Just came back from watching “Children of Men” in the movies, and it was bloody awesome.
The filmatographic elements were all perfect. The camerawork, done with an unsteady handheld, gave the film a more realistic atmosphere (during one scene, “blood” sprays across the lense, kinda like in “Saving Private Ryan”, except that I don’t think it was supposed to happen that way here; it just did) without ever being unfocused or giving any other causes for annoyance — if you’ve seen some “Battlestar Galactica”, you know of what I speak. Furthermore, the setting and the scenery was brilliantly filthy and naturalistic. Most of London was dilapidated and worn down, as was pretty much everything, and the political climate was described through short parts of news broadcasts, clippings from newspapers in the background, and stuff like that.
And this is where the film’s true brilliance was. For, Like I said in the title, this is science fiction the way it should be. Thematically, certain trends and elements of our current society is taken and exaggerated into the extreme (excepting the infertility; the opposite is more of a problem today, really), and imposed on a future society as if these trends had actually evolved naturally over the span of two decades. The result? Science fiction in the spirit of George Orwell rather than George Lucas; a movie with a setting and a “subtext” (it’s almost far enough from subtle to qualify as plain “text” ) that most of all reminds of the freak child of “V For Vendetta”, “The Constant Gardner”, and “The Communist Manifesto” (without there being any Communist propaganda, of course). The elements that are most exaggerated and the focus of attention here, is the current development of what I often think of as a “Diet Xenophobia”, as well as the “security” measures every Western country seems to be adopting these days, in their completely irrational paranoia. (I mean, heavy security arrangements around Norwegian long distance buses? Come ON; that’s fucking absurd!) I expect that people with less liberal minds than myself might not like it as much as I did, but that’s their loss. (Actually, the friend I watched it with is a member of Norway’s most xenophobic represented political party, and he didn’t seem quite as enthusiatic as me…
)
On top of all this, the acting, the characters, and everything else was perfect, and all in all, I have no other choice but to give it a 10/10.
(I mean, when they bribe me as unshamedly as these guys do — by putting a sarcastic antihero in the hero role, and by playing Radiohead’s “Life In A Glasshouse” during a scene in which the characters of Michael Caine and Clive Owen are getting high on weed — what else can I do? :P)
Oh, and it’s bloody funny too. Witty, ironic and morbid. Just the way I like it.
Dystopia! Dystopia! Oh, how I love thee, Dystopia!
EDIT: Oh, and I just had a look at IMDB’s messageboard, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more chaotic MB in my life, and definitively not one where the respect between the posters were so absent. Gee, I think I just realised why I hate large forums…

Posts
Blast.
I forgot Shklovsky in my little thesis on what sci-fi should be like. But I guess that all you clever boys and girls manage to piece that together on your own, right?
11. December 2006 @ 17:55 ( Permalink )
“you clever boys and girls ”
Why are you assuming that we are boys and girls, and not men and women? Do you call us so to be more confident with yourself? And why the fuck! do you assume we are clever?
11. December 2006 @ 19:31 ( Permalink )
“Why are you assuming that we are boys and girls, and not men and women?”
Eh, have you ever heard of a thing called “an idiom”, sheepguy?
“Do you call us so to be more confident with yourself?”
No. Do you ask these stupid questions in an attempt to look clever?
“And why the fuck! do you assume we are clever?”
I have no idea. Momentary insanity, I suppose…
11. December 2006 @ 19:53 ( Permalink )
“Eh, have you ever heard of a thing called “an idiom”, sheepguy?”
Yes. Disgusting little thing, is it not?
“Do you ask these stupid questions in an attempt to look clever?”
I do not succed, do I?
“I have no idea. Momentary insanity, I suppose…”
Ah. Know the feeling.
11. December 2006 @ 19:57 ( Permalink )
“Shklovsky ” ???
Mener du Viktor Sjklovskij? Og desautomatiseringa av verden som kunsten innebærer?
11. December 2006 @ 21:02 ( Permalink )
“Yes. Disgusting little thing, is it not?”
Not really. Unless you cover it in slime. Which you have to admit, is an unfair piece of circumstance to assume it is in, being an abstract and thus unable to being covered in anything but bullshit.
11. December 2006 @ 22:55 ( Permalink )
“Mener du Viktor Sjklovskij? Og desautomatiseringa av verden som kunsten innebærer?”
Viktor Shklovsky, yeah, but not necessarily that desautomatisation thingy. Rather, I was thinking of defamiliarisation, as an artistic technique.
11. December 2006 @ 23:19 ( Permalink )
“Eh, have you ever heard of a thing called “an idiom”, sheepguy?”
Yes. Disgusting little thing, is it not?
Not really. Unless you cover it in slime. Which you have to admit, is an unfair piece of circumstance to assume it is in, being an abstract and thus unable to being covered in anything but bullshit.
*This conversation is a perfect example of when people have to much time, brainpower and will to quarrel left over.
…
Loving it, guys! (hey! It’s just an idiom, brækar. Don’t go all Schwarzenegger on my white ass (and it most certainly is white, so that is not just a bad idiom ( but it doesn’t mean you have to do anything to my ass. I like it just as it is, thank you) ) )
12. December 2006 @ 00:24 ( Permalink )
“Viktor Shklovsky, yeah, but not necessarily that desautomatisation thingy. Rather, I was thinking of defamiliarisation, as an artistic technique. ”
Hvilket er akkurat det samme… Og trass i at jeg gir deg riktig stavemåte staver du fortsatt mannens navn feil!!! (Jeg øvde meg på det navnet i 6 uker i 2004!)
Desautomatisering av verden er akkurat det som tar vekk det sløret vi får foran øynene når vi har sett på flere ganger og konstatert at den er seg selv lik; dvs. vi slutter å se den. Desautomatiseringa som grep gjør at vi ser verden på en ny og “unfamiliar” måte.
12. December 2006 @ 11:37 ( Permalink )
“Hvilket er akkurat det samme…”
Which is why I included that little “necessarily” — in case we were talking of the same thing.
“Og trass i at jeg gir deg riktig stavemåte staver du fortsatt mannens navn feil!!!”
Wrong? Nah, I write it as it is written in English, which is logical, seeing as I try to write in English in the rest of my blog, too.
A matter that bothers me more is that I might have misunderstood or misapplied his theory, seeing as I apply it to a situation where they’ve takes certain elements of our own time and inserted them into another setting, with a couple of changes, so that we’ll see our own world in a new light. And like I said, I’m not too sure if that’s really Shklovsky…
12. December 2006 @ 15:04 ( Permalink )
Vel, i et av Sjklovskij mener nok at det faller innunder teorien hans. Du kan låne artikkelen hans av meg over jul, hvis du vil, og se selv. Et av hans eksempler er å la en dø hest fortelle en historie…
Vel, min stavemåte av navnet hans er den russiske, hvilket er den originale…
12. December 2006 @ 21:31 ( Permalink )
Then I apologise, I was unaware that the Russians had abandoned the Cyrillic alphabet.
12. December 2006 @ 21:38 ( Permalink )
Ha ha… Vittig som alltid!
12. December 2006 @ 21:44 ( Permalink )
Gjett hvem som leser over skuldra mi
12. December 2006 @ 21:44 ( Permalink )
“Gjett hvem som leser over skuldra mi ”
The dog?
12. December 2006 @ 21:51 ( Permalink )
Anne har begynt sin årlige hallikvirksomhet: begge damene hans har tida si
Så her er det sutring fra tidlig til sent
Er nok Neinar som prøver seg. Anne ble avskrekka av engelsken 
12. December 2006 @ 21:56 ( Permalink )
“Anne har begynt sin årlige hallikvirksomhet: begge damene hans har tida si”
Aaaw, the poor thing!
12. December 2006 @ 22:06 ( Permalink )