A Short Transcript of Vision

Rating: 8/10 (4 November 2006)

I like Alfonso Cuaron. He's charismatic, works in Spanish, and his films are generally good. "Y Tu Mama Tambien" was truly a bliss and Harry Potter 3 is, to my mind, the best HP movie out there. I actually like Cuaron so much, that when I heard his next movie was inspired by a book signed P.D. James, I went out to buy it. Although it wasn't easy to track down, I managed to do so. However...
The book was only decent and quite a disappointment, compared to what I had expected. Nonetheless, Cuaron still had time to turn it around when contributing with his ideas to the screenplay. Problem is, a screenplay written by five different people and filtered through five "visionary structures" is bound to be incoherent to some degree, on some level.
So, Cuaron's Children of Men has become a rather plain movie about a random, depressed individual being dragged into the story of a 21st century when women aren't able to conceive any more (actually, it's the men's contribution which is faulty), Britain is the last reasonably safe haven for society, half the people are just sad and miserable, while the other half tries to destroy whatever is left of the world. As our protagonist Theodore, played dully by Clive Owen, is kidnapped by his former wife Julian (Julianne Moore), currently the leader of a terrorist-like organisation, he is faced with the sinister fact that there actually is hope for the world, young Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) being the first pregnant woman in over eighteen years. After an unexpected twist, Theodore takes it upon himself to protect Kee from the interests of everyone around and to reach "The Human Project" with her.
The movie then goes on to portraying this extremely turbulent "trip", which ultimately costs a lot of lives. Now, here is my objection: while the book was far too "tame" for the given situation and extremely contemplative, the film itself is the perfect opposite. There is, actually, no "hidden" layer, no layer of "thought" beyond all the bullets and desperate cries for life. I mean, of course, nothing beyond the obvious tale of solitude and utter fear of terrorism. So despite the well spun together imagery of the film, it falls short at truly being an authentic work of art.
This kind of depresses me, mainly because the idea itself is quite brilliant and the implications such a scenario might have are enormous. There would be so much to explore as far as the human psyche is concerned, so many takes on "shifting trends" in society could be dealt with, a real creation of a visionary mind could emerge! Cuaron, however, chooses to go for a more contemporary problem, that of terrorism and such, amputating very much of what "Children of Men" could have been.
I'm not saying the film is bad; as a matter of fact, it's truly enjoyable and there are some scenes which might just stick on your retina. My problem is I cannot go beyond the frustration of what could have been. That's the general problem with imagination.