Scribez

Director: Alphonso Cuaron

Rating: 10/10

The common theme in all the films I liked in recent memory has to do with the breaking through of the tyranny of narrative that has long held mainstream film in its grip. Some of the finest films and some of its ambitious failures all share an expansive use of the medium that dared to challenge the usual plot-driven aesthetic and instead made use of cinema’s full visual palette and expressive grammar. Children Of Men could have been a conventional sci-fi thriller, but instead emerges as an unusually bold technical leap- it’s densely layered production design almost a collage of cultural signifiers, it’s long takes harking back to film’s master directors.

From the start, it’s always the little things that you’ll notice- there are no lengthy expositions or long plot discussions, the dialogues are casual and the narrative is taut. But the film uses scenes with cohesive themes and shots with extensive cultural references, that a whole three-act narrative is crammed into each segment.

It tells the story of Theodore Faron (Clive Owen) living in a future world nearing apocalypse in London. He was a political activist, now he is a bureaucrat. His wife Julian Taylor (Julianne Moore) is now a rebel leader. Women are infertile and the movie begins with the death of the youngest human- 18 years old. The year is 2027 and all hells broken loose. There is anarchy in every part of the world; Britain survived because of its authoritarian rule and it’s absolute ban on immigration.

To this world of utter hopelessness, hope is revealed- a girl is pregnant. Her name is Kee (note the nomenclature- it’s similar to ‘key’), and Theo must help her escape London to avoid her and her child from being used as political tools. The narrative of the film deals with this escape. Cuaron uses this narrative to overload us with questions and possibilities from current political scenario and its extrapolation, to philosophy and its cousin- religion.

On Clive Owen

I‘ve liked Clive Owen- from his assassin days in Bourne Identity, through his struggle with bullshit films like Arthur and his emergence as a lead actor in Inside Man. But this film is his magnum opus. The acting is so understated that the world-weary tough guy that he almost portrays stays just that- almost. There is a haunted hollowness in his eyes, a stoop to his stance and a sort of John-McClane-Bruce-Willisness that is riveting to watch. Understated performances are often overlooked, but in this case it acts as a perfect counter to the stark images flowing on the screen.

On Alphonso Cuaron

Hollywood has become corrupted by “narrative,” making movies that are the visual equivalent of books on tape, composed of talking heads delivering dialogue that moves the story along and nothing more. Alphonso Cuaron, noted for his meandering and trippy Y Tu Mama Tambien, is a director who surprised me with his absolute mastery of the film medium even in gross Hollywood over-productions like Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban. However, I feel that he is the latest in a very small elite group of directors (including David Lynch, Terrence Mallick, Gullermo del Toro, Darren Aronofsky…) who make “thematically oriented” films, that make use of the medium’s formal elements- sound, music, acting, cinematography, editing- to transcend mere plot and character.

This is by far one of the best films of 2006, and one of the best Sci-Fi films ever. The reason is its absolutely unwavering fidelity to the world it tries to create and the characters it tries to populate itself with. The film succeeds because of its questions and it’s answers (and sometimes the lack of it). It shows us a future that might just occur in a few days time- man dying bit by bit and feeling the agony of a life carelessly wasted. It’s scary as hell, but that’s the way it will be.

P.S. Did I mention that Michael Caine is a hippy in this film?

Review by: bApHoMEt