Doman Ruggles: Response to Children of Men

I had heard many great things about this film, but hadn't had the chance to see anything but the trailers up until this point. Another good film, with many layered themes, stylish cinematography, and a generally meaningful script, portrayed by several notable artists. Although I liked the film as a whole, I found myself distracted throughout a majority of it by certain negative aspects, which did not allow me the immersion that I would expect from a "great" film, such as "Saving Private Ryan" (1999). I think the critical acclaim this garnered was from the voting delegates' perception of something new transpiring, vs. the tired blockbusters of recent times.

Anyone familiar with the television program "ER" has seen long complicated takes used seamlessly, without feeling a sense of too much in not enough time. Too long of a take puts stress on the actor's memory of lines, and takes away from the actual focus on the minutia of character acting. What makes ER so smooth is that most of the actors have been in character several seasons, so it is their alter ego, not something they have to be for a short time during filming; and a more solid writing style.

I felt that a majority of key character development was lacking and did not have a smooth transition from introduction thru exit. The story arcs of certain roles were too abrupt for my taste, and with realism as a key methodology, the majority of dialog and interaction didn't feel "real" to me. For instance, the ping pong ball exchange in the car, between Theo and Jillian, it felt like it should be on the blooper reel of outtakes; or in the same scene the "wake up you are snoring" dialog, it made me cringe, as if I was watching an episode of any music channel reality sitcom. I'm not sure if it was the hidden camera style angle mixed with a long take, but it was distracting to me. I shouldn't notice these things if it was a good movie.perhaps I am just used to dialog revealing more developmental information, instead of having to extrapolate it from briefly exposed background nuances and fast-spoken elusions. Not that I dislike that method, but I wouldn't use it as the primary form of communication to the audience. Especially if your film has the level of thematic structure and action that requires viewers to process a multitude of concepts simultaneously. Documentaries are made for this purpose, for stimulating intellectual entertainment. Attempting to crossbreed the two separate entities only results, from my experience, in a general sense of confusion both on screen and from the audience; an abortion of senses in my opinion.

This film felt as if it was Telling me, not showing me something, not allowing me to have my own conclusions on subject matter. Even if I agree with what I am being told, I'd expect a documentary format to be doing it overtly, and perhaps a film to infer themes a bit more subtly. Viewing Al Gore's piece I expected information and concepts to be crammed so tightly down my throat that I could write off the medical bills incurred from the surgical removal of the compounded 20kt thematic diamond. I get the stitches removed next Thursday.

This style still seemed like individual episodes, with obvious partitioning of scene transitions, like turning a page or beginning another chapter. I don't believe that it was intentionally done because it occurred randomly, and without pattern. The subplots were hard to follow, like the sub-cell motivations within Julian's group, it was a stretch to tie them into the main arc, which is a script flaw that cant be fixed with clever cinematography or shocking effects. Only the creators know what and how things truly are, and it is up to them to communicate effectively to the audience. If your vision is so obscure that the majority of your audience isn't following, then you failed at the point of film as a medium.A viewer shouldn't have to watch a movie a second time to comprehend everything. If I have to go back and watch it again, already knowing what is going to happen this way and that, then the director/writer etc did not do their jobs in telling the story.

Having had to watch it a second time now, has taken away from a majority of the impact that it created the first time, and buttressed my initial opinions. Pausing a scene to read posted information, and replaying certain dialog, helped some but not completely, to keep me following the development. I still despise having to extrapolate and interpret motivations and speculative information to understand a film of this nature. Again, I expect to do that watching a BBC or History Channel educational presentation, not something in the entertainment field. What does set this film apart cinematographically for me is the last 20 minutes or so, when the need for long takes truly presents itself. Also, the birth scene was the most realistic that I have ever witnessed on screen, and wasn't an actual birth. I'm still not sure if it was CGI or a prop, but I was in awe from the realism. Having experienced war several times over 16 years now, I somewhat appreciated the nature of the fight scenes. I tried not to notice the tactically unsound procedures used to fight the building of refugees; and when the government soldiers were all crammed in the stairwell, and outside so close together it Was somewhat ridiculous, but I think he was trying to show overwhelming firepower/odds used against the few.

I was also confused as to the purpose of the planes flying over at the end; did they destroy all of those troops still there along with the fugee camp? Only in Hollywood does a person not know they have a fatal gut wound until the money shot. All the attempts at realism; acting, cinematography, mis-en-scene, go pale next to the lack of attention to detail. Realism IS, attention to detail. I would have used, in some scenes, a stabilized lens at a minimum; because not every shot should feel like a Dawson's creek backyard handicam film. There were moments that would have been better captured without the shake, particularly when focus is on the reaction of the actors.

In my opinion, the "being there" factor detracted from those scenes, because I noticed the camera movements more than the actors responses; like having a safety orange neon frame flashing around the Mona Lisa. I liked the scene when the battle stops because all the participants hear a baby cry for the first time in 18 years; and as soon as the baby is free from harm, a refugee starts shooting from the building, taking the focus of the soldier who stopped them, so that they could escape. At the same time, I felt that situations flowed too easily, like in "Adaptation" when the croc ate the gunman right before he was to shoot Nicholas Cage...a little too obvious of a writing tool. If I know what is going to happen before it is shown to me, that disappoints me. I knew, very early in the scene, that the patrol in the fugee camp was going to stop the rogue cell leader from killing Theo; not to mention knowing, that because I'd not scene anything from them in a bit, that they would somehow manage to show up to become an obstacle. I've never been a director with a budget so large, and had to orchestrate that much movement at one time, but I know it wouldn't be easy. That still doesn't change my opinion, and just because an avant-garde style is available, doesn't mean you should make a movie around it. Overall, I liked it, but piecemeal it did not work for me. I enjoyed the theme concepts of future humanity, as it stepped away from a Cold War era, apocalyptic atomic degeneration, like "Mad Max" series, that reflected nuclear concerns of the time; and into a post-globalization mindset, with outcomes more geared towards current societal product projections. On that note, it is good to see someone attempting something risky for a change.