Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hat in the Ring | Casualties of the YouTube Revo... »

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Textuality

posted by on January 16 at 10:39 AM

I had no desire to watch the Children of Men until I read this short analysis of it by a young and smart local writer named Yair.
children_of_men.jpg

Here are two passages from the analysis :

This film takes the idea of ‘cognitive estrangement’ to its radical conclusion and reintroduces the familiarity of the present, or should I say, its ultimate negation. I can’t think of a single film that’s caused me to go through such a visceral experience. I have never felt so involved in the environment of a film especially one set twenty years into the future. The passivity I can usually experience even at the most gruesome displays of violence on screen was completely ripped away from me and I felt like I was watching something happening in real time, in a future that already existed, that I would find once I left the exit doors. So what causes this ‘reality effect’ of this film?

And:

So where’s the paradox you ask? It is followed by a question; how can a film that, as I argue, seeks to critique or deconstruct the reality effect not get entangled and ultimately shortchanged by its own device? Or should I say, if this film achieved its goal in conveying the sheer horror of contemporary reality as it did on me, could one not say it simultaneously achieved the goal of reaffirming the reality effect itself? By creating in myself such a viscerally ‘real’ experience based on a compendium of media images (images that by nature are unreal but generate reality), doesn’t the simulacra in effect achieve its ultimate goal? Doesn’t it create in me a reality more real than itself?

Yair’s review does two admirable things. One, it actually thinks—meaning it’s not mere writing but, instead, the movement of a thought (or thoughts) by the means of writing. Two, it is packed with references to other ideas and thinkers—meaning, again, it’s not just mere writing but is also a conversation, a dialect (in the old Greek sense of that word), with other texts.

The most rewarding texts are always textual.

RSS icon Comments

1

post-structuralism is so 1968.

but i am eager to see the movie. thanks.

Posted by derridon't | January 16, 2007 11:13 AM
2

Oh no, I liked a science fiction movie! I better quote other people to justify myself!

Posted by gfish | January 16, 2007 11:49 AM
3

This movie has been seriously under-rated. Yair nails it when he says he has "never felt so involved in the environment of a film especially one set twenty years into the future." I felt the same way, and left the theater after seeing it for the first time knowing that I'd go back to see it again.

If you're planning to see Pan's Labyrinth, however, watch it before Children of Men. I couldn't help comparing the two, which led me to feel a bit let down by Pan's Labyrinth. Both attempt to connect with the present from different points in time; Children of Men I found to be much more compelling. And I think it'll be a film that will stand the test of time quite well.

Go see it.

Posted by MikeG | January 16, 2007 11:57 AM
4

that's funny, I felt the same way...the movie very much has a 'you are there' quality to it... maybe it's because the totalitarianism of that world is currently coming true...

Posted by michael strangeways | January 16, 2007 12:01 PM
5

Mike G:
"I think it'll be a film that will stand the test of time quite well."

As good as Blade runner?

This review is way over my head, but it does make me want to see it. I am always down with a film that creates a "visceral experience."

Posted by SeMe | January 16, 2007 12:07 PM
6


I saw the movie and would recommend it. (The review went over my head as well. My review is basically: "Ooog. Gud moovie. Ug. Go see. *sniff*.")

Clive Owen is perfectly cast and the scenes are frightenly realistic.

It did not capture my imagination the way Blade Runner did for many people. However, it is a great movie and should be seen.

Posted by saw it | January 16, 2007 12:29 PM
7

INTERtextual, charles.

Posted by craig | January 16, 2007 12:32 PM
8

SeMe: Children of Men is different than Blade Runner, and it's not really worth making that comparison (especially in terms of trying to decide which is better -- they both win!). The ad campaign quotes about Children of Men being the new Blade Runner are silly in every way other than that it's likely to be a movie that's underappreciated at first.

The studios should really be marketing Children of Men as an action movie rather than a sci-fi flick. It's much more than either tag would lead one to believe, but the point would be to get more people to go see the movie. In the end, it's an "edge of your seat" movie that will continue to haunt you. There are moments when you just want to cry, not because something has been manufactured to be sad, but because it's just devastating and you get angry thinking about the present. That's the "visceral experience." Luckily, and this is why it's such a great movie, there is also much to think about beyond that visceral aspect.

Posted by MikeG | January 16, 2007 12:32 PM
9

Yeah...but...like...do we get to see tits?

Posted by StrangerDanger | January 16, 2007 12:37 PM
10

And the best texts are also contextual. Of course, the value of a context depends on how you look at it.

Posted by bill | January 16, 2007 12:41 PM
11

I liken Children of Men to the first of the Matrix movies without the special effects. It basically presents a wide (maddeningly wide) dystopian canvas, and paints a story over a part of it. The brilliance lies in the size of canvas left blank for you to fill out yourself. You leave the cinema with running narrative and an accompanying critique in your head. And like Charles said, the conversation is bi-directional: the imprint left on you feeds your mind which in turn fleshes out more of that same imprint on the maddeningly wide canvas.

Posted by Deeply Depressed | January 16, 2007 12:45 PM
12

MikeG - I agree that the BR comaprisons are irrelevant. Just a marketing agency understanding that a lot of people like that film passionately. I'm sure the response they intend to create is, "I bet it's not as good as BR, but I'll go see it just to make sure." So cynical! Disturbing to know that BR-enthusiasts are a demographic!

On another note. This quote in Yair's review bothers me: "Doesn’t it create in me a reality more real than itself?"

Just un-answerable deconstructionist gibberish. That's simply how fiction works: the better it's done, the more you believe it. The only way for it to be convincing is for you to fill in the gaps with your own imagination.

The more cuts there are in a film, the less like reality it appears to the eye. There were takes that were so long in "Children of Men" that I nearly passed out from forgetting to breathe. The director wisely too inspiration from Brian DePalma and the like. I think the future of creating reality in filmmaking is about longer and longer takes that make the action appear as fluid as possible. Not just a backlash against music video editing techniques, it is technologically easier to do that ever before.

Posted by JeffS | January 16, 2007 12:47 PM
13

a yes there are tits.

Posted by Deeply Depressed | January 16, 2007 12:48 PM
14

MikeG, thx for the response. My Blade Runner question had more to do with your, "stand the test of time", statemet. I am sure its quite a different movie, and I'm not making comparissons. The more I read this thread, the more I think of the dystopian novel We by Zamyatin. Im looking forward to seeing this film.

JeffS:

Disturbing to know that BR-enthusiasts are a demographic!

Yes, it's sad, but we are.

Posted by SeMe | January 16, 2007 1:16 PM
15

livesex feeds livesex feeds

Posted by livesex feeds | January 22, 2007 4:07 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).