Children of Men is NOT The Children of Men
I've just seen the new film Children of Men and wanted to put thoughts to pen while it is still fresh on my mind.
In 1992 the British mystery writer P.D. James veered from her usual fare and wrote a compelling novel of dystopian London set in the year 2021, 26 years after the last human baby was born. The Children of Men is the diary of the fictional Theo Faron, who turns 50 on January 1, 2021 in an age of despair fueled by the unexplainable infertility of the human race. A Doctor of Philosophy and an Oxford don, Theo's broader claim to fame is that he is also cousin to the Warden of England, Xan Lypiatt, who rules all of Britian as a "benevolent" dictator in the midst of an ever coarsening and darkening culture; "a universal negativism" prevails in a culture characterized by national porn shops, state mandated fertility tests, state funded leisure activities, freedoms limited by the State Security Police under authority of the four members of the Council of England, all in a futile humanistic effort to produce a human life. Policies set by the Council have created an environment which devalues the old, encouraging them to euthanise themselves and spare their relatives the burden of caring for them in their old age, and overvalues the young, creating a generation of maturing children that is more than rebellious; it is despotic, selfish, and cruel: "If from infancy you treat children as gods they are liable in adulthood to act as devils."
In writing The Children of Men, James' vividly portrays the chaos that ensues when a people "move(s) from the theology of sin and redemption to a less uncompromising doctrine: corporate social responsibility coupled with a sentimental humanism." James' thesis conveys the limits of science, along with man's futile search for lasting joy in a transient, uncertain world. The image painted is of a wanderer, struggling, searching for the meaning of it all; of a pilgrim who - even in the midst of dark despair, when suicide and euthanasia are marketed by the government as an acceptable, and even beautiful exit - pursues hope and finds it - a hope that finds its apex in a pregnant woman and her child - not unlike another epic drama that unfolded 2000 years ago.
Children of Men, sans The, on the other hand, is a new film loosely based on the P.D. James plot from her novel, the underlying message of which bears no resemblence whatsoever to the book. In fact, the screenplay for the movie goes out of its way to present the exact opposite worldview James' conveys in her novel. The movie is more violent and profane than necessary to paint the image of dystopian Britan James had in mind in her novel. The film contains very brief nudity and liberal use of the "F" word and other gutter language NOT PRESENT IN THE NOVEL.
Key elements of the novel's plot are missing or significantly changed in the movie, and I cannot help but think that the screenwriters did so intentionally, so as to refocus the entire worldview presented. Among them: Theo's relationship with Julian in the film is not at all as it is in the novel. Understanding Theo's relationship to Xan (identified as Nigel in the film) is critical to the entire plot in the novel, and yet that relationship is totally ignored in the film. The true reason for Theo's remorse over the death of his own child is central to Theo's personal despair and guilt, but is fundamentally changed in the film. Jasper's character in the novel is a respectable retired college professor, yet he is portrayed in the film as a burned out, hippie activist. The true motives of The Five Fishes, their unity of purpose, and Theo's involvment with them is fundamentally different in the film than in the novel. The challenge to Theo's latent faith and its revival in the novel is absent in the film. In the novel the Five Fishes have a common enemy which brings them together, with the exception of a "Judas" figure; in the film they self-destruct as each seeks his own ends. The triumph of hope over despair in the novel's climactic ending, which is dependent on a full understanding of the estranged relationship of Theo and Xan - absent in the film.
All of this fundamentally changes the Christian worldview presented by James in the novel. While the moral of James' story points to a Power outside of ourselves as the ultimate hope of humanity, the moral of the movie elevates man's ingenuity as his ultimate Savior. The novel presents the callousness and inhumanity of euthanasia, while the movie glorifies it, and in this sense, along with the portrayal of the dignity that is intrinsic in human life, the novel is clearly pro-life; the movie clearly is not. The five screenwriters clearly used cinematic license to create an entirely different story than the one given us by the able pen of P.D. James. Skip the movie, but by all means read this novel!
In 1992 the British mystery writer P.D. James veered from her usual fare and wrote a compelling novel of dystopian London set in the year 2021, 26 years after the last human baby was born. The Children of Men is the diary of the fictional Theo Faron, who turns 50 on January 1, 2021 in an age of despair fueled by the unexplainable infertility of the human race. A Doctor of Philosophy and an Oxford don, Theo's broader claim to fame is that he is also cousin to the Warden of England, Xan Lypiatt, who rules all of Britian as a "benevolent" dictator in the midst of an ever coarsening and darkening culture; "a universal negativism" prevails in a culture characterized by national porn shops, state mandated fertility tests, state funded leisure activities, freedoms limited by the State Security Police under authority of the four members of the Council of England, all in a futile humanistic effort to produce a human life. Policies set by the Council have created an environment which devalues the old, encouraging them to euthanise themselves and spare their relatives the burden of caring for them in their old age, and overvalues the young, creating a generation of maturing children that is more than rebellious; it is despotic, selfish, and cruel: "If from infancy you treat children as gods they are liable in adulthood to act as devils."
In writing The Children of Men, James' vividly portrays the chaos that ensues when a people "move(s) from the theology of sin and redemption to a less uncompromising doctrine: corporate social responsibility coupled with a sentimental humanism." James' thesis conveys the limits of science, along with man's futile search for lasting joy in a transient, uncertain world. The image painted is of a wanderer, struggling, searching for the meaning of it all; of a pilgrim who - even in the midst of dark despair, when suicide and euthanasia are marketed by the government as an acceptable, and even beautiful exit - pursues hope and finds it - a hope that finds its apex in a pregnant woman and her child - not unlike another epic drama that unfolded 2000 years ago.
Children of Men, sans The, on the other hand, is a new film loosely based on the P.D. James plot from her novel, the underlying message of which bears no resemblence whatsoever to the book. In fact, the screenplay for the movie goes out of its way to present the exact opposite worldview James' conveys in her novel. The movie is more violent and profane than necessary to paint the image of dystopian Britan James had in mind in her novel. The film contains very brief nudity and liberal use of the "F" word and other gutter language NOT PRESENT IN THE NOVEL.
Key elements of the novel's plot are missing or significantly changed in the movie, and I cannot help but think that the screenwriters did so intentionally, so as to refocus the entire worldview presented. Among them: Theo's relationship with Julian in the film is not at all as it is in the novel. Understanding Theo's relationship to Xan (identified as Nigel in the film) is critical to the entire plot in the novel, and yet that relationship is totally ignored in the film. The true reason for Theo's remorse over the death of his own child is central to Theo's personal despair and guilt, but is fundamentally changed in the film. Jasper's character in the novel is a respectable retired college professor, yet he is portrayed in the film as a burned out, hippie activist. The true motives of The Five Fishes, their unity of purpose, and Theo's involvment with them is fundamentally different in the film than in the novel. The challenge to Theo's latent faith and its revival in the novel is absent in the film. In the novel the Five Fishes have a common enemy which brings them together, with the exception of a "Judas" figure; in the film they self-destruct as each seeks his own ends. The triumph of hope over despair in the novel's climactic ending, which is dependent on a full understanding of the estranged relationship of Theo and Xan - absent in the film.
All of this fundamentally changes the Christian worldview presented by James in the novel. While the moral of James' story points to a Power outside of ourselves as the ultimate hope of humanity, the moral of the movie elevates man's ingenuity as his ultimate Savior. The novel presents the callousness and inhumanity of euthanasia, while the movie glorifies it, and in this sense, along with the portrayal of the dignity that is intrinsic in human life, the novel is clearly pro-life; the movie clearly is not. The five screenwriters clearly used cinematic license to create an entirely different story than the one given us by the able pen of P.D. James. Skip the movie, but by all means read this novel!
posted by Paul Edwards at 9:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home