Saturday, January 27, 2007

Children of Men

McGillivary and I went to see the movie last night based on this book. Although there was quite a bit of left-wing, political propaganda, it was intriguing. The movie is based about 20 years into the future and for the past 18 years, all women have been infertile. So there is a doom of hopelessnes over the earth as everyone is preparing not just for their own death, but the death of all humanity. Interesting plot.

Here are some observations:
1) The movie did a good job of demonizing the 2 political entities to show their depravity. The "Establishment" government was shown for its institutionalized cruelty towards immigrants for the "security" of the homeland. The end justified the means. The liberal "revolutionaries" were self-absorbed and chaotic in their leadership. Again, their end justified any means. Their grand ideals were actually self-serving which made them no different than the government they opposed. The warring between these 2 groups displayed openly the depravity of man.
2) There was a great conversation between the main character and the mid-wife who were trying to protect a miraculously young pregnant woman. They reflected on how the world has changed since there have been no noises coming from the playground. They were set in an abandoned elementary school, no longer needed since the youngest people on earth were all over 18. What a great philosophic conversation! You could just hear Jesus' words about the children and how they are the key to understanding the Kingdom, take them away and you have hell's rule.
3) There was a sensationalized scene towards the end where they bring the baby out into the public in the midst of the great war going on between the establishment and the revolutionaries. But this scene was great in its contrast. A mother carrying the only baby on earth out of a rubbled building under siege, everybody stops shooting. They forget about their war for a moment at the sight and the idea of hope in that baby. They very much portrayed it as if it was a renactment of the Nativity. As soon as the baby was past, they went right back to warring. Ah, the contrast. The innocence and goodness of an infant, the prideful arrogance of man.
4) The real help came not from either of the groups vying for power and wanting to use the baby for their own seeking of power, but rather from the humble and pathetic humanity who sought to give the baby passage for the good of all. They had nothing to gain and only something to give. They sacrificed whatever they had to contribute to the miracle. They were the dirty, the uneducated, the seemingly powerless, the crippled, the ugly, the outcasted and the poor . . . sounds like Jesus' kind of people.

So I left the theater with this thought:
Which one am I?
Am I a part of the inhuman establishment upholding the status quo?
Am I a self-righteous so-called Revolutionary, thinking I'm different than the establishment, but rather I have the same poison in my veins?
Or am I a part of the humble and broken whom God invites to be a part of His great miracles on earth?

I like movies that make me think. Next stop: "Epic Movie" ;)


No comments: