I don’t get out much, but the other night I ventured out to a movie theatre
to see the film Children of Men.
I remember reading reviews of the P.D. James novel on which it is based in
the early 90s and making a mental note to read the book, which I never got
around to doing.
So I cannot compare the book to the film nor comment on how well it made
the transition from page to screen. I am told that some who read the book were
not pleased with the film, but I am here viewing the film as a thing unto
itself.
Children of Men is set a couple of decades in the future, in an
England gone to seed. The world is in chaos; "Britain soldiers on", in the
words of the propaganda broadcasts, but only as a brutal police state.
Immigrants are rounded up, caged and shipped out. Random violence – both
revolutionary and criminal- is endemic. Religious extremists, both Christian and
Muslim, have taken to the streets. The government heavily promotes a suicide
drug.
And the world is childless: the youngest person on the planet has just been
murdered, at the age of 18, as the film begins.
The protagonist, Theo, is a former radical, now a cynical hard-drinking
government bureaucrat. His sole escape from the drudgery is an occasional visit
to an old hippie friend who lives in a cabin in the woods.
Theo had had a child once, many years ago, who had died in an influenze
epidemic, and after the death of the child Theo and the child’s mother had split
up.
She reappears, now the leader of the Fishes, a revolutionary group, and
prevails upon him by a mixture of bribery, memory and residual love to escort a
mysterious African woman to the coast, where a ship from the Human Project will
take her out of England to their refuge in the Azores.
The woman, Kee, is heavy with child, and as soon as this is revealed to
Theo something awakens in him and his transformation from world-weary cynic to
selfless saviour begins.
The overtly Christian themes are obvious: the child who is the hope of the
world, threatened on all sides, a journey to safety under the protection of a
just man, and the conversion of that man.
The grace at the heart of Children of Men is most vivid in the two
brief moments of stillness in an otherwise frenetic film.
The first of these occurs just after the child is born in the midst of the
chaos of a pitched street battle between rebels and government forces. As the
child’s cries pierce the sounds of war the gunfire begins to slow, then stop.
The woman carries her baby through the parting crowd of refugees and combatants.
Several people cross themselves and a woman’s voice is heard praying the Hail
Mary.
In the second, a gypsy woman leads Theo and Kee to shelter, the home of
Eastern European refugee squatters, where Kee finally has a moment of joy,
holding her baby in peace. On the walls are a Slavic three-barred cross and
icons.
It is odd to say of a work that portrays so much that is ugly and squalid,
but Children of Men is a beautiful film.
That said, I must warn you that it is not for everyone. The pace is
relentless, the violence brutal and graphic, the peril constant. I left the
theatre emotionally exhausted, and I felt like I had been holding my breath from
the opening scenes until the final credits.
It is a film which can only be described as prophetic, not in the sense of
being a precise prediction of a future world, but rather in speaking truth to
this one. The death wish of the West, the failure to have children -especially
in Europe- is at the heart of an emerging crisis
P.D. James’ dystopia is recognizably this world, albeit exaggerated.
And like the outlook for this world, Children of Men offers us, in
the end, both tragedy and hope.
–Daniel Nichols
I, too, thought it was a beautiful movie. When you see the newborn baby born right into the middle of a war, with bullets and bombs, hatred and violence literally all around–it brings home what it means that the Son of God entered right into the middle of our world.
I thought it was a much better Christmas carol than “Silent Night.”
I have to add that I don’t recommend the movie to anyone, in spite of all this–the violence was more than we should watch, I think. I wouldn’t have gone if I had known.
I’ve read the book, but not seen the movie. It appears that they are very different, and I had read a couple of reviews by Christian admirers of the book who were very unhappy with the movie. After Daniel and I emailed a bit about it last week, I googled around for more opinions, and as best I can tell most of the book’s open Christianity was removed, but some of it remains. Partly this seems to be inherent in the story: if you keep the plot’s foundation, which is the mysterious cessation of human fertility, you’re going to end up with some themes that are at least susceptible of a Christian interpretation.
Some Christian reviewers seem to like it with reservations, others dislike it strongly. I found one Marxist guy who viewed it as a great instance of someone taking “reactionary” material and turning it into something progressive. And one blogger assured a correspondent that he could see it without fear of being tainted by something Christian.
One thing the movie apparently is which the book definitely is not is an action-packed thriller. Almost everybody says it’s very successful on those terms, whatever they thought otherwise.
I didn’t bother saving URLs but if you google “‘children of men’ movie christian” you’ll turn up a lot of comments.
I was excited by your review, Daniel, but like Maclin I looked at some of the comments of other Christians and was a little disheartened by what I read. I would have been even more so had I saw some of the other comments he mentioned -tainted by Christianity? a sad remark on the state of things today and the distrust of religion in general and Christianity in particular that many seem to feel.
However, from the commercials the cinematography looks amazing, and for that aesthetic reason alone I will probably end up seeing it and judge for myself.
It is true too that even a director without the intention to support the Christian viewpoint can still end up filming a work that testifies to the truth of Christ in some way or another. After all, even an anti-Christian film (which I do not believe this to be from what I’ve read) can be in reality a cry of pain for the peace of the Lord.
Incidentally, I went to a Byzantine liturgy this weekend for the first time and very much enjoyed it. I could totally see what you talked about in one of your posts last year – that concerning on how the Divine Liturgy is for the “child of God” in all of us. That sense of innocent joy and frenetic excitement (I had never sung so much at a service before!), along with the fact that my friend and I were greeted so warmly, is why I will probably visit again at some point.
I was very interested in Dan’s review because I’d been turned off by all the ‘it stripped out the Christianity of the novel’ reviews. It was good to see a review which was not based on comparison with the novel (which, in my opinion, is one of PD James’ worst books). I’m going to see it. I can probably cope with the violence since my violence threshold has gone skyhigh after seeing Apocalypto.
Francesca,
Is Apocalypto worth seeing? And is it really the Catholic critique of modern society that some are making it out to be?
I think Apocalypto is worth seeing. I don’t know if it is a critique of modern society. I do think it is about original sin, and how it is expressed in the violent subjugation of persons. Although Augustine almost certainly would not approve of movies :), it is a very powerful ‘Augustinian’ film.
As you probably know from the reviews, some of the most powerful scenes of the movie depict the city to which the enslaved forest dwellers are taken, and show how they are led up a pyramid to be sacrificed. What we see is a city of slaves, in the deepest sense. It seems like common sense, something that everyone would know, that it would be a very unpleasant thing to be a human sacrifice – you’d be standing around there up on that pyramid, waiting for the priest to stick the knife in you. So Gibson’s point here, of the humanity of the potential sacrificees might seem trite. But we tend to blank out the ‘normality’ of the people concerned, imagining that somehow they had means of rationalizing it from within ‘their culture’. You may not remember a best forgotten Neil Young song, ‘Montezuma’, which includes the exculpatory lines, ‘they offered life in sacrifice so that others could go oooon.’ Even if that seems a pretty dumb line to you, you may not have imagined quite how humanly horrible human sacrifice is. And, to my mind, the Gibson film does not merely make this point, but generalizes it, to touch on the ingrained inhumanity of man to man.
The violence in the film is often revolting, but also beautiful. The film seems to say that beauty can be evil.
My reaction to violence on film varies greatly with the context–how much suspense and fear surround it, in particular. I haven’t seen anything to make me think I would have a big problem with the violence in Children of Men, which I gather is the sort that’s fairly typical for an action movie. Apocalypto sounds more questionable, but I might be ok with it. But I’m not sure how much you would have to pay me to see one of these super-violent horror films like Hostel. At very least enough so that I would never have to hold a job again in my life.
“P.D. James’ worst”? I read it when it came out and don’t remember much about the details, but I do recall finding it kind of flat. I really liked one of her recent mysteries, Death in Holy Orders, about a murder among an isolated group of Anglo-Catholics.
I don’t have plans to see either Children or Apocalypto, by the way. Takes a lot to get me into a movie theatre these days–pretty much has to be something that (a) I very much want to see and (b) really needs to be seen on the big screen to be enjoyed. Or maybe a rare (very rare) case where I don’t want to wait for the dvd. I don’t think even a new Star Wars would do it now.
I don’t know if it is one of PD James’ worst novels, because I’ve only read four or five. I just thought it was much less good than the detective ones. I don’t remember it all that well either, but it seemed too overtly allegorical, and, like you say, a bit flat. I really enjoyed “Death in Holy Orders.”
I might not go to movie theatres if I didn’t live in town (or if I lived somewhere there was no such thing, really, as ‘living in town’). A stroll over to the arts movie theatre or even the big multiplex on the beach with a friend, stop for a drink in the pub on the way back – that’s a good evening out and adds to the enjoyment of the movie. Did you read that piece from the New Yorker (it was posted on Arts and Letters) which argued that the next thing in cinema would be the renewal of big cinemas, with cocktail bars? In other words, they’d give the multiplexes back to adults. You may say, that’ll be the day, and you could be right – I remember when the movie of the Da Vinci Code had *just* come out, a taxidriver told me he’d downloaded it. But it’s possible, because watching in a group of people, some unknown to one, does seem to add to the pleasure of cinema.
I can’t bear suspense-with-violence films. What made Apocalypto tolerable for me was that it is action-violence, not suspense-violence.
All right, I just read a bunch of reviews by Christians who had read the book. Apparently the director took a lot of liberties with the story, sort of like if Peter Jackson had Sam betraying Frodo in his movie.
If I had read the book my reaction no doubt would have been different, though some of the reviewers I read seemed more upset about perceived criticism of George Bush than anything else! And others seemed to miss the grace still apparent in the film because of the changes. I should probably recommend the film only to those who haven’t read the book; I still say as a thing unto itself, quite apart from James’ book, it is pretty spectacular…
And Francesca- Children of Men is most definitely suspense with violence!
Uh-oh, now I’m in two minds.
I was annoyed with the Christian-scrubbing done in the movie script, but I thought it was pretty successful on its own.
One thing I haven’t seen critics mention: in the book, the pregnant woman was the Julian character, who wasn’t Theo’s ex-wife. She was very strong, much more of a heroine, and a Christian.
Having the movie’s expectant mother be an ill-educated immigrant seems to confirm several stereotypes.
I think there is some sort of a taboo about having pregnant women playing strong roles. The last such role I can think of was the cop in Fargo, where her pregnancy was(as I recall) simply a gimmick.
Is it suspenseful-violent as in cat-and-mouse in a dark house with a knife-wielding maniac, or person immobilized while maniac threatens or does nightmarishly gruesome things? Or is it sometimes suspenseful, sometimes violent?
I’ll probably see it after it comes out on dvd. After I had posted my first comment above, I read Ross Douthat’s review of it in National Review. It seemed very sensible (as is typical of his writing)–said it would disappoint fans of the book but is quite good in its own right.
Yeah, going to the theatre is fun. I just got out of the habit years ago when we had small children, and it rarely even occurs to me now. I think the last time I went was The Lion, The Witch etc (see “rare case” above). Also it’s too expensive.
I came out of the movie thinking, “What a beautiful Christian allegory!” Then I read the reviews on NR and the like, which said: the book was a beautiful Christian allegory, but the movie removed all of that.
All I can conclude is that the book must have been so powerful that the author’s intent came through anyway.
Re: the violence: I thought I wasn’t disturbed by violence in movies until I saw this one. Maybe it was just that it was so unrelenting. But the violence was at least intrinsically related to the meaning of the movie. We think, yes, yes, He came down into our world of sin–but to me, the movie brings it home what that really means. The only difference between the world immeidately around me and the war-torn world in the movie is that in the world around me, the suffering is mostly inside, where it’s not so visible. Making it present to the movie audience by using literal bullets and bombs is a fine literary technique.
I think on the basis of what we’re reading here–your reaction (Abigail), Daniel’s–that reviewers are clearly wrong to say “the movie removed all of that.” If that were true, those who have seen the movie without reading the book would (obviously!) not have reacted as y’all did.
The book, by the way, if my vague memories are correct, could not be technically described as an allegory. The Christian element is right out front and the characters among whom the mystery-miraculous pregnancy occurs are Christians, not symbolic proxies.
Maybe the movie, then, is in fact an allegory, or at least allegorical. I think I read that the director disavowed any such intention, but that doesn’t mean it may not work out that way.
It is at once suspensful and violent.
I would not call the film allegorical, which is probably why I liked it so much; indeed I am not sure I would like the book, from what you all have said.
Rather than allegorical, it is a suspenseful fast paced tale with Christian imagery and overtones, rather than strict analogy.
I think Daniel’s right to request a more precise use of the word “allegorical.” The imagery was unmistakable, though.
As the credits were rolling, I heard the young couple behind me:
He: So, I don’t get it. That seems really lame. So, like, one baby being born is supposed to save the whole world or something?
She: You don’t get it?!? That was the baby Jesus, don’t you see?
The line between allegory and symbolism is not necessarily all that clear, but it does sound like symbolism is more accurate here. I wouldn’t call the book allegorical, either, by the way (although like I said my memory of it is hazy)–I mean, it didn’t have symbolic or analogous representations of Christian things, so much as the things themselves.
One comment on the whole leftist slant issue: I noticed a number of Christian reviewers accused the film of having a heavy ideological bias. I presume this is because the government isn’t portrayed all that nicely: they abuse immigrants, run a police state, etc. Granted, one can pick up fairly easily a sort of neo-con administration on steriods, which would make neo-cons angry I suppose. However, the government, I thought, came off less reprehensible than the ‘resistance’ groups, who in fact are nothing more than callous terrorists. Neither ‘side’ comes off as heroic or noble; the true heroes are the people- a guy in flip-flops, Orthodox Eastern Europeans, a baby- caught in the middle- neither a statist government nor ‘principled’ terrorists. That would seem to me an almost seem a conservative tenet, but then I suppose conservatism isn’t what it used to be…
To be fair, not all the rebels were scoundrels; Julian was idealistic, for example.
But then not all the government folks were evil, either: the soldiers ceasing fire and crossing themselves upon seeing the baby come to mind.
Methinks some of the conservative critics are a bit oversensitive.
Ross Douthat’s review made exactly that point–that the virtue and villainy are pretty well distributed between the two sides. He thought there was an obvious topical reference to Bush intended, but not in a Manichean sort of way. (I know, why don’t I just go see the movie? Eventually, eventually.)
Background: I’ve been blogging right along on CoM, and my son and I wrote pieces for Godspy.com about APOCALYPTO. I also read PD James’ book when it first came out, and am reading it again.
PD James is one of my favorite writers, but I found her book, when it first came out, just a little unconvincing. Granted, an extra fifteen years of a declining Western Civ can make a difference in one’s perspective, but I actually think the movie got it “more right” by depicting a far grungier, chaotic and despairing world than the one depicted in the novel.
As to the alleged stripping of Christian themes, I think it was fortunate, actually, for the overt stuff to go, so that the “natural law” elements could stand out in greater relief, without non-believers being able to dismiss them as “Christian propaganda.” (I say this as a person who loves to read and write “overt” Catholic-themed fiction. But there is a time and place for all approaches, and right now I think is a good time to approach many Culture of Life/Death issues on a humanist/natural law basis.)
I’m reminded of a recent article in the Chesterton Review, which pointed out that Chesterton, who wrote largely for secular publications, typically resorted to arguments of “sanity” rather than “sanctity.” If we argue something is so only because “God said so,” we may be quite right, of course, but then we shouldn’t be surprised when non-believers pay no attention. In this regard, I think the film was far more effective as a pro-life statment than the book could ever be–and, as always, the film will bring a whole new generation to the book as well.
And as for the politics, PD James was also arguing quite strongly in her novel for the rights and dignity of immigrants–I don’t agree with those Christian neo-cons who seem to be saying that this element was completely new to the story, and takes away from its “Christian fable” element.
I agree with Debra – Children of Men hasn’t reached Scotland yet, but it sounds like a case of the aphorism ‘a bad novel makes a good movie’. When you cinematize a novel which really is just a visual-concept, it works perfectly. No examples given in order not to give offence to fans of authors with initials like JRRT :)
Plus, it may have been the best thing they could do with the allegory in James’ novel was eliminate or modify it.
It’s an interesting point that there are times in a culture for preaching from sanctity, and times for preaching from sanity – because right now, 99% of the academic theologians have gone over to sanctity – just when, if Debra is right, they needed to be heading for sanity. I love that line in the Screw Tape letters, “We have to keep them running around for fire hoses during a flood”.
Hadn’t thought about the sanctity vs sanity view. Not sure which side of that I fall on–I suppose the latter, as far as what I write is concerned.
Godspy is very good. I should read it more, but there is an overwhelming amount out there to be read.
I’m actually not all that big a P.D. James fan in general. My very favorite P.D. James works are the BBC adaptations shown on “Mystery” here, especially of the Dalgliesh novels. Wish I could see them again.
Francesca, are you suggesting that bad-novel-good-movie applies to Tolkien? If so, have no fear, I won’t vilify you, but I could not possibly disagree more. As a matter of fact, after a short period of partial enthusiasm, I’m leaning more toward regret that the Lord of the Ring movies were ever made, and that I saw them.
Well, to be fair, when Peter Jackson got it right, he got it very right: the Shire, Gandalf, the Black Riders, Saruman, Gollum, the Riders of Rohan.
But then when he got it wrong, it was dreadful: the elves, Sauron, dwarves, the Wargs(?), most of the orcs, and especially every stupid modern joke, like the dwarf-tossing ones, or Legalos surfing on his shield…
No, I don’t want to have a debate about Tolkein.
I do think the ‘bad novel makes a good movie’ aphorism is interesting.
Agreed, Daniel–there are definitely a lot of very good things in those movies, although I think in the end the Hollywood Big, Loud, and Dumb Syndrome overpowered them. But, good or bad, I’m afraid they’ve colonized my mind.
Speaking of PD James and Tolkien, I too love the BBC Mystery programs of the Dalgliesh series, at least now that Martin Shaw has taken over the role. I’m also quite the evangelist for Martin Shaw’s audiobook reading of Tolkien’s Silmarillion–a difficult book to read, frankly, but Shaw reads it beautifully, and I find it a good deal more accessible.
In the Tolklien book vs movie argument, I’m a both/and person. I loved the books first from an early age, and nothing will replace them, but I love PJ’s movie version, too, even though I find a few of the modern jokes and Dwarf asides painful, and wish to heavens he’d had the good sense to go with David Bowie for Elrond…ah well, he got so very much right!
Finished the book Children of Men again, and I do like it very much, though not as much as the Dalgliesh books. Again, just not quite as convincing a vision of the future, I think, nor quite as broadly accessible as the film. The movie’s Theo is a good deal more easy to identify with, methinks, than the Oxford Don of the book, who is something of a standard character for James–an aging man, precise, reserved, fastidious, who has never learned to love.
Bowie?!? As Dilbert would say, “Gaaaa!!!” Just goes to show that there’s no accounting for tastes (pro or con) in things like this.
I’m not sure I’ve seen Martin Shaw as Dalgliesh. I liked Roy Marsden in that role very well. I see NetFlix has a bunch of these so I will soon be revisiting them.
James’ autobiographical work, Time To Be In Earnest, is good, too.
There’s a good, very appreciative review of Children of Men over on Godspy. The author says:
The main theme of this film is the miracle of human life and the dignity of the human person, but as Flannery O’Connor said, “A story has to have muscle as well as meaning, and the meaning has to be in the muscle.” Lesser artists deliver their messages with a megaphone, like a preacher bellowing from an on-high pulpit. Cuarón is too canny an artist to let the message drive the movie. Rather, the story and the characters (the “muscle”) drive the film, and the message emerges organically out of how the characters react.
That seems to be the review by Debra Murphy’s son, which she mentions above (I haven’t read it yet and have used up my lunch hour).