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 first saw the trailer, 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. Director Alfonso Cuarón has been asked in interviews why he didn’t explain in greater detail how the infertility came to be. It is not true, he says, and not the point, at the end it doesn’t matter, that is not what the movie is about. In another interview (see here), Cuarón says that “In the end, Children of men isn’t so much about humanity being destructive—it’s 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.)

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.

Georgii: Let me start with some brief remarks. In a series of three papers: a. Wacław Sierpiński, "Contribution à la théorie des séries divergentes", Comp. Rend. Soc. Sci. Varsovie 3 (1910) 89–93 (in Polish). b. Wacław Sierpiński, "Remarque sur la théorème de Riemann relatif aux séries semi-convergentes", Prac. Mat. Fiz. XXI (1910) 17–20 […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

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 that the existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter does not imply the existence of a Vitali set. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${ […]

Marginalia to a theorem of Silver (see also this link) by Keith I. Devlin and R. B. Jensen, 1975. A humble title and yet, undoubtedly, one of the most important papers of all time in set theory.

Given a positive integer $a$, the Ramsey number $R(a)$ is the least $n$ such that whenever the edges of the complete graph $K_n$ are colored using only two colors, we necessarily have a copy of $K_a$ with all its edges of the same color. For example, $R(3)= 6$, which is usually stated by saying that in a party of 6 people, necessarily there are 3 that know e […]

Equality is part of the background (first-order) logic, so it is included, but there is no need to mention it. The situation is the same in many other theories. If you want to work in a language without equality, on the other hand, then this is mentioned explicitly. It is true that from extensionality (and logical axioms), one can prove that two sets are equ […]

$L$ has such a nice canonical structure that one can use it to define a global well-ordering. That is, there is a formula $\phi(u,v)$ that (provably in $\mathsf{ZF}$) well-orders all of $L$, so that its restriction to any specific set $A$ in $L$ is a set well-ordering of $A$. The well-ordering $\varphi$ you are asking about can be obtained as the restriction […]

Gödel sentences are by construction $\Pi^0_1$ statements, that is, they have the form "for all $n$ ...", where ... is a recursive statement (think "a statement that a computer can decide"). For instance, the typical Gödel sentence for a system $T$ coming from the second incompleteness theorem says that "for all $n$ that code a proof […]

When I first saw the question, I remembered there was a proof on MO using Ramsey theory, but couldn't remember how the argument went, so I came up with the following, that I first posted as a comment: A cute proof using Schur's theorem: Fix $a$ in your semigroup $S$, and color $n$ and $m$ with the same color whenever $a^n=a^m$. By Schur's theo […]

It depends on what you are doing. I assume by lower level you really mean high level, or general, or 2-digit class. In that case, 54 is general topology, 26 is real functions, 03 is mathematical logic and foundations. "Point-set topology" most likely refers to the stuff in 54, or to the theory of Baire functions, as in 26A21, or to descriptive set […]