was at least one rather strident poster on this blog who repeatedly insisted that Sin City would change the face of cinema as we know it. I think — though, I admit, my memory may be playing tricks on me — it was the poster formerly known as Spam Dooley.
Joe:
http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/050803_wed.html
“I’ve found myself hedging on writing about The Constant Gardner. And I think the reason is that the movie transcends words.”
Oops, that should have been addressed to lazarus.
Thank you SO much, Colin. The highlight:
“And the genius of Meirelles, now confirmed beyond doubt, is that he blends the two stories, he blends time, he blends the weight with which we carry our love
Is it possible for there to be a happy medium when it comes to COM? I do not believe that it is the most profound film ever made or even that 20 years from now people will still be debating and analyzing it. However, I still love just about every single second of the film and strongly believe that Cuaron’s directing is the best of the year. It didn’t change my life or way of thinking, but I still believe it is an excellent film. I also think James Leer is 100% correct with his comments above, and though I rarely agree with Drew these days he is also 100% correct about mutinyco.
Another day, another hot button column criticizing Children of Men. If only more films were more like books.
I don’t care if anyone thinks CoM is the best film of the decade, the best film of this year, or not even in the top 20 this year. Those are all matters of opinion, and we all know everybody has one…
What bothers me about David’s post is the asinine comparison to Kill Bill and Sin City (I agree with lazarus that Dave is probably kicking himself over it).
No matter what you think of Children of Men, it is a FACT that Cuaron was trying to make a deep movie. He was trying to make a movie about issues affecting the world today. He was trying to make a movie about the fight for hope against all odds. It is also a FACT that the movie has affected many people (both critics and “regular” people) on those levels.
So whether you think he failed miserably or not, it’s stupid to compare this film to Kill Bill and Sin City, which aimed at nothing more than the “cool” factor. Tarantino and Rodriguez would admit as much. They might be technical achievements, but they are thematically empty. And therefore they are horrible analogies to CoM.
Today’s hotbutton column seems pointless, since Cuaron has admitted he didn’t read the book. Ever. And those five screenwriters credited he claims did nothing for his version, they were listed only due to arbitration.
I’m moving on, this is just some silly pissing match between Wells and Poland. You know it’s funny as the only other person I’ve ever seen link to Jamie Stuart’s stuff is Jeffrey Wells. I’m starting to think they’re more alike than they think. They both exhibit a sense of dress and attitude and silly middle aged machismo that seems to have been gleaned from Playboy magazine circa 1978. At least Wells, as retarded as he is sometimes, tries to be a little more mannered about this nonsense.
The thing about “Children of Men” is whether people love it or hate or fall somewhere in between, everyone is talking about it. That’s true passion for a film. And that, to me, is a good thing.
Just read the Hot Button column as well. Boy, David is really reaching. He actually picked up the book just so he could read it and have another avenue of attack against this moive! As Jonj said, he is truly passionate about the film.
A couple things in his column stood out to me:
“But the film offers no evidence of that horrible, controlling beast of government, except as the apparent results of it swim by in visual images.”
Oh my! God forbid a film deliver information through “visual images”! For shame! By all means, telegraph everything to us in lengthy expository dialogue, or perhaps even voiceover. That’s the ticket…
“But what I got from the book that I never got from the film is the power of people making choices about their lives.”
How is Theo not making a choice when he risks his own life, repeatedly, to get Kee to the boat? The hope she represents become his mission. We see Fishes who have made the choice to fight the power by all means necessary. We see Jasper make the ultimate choice about his life and his wife’s. We see the midwife making the same choice as Theo with equally dire results. And every one of them was powerful.
Honestly, from your write-up, the book sounds pretty lame. I’m glad Cuaron just plucked the basic premise and some character names and discarded the rest. What an ordinary film he would have made otherwise.
I leave for a minute and everything turns to hell.
Drew, go fuck your mother. Your opinions have about as much validity as your ability to design an attractive website. If you can’t take a joke, go fuck your father, too, while you’re at it.
Until that, I’ve mainained a fairly civil position throughout this debate. And so far none of this film’s champions have had anything to say to support how profound they think it is. All they can talk about are the shots or the “collosal acheivemant” in direction. And when confronted with this, these champions are acting like a bunch of thugs. Attacking me. Poland. And whoever else breaks their precious little bubble. Poor babies!
I’m not an asshole. Drew is. For popping onto somebody else’s site — like he does from time to time — for no other reason than to stir shit up.
Children of Men will not survive its current reputation. For one simple reason. It has nowhere to go but down. Aside from those two shots there isn’t a single revelatory moment about it. The plotting is thriller-cliche, as even many of its advocates have suggested, and the direction, at least from my perspective, was obvious in its strategy and thus ineffective. Oh, and it’s not about anything.
Finally, all of my work for over a year now has been independently produced and released. And it gets linked all over. I’m doing fine. In fact, there have been things that MCN hasn’t run at all. (Drew, admit it! You’re just angry because I haven’t invited anybody from AICN to my sets!)
In a discussion over a movie called Children of Men, seems the only real children are Drew and his little Nazi thug friends. Heil Drew!
Well, mutinyco, depending on how you’re defining revelatory, I would say that the film is extremely revelatory in that it is prophetic of devastation.
If you’re referring to the film breaking new ground, then I still don’t see your point. You say that the film follows a thriller-cliche structure. Can you point to one other thriller with so little exposition?…with the hero chewing bubble gum instead of kicking ass?… with there not really being a central bad guy?
And, of course, as you note, there are the 2 brilliant shots, which I wouldn’t consider in isolation, but which I think combine with all of the cinematorgaphy to create an extremely claustrophobic feel. Again, how many thrillers have you seen that were shot that way?
As for the film not being about anything, I strongly disagree. Sure, the film doesn’t spell it out for us, but it’s about the loss of humanity in the world, where that lack of humanity can lead us, and what we would/could do in the face of this.
Just look at the film’s references to Abu Ghraib and Homeland Security/anti-immigration activities. The film doesn’t give a cause for infertility, but I think it’s pretty clear that it’s based on the increasing banality of evil in the world today. In other words, with inhumanity comes infertility.
Some have called infertility a MacGuffin, and I disagree for the reasons above (as well as Theo’s past), but in a sense it’s true because the film seems to be saying that if you add another significant crisis in the world today, we could follow the path of the movie. And the ordinary man could become complicit in the evil or, like Theo, simply numb to it, leading to the end.
But the film offers hope, and it shows how, at the same time, one signficant event can turn things around. And yet, this isn’t a simple panacea that will turn things around in a second. Indeed, some people may interpret that event in the wrong ways, may attempt to combat evil with evil, leading to a butter battle. In the end, though, with humanity, we may be able to pull through.
Of course, in addition, there’s the film’s great soundtrack, acting, and humor.
I assume you didn’t mean “butter battle,” but I love that image!
Excellent points, Colin. I definitely agree about the “two brilliant shots” not being isolated from the rest of the film. There are very few cuts in the movie (I believe I read 400+ total, which is unheard of, especially in a movie with this much action).
A shot I haven’t heard many people mention (other than the MCN columnist whose name I’ve forgotten) is the birth of the child. Also one long take, and as amazing as the more complicated ones because of its emotional impact.
The cinematography in CoM is not at all gimmicky. It is integral to the film’s power.
Sounds like CoM is a better candidate for Best Cinematography than Best Direction. They’re not the same, after all. Ultimately, Best Direction is a nod for a film that runs great on all cylinders.
It’s nice to see that there can still be rousing discussions here, even with neither Spam Dooley, Nicol, or Hicksville around. Thumbs up!
The same directorial approach was used in both Mr. Lazarescu and Laws of Gravity — off the top of my head. In fact, my initial reaction was that the film sought to combine the approaches of Eyes Wide Shut’s “objective” tracking camera with Full Metal Jacket’s urban disintegration/combat.
Other thrillers without exposition? I can think of two off the top of my head, one of which I just mentioned, EWS, the other being War of the Worlds, which dealt with many of the same real world images that CoM attempted to weave into its aesthetics. But, honestly, CoM had a HELL OF A LOT OF EXPOSITION. In fact, there was so much of it, in such an obvious maner, during the first 20 minutes that I immediately got distanced from it. The movie simply doesn’t justify its setup which, as noted earlier, it can’t.
I don’t see how inhumanity breeds infertility. I would actually argue current times find the world probably more civilized than it’s ever been overall. When was the last truly great war? Did humanity become infertile ater WWI? Or after the US nuked Japan? Or after Ghengis Khan conquered Asia?
No. Humanity is humanity. If anything causes sterilty it’s civilization. A good example would be zoo animals. Living in confined, unnatural environments.
I appreciate the movie’s sentiments. I just find it intellectually naive, and it doesn’t stand up against a slew of other dystopian films.
This is kind of like The American Beauty of dystopian films. AB came out the same time as a lot of other movies dealing with similar themes (Fight Club, Magnolia, Malkovich, EWS, etc.), but it was the least complex, most accessible, so it garnered all of the awards and praise. But, 3/4 of a decade later, most people I know have a very low opinion of American Beauty and it even shows up on some critics’ lists of worst Oscar winners. Is AB a bad movie? No. It’s pretty good. It just can’t live up to the overwhelming baggage of praise it carries with it.
-Melquiades, I was referring to Dr. Seuss’ The Butter Battle Book.
-mutinyco, Mr. Lazarescu was not a thriller, so I’m not sure why that’s relevant (My point above above being that COM was a groundbreaking thriller b/c it’s unlike other thrillers). I haven’t seen Laws of Gravity, so I can’t talk about that one.
I actually agree somewhat with what you say about combining the FMJ and EWS techniques, although I think there’s more to the film than that. That said, isn’t that combining itself pretty unique and groundbreaking?
And WOTW being without exposition. Hmm…let’s start with the Morgan Freeman narration that sets up the film and end with the Morgan Freeman narration that wraps everything up nicely (not like there isn’t exposition in between).
As for there being exposition in COM, where? There’s stuff in the periphery, but there’s very little dialogue by characters explaining things? You say there’s a lot in the 1st 20 minutes. Again, where?
Right – The problem with your final comment, which I consider daily, is the assumption that there is a “conventional wisdom.”
This is the nightmare of where media is right now. Perhaps it was worse before, when if the NYT or LAT said it, it was “conventional wisdom.” But that is why I even bothered starting this thread. If Wells runs it, he can be written off by most people. If it then runs on a Hollywood Reporter, we are on the road to someone claiming it is “conventional wisdom.”
“I would actually argue current times find the world probably more civilized than it’s ever been overall.”
I would also note that statements like this fit perfectly into the theory of the banality of evil. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I disagree with your belief.
The entirety of the first 20 minutes is exposition. From the TVs. To the billboards. To Caine explaining the immigration system as they pass a bus. It’s ALL explaining the situation to the audience.
War had virtually no exposition. Freeman bookends with a few words. But the bulk of the film — you’re basically stuck with the family as it’s fleeing. You don’t know what’s happening or why. People show up that they seem to know, no explanation, then they’re gone. In fact, War is the most conceptually Kubrick film Spielberg has made, in that regard.
otakuhouse – If you are referring to me, I never said it was not an achievement in directing. I never have suggested for a second that it isn’t a significant piece of directing. I do think that the excitement of this moment has led to gross overpraise.
It’s amazing how with all the talk in here, so often it gets turned into balck and white with no room for gray.
To answer others, I bought and read the book out of respect for the people who love the movie. It’s the same reason I often watch films I don’t particularly like multiple times. You may feel that my writing suggests it, but I am not dismissive of the opinions of others. I take them quite seriously. And when I find a wave like this and find myself on the other side – 2 or 3 times a year, it seems – I am willing to do the work to further analyze my position and the positions of others. And yet, some of you feel the need to shit on me for that too. Guess it would be better if I just raged without bothering to think of anything or anyone but myself and my gut reactions (he said sarcastically).
I tend to agree with this definition of exposition, as it relates to movies:
“Explanation of the story line in a drama told by a narrator, announcer, or one of the characters.”
This is what we get in War of the Worlds. Morgan Freeman tells us that aliens have been watching us, they are smart and lack compassion, and they plan to take the world from us. Then, at the end, Freeman tell us exactly what happened to cause their downfall.
In COM, as you note, much of the information we get is from TVs and billboards, not characters or narrators. Sure, Caine’s character explains immigration a bit, but we never find out all that much about what caused the infertility, who the Human Project are, etc.
Oh, another thriller without coverage or exposition: Cache.
DP, you sat through Rocky Balboa three times. How many viewings of COM? Just curious.
War only bookends with omniscient exposition. Aside from that, there’s virtually nothing. Virtually nothing during the dramatic action of the film.
I’m telling you, the first act of CoM is all exposition. If I noticed it, and was aware of it — particularly Caine saying things to Owen that he’d already know, the TVs explaining Diego’s death, the propaganda explaining how the UK is the only one still standing — and had a negative reaction to it, how can you tell me it didn’t exist?
Cache is a great movie, and I’d agree that it shares some qualities with COM. That said, the 2 are very different movies.
And I’m not saying that the things you saw didn’t exist. I just didn’t see them as exposition. Beyond the label though, they obviously took you out of the movie. For me, they didn’t. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
As for WOTW, I’d have to see it again to gauge the level of expositon, but to me the bookends in and of themselves were tough to overcome. The opening immediately took me out of the film, and the ending diluted its effect.
Mutiny, there’s also the intrusion of the TV news crew who only exist to tell Tom Cruise and the audience ‘oh, by the way, they came from underground and not outer space, and things suck everywhere’.
A single scene, Jeff. One which was kind of needed and it existed as tose people were trying to figre out what was happening as well. I’m not saying it has no exposition whatsoever. It’s pretty damn minimal.
As for combining EWS with FMJ, I don’t find that revelatory because nobody looked at those movies when Kubrick made them as combinations of things.
Actually, the movie would have been better without that scene, as it added a puzzling piece of information that, from a screenplay perspective, was not returned to anywhere else in the film.
Glad to see I’ve knocked you back from ‘none’ to ‘minimal’.
Full Metal Jacket was and is criticized for being 1/2 training movie, 1/2 combat movie. Eyes Wide Shut was criticized for being a sex thriller told in the manner of a trance film.
I would have liked the opening narration of “War of the Worlds” in ANYONE! other than Morgan “Voice of God” Freeman had done it (well, Anthony Hopkins is just ubiquitous in that regard), that’s what took me out of the film.
The fact that an eight year old orders “health Food” take-out and knows what hummus is, pretty much did me in.
But the scene where the mob takes the car, is the movie’s one saving grace, for me anyway. I thought that scene totally captured the feeling of claustrophobia and mob rule.
The EWS/FMJ discussion was referring to aesthetics, Jeff.
And even 2001 had it’s share of expository scenes. Just few and far between.
Both of my Kubrick examples are about aesthetics. Full Metal Jacket throws people because of how seemingly unconnected its two halves are; Eyes Wide Shut was disliked upon its release because of the disjunction between its erotic thriller trappings and its actual execution.
I’m continually surprised that one film I don’t hear compared to Children of Men, but which obviously shares some aesthetic similarities, is Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (at least in the first two acts). In fact, there were times when I was sitting there thinking to my self, “man, this is basically 28DL without the zombies.” Both are essentially world-gone-to-shit road movie thrillers, with CoM reaching for a bit more thematically, although the primal focus of the third act in 28DL does have some thematic heft, I’d argue. I’m essentially in the not-quite-a-masterpiece-but-certainly-brilliant-in-many-respects category when it comes to CoM. But the Sin City/Kill Bill comparison is really ludicrous.
Mutinyco–
There is information all over the first act of COM, that’s true, but you’re acting as if exposition is the only reason those scenes exist – they are all about Theo’s alienation from the world as much as they’re about explaining that world, and I would argue that the former is far more important to the filmakers than the latter.
If you felt that it was oppressive, well, that’s your preregative of course, but it seems you’re ignoring that these scenes serve other functions than pure exposition. We’re not talking about Ian McKellan in The DaVinci Code…
And btw, with War of the Worlds – it’s not just the scene with the TV crew – the whole sequence at the beginning setting up Cruise’s relationship with his family is basically pure exposition, too, and poorly handled at that.
But this comparison is kind of pointless anyway – Children of Men is about a man reawakening to his place in the world, and War of the Worlds is about a guy disconnecting from the world and becoming a great dad. Their character arcs are almost precisely opposite, as are the movies thematic concerns.
I gotta disagree here, I think the opening scene in WOTW with Cruise’s family is pretty well-done, especially in how huge of a prick Cruise’s character is to everyone. Plus, I disagree that the movies are thematically all that different. Both of them are about what it looks like when the world comes to an end. And you can make the argument that at the end of CoM, Theo has also learned how to become a pretty good dad.
For me that opening bit with the family played as a bad cartoon of what a dysfunctional family looks and feels like (which may be why I’ve never been entirely sold on the film, and its “Tom Cruise becomes a wonderful responsible father” arc has never done much for me). But that’s cool if you like it, man…
As for comparing the two, there are certainly very overt similarities between the two – after all, the hero in both spends most of the movie trying to protect the life of a young woman. Within that, though, I do see them as ending up in very different places – WOTW has always struck me as as peculiarly closed off picture, as if in the face of all this tragedy, the only thing that matters is that Tom Cruise’s son is still alive and just waiting around for the happy ending. I’ve gone back and forth between whether I thought Spielberg intended this ending to be serious or darkly comic, but in the end I do think it’s the latter, and that strikes me as a strange, vaguely selfish note to strike.
In Children of Men, there is a constant acknowledgment of the tragedy happening all around, and rather than the relief of Kee being found by the Human Project distracting from that point, it seems to enhance it. One of the reasons I enjoyed the exposition as presented in COM is that it so vividly contextualizes Theo’s alienation – it presents Theo’s arc as the journey from selfishness to selflessness – the opposite of Cruise in War of the Worlds
With the good dad bit, well, I was being kind of sarcastic about that, in that Cruise’ character’s focus on saving his daughter semed inauthentic to me and as much a symptom of his narcissism as anything else in the movie – but you’re totally right about Theo. He’s learned what Cruise’s character didn’t, which is that it’s not all about him.
Geez, this is a rambly post. Sorry about that.
Shame on you Dave. Even you know that Brokeback got screwed by prejudice. Everyone in this town acknowledges it off the record and they all admit that Crash was MOW fodder.
And actually, it’s not the opposite of Cruise’s arc in WOTW – which is from selfishness to more socially acceptable selfishness. My mistake.
Roark,
Which is exactly why I like War. And why I often suggest it’s the most Kubrick he’s gone. He’s a dick, and at the end, he’s still a dick only he’s earned the right to be a dick.
I don’t like clean, obvious character arcs. They seem phony.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but A.I. was the most Kubrick that Spielberg has ever done.
In concept, obviously, because it was Kubrick’s. But I think in terms of his filmmaking, he wasn’t there yet. He was on War.
Obviously I disagree.
Sorry, Kyle.
Brokeback was “screwed” by peaking way too early and being too confident. I hated Crash, but I also know how many people truly loved it.
I dig myopia, but I try to keep it in perspective.
Mutinyco– That’s a fun take on War, and I might go along with it if I thought that was in any way what Spielberg intended, but WOTW has always felt slapped together and intellectually sloppy in a way that Kubrick would never have allowed. Maybe it’s exactly that sloppiness that you like – it certainly opens the film up to a wider spectrum of readings than a lot of Spielberg’s work – but for me, Cruise’s character wasn’t a Kubrickian subversion of the traditional hero, it was another Hollywood movie with a fake, clean character arc. I don’t necessarily mind a clean character arc – the movie just has to earn it.
ugh i don;t like WOTW
CoM is far more entertaining and not nearly as manipulative IMUHO.
I wasn’t impressed by 28DL either.
I like Spielberg but I find it hard to compare him to Kubrick, who i like even more.
i think I agree with Jeff that the only place I saw Kubrikian was AI, but I disliked the final AI immensely.
You think War is intellectually sloppy. I think Children is intellectually lightweight.
So there we are.
The comparisons between WotW and CoM seem pretty apt, but I’m a little surprised by mutinyco’s defense of the former. It was truly about nothing, the entire story being one giant MacGuffin within which Tom Cruise can prove he’s a good dad – to one of his kids, at least. And it needed very little exposition because there was so very little to explain: Aliens wanted our planet, aliens died by not understanding biology (more HG Wells’ problem than Spielberg’s) which made it intellectually nonexistent, if not throughly enjoyable. The fact that enough critics/bloggers tried (with tongue firmly in cheek) to apply the “was it all a dream?” theory to explain the very oddly untouched aspect of his in-law’s Boston home only underlines the plot’s thinness.
CoM used it’s MacGuffin (a term I don’t necessarily agree with) as a spring-board to show humanity at its slow, deteriorating worst – and inevitably (though ambiguously) at its best.
My apologies for all the parentheses.
Obviously, you didn’t get War.
I didn’t “get it” either.
And you didn’t get CoM.
We can all go home now.
Don’t worry, Dave. It’ll come back around. You can get it then.
Yes, Jeff. Please go home.
no don;t send Jeff home yet. Is the Mission Beverage company still ‘operating’ (a booze wholesalers) in LA? choose Yes or No, then you can go home. have to find out before i next get out to LA.
Movies with Science Fiction elements seem to create the most intense love or loathing, even in people who normally like the same movies.
Can’t do LA sober?
i’m always sober in LA, i don;t want to end up in Vegas married to a stranger. unless he’s good with Home Repairs.
but i do need a case of something when i’m there
“the first act of CoM is all exposition. If I noticed it, and was aware of it — particularly Caine saying things to Owen that he’d already know, the TVs explaining Diego’s death, the propaganda explaining how the UK is the only one still standing — and had a negative reaction to it, how can you tell me it didn’t exist? ”
So they should’ve, what? Had a Star Wars scroll and just enter straight into the chase? That’s fucking stupid. I’m not sure how many stoners you know mutinyco, but the ones I know are repetitive. And if you live in a world like the one in CoM people don’t really have things to discuss anymore (“how was your weekend?”) so people are bound to just discuss things they know about. And considering Caine’s character was anti-government from the look of things it would make sense that his character continues to go on rants about the state of the world.
I’d be able to care about your objections to film if they were rational (like Dave’s), but complaining that the film has 20 minutes of exposition at the very start is simply ridiculous. Complaining that television news tells us about the death of the youngest character on the planet? That is absurd. How else are we to know about it? Ugh.
Interestingly, the book and the film both start with the death of the youngest person on earth.
Of course, the book spends a lot more time working into Theo’s story before getting to anything close to action.
In an attempt to get back on topic, of sorts, I will offer slightly altered comments I just posted on HE about this topic here (and I am sorry if some of this might have already come up, but I’m tired this late at night)…
Btw, Mr. Poland, do you think it’s possible that Eastwood split himself out of a DGA nomination too? Even if it was a minority of Eastwood votes going to Flags, it could’ve been more than enough to cost him a nomination, right?
Sure. Of course, some people crazily thought DGA might double nominate him.