Introduction
Dystopian works have gained wide popularity, especially in Western countries, due to their representation of unpleasant possibilities of the future as the negative foil to the developed world values and ideals of individual liberty.
Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men (2006) was referred to as a “dystopian masterpiece,” illustrating a near future in which women inexplicably lose the ability to have children, which sets human society in a completely new context of awaiting its slow but inevitable extinction (Riesman).
The background to the pessimistic future is the deteriorating cities and countryside of England, along with the geopolitical crisis caused by the inflow of refugees to the country and the regular terrorist attacks in European cities. The fate of humanity stands on the brink, and there is no clear idea of what can be done to salvage it. In hindsight, Children of Men comments on the most pressing socio-economic problems that burden modern society, and the dystopian lens elevates them, making them more visible and afflictive.
Overview of the Plot
The protagonist of the movie, Theo Faron, is a civil servant for the government of Britain who appears to have given up the fight for a better future. He has been estranged from his former wife for years after the death of their infant child, but the two get reunited because of a refugee, Kee, who seems to be the only woman in the world pregnant with the first child in eighteen years. Theo helps the refugee escape the Fishes group, who are looking for people like Kee and use them as political props for their agenda.
Along the way, the movie’s audience can see the implications of living in a world without children – it has lost all of its hope and meaning. The bleak future that was in front of Theo was now replaced by the sense of faith that he gained in his deliberation to get Kee into a safe place and away from the people who could harm her.
The Movie’s Sociopolitical Climate
As humanity faces extinction due to its inability to reproduce, the sociopolitical climate in the dystopian world of the movie shifts. Instead of remaining a parliamentary democracy, Britain regresses to becoming a totalitarian police state. Since the United Kingdom is one of the very few surviving nations left on the planet in the movie, the government imposed strict anti-refugee policies and restrictions.
Specifically, any refugees and immigrants who arrive from outside Britain must be rounded up and sent to detention camps with severe conditions. The Fishes group opposes such restrictions and fights a guerilla war against the government to fight for the rights of immigrants.
The rundown streets of London are recognizable in the aftermath of economic instability and austerity. Because of the dire situation in which people found themselves, a suicide pill is advertised to allow going out peacefully, which could be seen as an indicator of reverse herd immunity.
The depictions of caged refugees not only evoke the memories of the Nazis’ campaigns of genocide in the twentieth century but also the way in which Europe has treated refugees and immigrants in the twenty-first. The infertility crisis also takes a toll on the sociopolitical environment in the movie and can be seen as an extreme projection of what awaits countries with declining birth rates like South Korea, Russia, and Japan (Jacobson).
The movie’s director does an excellent job of setting the context of a dystopian future in which society has no future. Terrorist attacks have become mundane occurrences while the borders between states have been strengthening significantly to prevent unsolicited crossings. When there are no children and thus no future generations, there is nothing for which humans can fight, so they look for enemies where there are none to have at least some sociopolitical agenda to support. Instead of protecting and caring for one another, humans cannot help themselves but find a cause that appears righteous only to very few people.
Relevance to Modern Issues
The importance of Children of Men to modern sociopolitical commentary relates to its resurgence around 2016, which marked several important events. As mentioned by political scientist Francis Fukuyama, the movie should be something on people’s minds after Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump’s popularity (qtd. in Riesman). As the person who anticipated the increase of political upheavals during 2016 and who has made a prophecy of a “nihilistic war against liberal democracy on the part of those brought up in its bosom,” Fukuyama saw the move as the cinematic version of his thesis (Jacobson).
The scientist mentioned that the movie was required for viewing by any person who got increasingly concerned about the fate of modern civilization, that is, mostly everyone. In addition, it is possible to find the parallels between the refugee restrictions in the movie and the Syrian refugee crisis, which has been referred to modern “Children of Men moment” (Novak). Thus, even though the movie was released back in 2006, the themes upon which it touches remain to be relevant ten years later and onward, which is inherent to many dystopian pieces of cinema and literature.
The themes explored in Children of Men remind the audience of other dystopian pieces such as 1984 and the screen adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale. Similar to these works, the movie portrays a future society by emphasizing and hyperbolizing the troubling issues that must be resolved as quickly as possible. Specifically, the rich and the powerful get increasingly more isolated from the rest of society and are indifferent to the destiny of the poor and the disadvantaged.
The breaking down of the social fabric in the dystopian world makes every place potentially dangerous. Refugees specifically have become scapegoats for different kinds of social ills – they are treated as parasites, hunted down “like cockroaches,” kept away from the rest of the world in gated locations, and even get beaten and executed (Jacobson). The literal separation of refugees from the rest of the world is a metaphor for the class divide that exists in society to this day.
The portrayal by Cuarón of the dark side of democracy is another trait that makes the movie and its vision of the future so unsettling. However, beyond the parallels to contemporary issues and prophecies about the future of humankind lies the true disturbing force of the movie, which is its philosophical iconoclasm.
The director intentionally places the future of humanity in the ‘hands’ of a Black immigrant woman, who is considered the most powerless, stigmatized, and exploited individual in the modern world. Thus, Kee represents the antithesis of everything modern society accepts and forgives, specifically, the rich, the powerful, and the male. Her character is the movie’s true apocalypse in the word’s literal sense, a pure revelation that forces people to think about the shallowness of the dominant moral order.
The horrifying through that strikes the audience watching Children of Men is that humanity has already crossed some historical event horizon and is living in that eternal present. Despite the current levels of economic prosperity and technological advancement, modern society exists in the “sustainable decadence state” that has the characteristics of financial stagnation, institutional dead-end, cultural repetition, and intellectual depletion (Riesman).
Such a condition has made people more vulnerable to disasters. When facing various catastrophes, whether the devastation of nature or a pandemic, modern society appears unable to combine its political and imaginative energies that are necessary to prevent the relentless disaster.
Conclusion
The fact that humanity is running out of time is what makes Children of Men a valuable piece of dystopian commentary which mirrors the past, the present, and the future. However, by pointing out the dangers that society has created for itself, the director gives the audience hope that they could be the ones to make a change and avoid the devastating image of the future.
Through hope and the belief in a brighter future, people are capable of changing their present for an improved world. Because the gap between the current world and that of Children of Men is getting narrower with every decade, it is important not to lose hope for a better tomorrow. It is important to watch or read dystopian pieces as a way to push oneself toward changing things that could lead to adverse consequences in the future before it is too late.
Works Cited
Jacobson, Gavin. “Why Children of Men haunts the present moment.” 2022, The New Statesman, Web.
Novak, Matt. “The Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Our Children of Men Moment.” Gizmodo, 2015, Web.
Riesman, Abraham. “Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men is a Dystopian Masterpiece.” Vulture, 2016. Web.