I really enjoyed this retrospective, by Abraham Riesman, into the remarkable, haunting, yet somehow rarely seen film, Children of Men. This article gets deep into the film’s origin, Alfonso Cuarón’s struggling getting funding, as well as the shooting techniques from critical scenes: the whole thing is worth reading.
PS There are many spoilers, I’m afraid. So either read now and don’t worry, or watch the film tonight and then read.
It debuted at the Venice Film Festival on September 3, 2006, and received a standing ovation, but by the time it had its U.S. release on Christmas Day, the studio had opted to focus its late-season marketing resources on obvious Oscar bait like United 93. For his part, Cuarón, frustrated with the whole experience, retreated from public life and endured what he calls “the five most intense and difficult years of my life.” He would eventually return to write and direct 2013’s massively successful Gravity, but for a while, it seemed like Children of Men might have turned out to be the last Alfonso Cuarón feature film.
Now, in 2016, Children of Men is having a remarkable resurgence — not just because of its tenth anniversary but because of its unsettling relevance at the conclusion of this annus horribilis. There have been glowing reappraisals on grounds both sociopolitical (Children of Men is “obviously something that should be on people’s minds after Brexit and after the rise of Donald Trump,” political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared in September) and artistic (“Children of Men, like no other film this century, and perhaps no other movie ever, solves the meaning of life,” wrote Vanity Fair columnist Richard Lawson in August).
Read the whole post: Is Children of Men 2016’s Most Relevant Film? — Vulture