Children of men is without a doubt the best movie I’ve seen in a while. It is also the most powerful. I’ve read comparisons to Come and see, which I haven’t seen yet, so I now have it in my Netflix queue. It may not be perfect, but I am not sure there are many examples of perfection anywhere and, really, I have nothing to criticize here. I waited for a while for this movie, since I saw the trailer for the first time and I must say it was a most worthwhile wait.

On the surface a science-fiction story about a near future where women cannot bear children and so humanity is slowly waiting to die out, Children of men is really about our very troubled present of intolerance, greed and war. I read an interview with director Alfonso Cuarón where they ask him why he didn’t explain in greater detail how the infertility came to be. It is not true, he says (I didn’t look for the exact quote, but this is its essence), so I didn’t care. That is not what I wanted the movie to be about. In another interview (and this quote I looked up), Cuarón says that “In the end, Children of men isn’t so much about humanity being destructive—its more about ideologies coming between people’s judgment and their actions.”

Cuarón, who also co-wrote the script, displays incredible technical expertise; there are several long and difficult scenes filmed in a single shot, there is also density of information, which is the best term I’ve come up with to describe what I see as scenes where different types of information are conveyed simultaneously by different means (newspaper clips, television images, people talking), a great alternative to the dreaded exposition. Another excellent example of density in this sense is found in the TV series Lost.

Children of men also looks beautiful, although perhaps this is a strange word to use in the context of the very ugly and mean future it describes. With great work by the main leads, a solid script and incredible cinematography, this is one of the most, if not the most, haunting and interesting films of 2006. (Though, of course, I imagine the much inferior Babel will fair better at the Oscars.)

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 10:39 am and is filed under Movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I assume by $\aleph$ you mean $\mathfrak c$, the cardinality of the continuum. You can build $D$ by transfinite recursion: Well-order the continuum in type $\mathfrak c$. At stage $\alpha$ you add a point of $A_\alpha$ to your set, and one to its complement. You can always do this because at each stage fewer than $\mathfrak c$ many points have been selected. […]

Stefan, "low" cardinalities do not change by passing from $L({\mathbb R})$ to $L({\mathbb R})[{\mathcal U}]$, so the answer to the second question is negative. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${\mathfrak c}$ (This doesn't matter, all we need is that it is strictly larger. T […]

The answer is no in general. For instance, by what is essentially an argument of Sierpiński, if $(X,\Sigma,\nu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite continuous measure space, then no non-null subset of $X$ admits a $\nu\times\nu$-measurable well-ordering. The proof is almost verbatim the one here. It is consistent (assuming large cardinals) that there is an extension of Le […]

(As I pointed out in a comment) yes, partial Woodinness is common in arguments in inner model theory. Accordingly, you obtain determinacy results addressing specific pointclasses (typically, well beyond projective). To illustrate this, let me "randomly" highlight two examples: See here for $\Sigma^1_2$-Woodin cardinals and, more generally, the noti […]

I am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

The question is asking to find all polynomials $f$ for which you can find $a,b\in\mathbb R$ with $a\ne b$ such that the displayed identity holds. The concrete numbers $a,b$ may very well depend on $f$. A priori, it may be that for some $f$ there is only one pair for which the identity holds, it may be that for some $f$ there are many such pairs, and it may a […]

The reflection principle is a theorem schema in ZFC, meaning that for each formula $\phi(\vec x)$ we can prove in ZFC a version of the principle for $\phi$. In particular, it gives us that if $\phi$ holds (in the universe of sets) then there is some ordinal $\alpha$ such that $V_\alpha\models \phi$. It follows from this that (assuming its consistency) $\math […]

All proofs of the Bernstein-Cantor-Schroeder theorem that I know either directly or with very little work produce an explicit bijection from any given pair of injections. There is an obvious injection from $[0,1]$ to $C[0,1]$ mapping each $t$ to the function constantly equal to $t$, so the question reduces to finding an explicit injection from $C[0,1]$ to $[ […]

One way we formalize this "limitation" idea is via interpretative power. John Steel describes this approach carefully in several places, so you may want to read what he says, in particular at Solomon Feferman, Harvey M. Friedman, Penelope Maddy, and John R. Steel. Does mathematics need new axioms?, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6 (4), (2000), 401 […]

"There are" examples of discontinuous homomorphisms between Banach algebras. However, the quotes are there because the question is independent of the usual axioms of set theory. I quote from the introduction to W. Hugh Woodin, "A discontinuous homomorphism from $C(X)$ without CH", J. London Math. Soc. (2) 48 (1993), no. 2, 299-315, MR1231 […]