|
RyanusRex
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 2007
|
February 07, 2007 6:53 PM
|
|
To say that the movie is pro-life, not "Pro-Life," describes the film's ethos very well. The film's primary goal is not evangelization, much less political action. Those goals are inappropriate as primary goals for art, anyway. The Christian world is awash in enough bad art as it is. One can think of many popular Christian novels. The first purpose of art is to be good art. And if the art is going to evangelize, it must be good art, or it will not be taken seriously by critics, nor impact viewers in the desired way. This art, "Children of Men," is exceptional art, and because it is exceptional art, it also has the opportunity to move the hearts and minds of its viewers in a real way. The question that inspired the novel, "What if women could could have no more children?" is now a question in the minds of tens of millions of viewers, who had never previously asked the question. That in turn will lead to reflection on the role of children, as children, in human society. That in turn, coupled with all the graphic and disapproving portrayal of human degradation, will lead to reflection on the value of human life. And that reflection is exactly the sort of reflection the Church wants to see happening in this day in age.
That the movie portrays, even sympathetically, acts inconsistent with a coherent pro-life ethic is to be expected if the movie has our real world as the real model for its presentation. Most people do not have a consistent ethic at all; even many pro-lifers do not have a consistently pro-life ethic. In fact, I would venture that the fully converted Christian who not only believes, but consistently does, the right thing in the face of difficulties is a truely rare creature. How much moreso among men entirely unevangelized by the Gospel, as in Cauron's world? Theo's friend, who euthanizes his wife, ought to be sympathetic to pro-life people not because he was correct in euthanizing his wife. He was wrong to do so. He ought to be sympathetic to us because he loved her, and because he loved Theo. The problem is not that he did not love enough (He laid down his life for his friend, a love which Christ called the greatest.) but that he did not know how to love rightly.
Theo's hippy friend euthanized his wife because he did not know what else to do. The real probability was that he would be brutally murdered, and then his catatonic wife would be raped and murdered, or just left to starve. What else could the man do? A Christian knows to cling to faith (that is, trust in God's plan), make use of hope (that is, look to heaven for help), and love (that is, to submit to God's will, even if it seems horrible to us). Theo and his friends are no Christians and literally know of no such options. It bears noting that while others, presumably tens of thousands of others, were using their Quietus rations simply because they were bored, Theo's friend did not euthanize his wife just because she was in a catatonic trance and he was tired of caring for her. He seems to have cared for her for years, showing great human virtue. Only when things became, humanly speaking, unsalvageable, did he give in to despair. We must not be too quick to judge the crew for their ignorance and lack of infused virtues. Theo's friend is not a bad man, but a good man lacking Christ.
That is what the movie does a great job of depicting: a world that is eerily familiar, but whose illusions and pretensions are stipped bare (at least to the viewer, by way of contrast with our own world), a world without Christ. And because the picture of a world without Christ is so horrifying, it will naturally make people wonder how to fix it. In the midst of that wondering, a baby is born among homeless refugees, and as the critic wrote, nearly everyone greets it with our Lord's beautiful name, half cursing in shock, and half praying in awe.
-------------------------
"Without having seen Him you love Him; though you do not now see Him you believe in Him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls," (1 Pet 1:8-9).
|
|
|
|
cscaperl
Posts: 1
Joined: Feb 2007
|
|
February 07, 2007 9:06 PM
|
|
I just wanted to take a moment and respond to Danny Boy. As someone who was thoroughly impressed with Children of Men and Pan's Labyrinth (and Babel to complete the Mexican director trifecta) both for their pure artistry and for their gentle weaving of Truth into their messages, I have to admit to being bothered by his comment - not because the euthanasia of the man's wife was good, but because I don't believe it was valorized. In a larger context, one thing that can become frustrating talking to people of faith about films is the belief that anything shown on-screen, done by someone not evil, is something we're supposed to take as a good thing. Michael Caine's character Jasper was a complex one, one who you got the feeling knew he hadn't got life all the way figured out but had settled into being okay with that. In the film, he made the choice to euthanize his wife before the terrorists came. That choice is presented as exactly that - a choice made by a complex character. And its value comes from the fact that audiences, after watching the film, have the opportunity to talk about choices made by various characters and discuss how their choices fit within a larger pro-life context. (One of the less talked about points in this film is that Theo never once wields a weapon). Please, though, stick to criticizing the choice made by the character - rarely has a film made all of the intimate connections between so many pro-life issues - birth, immigration, violence. And at the same time, it even takes the time to talk about how people on all sides of the debate fail to truly uphold the dignity of people. What we need is more films like this one - to speak to the culture and to provide us with talking points.
|
|
|
|
DLMurphy
Posts: 6
Joined: Sep 2004
|
|
February 07, 2007 9:28 PM
|
|
I could not agree more than with the last two posters, RyanusRex and cscaperl.
I cannot tell you how frustrating it is, as an editor trying to find really good Catholic fiction to publish, to see manuscript after manuscript in which even competent writers appear to believe that the only way to uphold Catholic truth in fiction is to make the "good" characters---those with whom we are to identify and root for--infallible in all their choices and beliefs, and the "bad" characters self-consciously Luciferian. Not even the saints' lives display that kind of predictability or homogeneity!
Yes, Jasper's choice was wrong, but he was not a Christian, and he was doing the best he could with a limited amount of grace. He was still a wonderful character--I've known and loved people very much like him. He should be counted among the "good guys." And to assume that his actions amount to the director's perfect prescription for how one should act in similar situations is absurd.
I'm reminded of the wonderful Godspy piece that appeared before Christmas on "The Gospel According to Frank Capra." I, too, adore "It's a Wonderful Life," and think George Bailey one of the finest creations---and bits of cinematic acting, on the part of Jimmy Stewart---ever to grace the screen. Yet here was a character who, at one low point in the course of the story, bullied his wife and children and made up his mind to act out his determination that he should have never been born. And yet what kind of heaven would Heaven be if George Bailey were not welcome there? One, I dare say, in which most of us would not find ourselves welcome.
|
|
|
|
dannyboy
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 2005
|
|
February 08, 2007 11:39 AM
|
|
Please. Don't preach to me about literary complexity. I'm no fan of the thin gruel that often attempts to pass as religious 'art'. I'm not looking for films that attempt to bombard us with some kind of sentimental, saccharine vision of humanity. You seem not be reading what I actually wrote. Yes, the movie is brilliant and good in many ways.
But just because you are able to take good out of it because you are properly disposed and have a well-formed moral sensibility does not mean that the movie itself is structured to make the case you want it to. To many people with whom I have spoken, it has offered emotional fuel to their own justifications of euthanasia. We are in no way encouraged by the movie to criticize the euthanasia, in fact, the music at the moment of his decision and the heroics (both in taking care of his catatonic wife and in resisting the fishes) of Jasper encourage us to applaud his 'compassionate' murder of his wife. Yes, the fact that the movie raises an eyebrow over the government-issued suicide pills is good. Yes, it adds a sense of tragedy to the choice made by Theo's buddy. No, it does not seem to point us in any direction other than that, in order to achieve a good end, one ought sometimes to commit evil (though it might sometimes make us sad to do so).
I know that many people do not think consistently. Is that a reason not to criticize inconsistent thinking? I have defended this movie again and again to my colleagues, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore its weaknesses just because the movie got a few important things right and was masterfully-crafted. The things the reviewer says are good, but we also need to remember how problematic Cuaron's moral confusions are.
Yes, the movie is able to give occasion to good debates about crucial and oft-overlooked moral questions. The answers that it seems to want us to give to some of those questions (not just about euthanasia either) are often morally confused. By centering itself so effectively in the right place, however, I do think the movie exceeds itself. And I think this is a crucial question that we need to be asking ourselves about the Cuaron, del Toro, and other directors who create out of a Catholic background even when they are themselves apostate. We can see the light of truth shining through them beautifully in spite of their political or theological hobbyhorses, though that truth often does get distorted a bit in the process.
Let me be clear. I think this and Pan's Labyrinth were two of the best movies of the last year, and perhaps of the last several years. But they are getting heaps of praise from all over the place. I want to pursue a discussion not only of what makes them good, but of the complexities and problems that attend that goodness.
And by the way, we are never encouraged by Capra to approve of George Baily's mistreatment of his family. It is ugly when he does it because it is morally ugly. There is a difference between encouraging us to sympathize with a complex character and encouraging us to approve of the choices he makes. It is the latter that I am criticizing about CoM, not the former.
|
|
|
|
RyanusRex
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 2007
|
|
February 13, 2007 9:39 PM
|
|
Kanon's comments are astute. The observation that the film comments on the "Old Europe" (I'll extend that, if I may, to include all the West) of today touches on the apocalyptic element of the film. Apocalyptic/revelation literature isn't meant to disclose the future to us, except perhaps in passing. It is meant to reveal us to ourselves. When we read the damning indictments of 6 of the 7 churchs in the early chapters of Revelation, we are meant to gulp and ask ourselves, "Wow - does that apply to me, too?" When Christ says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," we are meant to notice, "Sheesh... and I am just me!" asking ourselves, "Where do I fit in between the A and Z of God's plan?" So it is with a movie like this. It takes place in the future mostly because the future is more plausible than the past. We are meant to see ourselves in it, or see it in ourselves, and ask, "How does this bear on me?" Precisely because it starts conversations like this, we can see that it does prompts such analysis effectively.
-------------------------
"Without having seen Him you love Him; though you do not now see Him you believe in Him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls," (1 Pet 1:8-9).
|
|
|
|
cityofgod
Posts: 6
Joined: Feb 2004
|
|
March 29, 2007 9:27 AM
|
|
I just saw 'Children' last night- I agree wholeheartedly with the Godspy reviewer. I disagree that Jasper's euthanasia scene was made to look heroic. Consider the fact that Jasper had plenty of opportunities to choose this peaceful mode of dying for his wife all along. He only made the choice under the most stressful of predicaments- he wasn't shown making a big show of how merciful he was being- he was trying to save many lives, including a childs, and in his thinking he was perhaps preventing a scenario where his beloved was to be tortured in front of him in order to pull out information about the whereabouts of the innocents. Jasper wasn't portrayed as a righteous Christian, he already has been shown to be drug user, and escapist. His acts at the end showed both his strength and his weakness- he allowed himself to be killed quite willingly, which in that context was very heroic. He staid by his wife until circumstances drove him to an extreme decision. One can well imagine even as a Christian, doing the same, operating as a principle of double-effect- you are not killing the wife, you would be keeping her from being tortured and killed by evil men, who might use their evil actions to compel you to give them the information they are seeking. One can imagine doing this, rationalizing it, but as a Christian feeling very conflicted and sinful in every decision about to be made. If Jasper had been Catholic it would have been appropriate to see him on his knees seeking God's counsel and His forgiveness. How unlike our modern discussion on appropriateness of euthanasia is this dire situation of jasper's. I think no one would be coming away from this film thinking- hey euthanasia makes sense to me now- we should enact legislation in favor it! Maybe if we were in Jasper's world and immediate situation would it even become a thinkable option- God help us if either of those scenarios played out for real.
|
|
|
|
|
