Dr. Jam your post is brilliant.

Re: the debate over the plausibility of Children of Men - some personal notes (tho' it's worth pointing out that, after all, there's no accounting for taste - and you can't convince someone to like something if they just plain didn't).

Firstly, I want to address the argument that says, "Okay, let's imagine that everyone did become infertile. Well, after twenty years, scientists would have found a way round it."

That's not a given at all. Let's put this in perspective. AIDS was recognised on 5 June 1981, twenty five days before I was born (my alibi, in case you thought it was me!). Twenty five years later, according to a WHO estimate, it has killed 25 million people. We are talking one of the most destructive epidemics in written history. Scientists have had more than twenty years to do something about it, and there is still no cure or vaccine for HIV or AIDS.

Obviously, if we're talking (as the film does) about the presumed impending extinction of humanity, then the stakes and incentives are a lot higher. But let's not forget that the scientists in Children of Men would have a real disadvantage. According to the internal logic of the film, the scientific community would probably be substantially less effective than it is today. And here's why.

As far as I can tell, Britain has put up the flood barriers because (although I suppose this might be police state propaganda) the rest of the world has gone to hell in a handbag. It's isolated now. So we're not talking about the medical community of the world. The rest of the world is flooded and on fire. We're talking about the community of one country, which can't even rely on immigration to bring brilliant minds to the melting pot. Remember that Albert Einstein wasn't born in America. Immigration and international cooperation are vital to scientific endeavour, and neither are present in Children of Men.

Now, you could, quite fairly, point to real life examples where scientific collaboration was able to straddle barriers such as the Iron Curtain. That aside, I still don't find it implausible that, according to the internal logic of Children of Men, science would go tits up in the water. Maybe the white coats would save the day. But I don't think you can assume that, just because you throw thinktanks and microscopes at the problem, the human race would do a Jurassic Park and "find a way" within twenty years. I mean, what time frame would make the film plausible? Ten? Five?

The second big question is, why doesn't the film address these issues itself? Well, I think that the whole scientists-trying-to-fix-everything scenario (i.e., the why of the film, the why of mass infertility) is dealt with so lightly for two reasons. First of all, I don't think that the characters in this film would've been talking about it that much. At the start of the film, the youngest man alive is eighteen. That's eighteen years of everyone trying to work out what's going on. Frankly, I don't believe that, after eighteen years of mass infertility, your average joe would spend all his time talking about it. Once you've said everything that you can think of on the subject, and once you've repeated it to everyone that you know, a sort of general, all-consuming, unspoken despair would set in. I think that one of the film's big successes is the way in which that unspoken despair is captured. Far better than fleshing out the story with clumsy "plot exposition"-style conversations. Realistically, people just wouldn't be having them after eighteen years.

The second reason is, the main characters simply aren't scientists, and it isn't a film about science. If you forget that this was based on a novel, it's true that the basic premise of the story ("no more babies") could have been played as a science thriller. It's easy to imagine. Intense, white-coated heroes sweat over their microscopes, trying to avert the extinction of mankind. Pages and pages of pseudo-scientific dialogue could keep happy cinema-goers right in the loop. A snug little loop. As for the pace and movement of the film, it could be sort of like Outbreak, but without the virus.

The thing is, Children of Men just isn't like that, and thank god! Personally, I felt that it was analagous to (say) having a film about the War on Terror, but written from the point of view of an Afghanistani peasant. It's sometimes fractured, and rightly so; part of the film's power is the fact that the main character, the one with whom we identify most closely, simply doesn't know what's going on most of the time. Great forces, forces far bigger than him, breeze into his life and suck him away in a confusing hurricane. If it was the sort of film that spelled everything out, you wouldn't be able to identify so closely with the main character (I think).

That's my two penneth. I've said elsewhere that there were a couple of things in Children of Men that I wasn't one-hundred percent happy with, but the main premise isn't one of them.

[align=center]F I N[/align]

Rubbish.

Rubbish.

The suicide kit idea reminded me a lot of that Nevil Shute novel "On the Beach". I think its a very plausible aspect of the movie, a large part of the population would have most certainly descended into a state of pure dispear and the option of going out while there is still real life in the bones would probably be an appealing one for many.

Well... taking the suicides out of the picture is also an intelligent way of keeping anarchy at bay for as long as possible.

I guess... that was my first thought on the subject anyway.

shantih shantih shantih

...explain?

I dunno... I was thinking aloud. People who have nothing left to live for are dangerous people to have around. Looked like the Britian in the film was having a hard time keeping up with the existing citizens. The "Quietus" (which admittedly was a fucking silly name... sort of like "The Human Project" or "Tomorrow"... I thought naming in this film could have been one place to improve an an otherwise masterpiece...) is like a silent war against the citizens, just as the government is throwing outsiders into fugee camps (although I didn't see Wyclef!).

Remember the rich section of the city with the zebras and the like? Felt like once things eroded even more they were going to have more genuine civil unrest and craziness. Smart move by the Parliament!

Glad I wasn't the only one who couldn't stop humming Killing Him Softly.

I thought naming in this film could have been one place to improve an an otherwise masterpiece...)

And the thoughts of all those that decide to linger on can be summed up in the scene at Battersea Power Station where Theo ask's Nigel how he carries on. "I just don't think about it". That one line explains how large sections of humanity when faced with a horrible situation simply switch-off as a defense mechanism. Its exactly how a lot of people deal with issues in the real world and the way its summed up so well in CoM is a testament to the films quality.

I definitely agree in general, but funnily enough, I thought Quietus was one of the few good names in the film! The real offender for me was The Fishes. Terrorists and freedom fighters have named themselves after lots of things, but I don't recall any of them naming themselves after particularly non-threatening animals.

Good point.

I also loved this: