Children of Men

Based on PD James' novel this movie stars Clive Owen and the short lived Julianne Moore. Anything with Clive Owen serves as a hit for me, even King Arthur. The story takes place in a dystopian society where women are unable to become pregnant for unexplained reasons, but one can conclude it came as a result of man's mistake in one way or another that they have brought themselves or from a higher power. For example, the film's title is derived from Psalm 90:3: "Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men." The movie lightly graces us with the theories as to why this is happening but the fact of the matter is, and what makes the movie even more compelling is that it doesn't matter, or there are bigger issues at play. Not only are you caught asking other questions right away, waiting for their answer as you watch, but the smaller detailed questions overshadow the big picture which is what makes the film watchable again and again.

For example, instead of asking the obvious question as to why women cannot become pregnant, you are caught up in the ripples of its cause and start swimming in questions that cause the viewer to explore parallels in modern society. The film makes a strong statement in regards to the anti-immigration sentiment in modern societies like the UK and USA. Flocking to the UK because of the state that their own nations have come to, the immigrants in the film are marginalized, caged up, deported and even executed to express the chaos, disintegration of society and assimilation of a higher, more righteous race and/or nation.

The film's director took great care in placing subtle images from contemporary history and placed them into the film to prove that, though this is a fictional story, these monstrosities are indeed happening and have happened before our eyes. For example the director states:

"They exit the Russian apartments, and the next shot you see is this woman wailing, holding the body of her son in her arms. This was a reference to a real photograph of a woman holding the body of her son in the Balkans, crying with the corpse of her son. It's very obvious that when the photographer captured that photograph, he was referencing La Pieta, the Michelangelo sculpture of Mary holding the corpse of Jesus. So: We have a reference to something that really happened, in the Balkans, which is itself a reference to the Michelangelo sculpture. At the same time, we use the sculpture of David early on, which is also by Michelangelo, and we have of course the whole reference to the Nativity. And so everything was referencing and cross-referencing, as much as we could"

Specifically the director has provided multiple subtle references to the holocaust from the execution methods seen and used in the film to the scene where an elderly refugee woman speaking German is seen detained in a cage.

Despite the subtle contemporary parallels, the highly innovative single-shot action sequences are perhaps the most memorable parts of the direction of the film. It is incredible to see the main character, Theo run from the chaotic streets in the refugee camp as he is transporting Kee the pregnant girl to safety as they encounter a very realistic point of view. At one point Theo gets shot in the leg and blood spatters onto the screen. The splatter of blood does not leave the screen for a couple minutes after Theo is able to catch his breath. It gave me the sense that if I were there I would have blood on my face following Theo and wouldn't have the chance to wipe it off until the same moment that Theo has to catch his breath. This first person type of editing is also used in the audio as gunfire is shot near Theo and the chasing camera, so as a result the sound is very limited and ringing for a period of time it would take to recover your hearing after being so close to gunfire. This type of audio technique with gunfire is becoming popular and used in other movies as well, I love it.

The best part of the film in my opinion is when Theo is able to rescue Kee from a building facing gunfire as she is holding the baby she gave birth to the night earlier. The baby won't stop crying and as a result the mere sound of something that we can't stand to hear ironically becomes the sound that stops the gunfire and everyone suddenly tunes into. It is here that I believe everyone stops not only because they haven't heard the sound of a baby in decades but they wonder for a moment what they are even fighting for with the flicker of hope passing them in a baby's cry the hope leaves them as the baby gets carried out of sight and the fighting then continues.

The theme of hope is what I will conclude with. The film has been categorized as a modern-day Nativity story. The character of Kee represents Mary and Kee's pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, and when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with "Jesus Christ" or the sign of the cross, even going on their knees when they see it. Throughout the entire movie the main goal is to reach a meeting place of something called "the human project." Almost nothing is revealed about this organization except that it will bring not only salvation for our protagonists but to the entire earth. The human project then is the ultimate metaphor for hope, salvation and if you buy into the film being a modern day Nativity story, it is a metaphor for heaven which can be attained by humankind (to stretch the metaphor further) only with the sacrifice of the very human man Theo who sacrifices himself for mankind's salvation. The movie concludes with the sound of playing children which alludes to the hope that someday there will be children again.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 92% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating although it might be a little too high

Seamless and award-worthy continuity editing. Realistic, innovative action, a captivating depiction of the future and flawless acting make this a must see and a great addition to the Blu-ray collection.

The Man Without a Face

Mel Gibson's directorial debut is based on the novel by Isabelle Holland from Nova Scotia. Mel Gibson as a director was more finding himself in this piece and drastically improved his director skills two years later with Braveheart. This movie stars Gibson himself and Nick Stahl who, a child actor at the time can be now best recognized as "Yellow bastard" in Sin City.

The story surrounds the boy Chuck Norstadt seeking recluse from his confusing family background having 2 sisters both from different fathers all living with the same mother who continues to remarry as a hobby. Fatherless, the boy finds his refuge and a patriarchal figure in the town "freak," a man who has the entire left side of hid body burned from a car crash that killed a boy who was travelling with him.

The viewer finds out that the man was once a professor who was tried and acquitted of child abuse with the boy who died in the car accident, losing his teaching licence. With each visit that the boy continues to meet with and be tutored by McLeod, a snowball continued to grow inside my mind as I knew that these innocent and very profitable visits for the boy, needing a father figure and tutor and equally for McLeod who is socially isolated longing for a pupil. They fill each other's voids as they continue to give each other companionship. For example here my favorite line from their friendship when talking about why men and women are attracted to each other:

McLeod: The problem is one of water.
Chuck Norstadt: Water?
McLeod: Water. Women have, on average, about 5% more of it than do men, making them subject to different forces of gravity. Oh don't take my word for it, you can look it up in Newton. It's there.
Chuck Norstadt: Couldn't they be drained?
[McLeod laughs]
Chuck Norstadt: I'm serious!
McLeod: Well, I believe they're waiting for us to drink more fluids.

The movie leaves the viewer with what I feel to be an ambiguous ending. Indeed the visits catch up to the two as the boy had been lying all summer as to where he had been spending his time to his mother. Perhaps most viewers would believe that the man never touched the boy and they indeed shared a valuable friendship. However, I believe that there is a red herring sent to the viewer earlier in the movie that could lead the viewer to think otherwise. When Chuck confronts McLeod as to whether he really abused the boy that died in the car accident, the following conversation ensues:

McLeod: Think Norstadt, reason. Have I ever abused you? Did I ever lay a hand on you of anything but friendship on you? Could I? Could you imagine me ever doing so? And what about the past?
Chuck Norstadt: Just tell me you didn't do it, I'll believe you.
McLeod: No, no sir! I didn't spend all summer so you could cheat on this question.

The boy immediately believes McLeod and apologizes for doubting him. However, earlier in the film when Chuck tried to comfort McLeod that the boy dying was not his fault, McLeod grabbed the boy's arm and pushed it aggressively to the side. This incident leads me to believe that McLeod did indeed abuse the boy before him and since the jury saw him guilty for doing so the man desired redemption in the new face which reminded him of the past in Chuck.

The man's face is a metaphor for redemption and change. His face is split down the middle as to remind him of the past and his future. I believe that because of what he did, the scarred part of his face represents his sin, however the side of his face which is not scarred represents his time with Chuck, his chance at redemption for what he did wrong. McLeod is seen splitting his face with a mirror as to see his face as it used to be in the reflection. He desired to be seen as the new man he wants to be, which causes him to continue to teach the boy. It is ironic that the man wishes to be seen for what he is, not what he was and that face that would represent what he is, is indeed the face that he used to have not the one with burns which represents what he was. This ensues until the man hears exactly what he has been looking for when the boy tells him that when he looks at him he can't see his scars any more, he sees him for who he really is. Note the quote from McLeod himself:

Justin McLeod: People spend too much time thinking of the past. Whatever else it is, it's gone.

The man can't escape his past as he is accused of abusing Chuck, even when he didn't. Therefore no matter how hard he tries he cannot be seen for what he truly is and wishes to be seen as. Thus, he is the man without a face.

Justin McLeod: Is it this? Is this what you see? I assure you it is human. But if that's all you see, then you don't see me. You can't see me.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 58% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 7/10

Although lagging at times in waiting for some sort of climax, the movie deals with novel issues which can challenge the mind if you allow it. The film creates a wonderful atmosphere that takes the viewer into second chances and mixes childhood passages like Beauty and the Beast with strokes from contemporary stories like Finding Forrester and Good Will Hunting.