Children Of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006) Review

There are so many textured things about this film, that it is literally impossible to avoid spoilers. So, there’s your warning.

Below is an explanation of the distinguishing feature of this film, which is necessary to acknowledge, before further analysis:

Cuaron’s interesting approach to narrative structure certainly cements his status as an auteur. He’s gone on record to say how much he dislikes the use of exposition – so obviously the film starts in media res. However, what is interesting is how Cuaron applies this idea throughout the entire film. Whilst many filmmakers might use a shocking idea to initially hook the audience and then go on to explain its significance, Cuaron relies totally on the progression of the narrative to act as the sole exposition. Consequently, at some points I was left slightly confused as to what was happening. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it fuelled my curiosity and made me feel rewarded for predicting subsequent events. It also heightened the feelings of tension because there was no foreshadowing. At all.

Before delving into specific parts of the film, its prudent to talk about what ideological themes Cuaron explores.

Children Of Men is a psychological thriller that answers the question – what happens when women can no longer give birth. The answer – the world collapses, Britain becomes the only ‘civilised’ country but has now become a police state, intent on exporting all immigrants. If that sounds full on, I would go as far to say that this film is the benchmark for dystopian settings. It’s intense and in parts you really do have to pause and take a break.

Key to the film is the idea of conflict. Even though violence accompanies this theme, Cuaron makes more of a passing remark on the futility of war and violence, focusing more on conflict. I would hypothesise that Cuaron believes that conflict instigates violence, so like many other parts of this film, he focuses on exploring causes rather than effects. Nevertheless, one of most obvious examples of conflict is the clashing of different groups. The protagonist, Theo, battling with the false heroes, The Fishes, comes to mind. However, I believe that Cuaron emphasises the importance of conflict as a theme by presenting other themes as being in conflict with each other. This contributes to a feeling of unease as nothing ever seems resolved.

I always find enjoyment in watching older films that are set in the future and seeing how many things they ‘get right’. Whilst most of the superficial items they get complete wrong, for example people are still using earphones with wires – imagine that! Cuaron does; however, do an eerily excellent job at painting the picture of a divided world that we clearly find ourselves in today. This is, perhaps the most prominent instance of him focusing on effect. We see cages of people being held against their will and nationalistic propaganda, aiming to scaremonger. This could be read as a warning against current events.

In my opinion, the most eye-opening comparison is that of Religion and Science. Cuaron doesn’t take a side, instead opting to stay neutral to allow the viewer to form their own opinion (this is true throughout the film’s different themes). The key thing to notice is that there is literally no explanation to the infertility. Science can’t explain it nor can Religion. So Cuaron unites both themes with a shared identity. We also see degradations to both ideas. Religion is presented as fanatical and something practised by lunatics. This is seen when Miriam feigns religious lunacy, to distract the police officer on the prison bus. *It’s a good thing they managed to find Pam Ferris after she blew away from Privet Drive because she was excellent in this role.* Of equal importance is the idea that civilisation is perhaps too reliant on science as a safety net. The fact that science can’t answer everything is entirely humbling and paints a bleak picture, the transition from Miriam’s scientific nature as a nurse to her spiritual persona, is Cuaron suggesting that humankind turns to faith, when there’s nothing left to hope for.

The imagery used by Cuaron is some of the most profound I have ever seen. It is beautiful. The way he blends literally every plausible element of film form to create different meanings is nothing short of outstanding. However, my favourite imagery is present towards the end of the film in the refugee detainment camp, where the baby comes down a series of steps. I believe this is representative of a genesis of sorts and the preciousness of youth. Although, with the use of light and gunfire, I’m certain there are alternative impressions.

The point is, there are so many ideas and meanings to extract from this film. The way light is used to reflect Theo’s changing personality especially springs to mind. It is therefore impossible for me to list off every feature I enjoyed. I also think that it takes away from the enjoyment as a viewer of appreciating these meanings. Children Of Men is one of those films that you can rewatch countless times and find different messages upon each viewing. I’m almost certain that there were some key ideas I missed.

Cuaron explored tension with a simple editing technique, not cutting. In many action scenes, there would be a prolonged shot of Theo, with the camera tracking his movement. This ensured that as a viewer, we had limited understanding of what was happening around us, so Cuaron essentially conceals information – intensifying the horror.

Equally, Cuaron’s use of escalating violence left an extremely open-ended message at the ending. We see one person die, then a group of people, then a building is bombed, then multiple buildings are completely destroyed, then the entire camp is wiped out but then Theo dies. Ignore my use of anaphora but this violence doesn’t seem to escalate with Theo’s death, yet it does because Theo is symbolic of the hope that humanity has. So with Theo’s death, juxtaposed with the hopeful boat arrival, Cuaron gives really mixed messages, creating an ending that leaves more questions than answers about the future of humanity.

As you can see through my scrawl of thoughts, arranged in a sporadic order, it’s difficult to talk about this film without getting sidetracked. Everything links but nothing is connected. I hope I have done this film justice because it’s truly one of the best things I have ever seen. There are countless characters and themes I haven’t even spoken about, each of them bringing something unique to the narrative. Even though you can barely scratch the surface of what makes this film great in a dissertation, let alone a review, one thing is for sure. The juxtapositions and comparisons throughout Children Of Men are intoxicating. Even the title is an oxymoron. This enables Cuaron to explore dominant ideologies (Religion, the role of media, equality etc…) and question the viewer’s attitudes towards these. It’s scarily eye-opening.

You really need to watch this film.

Right now.

5 stars.