Happiness is a pill.

February 27, 2007 3:00 PM

New Media from the future... a look at infographics and commercials from 2027, courtesy of a the movie Children of Men. (qt, sound)
posted by Dave Faris (87 comments total)

Great movie & great find, thanks Dave.
posted by jonson at 3:08 PM on February 27, 2007

Only half of that stuff caught my eye in the theater. I think that movie will bear watching again. I totally missed the pets in kid's clothes bit.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:13 PM on February 27, 2007

Cool! I've always thought it would be fun to design stuff like that for sf movies.
posted by brundlefly at 3:15 PM on February 27, 2007

It's interesting how much marketing contributes to the atmosphere of our social (and sometimes private) spaces.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:25 PM on February 27, 2007

Along the same lines, but from Mike Judge's "Idiocracy."
posted by jonson at 3:27 PM on February 27, 2007

I just finished reading Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. The two pill ads have some similarities to the ads described for BlyssPluss pill and the "Libido-extreme" pills in the book. I need to see this movie!
posted by rabbitsnake at 3:27 PM on February 27, 2007

What song is that?
posted by chillmost at 3:28 PM on February 27, 2007

Court of the Crimson King, by of all bands, King Crimson.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:29 PM on February 27, 2007

A classic: Court of the Crimson King by King Crimson
posted by DesbaratsDays at 3:30 PM on February 27, 2007

jinx
posted by DesbaratsDays at 3:30 PM on February 27, 2007

Its not playing in my browser, just stays on the Quicktime icon forever. Anyone have a direct link?
posted by LoopyG at 3:31 PM on February 27, 2007

Correction. "The Court Of The Crimson Song (Including The Return Of The Fire Witch/The Dance Of The Puppets)" (Amazon)
posted by Dave Faris at 3:31 PM on February 27, 2007

I'm not sure I buy that, Dave. Although, I don't have the album in front of me.
posted by DesbaratsDays at 3:34 PM on February 27, 2007

I cut and pasted it straight off the amazon page. Look for yourself.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:35 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

direct link to mov file.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:39 PM on February 27, 2007

This is hanging off the king crimson site...
dmglive.com
posted by DesbaratsDays at 3:40 PM on February 27, 2007

The "News Updates" in "Starship Troopers" were fun too!
("Do YOU Want To KNOW More?"...)
Has anyone seen this movie?
Is good?
posted by Dizzy at 3:41 PM on February 27, 2007

"This" referring to "Children of Men", I mean...
posted by Dizzy at 3:41 PM on February 27, 2007

Thanks a million Dave!
posted by LoopyG at 3:43 PM on February 27, 2007

I haven't. But I will now.
posted by phaedon at 3:43 PM on February 27, 2007

Children of Men is very, very, very good. Possibly the best-directed film I've seen since Stanley Kubrick died.
posted by EarBucket at 3:44 PM on February 27, 2007

Children of Men is one of the two or three best films I saw last year. The fact that it wasn't nominated for more is criminal.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2007

That was a good find. The HM Government logo in the second ad is very, very similar to the current one: different image but same font (although I guess they do that so it looks not too out of kilter and vaguely recognisable, rather than completely way-out).

And that definitely is King Crimson. Shame they didn't use 21st Century Schizoid Man elsewhere in the film.

Finally I'd recommend the film - I missed it in the cinema but rented it out recently and was pretty gripped. Plot, direction and cast are all excellent but what makes it for me is the shabbiness of the 2027 scenario. London looks pretty similar, just a bit more worn out, and although that's connected to the plot, it lends it a sense of familiarity that just sucks you in instantly.
posted by greycap at 3:51 PM on February 27, 2007

Children of Men was excellent. I highly recommend it. I also highly recommend not comparing it in any way with Blade Runner, as such comparisons are unfair to both films.
posted by dontoine at 3:57 PM on February 27, 2007

I thought it was a better film in some ways than the much-nominated Pan's Labryinth, though I think both are excellent.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:00 PM on February 27, 2007

Sorry, my comment was a bit fatuous -- yet another worthless internet opinion with nothing substantive to back it up. And now I gotta run. Apologies.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:01 PM on February 27, 2007

Actually, I think Children of Men and Pan's Labryinth would make a fantastic double feature. They're both genre films about fascism. Both are clearly inspired by and concerned with Bush's America: Children's illegal immigrants, Homeland Security, and use of fear to justify loss of rights; Labryinth's torture, power run mad in the absence of rules, and villain with an overriding Oedipal complex.
posted by EarBucket at 4:07 PM on February 27, 2007 [3 favorites]

In terms of production design, cinematography, and a few other technical aspects, it's a very good film. In terms of having anything to say, it's a notch or maybe two above Ghost Rider.
posted by keswick at 4:20 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ewww... you got your prog rock in my mefi. Just kidding, this was good.
posted by vronsky at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2007

The future in "Children of Men" is not a normal "future".

I'm divided on wether or not to see the movie. I mean I've already downloaded it, so it's only a question of spending two hours of my life, but something about the premise bothers me. Seems so bleak and disturbing, and unlike great movies that are also disturbing and bleak this one ridiculous and silly at the same time.

It would be really interesting from a sociological standpoint to see what happened if people really did stop reproducing. A lot of political "problems" and worries would go away without any children to protect. No need for schools, no need to prosecute the war on drugs, and (I would imagine) no worries about illegal immigration. Obviously if culture is evaporating, there would be no need to protect it. I honestly think a problem on this scale would bring the world together in search of a solution, and you wouldn't see much terrorism or things like that. Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist.
posted by delmoi at 4:38 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]

I honestly think a problem on this scale would bring the world together in search of a solution, and you wouldn't see much terrorism or things like that. Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist.

Maybe they already tried. Year after year of "we're still working towards a cure" when you only have a couple of decades left is less than reassuring, and at some point the levee breaks.

Alfonso Cuaron has said in interviews that Children of Men is not a what-if scenario; he is utterly convinced that we are running headlong into the future he depicts. Whether it's triggered by an infertility crisis or nuclear terrorism or economic destabilization or any of a hundred other possible causes is really just the icing on the cake.
posted by chrominance at 4:50 PM on February 27, 2007

In terms of production design, cinematography, and a few other technical aspects, it's a very good film. In terms of having anything to say, it's a notch or maybe two above Ghost Rider.

Sorry, the V for Vendetta discussion is in the next room.
posted by chrominance at 4:52 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

EB, I can fully support the idea of a Children of Men / Pan's Labyrinth double feature.

I was lucky enough to catch Pan's Labyrinth at the Hippodrome. Good times.

Children of Men is bleak in a way that cuts as deep the truth of watching someone you love die. Then again... apart from childbirth ceasing in our species... it is an altogether possible future...

The rise of fear induced facism in America will not end with the "administration" of George Walker. It's merely paused to take a deep breath. Hell, Blair has done well pushing fear... as has Howard... fight them there so we won't have to fight them here.

P. D. James and Alfonso Cuarón have just offered us all a passing glimpse out of the corner of one's eye.

Our collective future is a dark one. Prepare yourself for maybe another century of compounding disappointment.

Afterall, we have not started killing each other over access to water.

Yet.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 4:53 PM on February 27, 2007

It's not too much of a spoiler to say that the film disagrees with you on that one delmoi. The film's take is that without a future to work toward, there's not much point in trying to hold things together. We don't use nukes now at least partially because the radiation would eventually get back to us. Do you think we'd be so restrained if there were no eventually?

I've always been fascinated by these background details in sci-fi. In many ways, I think they make or break how well the film will stand up over time. Look at the sci-fi movies that have held up well: 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, etc. The background objects just felt natural. The 0G toilet instructions in 2001, the truckers hats and rumpled clothes from Alien. By comparison, the Star Trek movies with clean plasticky hallways and pantsuits always screamed "Monsanto presents The World of Tomorrow!" to me.
The world of Children of Men I can see myself living in. I'm not clean enough to live in most sci-fi worlds.

Although, to be honest, the dystopia future is more prevelant now, and is almost the cliche that the Jetsons' world used to be. I wonder if that's a generational thing and we'll see a swing back to the bright, shiny future that movies gave us in the 60s and 50s.
posted by Eddie Mars at 5:01 PM on February 27, 2007

Great movie; it should've been nominated for Best Picture.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:04 PM on February 27, 2007

Maybe one of the Children of Men fans can explain the title to me. I really liked the movie, but as it is about female infertility, I don't understand the "Men" part. I am hoping it's not something stupid like "men refers to human, duh" because I thought the film was quite intelligent.
posted by arcticwoman at 5:17 PM on February 27, 2007

"Afterall, we have not started killing each other over access to water."

Not in an obvious, news-visible way, you mean.

I'm looking forward to renting this film. However, while the adverts humor is good, the graphic design of this stuff is a bit staid and contemporary, IMO. Most of the "future-y-ness" comes from it being motion graphics on things we only see static art on today.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2007

How this movie didn't win for Cinematography, and at least get a nod for best picture, is beyond me. The two action sequences alone were some of the best I've ever seen.

Departed wasn't even among Scorsese's top 3 best, but I guess it "his year".
posted by rsanheim at 5:21 PM on February 27, 2007

An excellent movie. Amazing cinematography. There are these extended long shots (some over 10 minutes), including a bona fide groundbreaking car chase sequence that will absolutely blow your mind.

Thematically, it's also very strong. I thought of it as biblical, in the sense of creating a mythical modern-day Mary and Joseph/birth of (the) Christ tale. Very moving, especially by the end.
posted by zardoz at 5:22 PM on February 27, 2007

Ray Pride at Movie City Indie has a promo clip about cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezk.
posted by muckster at 5:23 PM on February 27, 2007

arcticwoman, the title comes from the novel, in which it's the men who are infertile, not the women.
posted by EarBucket at 5:30 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

An excellent movie. Amazing cinematography. There are these extended long shots (some over 10 minutes), including a bona fide groundbreaking car chase sequence that will absolutely blow your mind.

Okay, I'll watch it for the car chase. It better blow my mind! zardoz!

arcticwoman, the title comes from the novel, in which it's the men who are infertile, not the women.

Hmm, really? That's all it is? then can't women reproduce with the help of modern technology? What about all the sperm banks? There must be enough jizz stored up to last centuries (assuming you use one sperm per egg with IVF)
posted by delmoi at 5:42 PM on February 27, 2007

Yea, I was annoyed that this didn't get any significant Oscar nominations. It was easily the best movie that I saw last year. Science fiction almost never wins Oscars though.
posted by octothorpe at 5:43 PM on February 27, 2007

Hmm, really? That's all it is? then can't women reproduce with the help of modern technology? What about all the sperm banks? There must be enough jizz stored up to last centuries (assuming you use one sperm per egg with IVF)

That's touched on in the book, actually--even the sperm that's in storage isn't any good. It doesn't really address the question of why, but it's more of a McGuffin than anything.
posted by EarBucket at 5:46 PM on February 27, 2007

Kudos to Foreign Office.

As a not unserious student of the public display screen, I'd argue that their work in Children was infinitely subtler, more convincing and tasteful than the hamfisted product-placement-masquerading-as-scenery in Minority Report, its closest analogy in terms of imagined time period and technosocial context.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:52 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Did you see the Will Smith vehicle, I, Robot a few years ago?
posted by Dave Faris at 6:03 PM on February 27, 2007

Dave Faris writes "Did you see the Will Smith vehicle, I, Robot a few years ago?"

Oh, god. Yeah. The fucking shoes.
posted by brundlefly at 6:12 PM on February 27, 2007

Thanks for this. The ads running in the background of those scenes made it that much more compelling and realistic. Funny how dystopia and ad campaigns go hand in hand.
posted by Saellys at 6:19 PM on February 27, 2007

it's a notch or maybe two above Ghost Rider.

this is sarcasm, right?
posted by andywolf at 6:25 PM on February 27, 2007

The title of the book is also, apparently, a bible reference.

And agreed: it's an amazingly well-made movie. The unobtrusively incorporated advertising and news reports were well-used to establish pivotal truths/concerns of the portrayed future in a much more subtle way than other sci-fi flicks which tend to resort to narration and overly-explicative dialogue (yeah, I'm looking at you, Minority Report and I, Robot). What's more, it's always nice to watch a sci-fi movie that isn't hitting you over the head every couple of minutes, yelling "Look at this neat technology! Hey! Yaaay! We're in the future!!". Ultimately, that has more to do with the careful, almost incidental, inclusion of technology, rather than making it the focus of the viewer's attention, the motivation for which I'll never understand. Thanks for the video - it was great to get a closer look at some of that stuff.
posted by bunyip at 6:34 PM on February 27, 2007

This is the best dystopian film since Blade Runner, IMHO. And yes, it's worth watching just for the incredible beauty of the cinematography. Even if you despise the story, this is worth watching for the way it was filmed.
posted by Kikkoman at 6:43 PM on February 27, 2007

Loved the movie. Here's my problem with it.

The central organizing principle of the movie is completely upside down.

In the movie, illegal aliens are vilified. Persecuted, hunted down, tortured, placed in ghettos, killed.

But if there really were a worldwide fertility crisis, the movie's vision of the British government's response is the exact opposite of a rational response.

Think about it. People are useful. They work and they pay taxes. Suddenly, they're not making more people.

Therefore, illegal aliens are incredibly valuable. There's a lot of them. They want to come to your country. They will buttress what's left of your society, not break it. Bring us your tired, your poor, etc, etc, because we f'n need them to take out the garbage. You thought it was hard to get Americans to take the lousy jobs the Mexicans want. Now imagine what that looks like when there's fewer and fewer Americans around...

They say real estate is the only thing that matters, because it's the only thing they're not making more of. Now imagine how valuable a single person is when they're not making more people.

A rational response to a worldwide fertility crisis would be to get as many people to move to Britain as possible. After all, someone has to do the work. And each year, there's fewer and fewer someones out there. Please come to Britain!

But the movie and the book suggests the opposite in order to make a point about politics today instead of where politics might lead.

I get the filmmakers' point, of course. Xenophobia, bad. Torture, bad. I just wish they were a little more logical about it.
posted by frogan at 7:18 PM on February 27, 2007 [3 favorites]

Frogan... for the past six years, one month, and seven days, the largest and most powerful republic has done almost every thing imaginable to prove the following point :

Logic has no inherent place in man. When it happens it is by mere happenstance.

##### END OF LINE #####
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:30 PM on February 27, 2007

Thanks, PROD-TPSL, for your stunning insight.

Next?
posted by frogan at 7:32 PM on February 27, 2007

Frogan: do you see any logic to our current anti-immigrant hysteria? People don't always, or even often, react to things in rational ways. I found the movie pretty plausible once you got past the central conceit of the mysterious infertility.
posted by octothorpe at 7:34 PM on February 27, 2007

Is there a reason this DVD isn't available via Amazon here in the states?
posted by maxwelton at 7:45 PM on February 27, 2007

do you see any logic to our current anti-immigrant hysteria?

That's not really my point, though. My point is that the movie doesn't treat its characters with any respect.

If you presume a worldview that there are limited resources and unlimited consumers, then yes, it's rational to attempt to protect what you have. This is why borders and fences exist in the first place.

Now, imagine the opposite. NO limits to resources BUT limited consumers. A world where the only real limited resource is "people."

The rational response is "Holy shit, people are suddenly the most valuable thing in the world."

But the movie says, "No, we must make a point about something happening today, so we'll pretend that everyone in the future is stupid."
posted by frogan at 7:46 PM on February 27, 2007

It's funny, but compare this movie with Idiocracy. In this world, everyone in the future really is stupid. That's the point of the whole movie. So it works with its own logic. Children of Men, not so much.
posted by frogan at 7:48 PM on February 27, 2007

Is there a reason this DVD isn't available via Amazon here in the states?

Because it's still playing in theaters.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:54 PM on February 27, 2007

frogan pretty much nailed it my take on it, though I would like to say the following:

the movie's message was pretty facile and shallow: "goverment = bad," "people = self-destructive," "people like babies," "America = bad." It offers no insight into the human condition, it merely parrots the current zeitgeist. I have no doubt that's why it's successful.

Also, why is a black man trying to kill a black woman who needs the protection of a white man? Sounds racist to me.
posted by keswick at 9:21 PM on February 27, 2007

message was pretty facile and shallow

Ironic, that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:38 PM on February 27, 2007

yeah, it's like rain on your wedding day
posted by keswick at 9:44 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:05 PM on February 27, 2007

Maybe this will still strike you as shallow, but I thought the movie was about hope. It's one of the oldest stories there is, and it gets retold ever so often, dressed up in different garb. This one, I thought, was very fresh and compelling.
posted by muckster at 11:14 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]

It seemed to me that despite the fertility crisis, there was still a population issue in Britain. The rest of the world had suffered all sorts of catastrophe, man-made and natural, but Britain was still fairly stable. Refugees could threaten the stability of the British nation by their sheer numbers. Remember, the fertility crisis only started 18 or so years before the film opens - there are still plenty of people. In addition, the repression of refugees and foreigners in general could make political sense - a way of rallying the masses to a single cause (see the current immigration issues in both the US and Europe.)

So, in short, the logic of the movie seems plausible, and doesn't depend on people being "stupid" at all.

and Keswick: I thought the movie was more a rumination on the ideas of hope and faith. Theo is a man without hope, but in the end it is only hope that motivates him. In the beginning he has no faith in humanity's future, but by the end his faith drives him to sacrifice his own. A bit more going on there than government = bad, etc.

Oh, and Keswick: Also, why is a black man trying to kill a black woman who needs the protection of a white man? Sounds racist to me.

Are you stupid?
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:15 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]

Maybe one of the Children of Men fans can explain the title to me. I really liked the movie, but as it is about female infertility, I don't understand the "Men" part. I am hoping it's not something stupid like "men refers to human, duh" because I thought the film was quite intelligent.

Jesus called himself the Son of Man. I believe the book, and by extension the movie, is saying we are all children of men.

The rational response is "Holy shit, people are suddenly the most valuable thing in the world."

Not given the way our society is headed. We already have too many people for too few jobs, due to increased productivity. That's a big part of why, in the US, CEOs are making more money while more people are simultaneously making less. If you say that, 20 years in the future, automation has increased even more, while people still want to escape poverty by emigrating, you get a situation very much like that in Children of Men.

I think this illustrates nicely one of the biggest mistakes of golden age SF: it assumed that, given automation, there would be enough wealth for everyone to share and live happily. We're now seeing that this assumes those who control the automation will willingly give it up.
posted by jiawen at 11:48 PM on February 27, 2007

In the Court of the Crimson King, live performance.
posted by homunculus at 12:11 AM on February 28, 2007

Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
-Psalm 90: 3
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:27 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

frogan: as I understood it from the snippets of propaganda playing in the background and from the references to outsiders as refugees, the problem was that the state of affairs outside Britain had let to far more people trying to come into the country than could ever be supported by the available space and infrastructure.
posted by ubernostrum at 12:27 AM on February 28, 2007

Maybe one of the Children of Men fans can explain the title to me. I really liked the movie, but as it is about female infertility, I don't understand the "Men" part.

I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here and suggest that "Children of Men" sounds a lot more biblical and ominous than "Children of People."

Science fiction almost never wins Oscars though.

Just to nitpick, the original Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture, as was Raiders of the Lost Ark, and all the new Star Wars films got multiple Oscar nods for effects, costuming, and cinematography. And of course, Lord of the Rings won the most Oscars for any single movie ever. The more accurate reality is that sci-fi/fantasy almost never wins Best Picture, but that goes just as well for animated films, comedies, musicals, horror films, foreign films, and a host of other genres, which in most cases is probably more of a statement on the investment (or lack thereof) producers make in various aspects of their movies. I mean, is anyone here arguing that Revenge of the Sith should have recieved acting or writing nominations?

But yes, every person remotely involved in film I've talked to has said COM losing Cinematography was a travesty.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:50 AM on February 28, 2007

I mean, is anyone here arguing that Revenge of the Sith should have recieved acting or writing nominations?

That's a pretty lame example to argue that science fiction shouldn't win awards. It's like saying "Of course historical epics don't do well. Have you seen The Scorpion King?"
posted by EarBucket at 5:56 AM on February 28, 2007

Are you stupid?

No just trolling.

Seriously, though, I do think the movie didn't have much to say, and I don't buy the hope argument.

It is interesting that he is named Theo, though. I didn't catch the implications first time around. Congrats, you brought my respect for it a notch up. I still think it was a better technical film than a message film.
posted by keswick at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2007

I was using the most recent prominent example of a movie getting Oscar nods but not top-tier ones. But you still prove my point. Historical epics do well because usually, historical epics place focus on acting, writing, and directing. Sci-fis tend to not do well because they place focus on, well, blowing shit up. So my point is that these movies do win awards for the areas they are quite good at, mainly the field of shit-blowing-up-technology. In fact, the main reason COM got its cinemetography nod wasn't the acting, but in fact the incredibly well-done scene of shit blowing up.

The Scorpion King isn't really a historical epic, but to play along with your argument it's an example of a historical epic that does NOT focus on good writing or acting, a contrast to the uniqueness of COM being a sci-fi film that does.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:32 AM on February 28, 2007

Sci-fis tend to not do well because they place focus on, well, blowing shit up.

No - action movies focus on blowing shit up, regardless of whether they happen in the past, present, or future. Being "in the future" doesn't make something a science fiction movie; something being a science fiction movie doesn't require it to be in the future.

For instance, I don't consider Star Wars science fiction - the story itself is portable to any number of genres, tropes, etc.

The same isn't true of Children of Men, Blade Runner, etc. Though really I wouldn't ever describe COM as SciFi in the first place.
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:17 AM on February 28, 2007

the problem was that the state of affairs outside Britain had let to far more people trying to come into the country than could ever be supported by the available space and infrastructure.

Except that every day, the population is falling. And this is happening everywhere at once -- in this fictional world, they're not making more babies over in France.

So, every day, you have more space and infrastructure capability based on previous construction levels, but less people to pay taxes and support new infrastructure.

In this situation, kicking people out of the country is the absolute worst thing you could possibly do.

So, the movie's internal logic fails me. It's like a giant exercise in what Roger Ebert calls the Idiot Plot -- a plot that only works if everyone in the movie is an idiot.
posted by frogan at 9:53 AM on February 28, 2007

See, frogan, I don't think they'd want to admit any and all immigrants. Doctors, engineers, even artists? Sure. But the great unwashed masses we see in the refugee camps? Not a chance. And in the one last bastion of civilization in the world, you'd have far more "peasants" trying to enter than you could ever hope to feed or house. Just becuase we see people in camps doesn't mean the government isn't letting anyone in. Just not the poor, dirty, and uneducated.
posted by EarBucket at 11:13 AM on February 28, 2007

And of course, Lord of the Rings won the most Oscars for any single movie ever

Aside from Ben Hur and Titanic, which also won 11 - though, to its credit, LOTR:ROTK won every award it was nominated for.

And King Crimson rocks. I used to have it all on LP. /sigh
posted by Sparx at 12:59 PM on February 28, 2007

Ah, Laurie. Spikey haired songstress from my days of musique concrete on reel-to-reel, until Suzanne Vega stole me away for ever diminishing pleasures only to leave me, finally, gasping in the hands of street punks. Perhaps if I'd stayed with you it would have been different. But then I wouldn't be able to look back and think: Ah, Laurie. Such an excellent bird.
posted by Sparx at 1:06 PM on February 28, 2007

Wrong thread for that second one. CURSE YOU TABS! CURSE YOU ALL.
posted by Sparx at 1:06 PM on February 28, 2007

or mybe it's just art that nobody understands
posted by Sparx at 1:07 PM on February 28, 2007

I just caught an afternoon matinee of this (all alone in the theatre, I might add). Wow. Talk about grim.
posted by Dave Faris at 1:51 PM on February 28, 2007

Grim, but very, very good.
posted by COBRA! at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2007

I was able to spot all of these little graphics snippets while I watched, but had I not been primed from seeing it a couple of times, I'm pretty sure they would have slipped right under my radar. For example, the dog and cat clothing -- they were so very understated that it's highly unlikely you would have been able to decipher them even if you had noticed them.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:15 PM on February 28, 2007

I just watched it. It was pretty good, and drew me in pretty quickly. And zardoz was right about the car chase.
posted by delmoi at 12:18 AM on March 1, 2007

frogan: what I don't understand is why you would expect people not to behave stupidly. I mean, if you made a movie about the run up to the Iraq war, people would rightfully call the lead characters stupid, but that doesn't mean it would be unrealistic Society does stupid things, and the behavior in england isn't that unrealistic, in my view.
posted by delmoi at 12:27 AM on March 1, 2007

frogan:

If you presume a worldview that there are limited resources and unlimited consumers, then yes, it's rational to attempt to protect what you have. This is why borders and fences exist in the first place.

Now, imagine the opposite. NO limits to resources BUT limited consumers. A world where the only real limited resource is "people."

Ah, but you're leaving something out: There are no more "little englishmen/englishwomen" coming along. No children. That's a huge deal. A much huger deal than rationalist minds can wrap themselves around. It's about the absence of hope and future. In the absence of hope and future, there's absolutely no benefit to oepning your borders for dirty foreigners to come in and start harshing your no-hope escapist buzz.
posted by lodurr at 8:57 AM on March 1, 2007

FWIW, I find the internal logic entirely consistent with what I've seen of human behavior in my lifetime.

When you screw with the fabric of people's worlds, they tend to get irrational on you. The basic logic here is not "We have a declining population therefore let us bar foreigners."

Rather, it's something like this:

1. We have no more children and never will have any more, ever.
2. This makes people desperate and angry and leads them to sort of let everything go. Big time.
3. England soldiers on, like England traditionally does (at least in film): They find a rationale, a reason, to unite the English. Here, it's "protect our own", which is a pretty common, very basic human rationale. Entirely plausible.
4. Based on that rationale, the English persecute dirty foreigners. Because, basically, it gives them something to occupy their time while the world is slowly rotting away around them.

If you don't buy that, fine. But it's not fair to say that the logic doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to you. It makes tons of sense to me. In fact, I'd say it's optimistic. I think most of the world would be dead in ten years.
posted by lodurr at 9:06 AM on March 1, 2007