Why global infertility?
Why a baby born to only this woman?
How would the baby's survival have any effect on the nation at large?
Why all the deportations?
The context needs some of these questions answered to not only reveal deeper stakes than 'guy helps woman protect baby incidentally during a global baby-shortage', but to open up other storytelling possibilities in terms of plot.
"The context needs some of these questions answered to not only reveal deeper stakes than 'guy helps woman protect baby incidentally during a global baby-shortage', but to open up other storytelling possibilities in terms of plot."
From Wikipedia:
The film switches the infertility from male to female, but never explains its cause: environmental destruction and divine punishment are considered. This unanswered question (and others in the film) have been attributed to Cuarón's dislike for expository film: "There's a kind of cinema I detest, which is a cinema that is about exposition and explanations ... It's become now what I call a medium for lazy readers ... Cinema is a hostage of narrative. And I'm very good at narrative as a hostage of cinema." Cuarón's disdain for back-story and exposition led him to use the concept of female infertility as a "metaphor for the fading sense of hope". The "almost mythical" Human Project is turned into a "metaphor for the possibility of the evolution of the human spirit, the evolution of human understanding." Without dictating how the audience should feel by the end of the film, Cuarón encourages viewers to come to their own conclusions about the sense of hope depicted in the final scenes: "We wanted the end to be a glimpse of a possibility of hope, for the audience to invest their own sense of hope into that ending. So if you're a hopeful person you'll see a lot of hope, and if you're a bleak person you'll see a complete hopelessness at the end."And there you have it. share
Ugh, this is the exact kind of thinking that annoys me. Not you, but Cuaron. It's on 'the emperor's new clothes' side of the debate i.e. we the audience must project meaning onto abstractions, even if that abstraction happened to be just a lump of poo sat on screen for 2 hours.
When fantastical scifi elements are added to what are otherwise real-life stakes, there's a reason expository justifications are usually included.
An interesting counter, that we 'lazy readers' are lazy because we realise that exposition can factor in to the overall stakes and the believability in the first place. If I wrote a story saying that the whole world was threatened to be drowned in poo, the audience would want justifications for how that arose in the first place before even considering whether to suspend disbelief or to emotionally invest in what this meant.
Yes, I felt the inklings of hope AND despair, but both were answered with the thought 'it depends'. It depends on how this gigantic mess of global infertility arose in the first place. And also, if there was a high probability that scientists could start repopulating planet if only they had access to a newborn - enter Kee's baby - then the child's survival would mean something. Otherwise what did it mean? My argument is that the stakes were otherwise blurry, and adding exposition would allow for tighter stakes and therefore more compelling drama.
I think it's better that it's not explained. It's just a (in film) fact, and an attempt at some sort of viable explanation would be wasteful of screentime, totally unnecessary and irritating to the viewer (well, some viewers).
Some films benefit from having some "black hole" of plot that the film orbits. Like the bank raid in Reservoir Dogs, the bullion heist in Once Upon A Time In America, and this film.
I disagree. I think by explaining or at least hinting at an explanation of this extraordinary claim (that global infertility has inexplicably happened yet one woman has miraculously given birth), it would give us the viewer informed hope about chances of repopulating as opposed to mere blind hope.
shareAny time an artist deviates from the norm (which is actually needed for originality), the specific unconventional choices either increase or decrease the quality of the dramaNot sure what you're referring to here. Do you mean lack of exposition? That is definitely not a deviation from the norm. Hollwyood movies often do heavy exposition. Many other countries have other "norms".
Purely referring to the storytelling. CoM deviated because they started with an extraordinary claim - global infertility yet one woman is an exception. Convention says that a storyteller would need to explain or hint at how the global infertility was possible in the first place to explain both how this woman had possibly given birth when billions of others hadn't, and why this may give all of human life a hope of repopulating. Otherwise we're short of the fictional rules of the story on which to base our emotions. The writer chose to exclude this exposition, which, in my opinion, decreased the quality of the drama.
shareCoM deviated because they started with an extraordinary claim - global infertility yet one woman is an exception. Convention says that a storyteller would need to explain or hint at how the global infertility was possible in the first place to explain both how this woman had possibly given birth when billions of others hadn't, and why this may give all of human life a hope of repopulatingI get that. And I don't feel that is a clear convention, or even close to it. At least not in non-American movies, especially European movies (this was mainly a UK movie).
Agreed, it wouldn't affect the character's motivations, but I disagree that it would have no effect on our investment in the story. I think it would give the stakes of the story more definition, and thus more meaning. In other words, what significance does the diagnosis of one surviving baby have when global infertility - the big problem - hasn't yet been diagnosed properly?
For me, defining the stakes of the larger context is crucial, because this would mean his character change has epic significance, rather than possibly epic significance.
it would give us the viewer informed hope about chances of repopulating as opposed to mere blind hope.
I wasn't aware of the original ending. Perhaps what we're debating then is about what the best theme is. I think the theme should be about making sacrifices for the sake of the nation. You're saying the real theme is about making sacrifices possibly for the sake of the nation. I don't know why dilution makes it a stronger theme.
shareIMO I think it was made clear that the nation is in fact the enemy. Another central theme is the notion that "mere" national, personal and idealistic concerns are of little use when presented with the possible savior of the species.
So the concrete realities on the nation, the personal and the idealism suddenly become irrelevant, and worse, barriers to the possibility of hope. Even a blind hope was more important than these real things.
I'm not clear on how that rebuts my statement
shareIt doesn't matter why there's infertility. Thats secondary to the thematic exploration of the concept.
Take something so basic as reproduction, excise it from society and observe the result, then observe the weight of a birth after 20 years of none.
It does matter - when the hope of the future is based on scientific projections, the causes do matter. Again, I'm not saying the story doesn't work, but it would make the stakes clearer and thus the drama and story stronger.
shareI think you missed the point because the whole point is that you don't know if the baby will actually save the human species. nobody in CoM's world knows either.
it's about hope. it's about faith and chance.
I actually think you've found the nub. Those who gain more are those who hope blindly over those who want their hope to backed by reason.
sharewell, in the film, just like in real life, not all reasons behind things are known. for example, we know that the bees are dying, but nobody knows exactly why. scientists have different theories, but nobody can definitively say for sure. nobody in the film knows why women became infertile, which adds to the hopelessness of the situation.
the baby is so important because it is the only hope for a chance for the human race's survival, not because it IS to be the savior of the human race. this speaks to the desperation of humanity.
i find this to be much more poignant than if the baby is known to be the savior, or have some percentage chance attached to it.
Sure, poignancy appeals to ones sense of mystique and fantasy, but percentages - I'm sure you'd agree - would be far more useful realistically. In other words, scientific calculation is far more likely to save mass lives than blind hope in one saviour.
Or course we can say for definite about any one scientifc theory, but this is the difference between science/philosophy and say, religion - one never assumes absolute certainty regardless of how strong the theory or evidence but the other dogmatically asserts absolute certainty based on NO evidence. I'm with the humble truth-seekers.
*we CAN'T say for definite
shareby the bee example, i meant that there are multiple theories on the reason they are dying, just as in the film scientists also have multiple theories on why women became infertile.
children of men is a film about an average guy caught in the middle of something bigger than him. it's not a film about scientists saving the world.
if people knew why women became infertile, then the situation would be far less dire, and the film would be pretty lame.
anyways, it's all up to opinion really. i like films that make me think and fill in the blanks to draw my own conclusions, and i guess you like films that tell you what to think.
It's not that I like films that tell me what to think, it's that I like believable reasons for a scenario happening if I'm to emotionally invest in predictions of the drama. Unexplained global infertility is similar to global constipation or global acne ... I don't want to smell any hint of arbitrariness or contrivance, which means satisfying my believability before I invest.
share"Unexplained global infertility is similar to global constipation or global acne ... I don't want to smell any hint of arbitrariness or contrivance, which means satisfying my believability before I invest."
In real life we don't even have a definitive answer for why the universe exists. Or whether we're the only intelligent life in this universe. I don't expect these questions to be answered any time soon, so it's not something I lose sleep over. Life, to me at least, isn't any less satisfying just because we don't have THE explanation for why it all came about.
Some people might have an existential crisis over it, or they'll come up with their own explanations, with varying degrees of plausibility. Others simply accept and get on with it.
That's pretty much what the viewer does when watching Children of Men. The global infertility is an enigma, an unanswered riddle. Just like our real-life questions relating to "why there is something rather than nothing".
Global infertility isn't real life. That's the crucial difference. And because it's the author's stroke, it needs some explaining. See my global constipation analogy.
share"Global infertility isn't real life. That's the crucial difference."
But the principle is the same. The sterility in Children of Men is a riddle to which people have been trying (in vain) to find the answer. Why the universe exists is a real-life riddle to which people (scientists and philosophers alike) have been trying to find the answer.
The only person who would know why humans are sterile is P.D. James, who wrote the novel. But she chose not to give her readers an explanation. If she did have a sketchy explanation for what caused the sterility, we're never going to find out what it was, because she's now dead.
Personally, I can take the premise without an explanation. If I really needed one though, there's nothing to stop me making up my own.
Compare it to something like terminator 2, where the threat of machines is believable because it's rooted in reality. An outbreak of global acne, like global infertility, isn't rooted in reality and is therefore less believable. I just need better reasons before I emotionally invest, but it's fine if you don't.
share"Compare it to something like terminator 2, where the threat of machines is believable because it's rooted in reality."
That's debatable. A lot of people insist time travel is impossible.
If there's no official explanation just make one up. As Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Another thread on this board came up with a list of possible causes for the global infertility. (My personal preference is a mutated pathogen of some kind.)
Since you're so proudly claiming to be led by reason, let me remind you that there was a time, during the Black Plague where 30 million people died with none the wiser for the cause. The same happened when the AIDS and Ebola pandemic started.
It is not ludicrous to accept that there may be medical crisis we will be helpless against - at least for a period of time till we hit a breakthrough. All you have to believe is that 2027 was in that mezzanine.
As for why Kee was the only one - well that was beyond the scope of the film. It was probably why the Human Project wanted to protect Kee as well.
But that, in no way, reduces neither the significance nor the quality of the film. Every film made does not have to have an endgame to make it work. It could be about the journey. After all, isn't that what each of our own lives boils down to, anyway?
Ignoring the somewhat scornful tone, your real-life examples are fine. I acknowledge those happened. But they were deaths, a common effect of disease. A fictional story world about global infertility is far more specific and thus in need of better-supporting exposition. I didn't say it this is a ludicrous idea, you did. If the global outbreak was a deadly disease, I wouldn't need better exposition - as you say, it's happened before. But this one is a far more improbable event.
shareI apologize for the scornful tone but you were kind of coming off as a bit of a jerk.
Anwyay, you say it's an improbable event yet, it's not so far off from the world we are in right now. Infertility has sen a drastic rise in the last few decades and we really don't have a definite explanation for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-couples-infertility-idUSBRE90A13Y20130111
Of course, some poetic license needs to be given, but you are overestimating the fictitious nature of this film.
Hmm, but see it's not projecting onto abstracts. Those elements are background details of the world, and premise--they are not the plot. They are not what the film is about.
Also, apart from it obviously being a symbol for hope/rebirth for the failing human race, what the baby could mean for the future is an answer to the infertility. It after all could be born immune--that immunity could lead to understanding a way to cure whatever caused the infertility. Kee herself could also hold answers to this.
I definitely understand wanting more details, but as these details do not change the plot, or what the film is about, they are not relevant enough to detract from the film for me.
Zagreus waits at the end of the world, For Zagreus is the end of the world.
I understand your position, and I think I've distilled my argument to its key form:
Hope is built on a foundation that lies somewhere between blind delusion and estimated reason, and the way the audience emotionally responds to this Children of Men story determines where they are on that scale. To clarify that, there's no wrong or right story, but it reveals how the audience hope based on reason. There's no information about how this global infertility happened in the first place, and so because we are so uninformed, there is little reason to get our hopes up. Unless we are the scientists and know something more about the causes, we should keep our hope levels low. Science is good, yes, but it's based on reason. Why get hopes up without good reason? Thus, I think the end is not all that compelling. This simply means we are reasonable in dire circumstances instead of naively optimistic.
Hmm, again that is fair, but I think you're thinking about it almost too logically(in sci-fi dystonia terms), and not focusing on the story at hand. The story isn't about the world, and it isn't about what caused the situation the characters live in, but instead about the characters themselves.
We're not following scientists who are trying to solve the situation, we're following one character (Theo) and his journey of finding something to fight for again, which is ultimately hope. This is the reason we have the Jasper scenes, which are solely to flesh out the character of Theo and the concepts the film is gonna be pushing. Pretty simplistic way to put, but that's really what it's about.
The rebel conflict is simply one of the obstacles in his path, as well as being a sign of why he lost hope in the first place--as he had lost faith in both sides of the fight, and for good reason. (And also for some further political commentary, as this film is chalk full of it from almost every angle)
I think totally reasonable to see it the way you do, don't get me wrong! It's really a preferential thing on what kind of story you're looking for.
It's just a matter of wanting something the filmmaker had no interest in making--Cuaron is said to have a strong dislike of expository films, and is much more interested in making very human centered stories, focusing on theme and character heavy shenans.
No shame in not caring for the film if it wasn't really what you were looking for, or just didn't find yourself invested--I personally really really love this movie and watch it probably every year. But I can see why people might not care for it especially.
Zagreus waits at the end of the world, For Zagreus is the end of the world.
My visceral reaction to the film was one of not feeling compelled to hope, but at first I didn't know why I felt this. Only after reflection did I realise that this reaction was simply because I just wasn't convinced by the story's reason to invest in high hopes. I wasn't looking at solving the situation, I was empathising with Theo's position, given the situation and its stakes. Which makes Cuaron's possible motivation of avoiding exposition irrelevant.
Therefore, I maintain my position: if at the end the audience feels hopeful against good reason, it indicates their blind optimism. Not intended as an insult, just an honest conclusion.
Ehh to each their own, then. Art's all subjective as they say, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
And also, no offense taken! When it comes to movies and books, I'm a massive optimist. Real life I tend to be exactly the opposite, though unfortunately. In fiction one can afford to not be a realist--I like to hope! Whereas it's hard to be an optimist in the real world as there's little reason, or fact to back up that position. At least in my estimation.
Zagreus waits at the end of the world, For Zagreus is the end of the world.
or maybe you should pay more attention and try to put some thought into a film ratherthan needing every exact point spelled out for you and spoonfed to you.
share...que?
Please tell me which of my questions were answered in the film to any dramatic end??
Why global infertility?
Why a baby born to only this woman?
How would the baby's survival have any effect on the nation at large?
Why all the deportations?
1 for the reasons I've already given. And those are false analogies you've presented
2 global infertility. If there was another anomaly baby, we didn't hear about it, and thus it served no dramatic purpose
3 wow, another false analogy. In fact, you've just analogized the point I made in the previous about establishing likelihood of change the baby would make. Thanks, I suppose
4 sure, but the specific politics could have added way more drama. This I would pass on, it just seems to be undefined so as to pack much of a punch
False analogies? Nope, only in your mind. Its the same concept....no one knows why any of those started...they just did. Sounds like you need a movie like world war Z where you know Brad Pitt saves the world all nice and tidy. If you cant begin to think of the possible outcomes of at least ONE woman who is able to give birth then you need a movie that has an easier, more tidy ending. This isnt that movie.
share"Why global infertility?"
If the characters in the film don't even know the reason, why should we? I actually LIKE that it's left unexplained, because then I can come up with my own reason. The novel didn't give an explanation either, as far as I know.
"Why a baby born to only this woman?"
A quirk of fate. We don't know she's the ONLY woman to give birth. She probably isn't. She's just the only one we saw in the story. Maybe the Human Project will work out why the woman was fertile. Maybe not.
"How would the baby's survival have any effect on the nation at large?"
It would have given the demoralised population a renewed sense of hope. "Maybe the human race WON'T go extinct after all."
"Why all the deportations?"
Britain is a small island nation with finite resources. The influx of refugees from the rest of the world would be a drain on those resources. Britain doesn't need that burden.
Upon reflection, it seems the underlying factor here is willingness to suspend disbelief, which depends on genre and standards of skepticism.
I am happy to suspend disbelief and emotionally invest into the Harry Potter stories because the fantasy genre pressupposes magical possibilities. It is fantasy after all.
Children of Men, on the other hand, doesn't pressupose magic. It claims that these things in principle are scientifically possible. Therefore, the request this story makes is that I suspend my disbelief and emotionally invest into the proposed storyworld and story - that infertility just is and one woman has equally unbelievably given birth to the only known child - unless of course I demand that the author better explain these before I am willing to suspend disbelief. What has happened though, is these lack of justifications have led fans to intellectually ponder the expository gaps as opposed to emotionally invest to the full during the story.
Of course, my feelings are happening subconsciously - I would love to invest fully (why else watch a film?) - but I have standards that need to be met first. 'Lazy', as Cuaron puts it, is merely an excuse for himself.
Flabulous, have you looked at the other threads on this board? Specifically, this one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/board/inline/225589844
"I am happy to suspend disbelief and emotionally invest into the Harry Potter stories because the fantasy genre pressupposes magical possibilities. It is fantasy after all."
There was a novel by Philip Wylie called The Disappearance. In the introduction Robert Silverberg wrote:
The Disappearance is often loosely categorized as science fiction, but true science fiction requires at least an attempt at rationalizing the fantastic event that is the mainspring of the story, and Wylie does not even try to offer an explanation for the startling phenomenon at the core of the novel: One day, suddenly, all the women and girls on earth disappear, leaving the men and boys alone in a purely masculine world. The women, in that same moment, have the equal but opposite experience: the men and boys have vanished, and they must cope on their own with all the challenges of existence. (No such sex-linked disappearances, however, strike animals of the lower orders.) There is, of course, no plausible scientific explanation for an event of that sort. Some of Wylie's characters suggest halfhearted theories about mass hallucination, others express the thought that it is the arbitrary and incomprehensible doing of God, and so forth, but ultimately neither Wylie himself nor the philosopher who is his chief mouthpiece in the book take any conclusive position on what has occurred. It is simply set down as a given. Thus The Disappearance must be classed as fantasy, not the elf-and-wizard fantasy that is so popular today, but a kind of didactic fable, a speculative "what-if" fantasy that brings it close to the method of science fiction but without the pretense of a legitimizing theoretical rationale that science fiction in its purest form demands.So, if you follow Silverberg's advice and just think of Children of Men as fantasy, all will be well! share
Hey thanks for this, greg-233, very interesting thoughts.
Having read the paragraph and a few threads on the link presented, I maintain my position.
The example in The Disappearance is, in principle, entirely scientific. No magic, which is how I'd categorise fantasy. As fantastical as Star Wars and Star Trek seem, they are both possible scientifically, including the aliens. Elves and Goblins are not though. I think Silverberg has skewed the boundary between fantasy and scifi.
Either way, my gripe isn't about how plausible or not this new reality is, it's about how these opening stakes affect the stakes the character faces during the story. In CoM, if we found out that anomaly babies had been discovered many times before, and actually scientists were certain it made no difference to the human race's future, imagine how this would have changed our reaction. We'd be think 'so what?'. So because we don't know anything about the initial problem of global infertility, as an intelligent audience we don't have an idea of how a lone baby might help other than to give us unthinking ones some blind hope. I'm not saying it's wrong drama, I'm saying it's weaker drama that could be stronger.
I would add, your last sentence about taking advice in how to see a film is part of the Emperor's New Clothes trap - my visceral reaction to a film is what it is, it's a pure reaction, unbiased by the thoughts of others. And, as long as I have no issue comprehending the story, I shouldn't need to change attitude for a film to speak for itself. Everything is there to be received in the content.
Why is there global warming, aids, and ebola? Although unsolved, these are real, NATURAL phenomena with many reasonable hypotheses to explain. Global infertility is as unlikely as pigs that have one day sprouted wings. Highly unlikely in other words, and so needs justification to make more believable.
The meteor analogy doesn't fit either. In that one you said the people believed the earth to be doomed for 40 out of 50 years. This is not the same in the movie - the baby's survival doesn't guarantee anything, only that it will be studied with a hope to curing infertility. Very different.
If I can't begin to think of at least one woman who gives birth then I need an easier movie? You have missed my point entirely. You may wanna reread what I said before.
You may wanna reread what I said before.Dont need to. You cant see the forest for the trees. After 18 years we know there there is at LEAST 1 person who gives birth. What could be the outcome of that? You apparently cant even begin to imagine the possibilities because you want everything spelled out in the film. Could there more more women who are suddenly fertile? We dont know for sure because this movie is primarily the story of Theo. Not the rest of the world. There are subtle hints bookending the film if you care to look for them.
Why is there global warming, aids, and ebola? Although unsolved, these are real, NATURAL phenomena with many reasonable hypotheses to explainAnd before AIDS was researched no one knew what i t was or where it came from. Not very different at all. The infertility could have been as simple as an environmental factor or even GOD himself could be the cause. How would it benefit in any way for the film to waste exposition explaining it? One of the main concepts of the film is fascist government. Would they tell the common man the cause if they knew? no.
The meteor analogy doesn't fit eitherOf course it does. If people think they are doomed and will be extinct they are going to act very differently. share
Ay carumba. God? Misunderstanding the analogies again??
I will say this, which I think is the crux of my argument:
The most compelling stories are the ones which involve you as emotionally as possible, not the ones that ask you do intellectual homework after in order to retrospectively enjoy the story's journey.
Sure, the two aren't mutually exclusive, or that there's absolute right and wrong, but if this film were to pack more of an emotional punch and to fulfill its storytelling potential, the expository justifications are necessary. But you may well think that emotionally-lacking philosophical essays on screen can make the best stories.
Why not God? They have no explanation for what has happened. There are even people in the films with signs claiming its an act of God. But again, how would this help you with Theos journey because you knew how the human race got to where it is? You are just admitting that you dont like movies where you have to think too much.....which is ok i guess? But those movies, like inception or WWZ, bog down the narrative with exposition.....why not let the audcience think for themselves a little bit?
shareFor a start, which god? A deistic, theistic or polytheistic one? And why not the others?
Can you quote the sentence where I admitted that I don't like movies where I have to think to much, because it seems you have a talent for misreading and misunderstanding.
For a start? what does it matter? There were clearly several belief systems at play in the film by the different groups. WHat if they all believe that? Now you are worried about knowing which religion counts as definitive in this film? I am glad i didnt have to watch the film that you needed to see, it would have been 5 hours long. . You seem to have a talent for needing everything spelled out for you.
Can you quote the sentence where I admitted that I don't like movies where I have to think to much
the request this story makes is that I suspend my disbelief and emotionally invest into the proposed storyworld and story
Irrelevant arguments left and right.
That second quote about disbelief and emotional investment has nothing to do with a dislike for the amount of thinking required. Irrelevant.
Your explanation that any god(s) may have been responsible is an interpretation from characters WITHIN the story, not the actual explanation for the story itself. Irrelevant.
Irrelevant in your mind because you have no imagination and need your hand held when you watch a movie.
You cant even post an intelligent counterpoint to "Why not God". To you....its simply irrelevant. The fact that you cant even begin to accept the circumstances being an act of God makes you ......Irrelevant. Stick to Transformers.....plenty of exposition there for you.
In fact all of your points in your original post are irrelevant, so its an interesting choice of words for you. None of your points really have anything to do with the focus of the film, which is Theos journey.
Why global infertility? I suggested some reasons, but to the point of this film? Its irrelevant. Knowing why wouldnt add anything to the film except running time. But OMG i have to suspend disbelief so i cant buy into the story......MKay.
Why a baby born only to this woman? Well, nowhere in the film was it indicated she was the ONLY fertile woman,just the first known one in a while, but its not really the point. As for how would it affect mankind in general....well if you cant understand how then I cant help you.
Why the deportations? Well, if you had actually paid attention it was made clear in the film, outside of the parallels of our current events in society.
You admitted that you cant think for yourself......you need the writers to spell everything out for you......you are....irrelevant.
Make sure you dont watch No Country for Old Men, or you will end up on the board over there with all the winers complaining that they didnt tell us who got the money, who killed Moss and what does the dream mean. The Coens dont handhold either.....
I'm not sure you know what the word 'irrelevant' means...
Can you seriously not understand how a like or dislike for thinking is irrelevant to a story's believability?
Yes....irrelevant is such a grown up word. Are you always this passive aggressive?
Once again, you have no counterpoints and no imagination.
lets see...irrelevant = not connected with or relevant to something......and the cause of infertility? IRRELEVANT to the main point of the film, GENIUS!
A resounding no then. Thought as much. You may wanna look up the word passive-aggressive too.
shareEr....genius, passive aggressive people say things like
I'm not sure you know what the word 'irrelevant' means..
Ok thanks. Quite happy to provide substance if you can just explain a claim you implied earlier, which I'll rephrase into a question:
How is a like or dislike for thinking relevant to a story's believability?
To answer your first two questions: You might want to look into counterfactual thought experiments. Those play a prominent part in philosophy.
Global infertility is the premise of this story. You'll just have to accept that. P.D. James (the original novel's author) didn't provide an explanation either.
The level of plausibility is not of interest in this type of story.
__________________
A year is a long time.
Not so long. Just once around the sun.
I accept that the original author didn't feel the need to justify, but I still argue that this deviation from the norm lacked adding quality to the overall drama. Any time an artist deviates from the norm (which is actually needed for originality), the specific unconventional choices either increase or decrease the quality of the drama.
shareWhat is this norm you speak of?
Leaving things to the imagination is the norm.
~ I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech.
The norm of aiming to tell a story in as powerful a way as possible.
In this movie's area of storytelling, the stakes of a story partially depend on their likelihood of happening, which depend on how clearly or unclearly these likelihoods have first been defined.
In this movie, the stakes of one man's character change depends on the likelihood that this change has epic consequences. But, as global infertility hasn't been properly explained, the likelihood of these stakes being epic is unclearly defined.
Thus, the story loses potential power.
Dude... The stakes are already clearly defined.
There is a mass infertility, and only one woman is pregnant. At that moment Theo recognizes that this woman is possibly the sole future of the human race. How is that not epic, powerful drama?
Nothing is undefined.
~ I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech.
Your first two questions really don't matter. Why theres global infertility is pointless the only important part is that it exists. If they had said it was polution or paint chips it would of had no real barring on the story. As for why she can have a baby if they knew that their would be no point in the movie. The reason she is going to the sanctuary is in large part so they can figure out why she can get pregnant. As for why would the babys survival have an effect on the nation at large well because it can change the world. And why illegal immigrants being deported that was self explanatory countries deport millions of illegals today now inagine your the last country standing and now you are going to let illegals in?
shareAre you kidding man? It's a movie. Just go with it. Woman can't have babies. Deal with it. Don't ask why?! If you do, who the *beep* going to answer you? The movie? There's no point to revealing why they can't. It's irrelevant, it's just a fact in this universe. Come on, when watching a movie you have get your mind into the right state. Feel out the movie, feel what it's going for. Try to get it and understand it. It's a tasteful sci-fi drama.
shareSo all unusual scifi exposition is entirely unimportant?
shareI've read the entire thread and what I understand from your interventions, Flabulous, is that you seem to have a very rigid view on how a story must be told. You speak of norms, of compelling drama, and the arguments you bring are always highly subjective.
There are no "right" or "wrong" ways to tell a story, not really. I for one hate stories (including movies, obviously) with too much expository stuff, especially in the case of science-fiction (which CoM may or may not be a textbook example of), because most people who watch the film won't know anything about the scientific explanation anyway : it'll only be babble.
Furthermore, I always find expository dialogue artificial : it's very hard to do well. But that's just my opinion, and in no way determines whether CoM is a well-told story or not.
Can you please be more specific and quote me on what you think are my rigid views.
I already acknowledged there's no wrong way to tell a story. My whole argument of 'right' has been for adding exposition necessary to tightening the stakes throughout, and thus the drama. Better drama is better drama. We all agree The Human Centipede isn't Shakespeare.
I've come to realise that this entire discussion boils down to how easily the audience invest in hope based on prediction. Whether it's blind and thus liable to crashing despair or carefully reasoned in order to manage expectations. Note, I'm not talking about the character's hope, I'm talking about the audience's emotional investment into a story.
Ok.
The context needs some of these questions answered to not only reveal deeper stakes than 'guy helps woman protect baby incidentally during a global baby-shortage', but to open up other storytelling possibilities in terms of plot.
When fantastical scifi elements are added to what are otherwise real-life stakes, there's a reason expository justifications are usually included.
My argument is that the stakes were otherwise blurry, and adding exposition would allow for tighter stakes and therefore more compelling drama.
Convention says that a storyteller would need to explain or hint at how the global infertility was possible in the first place to explain both how this woman had possibly given birth when billions of others hadn't, and why this may give all of human life a hope of repopulating. Otherwise we're short of the fictional rules of the story on which to base our emotions.
Sure, poignancy appeals to ones sense of mystique and fantasy, but percentages - I'm sure you'd agree - would be far more useful realistically. In other words, scientific calculation is far more likely to save mass lives than blind hope in one saviour.
It's not that I like films that tell me what to think, it's that I like believable reasons for a scenario happening if I'm to emotionally invest in predictions of the drama.
Compare it to something like terminator 2, where the threat of machines is believable because it's rooted in reality. An outbreak of global acne, like global infertility, isn't rooted in reality and is therefore less believable.
Why is there global warming, aids, and ebola? Although unsolved, these are real, NATURAL phenomena with many reasonable hypotheses to explain. Global infertility is as unlikely as pigs that have one day sprouted wings. Highly unlikely in other words, and so needs justification to make more believable.
I accept that the original author didn't feel the need to justify, but I still argue that this deviation from the norm lacked adding quality to the overall drama. Any time an artist deviates from the norm (which is actually needed for originality), the specific unconventional choices either increase or decrease the quality of the drama.
Ugh....dont waste your time responding to the numbskull Flabulous. You may as well talk to a brick wall....In fact a brick wall has more imagination than Flabulous.....
shareAre you, the speech-police, in a habit of trying to prevent open discussion?
P.s. have you been talking to brick walls to know that I have less imagination than them?
Other posters told you they found the story deep enough, it doesn't need anything.
I could counter that enjoyable storytelling can also be an attempt at unusual forms.
According to YOU. Again, plenty of other posters (including this one) told you that the movie was compelling enough.
You speak of rules and conventions, but you must know that great art is very often the subversion or at the very least a deviation from those norms. Otherwise, we would always watch the same movie.
This movie is not an Annual Report, it's a movie. And it's not a documentary on how the world could survive the end of fertility : it's a fiction that does (or does not) reflect the view of a director on the story.
That's a perfectly fine opinion. That does not mean the story is badly told, it means that it's not the kind of storytelling you enjoy.
Do you really believe that? Really?
In the universe depicted by Children of Men, infertility is "natural", it exists.
Again, that's perfectly fine. Just don't pass your opinion for the only way to think.
You're hard to follow. You say that a certain amount of "deviation" from the "norm" (what norm?) is acceptable, but then you disqualify CoM's own deviation. Based on what?
What I have a problem with is your trying to make your opinion pass for some sort of "right" way of thinking.
Oh, ok! You're pretentious! That's what was wrong!
Look, I don't know what's this obsession of yours with The Human Centipede and why you insist on comparing CoM to it.
I'm not telling you what you should do with your opinion, I'm saying that, for myself, you come across, through your use of vocabulary and turns of phrases, as a pretentious person. Maybe you should stick to Hungarian movies about american soldiers running down the village's only wheelbarrow, leading to utter despair for the population.
With this, you're ignored. I don't like "chatting" with people who already have all the answers.
I sense that you're being flippant, but otherwise if you honestly don't know why I used human centipede in those analogies, then you've missed every single one of those points, which is a shame because they were in direct response to all your points. Oh well, end of.
When you say "don't pass your opinion as", I'm pretty sure you are telling me what to do with my opinion.
Cool, end of chat.
I'm always ready to discuss, but you may need to resolve your desire to command others about their opinions before you can do that without then feeling the need to withdraw altogether.
A central point of the story is, that the world doesn't know how infertility came about and they don't know how to fix it. The human project is trying to find a solution but they haven't so far. So how would one explain the reason for infertility and why this one woman isn't infertile, when no one knows in the first place?
It would change the setting completely and not for the better.
I get that, I just think it would be more satisfying if the author had provided some suggestion as to how something as inexplicable and unlikely as global infertility came to be in the first place. Otherwise it all feels a bit rigged to me. What if there was a global outbreak of babies being born half robot - the birth of one full human as a means for hope for mankind to me would also feel a bit unsatisfactory, considering the unexplained premise of half-robot babies.
shareActually they provide several suggestions as to why in the movie. The Michael Caine character lists them in a joke he tells.
Not knowing adds to the bleakness of the setting and the hopelessness of the population. If you knew what was wrong you could work towards a solution. If you don't even know what is causing the infertility you are completely helpless. The unknown is always a source of fear.
Kee could provide a clue to what is wrong in finding out in which way she is different from the rest of the population. It's a slim chance in an otherwise hopeless scenario but also irrefutable proof, that there is hope after all. Even if you don't have a solution yet.
Ah, Caine's character did? Perhaps I missed that. Still, my whole point is that yes, hope is good, but I'd be more willing to invest emotionally into the character's sense of hope if it was reasoned as opposed to blind, which the author could have set up from the start - perhaps research had stopped simply because there were no babies to study, so this new baby would open up research and potentially solve it instantly. Or perhaps add in the expert of scientists whose been trapped all this time. Just something more than 'we don't know how this global infertility started but now there's a new baby to research on, although it may or may not help at all, we have no idea.'
shareIf you are someone who always needs everything explained to you in a movie then yes, I'm sure you would enjoy it more this way.
shareAre you saying exposition is totally without value?
share"Are you saying exposition is totally without value?"
Well, back in the 1950s someone did say that film is "the ultimate in art to the spoon-fed".
But Alfonso Cuarón is one of those film makers who doesn't believe in spoon-feeding.
Again, are you saying exposition is totally without value? In other words you could rid exposition altogether?
shareAlfonso Cuaron will never answer your questions, he's not interested in answering every possible question. He wants to show you so that you can make your own conclusions.
shareYou're kind of arguing my point. The audience's concluding reaction reveals to what degree they are willing to hope blindly, that is, without reason and evidence.
shareI didn't think the infertility required any explanation. I saw it more as a metaphor for despair, loss of hope, loss of connection for one's fellow humans. It was the world wide expression of the inner world of the cynical, depressed, main character who had lost his son and his youthful faith in working for change to make a better world. In the end, he regained his faith.
shareHaha I can't believe this thread went on so long.
share