Small but strange detail
Don't know if I missed something, but what was with the piles of burning cows?? If they were cows...???
shareI think they were horses.I'm not sure why they burnt them.
share
MovieChat Forums > Children of Men (2007) Discussion > Small but strange detail
[deleted]
One of the major issues in that universe was that there were some diseases spreading around. It's implied that they were burning sick cattle.
AWW *beep* IT'S WAYNE BRADY SON!share
It was playing on the fears at the time. The film as a whole is very well done, imagination is rewarded with this film, everything from the enviroments, looks on the faces of people, newspaper clippings and notice boards etc tell the story, and it only gets better with more viewings.
shareit only gets better with more viewings
Good catch Matt. Yes, this is one of those films that can be watched repeatedly because there is always some detail that wasn't noticed in a previous viewing. This is some very solid film-making. Curon seems to have an eye for detail...a very good eye. share
i thought they were cows, too.
i agree it was fear, paranoia.
during WWII British citizens had their pets put down to save them from the Germans, if they invaded.
not sure what they thought the Germans wanted with fluffy.
I just cant see Hitler in his war room yelling " To hell with Churchill, the moggies, get the moggies!" . or whatever they call them in Germany.
Another possibility...
Beef and beef exports is a big industry in the UK. In the film, maybe there are excess cattle due to the world situation (sharply declining population, ruined global economy, UK isolationism), so they're killing them off and disposing of them by burning them.
We see other instances in the movie of animals continuing to multiply as man declines, so it would fit with that theme.
Yes they are cows,and I was wondering too why we see so many of them burning. (note=Cows are featured in the scene where Kee 1st shows her belly). I was thinking maybe fewer babies and children who drink milk? but the last baby was already 18 yrs old when the movie begins. And they would have killed them for fear of disease decades ago when the infertility was starting. And if the population had died off so much that beef is no longer needed, why not just let them die naturally? The grass seemed abundant enough. Does anyone who read the book know?
shareI also was hoping someone that read the book would have some insight on that detail.
shareI have the book but I haven't yet gotten around to it. I know that it is very different from the movie though. Also in minor details such as the reason why people aren't having kids...
"You'll be taking a soul train straight to a disco inferno where you never can say goodbye!"