Children of Men
You all know that I like to read...a lot. I like to read all kinds of books, and I also like to talk about the good books I've read with other people. I also like to watch good movies...a lot. A good movie is like a good book to me, but takes less time to experience, therefore you don't have as much time to reflect on what you've just experienced. You essentially have to squeeze the same conflicts into a two hour span that you would stretch over the course of a month if you read a book.
I went with Nikola last night to see the movie Children of Men. This is quite possibly the best movie I have ever seen -- definitely the best movie I've seen in the past five years. The basic plot is that Clive Owen works in Britain for the Department of Energy, 20 years from now. The world has experienced terrorism on an ever-increasing scale, with major attacks in all major cities (I tried to find Toronto in the quickly-flicking list, but either I wasn't fast enough or it wasn't there). Britain is the only country that has gone untouched by massive terrorism, but it has had to sacrifice it's democratic liberty. Also, illegal immigrants are rounded up like Jews were in WWII and executed in like manner (the ghettos, concentration camps, and death camps are referred to as "refugee camps", complete with fascist propoganda -- "Britain has provided you a home, Britain has fed you. Do not support terrorism"). This has resulted in an island nation with violence of an unprecedented nature, with new sects and groups fighting for their own causes -- as the director, Alfonso Cuaron, shows: access to weapons isn't a problem; access to shoes is. Even the British government uses terrorism, killing citizens and blaming it on the other terrorist groups. Oh yeah, and for some reason -- speculation runs rampant from theories about government experiments with gamma rays to terrorist attacks -- but for some reason that nobody knows, humans have become infertile, unable to reproduce.
There is a plot, but I won't say what it is in case some of you are planning on seeing it. I will say that Clive Owen is absolutely terrific -- I'm so happy he wasn't the knew Bond, because he might not have been able to do this movie as well (and plus, Daniel Craig was awesome in Casino Royale). Michael Caine plays his lovable friend. There are lots of funny jokes and light-hearted moments, but these moments are all the more juxtaposed by the violence (which I will warn is quite graphic at times) and overall disturbing tone of the film. And there is hope. Despite the hope though, I felt disturbed, weary, and helpless at the end. Cuaron takes the difficult task of directing a fresh approach to an apocalyptic vision. Cuaron hit the nail on the head. It is a futuristic movie, and you are frequently reminded of that as the movie progresses; however, the apocalyptic undertones are so disturbing because Cuaron so successfully adapts his plot with today's world -- it is not impossible, nor would I argue is it very difficult, to see Cuaron's vision of the future based on the world around us today (Okay, technically it's P.D. James's vision, but Cuaron had to visualize it in the film).
Apocalyptic literature has existed as long as people have been writing. For more than 2000 years people have been writing about the end of the world, but I have never accepted it because it isn't realistic. The Book of Revelation is, as I am aware of, the first such example of apocalyptic literature; fear-mongers today point to climate change, global warming, and increasingly more frequent natural disasters as the herald of the beginning-of-the-end of humankind. Apocalyptic literature is nothing new, but what makes it unbelievable is it's distance from realism: God has never proven himself to me, so why should I believe (or live in fear) that the world will be destroyed by him. I can only have faith in something that gives me reason to have faith...a collection of books written by men about God cannot give me that faith anymore than Star Wars can give me faith in The Force (besides, I've tried to use The Force to switch my light off at night when I'm too tired and lazy to get out of bed and switch it physically -- it's bullshit, it doesn't work!!). I don't believe that the world will end in a massive ice age, flood, or from an asteroid from outer space -- as Ian Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way".
What makes Children of Men more disturbing to me is that it's not an apocalyptic vision about the end of the world, it's a vision about the end of the human world. There is actually a great scene that takes place in an old school, long unneeded and abandoned because of the infertility, and as Clive Owen is walking down the hall he hears a noise -- the suspense builds until we see a deer walk by, symbolically reclaiming from the human world what used to belong to nature (there is evidence of a forest outside the school). It's a vision of the end of the human world, and the conundrum is that it's not something that we can adapt to or fight against, like an alien invasion, or a natural disaster; on the contrary, that's the very problem, the Catch 22 if it were: WE are the agents of the apocalypse. The more we fight against the 'problem' the more we contribute to it. And although I don't think human beings are capable of destroying the planet entirely, I do think that we are capable of destroying ourselves: as we get 'smarter' we create more technology; weapons continue to get bigger, better, more efficient, and cheaper (easier to access); we continue to use increasingly more powerful energy supplies for more destructive purposes; we continue to pour money into military and defence, rather than using that same money to help people who are less developed and eliminate the source of desparation that causes people to attack us in the first place; we continue to grow more cynical of each other, and of the possibility of Love, and more comfortable in our distance from each other.
In analysis of this movie, and post, I would like to make a first point: over the years we have been seemingly moving toward a so-called "World State." First the British Commonwealth, then the League of Nations, then the U.N., then N.A.T.O., andnow one of the newest is the European Union (this all just in the so-called "Western" world). Many people argue against the idea of a World State because of the loss of culture: languages, flags, currency, fashion, etc. There are many good points to be considered in this movement toward a World State. I have thought a lot about it myself, especially over the past two years -- hell, I'm part of that movement, I teach English to Czechs. But, I also am learning Czech in the process, and I wouldn't have done that hadn't I come here. I have decided after last night's movie that I am in support of more of a World State: I think the time of the Nation State must come to and end if we are to survive; we must learn to live together as best as we can, and we must work for the betterment of all humanity and nature, not just the people and nature that share the same flag as us. Culture, when you think of it, is a bit of an accident of history. Whether your beliefs are religious or scientific, or somewhere in between (like me), we know that humans began somewhere in the Middle East (probably present day Iraq) and over thousands of years spread out to adapt to a growing population and scarce resources. Communication was lost, due to lacking technology, and thus different cultures grew. But now we have the means to communicate with each other, we can learn new cultures and incorporate it into our own lives. Culture will change, as it always has, but it will not disappear; it will change differently for all individuals because nobody can experience everything the world has to offer, nor will everything interest them (nor should it). In a World State, differentiation will continue, but tolerance and understanding will be built. And since we will never dispose of money as currency, we need to find a way to share the resources. Some countries are blessed with rich farmland, others with massive forests for lumber, and others with hot tropical beaches ideal for relaxing; we can share our resources with everybody around us, and share in the profits of happy living as well. Most importantly, it will change our much out-dated mentality. When somebody asks you about yourself one of the first things you reply is your nationality. Although I am a citizen of Canada, I also happen to be a citizen of the world. And the people living in the Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Iraq are equal citizens of the world as I am -- why are they not being given the same priviledges and advantages that I am? Until we eliminate the out-dated idea of 'nations', we are doomed to consider others as a threat to our priviledges and advantages.
Importantly, I realize that Children of Men is a piece of fiction. But Jules Verne wrote fiction too, and shortly after he died, his visions of submarines, subterranean vessels, flying to the moon, and travelling around the world in eighty days all came true. Children of Men is a warning. I spoke to one of my classes today recommending the film, and one girl said she wouldn't see it because I said it was disturbing. I asked her if she believed that people should continue to visit Aushwitz, despite how disturbing that experience can be. That is the other point, I guess, of this post: we should not ignore something because of our complacency for feeling 'good' about everything. If something is disturbing, it needs our attention, it doesn't need to be ignored. If there is a problem in North Korea because of their nuclear development, maybe we shouldn't have ignored them in the first place; if there is a problem in your family or love life, don't ignore it, but face it and deal with it. I highly recommend all of you to see Children of Men; it will wrench your guts, and I hope it will open your eyes and ears and make you a bit more aware of our possible destination.
And no, I'm not drunk right now, though reading back through this it may seem like it. Jen must be just shaking her head saying "my brother has lost his mind!" (if she made it this far through ;)
Love to everybody...till next post...
I went with Nikola last night to see the movie Children of Men. This is quite possibly the best movie I have ever seen -- definitely the best movie I've seen in the past five years. The basic plot is that Clive Owen works in Britain for the Department of Energy, 20 years from now. The world has experienced terrorism on an ever-increasing scale, with major attacks in all major cities (I tried to find Toronto in the quickly-flicking list, but either I wasn't fast enough or it wasn't there). Britain is the only country that has gone untouched by massive terrorism, but it has had to sacrifice it's democratic liberty. Also, illegal immigrants are rounded up like Jews were in WWII and executed in like manner (the ghettos, concentration camps, and death camps are referred to as "refugee camps", complete with fascist propoganda -- "Britain has provided you a home, Britain has fed you. Do not support terrorism"). This has resulted in an island nation with violence of an unprecedented nature, with new sects and groups fighting for their own causes -- as the director, Alfonso Cuaron, shows: access to weapons isn't a problem; access to shoes is. Even the British government uses terrorism, killing citizens and blaming it on the other terrorist groups. Oh yeah, and for some reason -- speculation runs rampant from theories about government experiments with gamma rays to terrorist attacks -- but for some reason that nobody knows, humans have become infertile, unable to reproduce.
There is a plot, but I won't say what it is in case some of you are planning on seeing it. I will say that Clive Owen is absolutely terrific -- I'm so happy he wasn't the knew Bond, because he might not have been able to do this movie as well (and plus, Daniel Craig was awesome in Casino Royale). Michael Caine plays his lovable friend. There are lots of funny jokes and light-hearted moments, but these moments are all the more juxtaposed by the violence (which I will warn is quite graphic at times) and overall disturbing tone of the film. And there is hope. Despite the hope though, I felt disturbed, weary, and helpless at the end. Cuaron takes the difficult task of directing a fresh approach to an apocalyptic vision. Cuaron hit the nail on the head. It is a futuristic movie, and you are frequently reminded of that as the movie progresses; however, the apocalyptic undertones are so disturbing because Cuaron so successfully adapts his plot with today's world -- it is not impossible, nor would I argue is it very difficult, to see Cuaron's vision of the future based on the world around us today (Okay, technically it's P.D. James's vision, but Cuaron had to visualize it in the film).
Apocalyptic literature has existed as long as people have been writing. For more than 2000 years people have been writing about the end of the world, but I have never accepted it because it isn't realistic. The Book of Revelation is, as I am aware of, the first such example of apocalyptic literature; fear-mongers today point to climate change, global warming, and increasingly more frequent natural disasters as the herald of the beginning-of-the-end of humankind. Apocalyptic literature is nothing new, but what makes it unbelievable is it's distance from realism: God has never proven himself to me, so why should I believe (or live in fear) that the world will be destroyed by him. I can only have faith in something that gives me reason to have faith...a collection of books written by men about God cannot give me that faith anymore than Star Wars can give me faith in The Force (besides, I've tried to use The Force to switch my light off at night when I'm too tired and lazy to get out of bed and switch it physically -- it's bullshit, it doesn't work!!). I don't believe that the world will end in a massive ice age, flood, or from an asteroid from outer space -- as Ian Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way".
What makes Children of Men more disturbing to me is that it's not an apocalyptic vision about the end of the world, it's a vision about the end of the human world. There is actually a great scene that takes place in an old school, long unneeded and abandoned because of the infertility, and as Clive Owen is walking down the hall he hears a noise -- the suspense builds until we see a deer walk by, symbolically reclaiming from the human world what used to belong to nature (there is evidence of a forest outside the school). It's a vision of the end of the human world, and the conundrum is that it's not something that we can adapt to or fight against, like an alien invasion, or a natural disaster; on the contrary, that's the very problem, the Catch 22 if it were: WE are the agents of the apocalypse. The more we fight against the 'problem' the more we contribute to it. And although I don't think human beings are capable of destroying the planet entirely, I do think that we are capable of destroying ourselves: as we get 'smarter' we create more technology; weapons continue to get bigger, better, more efficient, and cheaper (easier to access); we continue to use increasingly more powerful energy supplies for more destructive purposes; we continue to pour money into military and defence, rather than using that same money to help people who are less developed and eliminate the source of desparation that causes people to attack us in the first place; we continue to grow more cynical of each other, and of the possibility of Love, and more comfortable in our distance from each other.
In analysis of this movie, and post, I would like to make a first point: over the years we have been seemingly moving toward a so-called "World State." First the British Commonwealth, then the League of Nations, then the U.N., then N.A.T.O., andnow one of the newest is the European Union (this all just in the so-called "Western" world). Many people argue against the idea of a World State because of the loss of culture: languages, flags, currency, fashion, etc. There are many good points to be considered in this movement toward a World State. I have thought a lot about it myself, especially over the past two years -- hell, I'm part of that movement, I teach English to Czechs. But, I also am learning Czech in the process, and I wouldn't have done that hadn't I come here. I have decided after last night's movie that I am in support of more of a World State: I think the time of the Nation State must come to and end if we are to survive; we must learn to live together as best as we can, and we must work for the betterment of all humanity and nature, not just the people and nature that share the same flag as us. Culture, when you think of it, is a bit of an accident of history. Whether your beliefs are religious or scientific, or somewhere in between (like me), we know that humans began somewhere in the Middle East (probably present day Iraq) and over thousands of years spread out to adapt to a growing population and scarce resources. Communication was lost, due to lacking technology, and thus different cultures grew. But now we have the means to communicate with each other, we can learn new cultures and incorporate it into our own lives. Culture will change, as it always has, but it will not disappear; it will change differently for all individuals because nobody can experience everything the world has to offer, nor will everything interest them (nor should it). In a World State, differentiation will continue, but tolerance and understanding will be built. And since we will never dispose of money as currency, we need to find a way to share the resources. Some countries are blessed with rich farmland, others with massive forests for lumber, and others with hot tropical beaches ideal for relaxing; we can share our resources with everybody around us, and share in the profits of happy living as well. Most importantly, it will change our much out-dated mentality. When somebody asks you about yourself one of the first things you reply is your nationality. Although I am a citizen of Canada, I also happen to be a citizen of the world. And the people living in the Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Iraq are equal citizens of the world as I am -- why are they not being given the same priviledges and advantages that I am? Until we eliminate the out-dated idea of 'nations', we are doomed to consider others as a threat to our priviledges and advantages.
Importantly, I realize that Children of Men is a piece of fiction. But Jules Verne wrote fiction too, and shortly after he died, his visions of submarines, subterranean vessels, flying to the moon, and travelling around the world in eighty days all came true. Children of Men is a warning. I spoke to one of my classes today recommending the film, and one girl said she wouldn't see it because I said it was disturbing. I asked her if she believed that people should continue to visit Aushwitz, despite how disturbing that experience can be. That is the other point, I guess, of this post: we should not ignore something because of our complacency for feeling 'good' about everything. If something is disturbing, it needs our attention, it doesn't need to be ignored. If there is a problem in North Korea because of their nuclear development, maybe we shouldn't have ignored them in the first place; if there is a problem in your family or love life, don't ignore it, but face it and deal with it. I highly recommend all of you to see Children of Men; it will wrench your guts, and I hope it will open your eyes and ears and make you a bit more aware of our possible destination.
And no, I'm not drunk right now, though reading back through this it may seem like it. Jen must be just shaking her head saying "my brother has lost his mind!" (if she made it this far through ;)
Love to everybody...till next post...
posted by gulldogg at 4:59 a.m.
4 Comments:
Just catching up on your blogs since we were away........amazing vacation by the way! The day we left the resort was the start of the Bahamian International Film Festival. We knew that Nicolas Cage would be there as they were having a tribute to him but then I read in the paper this morning that Sean Connery presented him with his award......DAMN!!! This was all taking place in the hotel we stayed at!!
Anyway, so much for that! Came home to a snow bizzard with colder than cold temperatures (for us anyway after being in 80 degree weather!!) and trip home was a little longer than usual but we made it!We can't believe that Christmas is a mere two weeks away and that you will be home in a little over a week......Dad will pick you up...........what terminal??
We had our Christmas Party on Friday night............very nice... and then Larry went to his school reunion on Saturday. I spent a quiet day all to myself and thoroughly enjoyed it!
Just getting the last of my Christmas shopping done so I'll be ready when you get home.We're heading up to Grandma and Grandpa's for Christmas day and home the same night. We also want to have a get together with Joe & Lorraine over the holidays so there will be lots of good eats. Anyway, must run..........see ya soon.
Love.........Mom.
I am not sure if I am offended, for two reasons:
No. 1: I read every word of every blog you post...to imply otherwise is not accurate.
No. 2: I only shake my head and think that you are crazy when you are in my presence, to do so when you are absent is rude.
He he he!! ;) :)
Anyway, can't wait to see you...only two weeks to go! YAY!
Love ya lots,
Be safe,
Jen
Hey gullster -
i saw the movie a while back and you just perfectly put into words how i feel about it. literally everything i thought while watching it you've expressed. teaching, schmeaching, the boys a movie critic!
can't wait to see ya!
talia
Hey yeah, I saw a trailer for this movie a while ago (actually, I can't even remember what movie it was with) and I thought I might like to see it. Now I definitely do. But I can't wait to see you more! Lots of love!
P.S. Hm... Looks like my newest blog post came before the solstice this time! :P Cheeky bastard.. haha
Post a Comment
<< Home