I'm back from break but hopelessly preoccupied because my eldest dog Frances had a couple lumps on her back foot and I had to take her in early this morning for a surgery/biopsy. This talk of "spindle cells" worries me tremendously, but Frances herself has shown no signs of feeling ill. Because I'm a terrible fretter, this has left a big cloud over the end of my year, and made me even more reluctant than usual to keep in touch with the people I care about. Because, basically, I get paralyzed with worry and just want to get into the fetal position until the uncertainty and apprehension is over. I know it's idiotic. I went through the same thing worrying about Roger Ebert's recovery last summer, and am so happy that he's come through and working his way back (even doing occasional reviews when he can).
Plunging ahead into 2007...
Best News of the Year So Far: I was thrilled to see the byline of Matt Zoller Seitz in the New York Times this morning as I was blearily trying to wake up before taking Frances to the vet. (It's DARK at 6 a.m. in January in Seattle. Who knew?) Matt is the founder and editor of one of my favorite movie/TV blogs, The House Next Door. I do not miss the Links for the Day. And Matt himself is a terrific writer. His review of "Children of Men" is the best thing I've read about that film, conveying the excitement of watching it as well as the disappointment that it had nowhere to go. (Some thought the ending was brave and open-ended. To me it felt like a mushy sentimental cop-out -- although there was that flashing red buoy light, perhaps [I hope] to remind us, as in the ending of Nicholas Ray's "Bigger Than Life," that this superficial resolution isn't necessarily what it seems to be. I know, I know: How can this ending be considered overly tidy, pat or a form of commercial condescension when so much of the fate of Humankind itself is left at sea? Well, the movie is about particular characters, not the apocalyptic sci-fi world they live in; it's a matter of foreground vs. background...)
re: Children of Men
What convinced you that the movie is about particular characters and not the world they live in?
Such extraordinarily exacting attention was paid to background detail that I found myself looking less at the actors than at what was going on around them. All the while I was trying to parse what was happening, picking up evocative little morsels that expanded in my imagination to make the film's world seem even more nightmarish and visionary.
This is a film that almost relies on its audience's imagination to proceed. I left it with my mind hanging wide open.
I'm sorry Jim. I hope Frances pulls through.
Agreed about Matt Zoller Seitz, but I think he discredits the depth of Cuaron's vision. To me, there was a lot to the film beyond the spectacle, and I don't think there's much of a doubt that a lot is going on below the surface of that less than promising ending. It contains, for example, a real sense of foreboding and uncertainty: Kee has been left totally alone, and no light is thrown on the mysterious Human Project. That's not even to mention the flashing red buoy.
what did you think of the cinematography, set design, art direction, etc.?
i personally recommend anyone seeing the film just based off those technical aspects alone.
complaining about the ending is just searching for a complaint.
i don't have a problem with the ending. it had to end somewhere. it was a cop out.
the film could have continued. but i think it wisely left it to the viewer to figure out where it was gonna go.
the film was like living there in that world.
i don't believe the film necessarily ends with much hope.
but back to my original intentions for this comment. i think the film is technical masterpiece.