Review
For this weeks review I would like
to focus on the premise of the film Children
of Men. The 2006 film written and directed by Alfonso Cuarón depicts our world in the not-so-distant
future; the Earth is in a quasi-dystopian state. For some reason, the world’s
population no longer has the ability to bear children. The mechanics of each human’s
sex organs have stopped producing offspring; this has gone on for years. At the
beginning point of the movie, the youngest person on earth is 18 years old. People
are in a state of panic, with the knowledge that they will have to endure death
knowing that their family name and bloodline will forever cease to exist. Mans
only way towards immortality has been extinguished. In theory, within seventy
to one hundred years, the human race will be extinct
A second aspect of the film that I
wish to discuss is the scene where Theo is visiting his friend Nigel to get
transit papers. While the two are eating dinner, there in the dinning room, is
an over sized copy of Picasso’s painting Guernica, which is depicts the bombing of the
small village of Guernica in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. The image is
that of chaos. The mood of the painting, with its dull greys and blues,
projects pain, fear, and uncertainty of survival. People and animals are huddled around each
other in a dark room, screaming and waiting for either the next Sun to rise, or
for death to take them.
Reaction
I am part of a counter culture in today’s
society that revels in the thought of dystopian societies, so of course I
enjoyed this film. Recently I had my first child, a boy. Every day I get to
look into his face and imagine his future. I think of not only his future, but
of my bloodline for generations to come. I ask myself questions like, what kind
of father is he going to be, what kind of grandfather, or will his life be cut
short by war. Children are our only source of immortality. Weather a person
realizes or not, there is a biological urge to pass on our genes. If we as
society cannot do that, then we have no purpose. My entire life at this point
is now focused on providing for my son Grayson. I am going to school to give
him a good life. I stay out of trouble so that I can be around to guide him. I
write down my thoughts, wisdom, and stories in a journal, so that he will have
it in case I am not around to teach him. Without the thought of providing for
future generations, my life has little purpose.
Interpretation
My interpretation and understanding of
Line of Flight is that it is closely
related to destiny. Every person has choices in life, those choices can drastically
alter the nature of one’s existence, but one can only experience a finite
amount of variation from the choices they make, yet each new experience adds
more paths. For instance, a mechanic from a small town who never leaves said
town, can only experience the simple life that a small town mechanic can afford.
If that mechanic decides to take on a random hobby, or meet new people, then
his Line of Flight expands. On the
other hand, a well-traveled professor can experience a much wider variety of
experience, due to the scale of her encounters with diverse and random
influences. The professor’s state of being can stretch farther because her Line of Flight has more avenues. Those
avenues of life are what give each of us our reason for being, if one decides
not to exist anymore, e.g. suicide, then all one has to do if deny themselves
the entities that allow them to live. In this sense, Line of Flight, (peoples way of being) is what drives us to continue to exist.
Another way of thinking of Line of Flight is the often-used analogy
of the lightning bolt. Lightning bolts exist; they can only exist because the
atmosphere around the bolt allows them to exist and move. Lightning bolts are
all unique in appearance, and mass, but the scope of their nature and function
is limited, much like the small town mechanic who can only be involved in so
much.
The world that Cuarón
tries to convey in his film Children of
Men, is in a state of destruction. The population understands that they are
doomed; they will live a full life, but never have children to pass on their
genes and accumulative knowledge. It does not matter, in a temporal sense, what
decisions each individual makes, because once that person grows old and dies,
his entire existence expires. Not only does his or her body ceases to exist, but
also every talent and bit of knowledge will not be passed down to a following successor.
Line of Flight is tied into this
scene in that one only exists because the world around them enables one to
exist. Now, nature has decided has produced an atmosphere where the existence
of humans will no longer be tolerated, and thus wiped out. No matter how far a
person branches out, they will abruptly end.
I
believe that the director put Picassos’ painting Guernica, is in the film, because
it echoes the same point of Line of Flight as the movies’ premise. Those people huddled around each other in
Guernica, Spain during the bombing of 26 April
1937, were faced with potential annihilation. It did not matter what kind of
lives each of those villagers lead, if they were talented, lazy, saints or
heathens, they all shared the same end. At any time a bomb could have blown
past the defenses and ended them all. Alternatively, they could have all
survive and live another day. Each person’s life up until the instant they set
foot in bomb shelter, their previous lives, creativity, and morals are moot.
Work
Cited
Children of Men. Dir. Alfonso. Cuarón. Perf. Clive
Owen. 2006. DVD.
Fournier, M. (2016). Lines of
Flight. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from http://tsq.dukejournals.org/content/1/1-2/121.full
Deuchars,
Robert, “Creating Lines of Flight and Activating Resistance: Deleuze and Guattari’s War Machine”, in AntePodium,
Victoria University Wellington, 2011
Rayner, T. (2013, June 18). Lines of flight: Deleuze and
nomadic creativity. Retrieved June
16, 2016, from https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/lines-of-flight-deleuze- and-nomadic-creativity/
Guernica (Picasso). (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)
Colton,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting interpretation. Also, I think your comparison to the painting is cool. I didn't even notice it while watching the film. One question I would like to ask is, what happens to the idea of lines of flight, in the film, when Kee is introduced? Too me it would seem that once she comes into the story the variable of destruction no longer exists, there is a future to the human race, whether or not that exists for every person on earth. So, is that just a different line of flight, or does that show that lines of flight don't exist because the variability of ones life is to vast?
Thank you for your comment Cameron. I omitted Kee from my interpretation because I felt that my blog was not clear and I didn't want to confuse the reader further. Kee represents the ability to exist. To go back to the analogy of the lightning bolt, a lightning bolt only exists, because the existing matter allows lighting to exist and flow. Kee is the matter that allows lightning (humanity) to exist.
ReplyDeleteI never thought to connect Kee to the idea of lines of flight, and the analogy of the lightning bolt. Kee fits the idea of the lightning bolt perfectly. As you stated, the lightning bolt is only able to exist because there are means that allow it to exist. The society was only allowed to exist because of Kee, thus making Kee the perfect analogy for the lightning bolt. Very interesting, never would have thought to make that interpretation.
DeleteI really enjoyed your insight as a father to a new-born baby. I am a kind of person who loves children, but not wanting to get my own. But I think there is some level of truth to your claim that” Whether a person realizes or not, there is a biological urge to pass on out genes.” Even if I do not want to give a birth to any children, my dreams entail devoting myself to younger generations and making a world a better place for the younger generations.
ReplyDeleteThe aspect of the Picasso’s painting was very fascinating. I didn’t realize the connection between the film and the painting while watching the film, but now, I see the connection between your statement on destiny, the state of chaos by Picasso, and the premise of the film: humankind with infertility.
The comparison of lines of flight to destiny and a lightning bolt are both really interesting. Lightening in that, as you note, the conditions in the atmosphere enable it to exist, but even if it strikes the same spot, it's path and shape are always different. Destiny, at first glance, would seem inconsistent with lines of flight in that destiny seems to imply a cosmic loss of free will, where lines of flight are a means of resisting constrains and exercising free will. That said, lines of flight are not infinitely open and variable. One can pursue a line of flight that is different or other than what the system would dictate (destiny? the hero's journey?), but that line cannot simply go anywhere or everywhere - it does face limits/constrains.
ReplyDelete