Children of Men

I saw Children of Men on Thursday after a legitimate teaching binge. The setup for Children of Men is one of the best I've ever seen. You're plunged into that world so quickly: it opens with news reports of the death of Baby Diego in a bar fight--18 year old Baby Diego, the youngest man in the world--and people just stunned and weeping. Everyone mentions the bombing of the coffee shop, but the news report comes first. Then you get Britain as it is in 2027. The city prone to bombings, full of jingo-istic warnings to report illegal immigrants to the government and to comply with mandatory fertility tests, and spotted by cages of desperate grasping refugees. Inside the buildings, it's the standard cube work world but everyone's desk is dotted with images and figurines of infants and toddler toys as if they were relics and holy cards. Then there's the also much-mentioned rich enclave of London. Of course the fishes, led by Julianne Moore, who is so gorgeous in this part. And finally pregnant Kee herself, also gorgeous but not so ethereal, which is what makes her likable and believable. She's just as you would expect a too young woman accidentally pregnant--there's a brilliant joke about the Virgin Mary which works because Kee isn't virginal or saintly or staid at all. Just good. And Micheal Caine and Clive Owen also. Not saintly, just good, which is so nice.

After all this brilliant set-up, it can't help but disappoint a bit at the end. Not that it's bad; it's very good. There's even really great moments throughout the end. But it just doesn't quite match the rest of the movie. The only thing I can think of is 12 Monkeys, where the end transcends an already transcendent movie. Children of Men doesn't transcend in the end; it's just very good. But I really liked it, so much more than Pan's Labyrinth, which I had even higher hopes for.

One final note: everyone mentions its politics, and for the most part I agree that it's a stinging indictment of immigration policy and the human cost of fascism, but the characterization of the Fishes seems a little off to me. It seems that culturally every rebellion now constitutes terrorism, which makes me uneasy. Is there any room for violence against the government and not violence against its innocents? I don't know that I ultimately believe that turning the other cheek really does make sense in this world all the time. Maybe now it does, but never? What about slave rebellions? the French underground in WWII? anti-colonial rebellions? I don't know. I don't know what I think about this. Because the other half of me believes that death is so devastating to those who love you that all violence is abhorrent. I guess all this is good though; that a movie makes me think this much.