Dir: Alfonso Cuarón
Well, here's a depressing film and no mistake. Its almost as bad as a John Brunner novel!
Set in 2027 this is an adaptation of a PD James novel, set in a dystopian nightmare where the human race has become infertile. The story takes place in the UK, specifically in London and Sussex, when the contemporary problems of mass immigration, warfare and pollution have left most of the world in chaos. Only the UK has survived intact, but at the cost of becoming an oppressive society on the brink of complete collapse. Every where is dirty, ruined. London is full of urban ethnic detritus with rickshaws and graffiti every where the camera turns. Refugee's are a major problem for the last viable society on Earth and are rounded up into public cages by the military.
Clive Owen plays Theo, a jaded political activist who is settling down into alcoholic oblivion and awaiting the end of the world when his former wife Julian (Julianne Moore) suddenly resurfaces after twenty years. Julian has become a terrorist and needs Theo's help to smuggle out a young refugee who just happens to be pregnant... Thus is the plot.
This film is a deliberate statement regarding the world today. Alfonso Cuarón has confirmed this, but its fairly obvious from watching the film. Post 9/11 iconography saturates the film to so great a degree that its hard to take seriously its classification as science fiction. This is to sci fi what Stalin was to politics. Its also fairly obvious that this film plays to the idea that western society is doomed. Though the whole planet is apparently infertile, the focus of the film is solely on the west with London representing the last stand of European civilisation. The first baby born in twenty years is naturally born to an illegal immigrant from Africa who represents the coming new age.
The obvious symbolism has spawned some criticism on IMDb's forum for this film where people have called it a 'liberal wet dream' and I can see their point. Though Alfonso Cuarón appears to be trying to maintain an apolitical balance in the story, what he's actually doing, since he is not predicting the future is commenting on the present (he's said as much himself). This is not a 'what if' kind of film. It is a statement of opinion regarding how the world is today and that statement is radically left wing.
But its a good film. Far and away better than 'V for Vendetta' which tries to establish a similar point of view. More 'real', and way better made. The camera work, art direction and editing are all excellent and I can forgive the political bias as a consequence (something I could not do for 'V for Vendetta').
8 comments:
"This is not a 'what if' kind of film. It is a statement of opinion regarding how the world is today and that statement is radically left wing."
I saw this one. I think you read way too much into it. I may be wrong but I get the impression that you approach films from the perspective that the director is projecting his view of the present on the big screen. This is like people saying that "300" is a conservative's wet dream of a movie. It isn't. It just singularly sucks.
Forgot to add: I don't mean just projecting the present/future, but telling what it is/will be.
I read the BBC article and don't see the "deliberate statement regarding the world today".
The cinematography pulled no punches. I pretty much agree with this Slate review. The idea that the film projects a liberal worldview is just weird, because now that I think about it in political terms, the film's entire premise is a conservative one: procreation, posterity and a counterweight to social instability.
'300' is a comic book brought to life and thats about it. I'm into history and graphic novels so I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'm not into Frank Miller though so my expectations are tempered with an edge of scepticism.
I think all art is political. I agree with the feminists on this one. The only difference is to how great a degree the politics is deliberate.
Films are collaborative but the directors are the most responsible for the creative process. As artists they impose their world view on their films and that world view is open to interpretation. Cuarón's world view is not hard to spot and the Slate review you linked to pretty much echoes what I said:
Children of Men, based on the 1992 novel by P.D. James, is the movie of the millennium because it's about our millennium, with its fractured, fearful politics and random bursts of violence and terror. Though it's set in the London of 2027, Cuarón's film isn't some high-tech, futuristic fantasy. It takes place in a grimly familiar location: the hell we are currently making for ourselves.
I don't see how this film can be classed as conservative on the basis of procreation, posterity and a counterweight to social instability either, these are only facets in the whole and are hardly unique to the conservative mentality either. Socialism has all the same talking points.
What stands out is who is procreating in the film and is thus the salvation of mankind (an illegal immigrant) and why is the world in social instability (no secret is made that its Tony Blair and friends).
Even though the terrorist gang are suspect in the film, they are not left wing. The terrorists are called 'fishes' which is an obvious reference to christianity though this connection is never spoken out loud. The other group, the Human Project is even more ambiguous and all we see of them is a fishing boat, but the boat made me think of Greenpeace, who are certainly left wing.
Dana Stevens also describes the film as a modern nativity, and thats true to some degree, but the characters in the film discard the christian aspect of the nativity by poking fun at it when Kee, the mother, jokes that she was a virgin. Cuarón makes sure to keep his core audience on track by distancing his story from christianity in this way. Kee does not know who the father is because she has been with too many men to know.
I hold this film is left wing. Cuarón is quoted on the BBC article as saying that while the film was futuristic, he deliberately planted the images firmly in 2006, and "These are things that we are scared and concerned and worried about now, actually happening. It is like things are now, but worse," he explains.
"By talking about things that are really worrying us now makes it a much more relevant film than it might have been."
I could be wrong of course but I reckon if this film were conservative in nature, it would not paint so dark a future nor place the salvation of humanity in the hands of an illegal immigrant. It certainly wouldn't have a burnt out political activist and aged hippy as its hero's and it would not be using a futuristic dystopia as a metaphor for modern western society.
Moif: “I could be wrong of course but I reckon if this film were conservative in nature, it would not paint so dark a future nor place the salvation of humanity in the hands of an illegal immigrant.”
This is the kind of future conservatives predict if we don’t listen to them. I pick up whiffs of social cataclysmic events day in and day out from religious PACs, blind pundits, etc.
As for the illegal immigrant angle unfortunately mainstream conservatism in the U.S. has flummoxed race with illegal immigration, illegal being the operative word and the issue may never be addressed the way it deserves to be addressed (thoughtfully) because they can’t drop the subject of race. From a your perspective you probably view it as a slap in the face with the exigent Muslim threat, but if you and I got right down to it, we’d probably disagree on the particulars of that threat and how to deal with it.
Moif: “What stands out is who is procreating in the film and is thus the salvation of mankind (an illegal immigrant) and why is the world in social instability (no secret is made that its Tony Blair and friends).”
Did you miss references to the chaos reigning throughout the world, the riots in U.S. cities (one of them under siege) and such? You are transfixed on liberal self-hate and allowing it to define film for you, not the other way around.
Moif: “I hold this film is left wing. Cuarón is quoted on the BBC article [snip]”
Gauging from every terrorism-related AD thread it seems to me conservatives are the ones “scared and concerned and worried about now”. So much so that rule of law and separation of powers can be discarded for the time being.
Moif: “Dana Stevens also describes the film as a modern nativity, and thats true to some degree, but the characters in the film discard the Christian aspect of the nativity by poking fun at it when Kee, the mother, jokes that she was a virgin.”
I don’t know that it’s a modern nativity. In fact, I would say it isn’t religious at all, either for or against Christianity. The core concept is not a Christian allegory and doesn’t need to be to be considered more ideologically right than left if it has to be criticized within a political framework.
Moif: “Even though the terrorist gang is suspect in the film, they are not left wing. The terrorists are called 'Fishes' which is an obvious reference to Christianity though this connection is never spoken out loud. The other group, the Human Project is even more ambiguous and all we see of them is a fishing boat, but the boat made me think of Greenpeace, who are certainly left wing.”
Do you know if a) the Fishes were called the Fishes in the novel, b) it was Cuarón’s intent to draw a similarity between the Human Project and Green Peace, and c) a bit of both, or d) you’re going off a gut feeling in your interpretation? How much creative license did Cuarón take with the novel?
This is the kind of future conservatives predict if we don’t listen to them. I pick up whiffs of social cataclysmic events day in and day out from religious PACs, blind pundits, etc.
Oh I’m sure that’s true enough, but those people didn’t make this film. The person who did make this film makes it clear that the future is a stand-in for the present. This film isn’t about the future, its about the world today.
As for the illegal immigrant angle unfortunately mainstream conservatism in the U.S. has flummoxed race with illegal immigration, illegal being the operative word and the issue may never be addressed the way it deserves to be addressed (thoughtfully) because they can’t drop the subject of race. From a your perspective you probably view it as a slap in the face with the exigent Muslim threat, but if you and I got right down to it, we’d probably disagree on the particulars of that threat and how to deal with it.
Well I’m willing to debate it if you want to start a thread at AD.
Did you miss references to the chaos reigning throughout the world, the riots in U.S. cities (one of them under siege) and such? You are transfixed on liberal self-hate and allowing it to define film for you, not the other way around.
On the contrary. I’m taking the directors word at face value. The film is about the world today and what he’s describing is how the left wing views the western world now not how the right wing see’s it in the future.
Gauging from every terrorism-related AD thread it seems to me conservatives are the ones “scared and concerned and worried about now”. So much so that rule of law and separation of powers can be discarded for the time being.
That’s true, but it doesn’t really relate to this film. The right wing posters at AD do indeed seem more concerned about the way things are going and yes this film plays on those fears, but it doesn’t describe the real fear which is not global, or western collapse as much as Islamic domination
I don’t know that it’s a modern nativity. In fact, I would say it isn’t religious at all, either for or against Christianity. The core concept is not a Christian allegory and doesn’t need to be to be considered more ideologically right than left if it has to be criticized within a political framework.
I don’t know that either, and yet Cuaron is using a Christian motif; the miraculous baby born to save mankind which must be saved from the tyrannical authorities. True this baby is not born in a manger (though we do get to see the mother cavorting amongst the cows) instead she is born in the modern equivalent, an internment camp for illegal immigrants. Also Theo is like Joseph, the father figure as a surragate.
I saw a short while back that lots of western films mimic christianity. Aliens and Terminator 2 were othes examples used. As a consequence I'm not sure that this actually means anything deliberate since it could simply be an unconcsious recurring theme in western cinemagraphic art.
Do you know if a) the Fishes were called the Fishes in the novel, b) it was Cuarón’s intent to draw a similarity between the Human Project and Green Peace, and c) a bit of both, or d) you’re going off a gut feeling in your interpretation? How much creative license did Cuarón take with the novel?
d. It was merely the association I made upoon seeing the Human Project fishing boat. It reminded me of Greenpeace.
I have never read the original novel so I don’t know how much license Cuarón took.
Moif: “I saw a short while back that lot’s of Western films mimic Christianity. Aliens and Terminator 2 were others examples used.”
I think it’s safe to say that we’re never going to agree on the political (or religious) pulse of any movie. To be honest, I wish directors put as much thought into movies as you seem to believe they do but the industry’s lowest common denominator (profits) rewards subpar films. I’m willing to consider it is a leftist propaganda piece but only by first knowing how much Cuarón deviated from the novel (whether it was an African illegal immigrant, a boat picked them up, Fishes were Fishes, etc.), else he’s just following the script and someone else’s propaganda.
The saying “I’ll believe it when I see it” should really be “I’ll see it when I believe it” to reflect the human tendency to aggregate facts that support our preferred outcomes and tune out facts that don’t. We’re sloppy investigators. I’ve no doubt, thanks to clever marketing, we’ll be seeing Jesus everywhere for that very condition.
I did a quick Ctrl-F search on a few keywords for this Wiki article on the book. There are Fishes, it is quite dystopian with Nature reclaiming the land, but the plot is very different. There's, oddly, no immigration problem and the story's "Mary" is Julian.
I'm going to have to read that book now!!
=)
Post a Comment