January 21, 2007
Saturday night I saw "Children of Men", Alfonso Cuaron's new film adaptation of a P.D. James novel This is not the P.D. James of my memory -- Oxford dons detecting on campus, nor is it an adolescent sexual road romp like "Y Tu Mama Tambien" . No friends, "Children of Men" is dystopia at its finest.
I, of course, loathe sci-fi -- especially sordid sci-fi. I much prefer the world of pretty and clean cut. I consider this to be one of my many spiritual flaws. But enough about me.
The film is set in 2027 London eighteen years after the last human baby was born Humanity has waltzed itself right into barrenness. Folks are living the end of human existence, consciousness, knowing that it will be lost in two generations. The situation, understandably, leads to generalized social despair which is more than evident in the movie. I'm not crazy about despair either. Just as permanent human infertility seems inevitable, a woman becomes pregnant. Our hero, the dashing Clive Owen, is called upon to save her/ humankind.
On the front page of the official movie website there is a video critique by Slavoj Zizek which is well worth watching.
Morsels transcribed from his commentaryabout "Children of Men":
. it shows the signs of the effects of social oppression on the fate of the individual hero
. we see the deterioration of society in the background even more clearly than in the foreground
. if you look at the effects of oppression too directly, you cannot see them (ask Al Gore).
. the movie is an example of the "paradox of amorphosis" --we are able to see the truth only in an oblique way-- only if it remains in the background
. there is tension between foreground and background.
. the theological despair of true infertility is the lack of meaningful historical experience.
. Classical statues (in the movie) are totally meaningless when they are taken out of their historical context.
. the movie approaches the problem of immigration
. the movie shows the ideological despair of late capitalism
. it is set in England, only there can despair be felt because England relies on its substance of traditions -- loss of historical dimension, substance of meaning is much worse in a society where substance of traditions existed in the first place
. in the loss of historical dimension, there is a loss of historical feeling
. Jasper (the hero's best friend, changed from the book) is presented as an old obscene impotent retired hippie, in all its ambiguity -- makes the old leftist look infantile and ridiculous -- the decadence started there, in the sixties
. the movie avoids sex -- fertility is reinstalled as spiritual fertility -- to find the the meaning of life.
. precisely because it doesn't make a political moralistic parable, it works
. the resolution in the film is made by the metaphor of a boat floating -- it doesn't have roots-- the condition of renewal is that you cut your roots
. only films like this will make certain that cinema as art will really survive
Let me not get bogged down in deep philosophical thought here. As with housekeeping, I have had to come to terms with the fact that philosophical thought is not my strength. You can watch the Zizek video clip yourself, or the movie, for that matter.
In the mood for something lighter? Merrill Markoe recommends Uncle Saddam, a documentary about Iranian architecture etc.
Among various highlights, the movie contains a fascinating tour of Saddam's 21 palaces, one of which was totally underground and had an underground airport runway! And one of which came complete with an entry hall floor mosaic of George Bush's face labeled with the inlaid mosaic tile words "Bush is Criminal." As insane-dictators-freed-from-budgetary-restrictions go, Saddam scored pretty well on the creativity scale.
A commentator asks, "I've heard about that floor... Who does them? Can I have one done?"
Cheered up yet? I am.
Photo note: A taste of the dystopic behind Gerard's Greenhouse
Posted by Dakota at January 21, 2007 07:00 AM | TrackBack