Won't someone think of the "Children"?

Although I find children unnerving, I'm the first to admit they're pretty necessary. After all, somebody's got to keep the world going and buy me booze and cheese fries after I'm too decrepit to do it myself. While the prospect of a world without children does sound almost enchanting at times (say, during cross-country flights or while grocery shopping), contemplating a future where the human race would simply die out like a snuffed candle is an exercise in despair.

 

So I knew going into it that Children of Men would be pretty bleak. What I didn't know is how utterly amazing it would be.

In a sense, it's not an easy movie to love, what with contemplating the end of the human race and all. But I was simply awed by every aspect of the film: the concept, the production design, the performances and especially the direction.

Children of Men is, flat-out, bar none, the best directed film of 2006 that I have seen. Director Alfonso Cuaron first knocked my socks off with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (my review); I was stunned at how real, grubby, unpredictable, yet beautiful and moving the film was, especially compared to the first two installments in the series.

As in Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuaron uses nature and especially the presence of animals incredibly well. Almost everyone in the film has a pet, providing a rather haunting reminder that humans seem to need to look after something or someone, that most of us don't feel complete without a creature to love and nurture. At the same time, non-pet animals are encroaching onto traditionally human spaces; we see a zebra walking in a London park and a deer scampering through an abandoned elementary school. It's as if the rest of nature were hovering on the periphery, just waiting for its chance to reclaim the world after humanity is gone. Such minor directorial choices, but they add so much to the film.

Then there's the technical virtuosity. A couple of sequences left me wondering how on earth they were even filmed, especially a complicated scene involving a car, motorcycles and gunshots that's done mostly in long takes. Just phenomenal stuff. But I was only amazed by these shots after viscerally experiencing them; their technical prowess was secondary to their emotional impact.

Children of Men is also full of masterful detail. I probably need to see it several times to appreciate it fully. For instance, an online buddy of mine pointed out yesterday that after the initial scene, an announcement of the death of the youngest person on earth, people can be seen in the background throwing themselves out of buildings. I didn't even notice that when I saw the movie, and I'm truly impressed that Cuaron just left that as a detail, rather than calling attention to it as a lesser director would.

As you might have gathered, my esteem for Cuaron's direction of this film is damn near endless. So I was shocked yesterday to see that the Directors Guild of America had inexplicably ignored Cuaron in their nominations for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in a Feature Film. To my mind, everything that Cuaron achieved in Children of Men was outstanding. (Well, the ending was a trifle abrupt, but I can put that down to his signature style.)

I understand four of the five nominees. I can totally see nominating Inarritu for Babel (weaving complex storylines, I guess; I haven't seen it yet) and Dayton and Faris for Little Miss Sunshine (working with actors). As I've said earlier, I liked Frears' interweaving of news footage in The Queen, and I think they might have nominated Condon solely on the strength of Eddie Murphy's first number in Dreamgirls (it's pretty damn good). You know which nomination I totally disagree with? Scorsese.

Feel free to start giving me the finger, but I just don't think Martin Scorsese should have been nominated for this particular film. I thought The Departed was a great movie, but I don't really see any outstanding direction there. If anything, I saw Scorsese cribbing from himself. I'm almost positive he's used "Gimme Shelter" as the soundtrack for a monologue before, to give one example of how familiar the directorial choices seem. There's the slo-mo death, the gangster who jokes about killing, the damn near absence of female characters, the montage avec cocaine -- I feel like we've been here before in other Scorsese films. Scorsese's done some great work over the years, but when I compare the direction of The Departed to the direction of Children of Men, there's just no contest.

Science fiction seems to occupy a ghetto in the minds of awards organizations -- and given the quality of the average Sci-Fi Channel Original Movie, I can sort of understand that. But to write off Children of Men as "just sci-fi" would be a slam on a truly profound work of art. Dammit, y'all, why won't someone think of the Children?

Comments

[sudiegirl]

I know Scorsese used "Gimme Shelter" in "Casino", and maybe "Goodfellas". As much as he seems to know about music, he sure doesn't employ variety. I still LOVE his movies but I haven't seen "The Departed" yet. The last one I saw was "The Aviator", and that was a very good film.

I want to see "Children of Men" also, but something tells me I'll be on my own with that one too. Sigh...

[julie]

Okay, you've officially sucked me in. I now HAVE to go see Children of Men, and will make a point to see it next weekend. Just stumbled upon your site, and will also make a point of returning here.