Children of Men <I>

Loubna Ousfar
Film History
June 25, 2008
Dr. Scott McHugh

 

Quite frequently one complex question is often raised, what has caused the problems in our society today. Alfonso Cuaron’s science fiction film Children of Men (2006) deliberately avoids that answer. Instead he co-wrote and directed the film to focus on what is happening in our society today and how it will impact the outcome of our future. The film is set in London, 2027, starring Clive Owen (Theo), Julianne Moore (Julian), Claire-Hope Ashitey (Kee) and Michael Caine (Jasper). The world has collapsed, leaving Britain the last country standing. The standards of law and order have been broken and the country is ruled by a government that has lost hope in mankind and is choosing to kill and cage all immigrants. What’s unique is that the end of the world is not happening because of war, disease, or famine, but due to infertility. Cuaron created a world that anyone could relate to, based on uncertainty, connotations of the holocaust, racism, terrorism, government-inspired paranoia, and today’s top news headlines. This satirically provoking film, uses infertility as the primary source to engage its audience to question what occurred in the past, what is happening now, and what affect those consequences could have on our future without hope.

This is a world of fear, hopelessness, infertility and death; whose connections to our own are a few years in the making. Cuaron was able to mirror our society’s tribulations by rejecting technologically advances of the year 2027 setting, downplaying the science fiction elements, effectively utilizing the main character Theo to portray the average human, while reflecting on his immigrant, Mexican identity. His intent to mirror our contemporary period was revealed during extensive interviews he had with several film critics. According to an article by the Nashville Scene, Cuaron didn’t want to transport or distract the audience by the future when he stated: “This is the anti-Blade Runner. Were not creating; we’re referencing here. Everything has to have a reference to the state of our times.” His idea to create a present setting, was evident in the film through the use of a city-like atmosphere, with regular cars, buildings, televisions, and coffee shops. Cuaron and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki captured a realistic feeling, with war scenes, killings, chaos, persecution of innocent lives and the portrayal of a dominant government regime. They used lengthy single-shot sequences during action scenes. This enabled them to showcase the birth of Kee’s baby (199 seconds), the roadside ambush where Julian is killed (247 seconds); and the scene in which Theo is captured by the Fishes (454 seconds). According to Wikepedia these sequences were extremely difficult to film, they were time-consuming and sparked concerns from the studio. It took nearly two weeks to prepare for a single take and over 5 hours to re-shoot. Continuity was another challenge, but Cuaron was no amateur, he experimented with long-takes in Y tu mamá también and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. His style was influenced by the Swiss film Jonah.  “I was studying cinema when I first saw Jonah and interested in the French New Wave(qtd. in Wikepedia).” He wanted to capture this new style of cinematography, which according to him was understated, non-flashy, and the camera technique was elegant and flowing, constantly tracking, and not calling attention to itself (qtd. in Wikepedia). This was evident in the opening of the film when Theo walked into the Coffee shop, the room was full of people, but when he walked into the coffee shop, the camera immediately captured him, but subtly engaged the audience to follow and experience the film from his point of view. The only time you noticed a camera, which was clearly a calculated move to engage the audience, was during the scene, where Theo was exiting the coffee shop, and it seemed like a handheld camera was following him. Cuaron used limited technology and a diverse mixture of music combinations including, rock, pop, hip-hop and classical music. He also utilized animals sounds, dogs barking, cats scratching and loud broadcasts to keep the focus on the real issues. This style of filmmaking is contrary to most science-fiction films that rely heavily on special effects to substitute for the content of a story. Instead, of using special effects to capture the right atmosphere, Cuaron chose to shoot scenes in East London because he considered it to be a place without glamour, resembling his hometown of Mexico City, Mexico, “Let’s make it more Mexican,” he was overheard saying to his crew (qtd. In “The Connecting”). The captivating vision of Cuaron and Lubezki was calculated, specifically referring to the blood spatter left on the camera lens, after the disturbing ambush and murder scene. Together, they capitalized on imagery, symbolism, and the main character Theo. They left absolutely no doubt to the similarity of the film to our society.

In reality, as I am writing this paper, there are thousands of military men and women deployed to Iraq, fighting, and dying. There family and friends are left behind; grieving, suffering, and fearing the possibility that they may never see their relative again. There are children dying of diseases, hunger and neglect, and immigrants persecuted for trying to live the American dream. Meanwhile, the majority of society is not questioning the seriousness of our current affairs; instead, they have resorted to ignorance by turning off the news and have chosen to remain sheltered from the war, and all other horrific activities going on in our world. Cuaron captured this passive society through the portrayal of the main character Theo. He was portrayed as emotionless, careless, bored, unhappy, and a reckless smoker and alcoholic; who walked away when confronted by the faces of people; who were being victimized and caged by their government. Examples of this are showcased in the film Children of Men, during the following scenes: Theo enters the coffee shop and learns of baby Diego’s death, but he remains completely emotionless as everyone around him is in complete shock. He witnesses the horrific bomb explosion but just keeps on going. He arrives at work, and finds his coworkers weeping and grieving baby Diego’s death, but he remains careless and leaves early to avoid his devastated coworkers. When he gets off the bus to meet his friend Jasper and sees all the immigrants caged and an old woman trying to get his attention for help; he just chooses to ignore her presence, and when an older immigrant man comes up to him for help on the street, he just keeps on walking away. Cuaron characterized Theo to exemplify the majority of people in today’s society: Miserable, just living without a cause, a fight or a plan, taking life for granted; until something or someone comes into their life and gives them a reason to be awakened. This often happens when someone suddenly falls ill or is confronted by the darkness of society; then they realize how important life is. Then they begin to pray and make plans for what they want to accomplish, or fight for once they get better. This is evident in Theo’s world; he started to live again once he was given a mission, or a symbol of “hope” to help the only miraculously pregnant, immigrant woman Kee. Cuaron never explores the infertility issue, because he acknowledged that this unanswered question will lead the audience to concentrate and question their own motives and actions, as they watch Theo’s naivety and courage unravel. In the film, we see him evolve from the passive, miserable, and emotionless man, to a man who stood up for an immigrant woman and kept his promise to his ex-wife Julian; who wanted him to take Kee to the “Human Project”, a group of scientist who are researching the infertility cause; presuming that this program existed. Jus like our military men and woman, Theo is fighting for the possibility that mankind will have a newfound chance of hope and survival.

This possibility of mankind believing in hope was the vision behind the production of Children of Men. Cuaron kept a transparent-parallel line between the film and our world. He said that in order to give balance between the characters and the social environment he used long, unbroken takes to give a moment of truthfulness to the film (“The Connecting“). Another element was the cross-referencing imagery of war, evident in the bombing scene at the beginning of the film, the caging of immigrants on the buses, the television voice-overs of the world collapse, and the very disturbing still picture of the woman crying and holding the body of her son who was killed during the war. Animal imagery was used throughout the film to symbolize the freedom that is missing in mankind. The animals were allowed to roam freely, procreate, and live. Humans on the other-hand were imprisoned, caged, and faced mortality. Alfonso Cuaron’s use of animals may have been stimulated from his personal feeling of imprisonment. When asked during an interview with the Nashville Scene about the referencing fear of immigrants as a background motif throughout Children of Men ; Cuaron replied with the following: “It’s about fear. The sad thing is that it’s not even in the U.S.; the migratory issue has been going on around the world. This whole idea of setting a big wall between Mexico and the U.S.-I just don’t get it. The same country that prides itself on tearing apart the Berlin Wall is now setting a new wall with Mexico. And it’s been proven that walls don’t work” (“The Connecting”).

Cuaron’s passion for hope and his detest for inequality, can be linked to the many obstacles he faced in his journey to becoming the brilliant director that we have come to respect and admire. Born on November 28th in Mexico City, Mexico, he always dreamt of becoming a director even thought he didn’t have the resources to finance his dream. He also faced adversity by his teachers, who expelled him from the University of Film; after creating a movie that only spoke the English language. He was caged but broke free, when he created his first feature film, “Sólo con tu pareja (1991)” (Love in the time of Hysteria), which was about a womanizing businessman who is fooled into believing that he’s contracted HIV after having a relationship with a nurse. The international recognition from this film influenced Alfonso’s relationship with Hollywood and shortly after Warner Brothers invited him to direct the third Harry Potter film, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)”. The film was the greatest box office success of his career and many critics remarked that this was the first Potter film to truly capture the essence of the novels.

This prestigious recognition by his critics and his journey through society’s downfalls prepared Cuaron to direct Children of Men, in a smart and well crafted manner, with powerful and dynamic views on the future. During an interview with film critic Kim Voynar, Cuaron said: “I was attracted to the concept of infertility as a premise. I was not really interested in doing a science fiction film, so I had completely disregarded it. But the premise kept haunting me. It was not until I realized that the premise of the film could serve as a metaphor for the fading sense of hope, that it could be a point of departure for an exploration of the state of things that we’re living in now, the things that are shaping this very first part of the 21st century, that I wanted to do it” (“Cinematical”). Children of Men was his most controversial film, which may have been spurred by the visions of violence he endured while growing up in a dangerous city. He experienced injustice, chaos, oppression, racism, and violence at the hands of his own people. This is concluded from his personal interview with “Latino Leaders Magazine” he said, “I’ve seen people being shot. I’ve had guns put to my head. I’ve seen people burnt alive, stabbed, decapitated, because Mexico is still a very violent place. So I do think that some of that element in my films comes from a Mexican sensibility.” Personally speaking what doesn’t stem from his Mexican up-bringing but rather from his fascinating mind, is his ability to create a film with moral strength; that can dramatize a point, create suspense, while allowing the audience the freedom to analyze, debate, and resolve their own meaning of the film. He directed this film without using his point of view to influence the audience, but to capture their emotions, because he believes that hope for humanity is what our society needs.

Children of Men was not concerned about abolishing disease to create longevity, reversing social oppression, racism or aging. Nor did it highlighting the inventions of new forms of reproduction such as the advances we have seen recently with cloning and stem-cell research; instead it confronted a biblical and morally negative outcome. This film engages all your emotions to confront a future that looks so similar to what we are living and seeing today. The Iraq war, the immigrant laws, and the chilling newspaper reports and television news programs all point to a collapse. I am sure we will all have a different interpretation for this film, which is what Alfonso Cuaron intended to do. An article written by film critic Alex VO, quoted Cuaron saying, “they have to fill up the gaps in-between the moments that you create. And I am not saying that as a filmmaker, but as an audience.” the ending seems to suggest that it doesn’t matter how we got here, but most importantly to always believe in hope and that the future is in our hands. 

 Works Cited

Children of Men. Dir. Alfonso Cuaron. Perf Clive Owen, Julianne Moore

Michael Caine, and Claire-Hope Ashitey. (DVD.) Universal Picture, 2006.

Children of Men. IMDb. 17 June. 2008

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0190859/

Children of Men. Wikepedia. 17 June. 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men

Latino Leaders.” HighBeam Encyclopedia. 1 Sept. 2007.

Personal interview 17 June. 2008

<http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169412749.html>.
“The Connecting of Heartbeats.” Nashville Scene.

11 Jan. 2007. 17 June. 2008

<http://information.com/link?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men& keyword=children&cat=1&brand=1&title=Children%20of%20Men%20- %20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia&desc>.

Vo, Alex. “Interview: Children of Men Director Alfonso Cuarón.”

Rotten Tomatoes. 23 Jan. 2007. 17 June. 2008

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1563932/.

Voynar, Kim. “Interview: Children of Men Director Alfonso Cuaron”.

Cinematical 25 Dec. 2006. 17 June. 2008. <http://www.cinematical.com/2006/12/25/interview-children-ofmen-director- alfonso-cuaron/>.

Children of Rain

Elle Ousfar
Cross-Cultural Film
July 5th 2008
Professor:  Larry Tung

 I chose the foreign film Children of Heaven (1997) from the two films we viewed this week, due to its simplistic yet captivating storyline and heartfelt journey.  Directed and written by Majid Majidi, this story follows the life of two Iranian children; Amir Farrokh Hashemian (Ali) and Bahare Seddiqi (Zahra).  Iranian director Majidi utilized a simple object, shoes to demonstrate the trials and tribulations that two siblings have to face.  This bittersweet tale between a nine-year boy named Ali and his seven-year old sister Zahra is filled with many issues including poverty, class, gender differences between boys and girls, and most shocking, the children’s role in the house hold.  They had to clean their home, run errands, take care of their siblings, and worried about finances, they basically struggled through life as a typical adult. 
 The film takes place in Tehran, which is the capital and largest city of Iran.  The opening of the film features a little girl’s old pink shoe being repaired.  Then the scene opens with Ali running errands for his mother, we see him picking up bread from the baker and waiting while his sister’s shoes are being repaired by a shoemaker.  From there he goes to pick up potatoes for his mother.   He places his sisters shoes on the ground behind a carton of produce so he can gather potatoes, unfortunately a trash hauler mistakenly takes the shoes.  After trying to purchase the potatoes, Ali goes to find the shoes and realizes that they are gone.   This was an excellent opening since the entire film is based on the consequences following these pair of shoes.
 This film truly captured the heartbreaking life of impoverished Iranian children.  The children are not allowed to play and just be kids; they have an equal stake in maintaining the household.  This is evident in many scenes throughout the film.  Ali comes home after losing his sister Zahra’s shoes; you can see the sadness and loss in his face.  As soon as he enters the home, his mom is seen yelling at him to help her with the rug and tells him to tell his little sister Zahra to peel the potatoes, once she’s done putting the baby to sleep.  Ali breaks the news to Zahra, her facial expressions and witty dialogue, express her devastation, they are her only shoes and she needs them to go to school.  Zahra is an adorable little girl who portrays the dynamics of the gender differences within this country.  Her hair is covered; she stays home with her mother to clean, cook, and take care of the baby.  Ali, on the other-hand does the “manly” tasks, he goes off to work with his father, takes care of his sister, and brings home food.  The only common interest the two children share is the well being of their family and for-now, school.  The major issue that plagues this family is poverty.  They are struggling financially; they do not have enough money for food and have not paid their rent in months.  Ali is more terrified of stressing his father financially than getting a beating for losing his sisters shoes.  Therefore, he convinces his sister not to tell their parents about the lost shoes; instead, he comes up with a plan for them to share his sneakers. 
 This plan came with many challenges for both siblings.  Ali had to wait for Zahra to run and meet him on the street, so they could trade shoes.  Ali was an excellent student, but due to Zahra not coming on time, he got in trouble for being late to school. 
Another issue is Zahra’s feelings towards her old shoe.  She clearly misses them so much. She’s upset that she has to wear her brother’s dirty sneakers and focuses most of her time on watching the feet of other children at school.  This was both sad and awakening.  How can a child not have one shoe, when many people are just tossing out their shoes because they are no longer in style or we just want more, which is the common theme here in America.  The scene where she sees the other girl with her shoes and follows her to find that this little girls dad is blind.  I thought this scene proved that a child can have more maturity and emotional integrity than an adult.  Zahra felt worst for the other little girls circumstance than her own.  
 In retrospect, these terrible circumstances that played out before our eyes could have resulted in tragic outcomes for both Ali and Zahra; fortunately their determination and resilience to persevere led them to survive.  They didn’t have much, but they capitalized on family.  Ali wanted Zahra to be happy, he gave her a new pen and his pencil that he won at school for good academics.  Zahra took care of house-hold chores and her little sibling while her mom was sick.  Ali helped his father during their journey to the big city.  He was the reason they made so much money, however their experience with good fortune was short lived when his father’s bike-brakes stopped working.  This evidently cost them physically and financially.   
 Technically the film was able to capture the characters in slow tracking long shots that allowed the audience to feel as they were participating in the action.  Specifically the race, this was my favorite scene.  Ali wanted to land in third place, just to win a pair of sneakers for his sister.  The flashbacks of him thinking of his sister, while running were brilliant.  The film was slow paced and demure and allowed the children to shine and tell their story.  They endured long commutes to school, economic hardship, and growing up without a childhood.  Another fascinating scene was towards the end of the film; Ali was sitting with his feet in the fish pond.  This was a moment of liberty and hope.  Majidi used the fish as a metaphor to signal hope, a new beginning, and possibly happiness and a better life for Ali and his family.  I believe this was the epiphany of the entire story.  I absolutely admired this film, the content was compelling, and the style seemed effortless. This film should be viewed by all audiences, it concentrates on revealing rather than defying the issues and stereotypes that society has placed on Iranian children.  

The Banquet

Elle Ousfar
Cross-cultural Film
July 11th 2008
Professor:  Larry Tung


 Award winning Taiwanese film The Wedding Banquet (1993) was directed and co-written by world renowned filmmaker Ang Lee.  Starring Winston Chao (Wai-Tung Gao), Mitchell Lichtenstein (Simon), May Chin (Wei-Wei), Sihung Lung (Mr. Gao) and Ah Lei Gua (Mrs. Gao), this emotionally charged film focuses on the life of three individuals whose lives collide while trying to resolve their personal conflicts.  Ang Lee dives into different genres of filmmaking but always manages to create films that perplex, entertain, and confront realistic issues.  He explores the tribulations that face mankind and the decisions one has to make between pleasing others and self preservation. 
 The film chronicles the lives of two gay men.  Wai-Tung Gao and Simon are living the American dream in Manhattan.  Simon is open about his sexuality and his boyfriend Wai-Tung a successful Taiwanese entrepreneur living in fear of his parents Mr. and Mrs. Gao’s high expectations.  They are very traditional and he feels they would never accept him if they knew he was gay.  To make them happy he goes along with their plan to set him up for a dating service.  He sets unrealistic expectations for a potential mate’s qualifications hoping that they would never find one for him.  He demands an opera singer that must be at least 5’9” and must have two Ph.D.’s.  Ironically, the service locates a 5'9" Chinese woman who sings opera, speaks five languages and although has only one Ph.D. his parents decide to fly the woman from Taiwan to NYC to meet their son.  Wai-Tung takes her for a date and during the dinner they encounter his tenant Wei-Wei who is a starving artist from China and in need of a green card.  She is in love with Wai-Tung despite her knowledge of his orientation.  When she sees him with another woman, she feels betrayed and goes into a jealous rage, she reveals his secret to his date.  The date is relieved to hear that Wai-Tung is gay, since her parents are trying to force her into a conventional marriage as well.  This altercation manifested into an idea for Simon; he convinces Wai-Tung to marry his tenant Wei-Wei, figuring that this will solve two conflicts; Wai-Tung’s who needs to get married in-order to satisfy his parents and Wei-Wei who needs a green card in order to remain in the US. and get a good paying job. 
After hearing about their sons plan to marry, Mr. and Mrs. Gao decide to fly in from Taiwan to witness their only son’s wedding.   To their surprise, he chooses a courthouse ceremony.  This upsets his parents so much, since his father has just recovered from a stroke and they came all the way to the US with $30,000 dollars to ensure a large wedding ceremony.  Depresses they go out to dinner to celebrate; there his parents meet the owner who happens to be one of their old friends.  When he finds out about Wai-Tung’s marriage; he is disgusted by Wai-Tung and preaches to him that weddings are to make the parents happy and that he will help them host a proper ceremony.  Wai-Tung agrees to a large wedding banquet; since he feels this is the only way to please his disheartened parents.  After the banquet, pressure from Wai-Tung’s friends and Wei-Wei’s seduction leads them to get intimate and unfortunately Wei-Wei ends up pregnant.  When Simon finds out he is extremely upset, and confronts Wai-Tung about his infidelity in the presence of his parents, not realizing that Mr. Gao understands English.  After the fight, Mr.  Gao has another stroke and Wai-Tung tells his mother the truth.  She is deeply hurt, but insists that his father must never find out.  Once recovered, Mr. Gao is walking with Simon and tells him that he knows about his relationship with his son.  He also gives Simon the money that he originally offered to Wei-Wei- as a sign of acceptance.  He thanked Simon for the sacrifices that he made to allow Mr. and Mrs. Gao to have a grandchild.  After many sleepless nights Wei-Wei decides to keep the baby, and asks Simon to forgive her and Wai-Tung and asks him to be the other father to her baby.
 This unconventional story with social and personal issues employees many traditional themes including, love, forgiveness, and acceptance.  Lee was able to capture true love between two men, rather than a man and a woman.  Simon and Wai-Tung were in-love with each-other but Wai-Tung’s traditional parents and customs created an unforgiving conflict.  They had strict rules and standards for the male and female genders.  They wanted their son to marry a nice girl and have a son.  They expected women to stay home, bear children, and take care of their husbands.  This was evident in many scenes throughout the film, when Mr. and Mrs. Gao initially meet Wei-Wei at the airport, they ask about her long hair from the picture, then they ask about her parents, and the father makes a comment that she will make many babies.  Therefore, their idea of two men in- love was not even palpable. 
 The two main characters were brilliantly characterized, they never boasted their relationship nor did they try and hide it.  I loved the way Lee directed this film, his portrayal of Wai-Tung and Simon was truthful and pure, it highlighted their love, without provoking their orientation.  Their dream was like anyone else’s, to live happily as a couple and be accepted by their family and friends.  Their conflict stemmed from Wai-Tung’s fear that his parents would disown him for being gay.  This almost drove them apart, but their family and friend Wei-Wei made their life fuller.  The ending of this film was very powerful, it highlighted the meaning of true, everlasting love; it didn’t matter if it was between two men or a man and a woman.  My favorite scene was when Wai-Tung’s parents were preparing to fly home to Taiwan, each keeping the secret about their son from the other.  Mr. Gao spoke to Simon, he took his hand and accepted him as his other son, and meanwhile Mrs. Gao accepted Wei-Wei as her daughter.  They left not really understanding the unconventional family, but happy because they accomplished what they desired; a large wedding ceremony for their only son and a grandchild.  Academy award winning director Ang Lee created a great film.  His strategy to plague each character with a provoking issue was intriguing to watch.  It offered the audience a sense of reflection and hope for change.  Similar to Brokeback Mountain, this film delivers a great message; that the only way to survive is to be true to one's self.

Pulp Fiction

Director Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction is accredited for its witty comedic dialogue, great acting and a great cast that included John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, and Uma Thurman. While I agree that this film contains some great performances and dialogue, such as when Vincent and Jules discuss the level of intimacy of a foot massage right before they go inside an apartment with guns to seek revenge. I was disappointed with the dialogue about Burger King and McDonalds, although it was unique and entertaining it didn’t have anything to do with the movie. I also enjoyed the last scene in the coffee shop, I found it inspiring. It brought humanity and heart to Samuel L. Jackson’s character (Jules).

Overall I was not very impressed, I thought that this film showcased gangsters in a positive light, it belittled women, and the scenes were a little too graphic for me. I have to say that while some people enjoy graphic violence some don’t and unfortunately the plot didn’t contain enough substance to have a positive effect on me.

Sicko

 
Fifty million Americans are uninsured; out of that figure an estimated 18,000 people will die each year because they do not have health insurance. Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko (2007), investigates the American health care system, focusing on greed, political ties, and lack of humanity. Through the use of interviews with health care officials, patients and their families, and his actual experiences, he compares the difference between the U.S non-universal system and the universal Health Care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba. Moore was brilliant in highlighting these countries success and our failure.

The film opens with our current president George W .Bush, speaking on behalf of the health care reform. This opening is very catchy and gets the audience’s attention. He follows this with interviews. Many people have been victimized by the American health care system. First, we are introduced to Adam, a man who just had an accident; he is seen stitching his own knee back together. Unfortunately, he is part of that 50 million who do not have health insurance. Rick on the other hand has insurance, yet due to the high costs associated with his traumatic injury, he had to make a devastating choice on which finger to restore, after they were sawed off by accident. He chose to keep his ring finger instead of his middle finger, because it cost 12 thousand verses 60 thousand dollars, for the middle finger. These weren’t the only two compelling Stories. Moore utilized many interviews with people all over America. He received over 25 thousand responses by email from patients who have either personally suffered or lost a family member because there were denied care. Dr. Linda Pino was an integral part of this documentary. She revealed the sad truth behind this corrupt system. She received a six figure salary increase and physicians received bonuses to deny medical treatments for policy holders. The reason behind her confession was the guilt she felt knowing that she played a huge role, in the devastating death of a father in need if a kidney transplant. He’s younger brother was a perfect bone marrow match but, they denied him care, based on the insurance companies famous line, “it’s experimental”. This father would have been alive today, if this system was based integrity. Then we were introduced to Donna and Larry, they lost their home to bankruptcy after each got sick and couldn’t afford the thousands of dollars charged by co-pays. They had to live in their daughter’s storage room. There also was the baby girl who was going deaf and needed ear implants. She was only approved for one; until her father wrote to Cigna informing them that Michael Moore will be featuring this story on his film. They called back immediately to approve her for both. I guess you have to know someone powerful in order to get descent treatment; even if you are paying your hard-earned money to these companies. The teenage boy was too thin and the girl was too heavy for insurance. Who are we to judge who is going to get sick and who isn’t; how can a doctor place a dollar amount on a body part. Myshelle’s tale was the one I heard. Her mother rushed her to the emergency at Martin Luther King Jr. hospital. She was refused treatment after numerous pleading from her mother; Myshelle died. With these interviews, Moore really drove home the point that the healthcare providers do not have a conscience. Only the rich and powerful Americans are entitled to quality medical care.

America is the richest country in the world. I clearly do not comprehend how Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba can offer this medical care to everyone, and we can’t. They have fewer resources, yet they work for the common good of everyone. They are a “WE” nation as Moore says, instead of American’s who stand behind a “ME” nation attitude. Unfortunately, the problem does not stem from the average American, but from the government who is placing fear into the hearts of its people. It was interesting to hear that in France, the Doctor makes house calls. Mothers are given a government employee to watch their children, do their laundry, and even cook dinner. All these services are provided at no cost. The government does not charge for Health care, the doctors are compassionate, no one is discriminated against. The health care systems of Canada are quite similar; it is a universal theme among these countries, that everyone deserves proper medical care. In London, doctors receive bonuses for lowering their patients’ blood pressure, or improving their general welfare. This is an example we should follow. Communist Cuba, known for its rigid and fearless dictator Fidel Castro, interestingly they provide excellent health care for their people and ours. As seen in the documentary, they cared for the 9/11 heroes, no ID card were necessary, just their name and date of birth were asked. The American health care system should be ashamed, that they did not help the people who risked their lives to save others.

Showcasing the origins of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 was the final stamp, placed on this documentary. It was presented using a taped conversation between John Enrichment and President Richard Nixon on February 17, 1971; Enrichment is heard telling Nixon that, “The less care they give them, the more money they make,” and Nixon replied by saying this “appeals to me.” They were referring to the lower standards of health care seen today. This led to the horrifying health care nightmare that we are living today. Michael Moore’s use of reference imagery, special effects, scrolling text, and emotional interviews was an awakening experience for me. I particularly enjoyed learning about the connections that lobbying groups in Washington D.C have with pharmaceutical companies, and how they were able to silence Hillary Clinton, through campaign donations. I guess Dog Eat Dog Entertainment was the perfect production company to showcase a “Dog Eat Dog World”.

 

 

Silence of the lambs/Julia

Five-time Academy award winning film The Silence of the Lambs (1991) tests the boundaries between reality and fantasy.  Directed by Jonathan Demme and starring Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford ), this psychological thriller was very compelling.  The way it was able to captivate its audience was brilliant.  The film introduced the fearless female heroine, two different types of serial killers, and probed the issue of cross dressing.  Although the majority of the general public was fascinated by this film, it was criticized by the gay community for its negative depiction of the trans-sexual killer.  In my opinion this sexist film analyzes the role of the female detective and her struggle to be accepted as an equal in her field of work.  The use of the serial killer and the cross-dresser were just fragments used to captivate the audience’s attention and heighten the threat to the powerful female stereotype. 

 Based on the novel by Thomas Harris, the film opens with Clarice Starling, a young FBI Academy student.  She is introduced wearing sweats, her hair in a pony tail, and no makeup.  She is running and training very hard, soon after she is pulled off the training force by her supervisor Jack Crawford.  He explains to her that he wants her profile Dr. Hannibal Lecter, a brilliant psychiatrist and cannibalistic serial killer.  The irony behind this job offer is the fact that it was not given to her based on merit, but instead on her appearance.  Her supervisor, Jack Crawford, figured that a beautiful, young, and naïve female, would have a better opportunity at attracting the attention of the serial killer.  Clarice dressed in a demure, baggy suit meets Dr. Frederick Chilton, the man who runs the facility housing Dr. Lecter.  He hits on her, but she ignores his advances and moves on to completing her task.  Unaware, that she is being used by her supervisor, she meets with Dr. Lecter, who is restrained behind a thick glass door and stone walls.  He coldly stares at Clarice, but calmly addresses her.  This scene features the fear that Clarice is feeling, she is on edge, shaky, and we witness one the men throw semen in her face, this leads to her breakdown outside.  This is the first time that Clarice is seen as feminine, or showing any weakness.

After realizing that her supervisor is not interested in profiling Hannibal Lecter, but instead trying to unveil the identity of the current serial killer nicknamed “Buffalo Bill,” Clarice is even more determined to succeed.  Clarice engages Dr. Lecter and her boss comes up with a plan to fool him into believing that if he reveals the identity of Buffalo Bill, they will grant him his wish, and transfer him to this amazing island where he will have a window a be able to swim once a year.  Dr. Frederick Chilton was taping their conversations and heard about the deal.  Threatened by the idea that a woman is going to gain power and acknowledgment, he uses the abduction of the senator’s daughter Catherine as his key to make this offer final and turn Hannibal against Clarice.
After learning of her betrayal, Dr. Lecter gets impatient, but never loses power or control.  This is evident, when he makes a deal with Clarice that in order for him to keep talking to her about Buffalo Bill, she must share details of her past with him.  Clarice tells him about her father and recounts her memory of her unsuccessful attempts at saving the cheap.  His glance, composure, and intensity overshadow all characters, with the exception of Clarice.  I cannot argue that this film does not provide power to the female heroine Clarice.  She does capture Buffalo Bill before any of her colleagues.  She also kills him and saves the life of the senator’s daughter, Catherine.  However, the power she is given is at the expense of losing her femininity.

 The film strips Clarice of everything, her father and mother died when she was a little girl.  The death of her father is shown numerously throughout the film, through the use of flashbacks.  She basically has no one except her job.  The focus of the female detective is on work.  The ideology to place a female heroine as the central focus of the serial killer films genre glorifies masculinity and deprives the heroine of love.  The ability of having a career and enjoying life is seized.  The inexplicable behavior of Clarice’s male coworkers was appalling.  This is evident in many scenes throughout the film. She is objectified at the beginning of the film, by her fellow Academy alumni; they all turn to stare at her from behind as she is walking back to her supervisor’s office.  During the scene of exhuming the body found skinned, Jack Crawford tells the coroner that he would rather discuss the specifics of the case in private.  He didn’t want Clarice to hear the details, based on her gender.  Then Clarice tells the police officers that they are no longer needed, they initially ignore her.  Even, her supervisor never felt that she was capable of handling her job.  During the helicopter scene, he tells her that they found the identity of Buffalo Bill, but never included her in the chase.  Although at first glance it is easy to agree with the student response of Lara Larson.  She chose a quote from the article “The Silence of the Lambs’ and Serial Killer Movies” by Amy Taubin, which states that Clarice’s character was the “hero rather than the victim and the pursuer rather than the pursued (qtd.  Larson).”   I personally disagree, because she did fall victim to the male higharchy of her job and society.  She never enjoyed life, or her femininity, and she had to conform to be accepted.  She was also pursued by her fears and childhood memories.  On the hand I agree with Taubin’s remark in the article about Clarice’s mission to save the maiden referring to the senator’s daughter, rather than to marry the prince.   She never had a love interest in the film.  Her only mission was to capture the villain.  I do respect the character’s strength.  She didn’t have a mother figure to help get dressed; instead she had a more vivid memory of her father who died when she was at the impressionable age of ten years old.  I believe that her mannerisms and determination to be accepted by the male dominated world derived from being raised by a male figure. 


 Although they were created a more than a decade apart and come from two separate genres of film, the similarity between The Silence of the Lambs (1991) a thriller and Julia (1977) a drama; are fascinating.   They include, the lack of parental guidance, the use of wardrobe to conform and gain respect from society, and the portrayal of the fearless protagonist.  Directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Jane Fonda (Lillian Hellman), Vanessa Redgrave (Julia), and Jason Robards (Dashiell Hammett), this film explores the true meaning of friendship.  The film opens with a woman sitting on a boat dressed in black from head to toe; voice-over narration begins and tells the story of two best friends.  The use of flashback is also present in this film to showcase the past and bring us to the future.  The bond between Lillian and Julia is clear and strong, they did everything together until they separated for college.    
 Julia left to attend the University in Vienna, and found her passion.  She became an activist against fascism and Lillian became a playwright.  Through the years they kept in-touch until Julia was badly hurt.  Lillian during went immediately to visit her and during this visit Julia vanished.  This started the journey to reunite the two best friends, Lillian and Julia.  Lillian abandons her life as a playwright and devotes many days to locating her friend despite the lack of help she is receiving.  Not understanding that her friend is in danger, she goes back home and starts to write again.  Her work was rewarded when she found out through her on again lover Dash that her play will be featured on Broadway.   The fame Lillian received from the production of her play enabled her to afford many luxuries.  She purchased a sable coat and underwent a social class transformation.  The wardrobe symbolized strength for the weaker Lillian.  It also acted as a protective barrier to shield her from the harsh reality of the world.

 Lillian never seemed happy or satisfied despite her achievement.  Her entire life was spent on thinking about the welfare of Julia.  This is evident in the film when she calls every hospital and hotel; she even goes door to door to search for her best friend.  It wasn’t until years passed before a man came up to her at the hotel where she was celebrating her victory.  He explained to her that Julia needs her help.  The mission was to help the Anti-Fascist cause and smuggle money through Germany.  Aware of the dangers associated with this mission, especially for a Jewish woman writer.  The man tells Lillian to only do this if she is certain she is okay with it, this leads to more flashbacks that showcase Julia as a mother figure to Lillian.  She makes her laugh, takes her everywhere she goes, and protects her. This is depicted in the heartfelt scene, when Julia is seen crossing the tree bridge, and Lillian gets scared and almost falls.  Lillian rushes to help her, but told her “you do not have to go this way,” you can go underneath, referring to a safer route.  This scene is very ironic, because it gives a clear analysis of each character.  Julia is a risk taker, fighting for a cause, while Lillian is not sure which path to take, and her success as a playwright doesn’t complete her.  When Julia left for college, Lillian lost herself.  After much thought, Lillian agrees to smuggle the money.   The two best friends are reacquainted during a very brief and awkward meeting.  Lillian learns that Julia has prosthetic leg and has a child, which she named Lilly.  Julia tells Lillian that she wants her to take care of the baby girl who is one years old, and living with a baker’s family.  She proceeds to tell Lillian that she will have someone bring the baby to New York.   Lillian is overjoyed by this news.  Soon after returning to the United States, Lillian has a nightmare of Julia being stabbed and shortly after we learn of Julia’s murder.  Lillian returns to search for Lilly, Julia’s baby, unfortunately the town thrives on secrecy and no one is talking.  Sadly, Lillian never found the baby Lilly, or who killed Julia. 

 The end scene is the same as the opening with the exception of a different narration.  This ending is very sad, and portrays the bond that Julia and Lillian shared.  Lillian lived and wrote for Julia, and now that her friend has died Lillian has nothing to live for.  Another student response that I found interesting was by Kevin Lutz.  He commented on the non-sexual relationships of women in buddy films and how their friendship grows stronger as the story develops.  We live in a society saturated with sexuality and true female friendship roles have vanished from movies.  The contemporary female friendship roles portray either bi-sexuality or backstabbing among friends.  I truly enjoyed these inspiring films that prove that woman can get along and have beautiful everlasting friendships.  On separate note I disagreed with his opinion on the role that director’s gender plays in portraying a film.  I feel that many factors might influence a difference in the portrayal of a film, and gender is one of those elements that will play a very heavy role. 

 

 

Children of Men

 
 Quite frequently one complex question is often raised, what has caused the problems in our society today.  Alfonso Cuaron’s film Children of Men, deliberately avoids that answer.  Instead he directs the film to focus on what is happening in our society today and how it will impact the outcome of our future.  The film is set in London, 2027, and the world has collapsed, leaving Britain the last country standing.  The standards of law and order have been broken and the country is ruled by a government that has lost hope in mankind and is choosing to kill and cage all immigrants.  What’s unique is that the end of the world is not happening because of war, disease, or famine, but due to infertility.  Cuaron created a world that anyone could relate to, based on uncertainty, connotations of the holocaust, racism, terrorism, government-inspired paranoia, and today’s top news headlines.   This satirically provoking film uses infertility as the primary source to engage its audience to question what occurred in the past, what is happening now, and what affect those consequences could have on our future without hope.
 Film director, Alfonso Cuaron created a world of fear, hopelessness, infertility, and death; whose connections to our own are a few years in the making.  He was able to mirror our society’s tribulations by rejecting technologically advances of the year 2027 setting, downplaying the science fiction elements, effectively utilizing the main character to portray the average human, while reflecting on his immigrant, Mexican identity.  Cuaron’s intent to mirror our current contemporary period was revealed during extensive interviews he had with several film critics all over the country.  According to an article by the Nashville Scene, Cuaron didn’t want to transport or distract the audience by the future when he stated:  “This is the anti-Blade Runner.  We’re not creating; we’re referencing here.  Everything has to have a reference to the state of our times.”  His idea to create a present setting for Children of Men, was evident in the film through the use of a city-like atmosphere, he chose to shoot scenes in East London because he considered it to be a place without glamour, resembling the place he was born, Mexico city, Mexico, “Let’s make it more Mexican,” he was overheard saying to his crew (qtd.  in “The Connecting”).  He used  twenty-first century materials including, cars, buildings, televisions, and coffee shops; and he set an emotional mood by capturing realistic scenes of war, killings, chaos, extinction of children, persecution of innocent lives, and the portrayal of a dominant government regime.   There is absolutely no question about the similarity of the film to our society.

  In reality, as I am writing this paper, there are thousands of military men and women deployed to Iraq, fighting, dying, and their spouses, children, family, and friends are left behind to greave, suffer, and fear the possibility that they may never see their relative again.   There are children dying of diseases, hunger, and neglect, and immigrants persecuted for trying to live the American dream.   Meanwhile, the majority of society is not questioning the seriousness of our current affairs; instead, they have resorted to ignorance by turning off the news and have chosen to remain sheltered from the war; and other horrific activities going on in our world.  Cuaron captured this passive society through the portrayal of the main character Clive Owen (Theo).  He was portrayed as emotionless, careless, bored, unhappy, and a reckless smoker and alcoholic who walked away when confronted by the faces of people; who were victimized and caged by their government.  Examples of this are showcased in the film Children of Men, during the following scenes:   Theo enters the coffee shop and learns of baby Diego’s death, but he remains completely emotionless as everyone around him is in complete shock.  He witnesses the bomb explosion but just keeps going; he arrives to work, finding everyone weeping and grieving baby Diego’s loss, but he remains careless and leaves early to avoid his devastated coworkers.  Later, he gets off the bus to meet his friend Jasper and sees all the immigrants caged, and an old woman trying to get his attention for help; he just chooses to ignore her presence, and when an older immigrant man comes up to him for help on the street, he just keeps on walking away (Children of Men 2006). 
 Cuaron created the character Theo to exemplify the majority of people in today’s society:  Miserable, just living without a cause, a fight or a plan, taking life for granted; until something or someone comes into their life and gives them a reason to be awakened.  This often happens when someone suddenly falls ill or is confronted by the darkness of society; and then they realize how important life is, and begin to pray and make plans for what they want to accomplish, or fight for once they get better.  This is evident in Theo’s world; he started to live again once he was given a mission, or a symbol of “hope” to help the only miraculously pregnant, immigrant woman, in the entire world; for the past eighteen years, (Kee) portrayed by Claire-Hope Ashitey.  In the film, we witness Theo’s naivety and courage unravel as he evolves from the passive and emotionless man, to a man who stood up for Kee and kept his promise to his ex-wife Julianne Moore (Julian); who wanted him to take her to the “Human Project”, a group of scientist who are researching the infertility cause; presuming that this program existed. 

 This possibility of mankind believing in hope was the vision behind the production of Children of Men.   Cuaron kept a transparent-parallel line between the film and our world.  He said that in order to give balance between the character and the social environment, he used long, unbroken takes to give a moment of truthfulness to the film (“The Connecting”).  He used cross-referencing imagery of war such as, the bombing at the beginning of the film, the caging of immigrants on the buses, the television voice-over scenes of the world collapse; and the very disturbing still picture of the woman crying and holding the body of her son who was killed during the war.  Animal imagery was used throughout the film to symbolize the freedom that is missing in mankind.  The animals were allowed to roam freely, procreate, and live.  Humans on the other-hand were imprisoned, caged, and faced mortality (Children of Men 2006).  Alfonso Cuaron’s use of animals may have been stimulated from his personal feelings on imprisonment.   When asked during an interview with the Nashville Scene about the referencing fear of immigrants as a background motif throughout Children of Men; Cuaron replied with the following: “It’s about fear.  The sad thing is that it’s not even in the U.S.; the migratory issue has been going on around the world.  This whole idea of setting a big wall between Mexico and the U.S.—I just don’t get it. The same country that prides itself on tearing apart the Berlin Wall is now setting a new wall with Mexico? And it’s been proven that walls don’t work” (“The Connecting”).
 Cuaron’s passion for hope and his detest of inequality can be linked to the many obstacles that he faced in his journey; to becoming the brilliant director that we have come to respect and admire.  He always dreamt of becoming a director, despite the fact that he didn’t have the resources to finance his dream.  He also faced adversity by his teachers, who expelled him from the University of Film; after creating a movie that only spoke the English language.  He was caged but broke free, when he created his first feature film:  “Sólo con tu pareja (1991)” (Love in the time of Hysteria), which was about a womanizing businessman who is fooled into believing that he’s contracted HIV after having a relationship with a nurse.  The international recognition from this film influenced Alfonso’s relationship with Hollywood and shortly after Warner Brothers invited him to direct the third Harry Potter film, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)”.  The film was the greatest box office success of his career and many critics remarked that this was the first Potter film to truly capture the essence of the novels. 
 This prestigious recognition by his critics and his journey through society’s downfalls prepared Alfonso Cuaron to build and direct the film Children of Men, in a smart and well crafted manner, with powerful and dynamic views on the future.  During an interview with Kim Voynar, Cuaron said:  “I was attracted to the concept of infertility as a premise.  I was not really interested in doing a science fiction film, so I had completely disregarded it. But the premise kept haunting me. It was not until I realized that the premise of the film could serve as a metaphor for the fading sense of hope, that it could be a point of departure for an exploration of the state of things that we’re living in now, the things that are shaping this very first part of the 21st century, that I wanted to do it.”   This statement is very profound; Cuaron never explored the infertility issue in the film, because he acknowledged that this unanswered question will lead the audience to concentrate on the motives and actions that plague our society.  Children of Men was his most controversial film, which may have been spurred by the visions of violence he endured while growing up in a dangerous city.  The audience can make this conclusion from the statement he gave during a personal interview with Latino Leaders Magazine:  “I’ve seen people being shot. I’ve had guns put to my head. I’ve seen people burnt alive, stabbed, decapitated, because Mexico is still a very violent place.  So I do think that some of that element in my films comes from a Mexican sensibility.”  However, what doesn’t stem from his Mexican up-bringing but rather from his fascinating mind, is his ability to create a film with moral strength that can dramatize a point, create suspense, while still allowing the audience the freedom to analyze, debate, and resolve the meaning of this film.  The most relevant aspect of this film is the setting and the type of directing created by Cuaron.  He directed this film because he believed that hope for humanity is what our society needs.
  Children of Men was not concerned about abolishing disease to create longevity, reversing social oppression, racism, aging, or highlighting the inventions of new forms of reproduction such as the advances we have seen recently with cloning, and stem-cell research; instead it confronted a biblical and morally negative outcome.  This film engages all your emotions to confront a future that looks so similar to what we are living and observing today.  The Iraq war, the immigrant laws, and the chilling newspaper reports, and television news programs all point to a collapse.  I am sure we will all have a different interpretation for this film, which is what Alfonso Cuaron intended to do.  An article written by film critic Alex Vo on Rotten Tomatoes quoted Cuaron saying:  “They have to fill up all the gaps in-between the moments that you create. And I’m not saying that as a filmmaker, but as an audience.”  The ending seems to suggest that it doesn’t matter how we got here, but most importantly to always believe in hope and that the future is in our hands.    

 

 
Sources:
Children of Men.  Dir.  Alfonso Cuaron.  Perf.  Clive Owen, Julianne Moore
 Michael Caine, and Claire-Hope Ashitey.  (DVD.)  Universal Pictures, 2006. 
"Latino Leaders.”  HighBeam Encyclopedia.   1 Sept.  2007.
 10 Mar.  2008   http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169412749.html.
Children of Men.  Wikipedia.  10 March.  2008.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men.
Children of Men.  IMDB.  10 March.  2008.
 <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0190859/>.
“Latino Leaders.”  HighBeam Encyclopedia.   1 Sept.  2007.
 10 Mar.  2008   <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169412749.html
Stevens, Dana.  “The Movie of the Millennium.”   Slate.  21 Dec.  2006.  13 April.  2008.
 <http://information.com/link?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men& keyword=children&cat=1&brand=1&title=Children%20of%20Men%20- %20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia&desc
“The Connecting of Heartbeats.”   Nashville Scene.
 11 Jan.  2007.  15 April.  2008
 <http://information.com/link?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men& keyword=children&cat=1&brand=1&title=Children%20of%20Men%20- %20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia&desc
Vo, Alex.  “Interview with Children of Men Director Alfonso Cuarón.”
  Rotten Tomatoes.  23 Jan.  2007.   13 April.  2008 
 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1563932/.
Voynar, Kim.  “Interview: Children of Men Director
 Alfonso Cuaron.”   Cinematical.    25 Dec.  2006.
 13 April.  2008 <http://www.cinematical.com/2006/12/25/interview-children- ofmen-director-alfonso-cuaron/>.
edit.

Title.

Mildred Pierce

Raging Bull

The Grapes of Wrath

Title.

Award winning film Blade Runner (2007), revised the popular Sci-Fi and Film Noir genres. Director Ridley Scott and writers Hampton Francher and Davis Peoples, created a film loosely based on Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Starring Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Sean Young (Rachael), Edward James Olmos (Gaff), and Tutger Hauer (Batty); this film follows the story of an ex-detective, Rick Deckard who is forced out of retirement to eliminate a group of replicants. During his journey, he discovers the complexity of life on earth and what it means to be human. The film takes place is Los Angeles, year 2019, and advances in genetic technology have rendered scientists the ability to procreate biologically-engineered humans called “replicants.” Ridley Scott was able to brilliantly capture and capitalized on a new style of film making, future-noir, which includes elements of film noir but with an updated story line, developed characters, and excellent cinematography.

Blade Runner opens with dark, shadowy cinematography. Smoke fills the air from the refinery and the atmosphere is foggy, wet, and shady. This is evident from the start of the film. It opens with the interrogation scene. Here we witness a man shooting another man to death. Soon after, come to the realization, that this man is one of the replicants, and others like him are roaming the streets. The main character is introduced as the reluctant hero, Deckard. He is assigned as the lead investigator to this case. His job is to go out and kill all replicants. However, when he meets the beautiful Rachael, Deckard goes down a path of crime, sex and moral confusion. Unlike most film noir's, where the femme fatale uses her charm, sexuality, and beauty to entice the main character. Rachael does not speak about sex, nor does she want Deckard to commit any crimes. To the contrary, she is a little innocent, with a mysterious past, and quiet sex appeal. Although the femme fatale role is usually dominant, in this film it is quietly represented.

Scott was able to create a future-noir that maintains the integrity of the elements present in all film-noir's. For example, even though the gestures of the femme fatale role are subtle, they are clearly represented. When Rachael comes over to Deckard’s apartment announced, just to prove to him that she does have memories and she isn’t a replicant. He tells her that those are the memories of Tyrell's (the maker of the replicants) niece, and she leaves crying instead of killing him. Rachael knows how to use her powers of seduction to get Deckard on her side, without making it obvious. This is evident in many scenes throughout the film. At the beginning when Deckard uses his machine to determine if she is replicant, she is smoking, uses her witty dialogue and wide eyed stares to entice him. Then again at his apartment, she just stares at him seductively while he washes his face from the blood after the fight. There is no doubt that Scott developed each character to fit the roles of the film noir genre. Deckard, the protagonist, got hooked by the femme fatale and is know trying to protect her, when he was actually ordered to kill all replicants. Then there is detective Gaff, the hat, the coat and he's alway there, right along the side of the protagonist, just waiting for him to fall. Rachael is the ultimate femme fatale, she is beautiful, seductive, charming, and smokes. In the end of the film, we can clearly see that she used her beauty, charm, and emotions, to get her man. Scott’s final cut version, employs both modern and past themes of film noir, he also utilizes philosophical themes, by employing the idea of human and non-human beings. He purposely left the most intriguing aspects of the film for the end. Modern themes employed by Blade Runner, include editing style, music, increased dialoge, lack of narration, and developed characters. For example, in the 2007 director’s cut, Scott abolished narration and added the last unicorn scene. Past themes include smoke, smoking, fog, the rejection of the female roles of devoted wife and mother, witty dialogue, flashbacks, the protagonist, the detective and sex.

One of the most relevant elements used to bring life to this film, is the directing style of Ridley Scott. According to an interview he had with BBC, Scott says he became a director because he was fascinated by films, and when he used to see the words directed by in a film, he thought that it meant the author of the film. “I loved cinema so much I wanted to be that author (BBC).” Scott was born on November 30, 1937 in South Shields, England. He was very creative and received his M.A. in graphic design at London's Royal College of Art. Having a background in art, propelled his success in creating award winning films. His films include, Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, and Body of Lies. Blade Runner, was Scott’s most controversial film, which may have been spurred by the visions of filth and demise he endured while living in New York city, or the unfortunate death of his younger brother Frank. According to an article in the New York times by Fred Kaplan, Scott said “I was spending a lot of time in New York, The city back then seemed to be dismantling itself.” His idea to create a believable setting for Blade Runner was evident in the city-like atmosphere, he chose to shoot scenes in New York City because he considered it be medieval. Scott was able to create a perfect future-noir setting. The streets were dark, foggy, and wet. Technology was able to create replicants that resembled human beings. Futuristic cars were flying above the city streets and the only animals existing were fake. The story also employed the detective and the femme fatale roles present in all film noir's and most importantly, he was able to make the audience believed it: “We had to create a world that supported the story’s premise, made it believable. Why do you watch a film seven times? Because somebody’s done it right and transported you to its world.” He was quoted saying an in article in the New York Times (Kaplan, NYT).

This smart and well crafted film, with powerful and dynamic views of the world received international recognition. In 2007, the American Film Institute listed Blade Runner as the 97th greatest film of all time. In 2008, it was voted the sixth best science fiction film ever made as part of the AFI's 10 top 10. It is currently ranked the third best film of all time by The Screen Directory. The music, set, and cinematography, were key elements of the film’s success. Vangelis was nominated for a Golden Globefor best original score in a motion picture. Cinematographer Jordan Gronenweth was awarded the Los Angeles Film Critics Association award for best cinematography and a BAFTA film Award for best cinematography. Lawrence G. Paul won the BAFTA film award for best production design/art direction and an Academy nomination. He also won The London Critics Circle Film award along with, Douglas Trumbull, Syd Mead for their visual concept. Douglas Trumbull, Richard Yuricich, and David Dryer were also nominated for an Academy award for best effects, visual effects. According to Wikipedia, the music score used in the film Blade Runner was the most sampled in the 20th century, and inspired the Grammy nominated songMore Human Than Human by White Zombie.

In my opinion, Blade Runner should serve as a staple for all future-noir genre films. Although, Ridley Scott’s version doesn’t use first person narration, nor conforms to the expectations of the original film noir staple to punish the femme fatale in the end; the last scene of the film sends the message that Deckard and Rachael are one of the same. Specifically the last scene when Deckard and Rachael are fleeing his apartment, he notices an origami figure of a unicorn on the floor. This figurine represents his memories and he quickly realizes that detective Gaff knows what’s in his mind, since he always has visions of a unicorn. In a twisted way, both Deckard and Rachael are being punished, he killed all the people that he believed were non-human, but he could never prove that they weren't. He know realizes that he is no different then the replicants, he has emotions, feelings, memories, and the capacity to love. The replicants, only killed others to protect themselves, he on the other hand, haunted them like animals. He will forever be haunted by Roy Batty’s famous line, “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die.” Ridley Scott’s film captivates the audience with its dramatic setting, scenes, and excellent storyline. It also engages the audience to question, science, humanity and even our own actions. That’s the main reason Blade Runnerwas selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant (Wikipedia).” I am sure we will all have a different interpretation for this film, which is what Ridley Scott intended to do; however, the ending seems to suggest that it doesn’t really matter who’s more human, or the fact that we can utilize science to create life; what really stands out, is that no one can escape death.