Kinematoscope

With climate change, overpopulation, food shortages, international terrorism and strife, and economic destabilization, you can make a pretty convincing case that the world is going to sh*t. But there's always hope, even intangibly, for the future- a promise we may not live to see fufilled, but a promise that's nonetheless always been there.

What Alfonso Cuarón's modern classic, 2006's Children Of Men asks us: what if that promise were revoked?

In a world where all women become mysteriously infertile, where there's no future on the horizon, a chaotic and bleak dystopia hangs on for dear life in 2027 England. Join me for a road-movie with lots of rubble, broken ideals, a curious lack of editing, and some delicious stork dinners.

The Key Players:

Cuarón made a reputation with the classic-lit adaptation of A Little Princess and the modern update of Great Expectations, both of which are better than you remember them being. He would gain critical acclaim with Y tu mamá también (earning a screenplay nomination) and add commercial success by knocking Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban completely out of the park (still the best film in the series. I will fight you.).

Clive Owen, stubble-enthusiast and Oscar nominee (for the miseryfest known as Closer), has balanced indie roles like Gosford Park and his breakthrough in the BBC TV film "Croupier" with big-time starring turns in Inside Man and Shoot 'Em Up and so on.

Michael Caine pops up again in support, and Julianne Moore has a bigger part than in Magnolia (but still not a second-billing level role. That's a fake out).



Click for More...

The Story:

Owen stars as Theo, a weary office worker in a drab 2027 London. He keeps his head down and tries to navigate terrorist bombings, a hyper-xenophobic government rounding up all illegal immigrants, and the memory of his long-dead son.

No one has been born since 2009, and the youngest person alive ("Baby" Diego) is murdered by a crazed autograph-seeker, to the sadness of the general public. Theo spends his days avoiding trouble and occasionally visiting his friend Jasper (Caine), a hippie-tastic former political cartoonist with a secret forest hideaway.

But soon Theo's ex Julian(ne Moore) shows up to offer him a job: arranging transport of a young woman to the coast. Julian, the mother of said long-dead son, has channeled her grief into leading a group of rebels called the "Fishes," that fight government oppression and the Holocaust-like treatment of foreigners.

Theo visits his cousin, a government minister, to get the papers, and soon hits the road with Julian, the girl Kee, and other Fishes Luke (Chiwetel Ejiafor!) and Miriam. But their car is attacked, and Julian shot in the neck and killed. Soon Theo learns "what's at stake": Kee, a young African immigrant (young being 19 or 20), is miraculously pregnant, and Julian wanted to get her to the mysterious "Human Project," a long-rumored society said to be researching a cure for the mass infertility.

At a crossroads, the Fishes decide to keep Kee in the country to give birth- Theo quickly discovers that they killed Julian, and intend to use the baby as the rally point for an armed uprising- you know, instead of trying to save the human race, whatever.

So Theo and Kee are on the run with no transit papers, no money, no sensible shoes, and only Jasper the hippie and Miram the zen-chanting midwife to help them try and get to the Human Project's ship.

The Artistry:

Production designers Geoffrey Kirkland and Jim Clay, along with set designer Jennifer Williams, would win the BAFTA for Art Direction for their amazing work on Children Of Men, but astonishingly (in retrospect) not get an Oscar nomination: (You're telling me Dreamgirls, The Good Shepherd, and the second Pirates movie were all beter? Please.).

But the lived-in plausibility of Children Of Men's future is what makes it such a great film. In the features, Cuarón says he wanted to make the "anti-Blade Runner" and keep it as much in the background as it could be. So there are new, different types of cars, but they're already rundown and dingy. There's commonplace, Tokyo-like, LCD billboards everywhere, but we only see them briefly in a handheld, casual shot, as if to say "meh."

The thing about the future is, the people in it don't think of it that way- so the only context we get are tv news reports, casual references, and old headlines we can read off of newspapers stuck to the wall- the only reason any characters exposit on the fertility crisis (the cause is never made clear) at all is because Kee's pregnancy makes it relevant to talk about.

Children Of Men is really about today even though it's set in the future, which is a large part of why there are no silver jumpsuits and why the film wants us to experience the harrowing action sequence in real time. A few masterfully choreographed, long takes (or takes blended to look like one take through some sort of trickery) in particular stand out:

1. the first scene of the film follows Theo into a coffeeshop, out on the street, and pans around him just as the coffeeshop explodes. The extras, explosion, and all the cars in the street had to be precisely in place at the right moment.

2. When the car is attacked and Julian is shot, a special camera rig swivels all around the interior.

3. When Kee gives birth (uh, spoiler?) it's all in one take, culminating in a real-looking lil' CGI-baby.

4. A 7+ minute sequence in a raging refugee-camp battle near the film's end follows Theo through streets, buildings, and hundreds of extras as bullets and bombs fly.

It lends a raw, documentary feel to the proceedings- at one point during the battle sequence, fake blood spatters on to the lens- cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki convinced the director to keep the take.

Children Of Men is about the world dying; it's a film about loss. Julian tells Theo the ringing in his ears from the cafe explosion is the sound of the ear cells dying. "Once it's gone you'll never hear that frequency again."

We hear the ringing as well, on the soundtrack, and not only after the bombs- Julian's shooting and Jasper's death at the hands of the rotten Fishes are scored with high-pitched death rattles as well, a note of finality.

There's no beauty to the future, usually a pristine visual place to visit- the only works of art left are collected by Theo's cousin, who dines next to Michealangelo's David and Picasso's Guernica (and even a Banksy piece) as his dead-eyed son ignores him. When Theo asks this conniseur how he can pretend preserving art matters anymore, he cooly claims "I just don't think about it."

The similarities of the refugee camp to war footage from Iraq was striking in 2006, and even moreso now that the war's more than doubled in length in the years since. And though it strains belief a bit, it's a powerful moment when everyone stops shooting upon hearing the cry of an infant, a death song of the past or the birth of a future.

If I have one complaint about Children Of Men, it's the complete lack of chemistry between Owen and Moore- they only seem like they've even met before in one moment in the car, which is right before Moore's character dies anyway. Otherwise the roles are very second to the atmosphere, with only Caine's inimitable character acting rising above an archetype. But that's fine with me.

THE ENDING! SPOILERS!

There's no beauty, and almost no hope in Children Of Men, but "almost" is the key word. The Human Project, which only Julian had spoken to directly, turns out to be real after all. Theo and Kee dodge bullets and tank mortars to row out to sea to greet them.

Theo, sadly, has taken a bullet to the stomach, and slowly collapses as they wait in the fog. Kee settles on a name for the first baby in eighteen years- after considering "Bazooka," she names her daughter "Dylan," in honor of Theo's son.

END SPOILERS


Overall: Should It Be Higher, Lower?

Higher than high: not to get too Oscar-centric (though when am I not?), I don't know if any of those nominees will stand the test of time against Children of Men- not even The Departed, and especially not Little Miss Sunshine.

The Legacy:

It would settle for Writing, Editing, and Cinematography nominations instead- though it won a BAFTA for Art Direction and Cinematography- Lubezki also took home the guild award for his trouble.

The Best Video Of It On YouTube:

This making-of featurette (mostly about the long takes) is pretty neat.



Leftover Thoughts:

-"Gossip Girl" star Ed Westwick has a wordless bit part as Theo's cousins' zombified son.

-Cuarón's next film, Gravity will open with a 20-minute long tracking shot and at least co-star Robert Downey, Jr. I am so there already.

-Isn't the plural of "fish" still just "fish"? Just saying.

Coming Up...

184. The Wild Bunch

183. The Killing

182. Judgment At Nuremberg

So after catching the last two Harry Potter movies on cable (or whatever) and generally scoffing at the acclaim for the books (or some reason I once felt that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings fandom were mutually exclusive), I finally became a believer with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, our subject today in Transfigurations. Off we go!

The Crew:

Chris Columbus, tiring of rarely seeing his family AND RUINING OUR DREAMS, decided to merely produce this installment in the series. After Guillermo Del Toro and Marc Forster turned it down, Alfonso Cuaron was selected for the job.

After getting his start in Mexican tv, Cuaron proved no small shakes at translating literary coming-of-age stories to the screen with A Little Princess and Great Expectations. It was his Y Tu Mama Tambien, however, that attracted the filmmakers, though that film's overtly sexual post-adolescent themes are understandably muted here. He went on to make one of my favorite films of recent memory, Children of Men.

Steve Kloves returns on screenplay duties, while John Williams continues to compose scores and all. Our cinematographer (because this is the first time I've been compelled to look it up) is Michael Seresin, director of photography on such disparate films as Fame, Angela's Ashes, and Step Up.

The Cast:

Three major new additions greatly increase my appreciation for the series as well: David Thewlis plays the best teacher slash werewolf any student could wish for, and nobody plays crazy like Crazy Gary Oldman.

After Richard Harris's passing in 2002, Michael Gambon stepped into the role of Dumbeldore with a booming voice, a darker interpretation of the character, and a slight Irish accent.



NOTE: SPOILERS ARE RAMPANT HERETOFORE. HEREWITH? HENCEFORTH? THE POINT IS, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Click for More...

MAJOR DIFFERENCES

From a plot standpoint, events are naturally condensed into a more breezy timeline, and some exposition is lost. What I love about this from a cinematic standpoint is that while the book feels the odd need to refresh us on many, many things (opening with the line "Harry Potter was a highly unusual boy in many ways.", in case we were not aware), the film can just sort of assume that we will pick it up as we go along, if we don't know already.

The film removes the extended subplot wherein Harry receives a Firebolt (a fancy Quidditch broom) anonymously, and Hermione reports it to Professor McGonagall, suspecting it might be from Sirius Black. This causes an extended rift between Hermione and Harry/Ron which lasts nearly half the book. The argument between Ron and Hermione about Crookshanks's pursuit of Scabbers is much less touched-upon.

Perhaps now that the three leads were finally old enough to start developing an onscreen rapport, it was decided not to split them up as much as the book does (Kloves also loves Hermione more than Ron, and wouldn't want to write her out very much. More on this later).

The final major thing left out is the explanation of exactly how Sirius Black betrayed the Potters, what the Fidelius Charm is, and so on. This is seemingly the beginning of a trend in which major plot points are just left unexplained in later films (which never bother me, since I've read the books now).

MINOR DIFFERENCES

Before the great feast to start the term we're treated to a performance of a chorus of children holding toads, singing the words from the opening three witches scene of Shakespeare's MacBeth. Were they practicing all summer for that or something?

The burgeoning and inevitable relationship between Ron and Hermione is planted in the films earlier, with a furtive hand-clasp during the hippogriff class. This is in addition to an awkward aborted hug in film 2.

The restriction on underage magic seems to flutter in and out of existence in the films- Harry is seen at the very start practicing lumos maxima with his wand (if you know what I mean), but doesn't worry about getting in trouble until inadvertently blowing up his aunt. My operating theory is that in the films magic is restricted, but they can't detect it remotely with "the trace" as mentioned in book 7. They just punish people for things they hear about, like the hover charm in 2 or the patronus charm in 5.

Also, cut for time in the film are nearly all Quidditch scenes and lessons where nothing important happens. Oh well.

WHY YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK

The book has the natural advantage of time, once again, and in book three especially we're treated to the revelation that there was a full-fledged history going on before Harry Potter was even born, one that consisted of much more than an evil wizard named Voldemort doing bad things. The adults in all the early books were fun enough and all, but they never seemed to have stories of their own until the third book- finding out about the marauders, Lupin's lycanthropy, and why Snape hates Harry's father so much (part of it, anyway), I've always found more engaging than the general good/bad dichotomy, at least early on.

The book makes all of the connections between the present day and the past clear, as well- the movie, despite liking the Marauders' Map so much that they made it a key part of the credits and DVD production design, never explain who they were (nor does Lupin explain how he knows what the map is, when he sees it).

The movie does retain plenty of the dramatic appeal, especially in the climactic scene when all is revealed in the shrieking shack (though it's not explained why it's called the shrieking shack), and it's the implied history that made me pick up the books in the first place. But why they couldn't have mentioned the friendship of Lupin, Black, Pettigrew and Harry's father in more detail in the film is beyond me.

WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH THE MOVIE

Oh man, oh man. So many little things are happening, all around the edges of this movie. You can really tell that they spent more time on production, more time on FX, more time making it a cohesive vision. And as well they should- the Harry Potter books presented filmmakers with the opportunity to depict a world in which anything could be magical, at any time, but it took three films to run with it.

Just watch the first twenty seconds of this clip below (don't mind the foreign dubbing or brief red title thing):



As we pan into the leaky cauldron, we see a wizard absent-mindedly making his spoon swirl itself, a busboy make an empty bottle disappear, and the chairs put themselves up on the table. Just for a brief establishing shot of the Leaky Cauldron.

Beyond movie-only scenes like the candy that causes animal sounds, this attention to detail goes straight through- even the letters in the Harry Potter logo float in place this time, because why not. There's a giraffe running through all the portraits, brooms and quills that move on their own- every time I find something else I didn't see before.

It's also a great story, streamlining the plot of the book into a compelling mystery. Though it lacks the personal touches I mentioned above, it does include a new scene where Harry sees Peter Pettigrew on the Marauders' Map, which I like because it sets up the big reveal at the end a lot better- reading the book I don't see how one could possibly guess that Sirius Black is actually innocent until it's all laid out for you, but the implication that Pettigrew is alive in the film plants the seed in a more thorough way.

There are even some great lines that don't stem from the book at all- when Lupin is about to transform, Sirius tells him "You know the man you truly are Remus. This heart is where you truly live!". Or the spontaneously philosophical Dumbeldore off-handedly musing: "For in dreams we enter a world that's completely our own."

The camera-work is superb, as well- the seasons transition with the flight of birds, we transition straight through mirrors at inventive angles, or through the Hogwarts clock. From overhead we see dementors circling just as carrion crows did earlier, or a diminutive angle of a stone skipped over the lake telegraphs Hagrid's sadness at losing Buckbeak's appeal. It's magic behind the camera worthy of what's in front.


CONCLUSIONS: One? The other? Both?

I would definitely recommend both, and with a gun to my head I'd go with the film- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is probably my favorite film in the series so far on its own merits (it might be because I saw it before reading the book, unlike the following three).

It finds a perfect middle ground between the faithfulness that such a popular book requires and the inventiveness that a great filmmaker can bring.

Based on the first two movies, I didn't feel motivated to read Harry Potter books because I just figured I was missing out on a decent kids' story.

After I saw this movie, I realized I was missing out on an entire world, such as I might find in dreams.


Leftover Thoughts:

- Per the DVD extras: Alfonso Cuaron assigned the three principals an essay on their characters. In an hilarious case of excellent casting, Daniel Radcliffe wrote a page, Emma Watson wrote sixteen pages, Rupert and Grint just didn't do it.

-Another worthy addition to the cast: Emma Thompson's appropriately bonkers Professor Trelawny chews just the right amount of scenery.

-Parodies of HPPoA that are worth your time: Cleolinda Jones's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in Fifteen Minutes, and the Rifftrax (downloadable .mp3 commentary from the MST3K guys) is a steal at $4.

Next week, of course, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire!