Movie review: Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006)


Jan 27, 2012 by Leading Light    3 Comments    Posted under: culture, fascism, migrants, movie review

Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006)

(llco.org)

This movie takes place in dystopian England of the not so distant future. All females are thought to have become infertile. Chaos has spread everywhere, even to the First World. The economies of the imperialist countries have collapsed to an extent; some degree of re-proletarization of segments of the First World may have occurred, but the extent isn’t clear in the movie. Chaos reigns and a teetering fascist state clings to power through more and more repression. Migrants are hunted, rounded up, tortured, brutalized and placed in city-sized ghetto-camps to fend for themselves and prey upon each other. Like much science fiction, Children of Men is an exaggeration of our own world.

The reluctant hero is Theo Faron (Clive Owen), an alcoholic burnt out ex-activist, whose life is spent in a zombified daze at his office job until he is kidnapped off the streets by his ex-lover Julian (Julianne Moore), a leader of a migrant liberation guerilla movement referred to as the “Fish.” Theo is paid by the Fish to smuggle a migrant, Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), out of England to safety. Along the way, Theo discovers that Kee is miraculously pregnant, the first pregnant female in nearly two decades. After a power struggle within Fish, a new leader, Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofor), decides Kee and her child should not leave but become political symbols for a migrant uprising against the fascist state. Chased by the fascist state and the liberation forces, Theo and Kee escape to safety through the political turmoil of a migrant ghetto-camp uprising. They make their way to an underground group of scientists known in urban legend as the “Human Project.” According to the urban legend, the Human Project is trying to solve the infertility problem at their secret underground base, “possibly in the Azores.”

What is good about this movie is that it portrays the oppression of migrants and oppressed nations by a First World society turned rapidly fascist. The movie makes a point to show the fascist authorities participating in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo-stye torture of migrants. Even though the movie takes place in fascist England, it aims its spear at US imperialism and its treatment of prisoners and migrants. The English authorities are labeled as “Homeland Security” to underscore this obvious point. So, this movie makes a criticism against White nationalism, anti-migrant forces, police state measures and fascism.

This movie also correctly identifies the revolutionary forces as mostly comprised of Third World and oppressed nation peoples. Various revolutionary and anti-imperialist icons appear throughout the movie as part of the background. A cultural revolution poster featuring Mao Zedong hangs on Theo’s wall. Images of Lenin are seen on the mantle of a family that helps Theo and Kee escape the fascist state that terrorizes the ghetto-camp. Theo and Kee also pass through Islamic anti-imperialist parades and funerals reminiscent of the streets of Palestine. A group of communards with a French flag appear in one background scene. In this fictional wold, migrants flee chaos in France to England. In this world, “Fish” is a term used as “wetback” is in the United States; it may refer to those who have come across, swam across, the channel to England as fish do. In one scene, the Fish guerrillas make a point of saying some Cods (English Fish) have joined the Fish ranks, implying that the majority of their ranks are not English. This movie correctly mirrors our own social reality to an extent. As far as there is any revolutionary social base in the imperialist countries, it is not made up of any significant sections of the First World populations. Like our own world, the most revolutionary elements are outsiders in the imperial center.

What is bad about this movie is that it embraces idealist utopian solutions to the world’s problems. Instead of examining the political options presented in the backdrop of the film, the backdrop of Fish guerrillas, Islamists, and communists is presented as a whirlwind of indistinct chaos, not as solutions themselves. Rather than looking for answers in revolutionary science, the protagonists run. Rather than joining the migrant uprising against the fascist state, the protagonists make their way to the phantasmic Human Project. The protagonists choose not to use their child as a symbol of the migrant uprising. In this latter day Joseph and Mary story, the protagonists make a leap of faith that the Human Project is real and capable of solving the infertility problem for humanity. Rather than casting their lot with the oppressed, rather than seeking state power and using the resources of the state to solve the infertility issue, the protagonists make a religious decision that is portrayed as beyond politics. In reality, nothing is outside the realm of politics.

The movie portrays the fertility issue as more important than the struggle of the migrants and oppressed. In a fundamental sense, this may be true. If there are no people, then there is no proletariat, no revolution. However, there is no reason to believe that some urban legend, an isolated group of mythical  underground scientists, would be the only ones capable of curing female infertility. And, even if some secret cabal could solve the problem, there is little indication they would have the ability to implement such a cure. Even the teetering fascist, English state would be more likely to have the means to solve the problem than some mythical group of experts in the Azores. However, it is unclear such a fascist state would be able to or willing to implement the cure in a meaningful way either. A cure is meaningless if there is no ability to implement it. Better yet, a revolutionary state is more likely to unleash the kind of scientific creativity and political will to solve this kind of problem once and for all.

Here we can see a parallel with environmental issues of today. Environmental issues are a matter of life and death for the world’s peoples. However, only the struggle against imperialism and for communism is going to be capable of unleashing the social forces that have the capability to radically reorganize society such that humanity can strike a more balanced and sustainable relationship with the planet. Even though this kind of contradiction exists and can be very acute, it is not principal in our world. There is little reason given in the movie to think that the failing fascist state or mythical experts in the Azores could solve the infertility problem or be able to implement such a solution. Instead of thinking about their choice scientifically, the protagonists, like many environmentalists and anarchists, cast their fate to the wind. They place their faith in a mythical Human Project that is supposed to have the secret to solving the infertility problem and saving the world — although, curiously, they haven’t seem to make much progress so far if the background story of the film is to be believed. The mythical Human Project appears in a ship out of a foggy sea, like God’s hand, to rescue Kee and her miraculous Jesus child — the joke is made that the child is born of a virgin to underscore the religious tone of the film.

The movie poses a false choice. Use the baby to rally people against the fascist state and risk threatening the existence of the species or invest hope in some group of experts who may not exist. This obscures the principal contradiction while raising religious ideas and glorifying bourgeois experts to magical proportions. The protagonists don’t consider that using the baby in the uprising would not necessarily threaten the existence of the species,  such an uprising might be the key to humanity’s survival.

In the real world, there is no God nor cabal of wizard experts in the Azores nor league of super heroes to intervene from above to save the world. The real world is saved by revolutionary science unleashing the masses. And revolutionary scientists put Leading Light Communism in command and side with the proletariat in order to create a new revolutionary society; revolutionary scientists can then use the full resources of society to solve potentially catastrophic health and environmental issues of the day. Even with this idealism, Children of Men is an excellent movie that raises many important critiques of our society.

Deja un comentario / Leave a comment / Mag-iwan ng komento / Hinterlasse einen Kommentar / Αφήστε ένα σχόλιο