What are the major urban social issues and tensions that emerge in visual framings of London? Discuss with reference to the film Children of Men.

 

Children of Men (2006) by Alfonso Cuaron is set in the apocalyptic future of London in 2027 when humanity has become infertile. In this dystopian world, newsreel footage claims that Britain is the only country that has maintained some semblance of society whereas others have fallen into chaos and destruction. Britain is ruled by a totalitarian and capitalist government, leading to problems of economic disparity, a capitalist based social class system and continued privilege which Cuaron criticises in the visual framing of London. Despite this, two of the biggest social issues within the film are anti-immigration sentiment and the problem of anonymous terrorism which is clearly seen within the tightly packed symbolism of the mis-en-scene of London’s opening sequence. Cuaron uses a referencing technique to link the events in the film to real life events in the world, thus making the problems appear even more realistic, real and relatable.

The film’s opening sequence from timestamp 0:01:19-0:02:30[1] immediately introduces the problem of anonymous terrorism, photographed with an utterly realist style on London’s Fleet street. The camera pans 180 degrees when Theo, the main protagonist, leaves the café and the viewers get an entire view of the street. It is our first introduction to London and it does not paint the picture of a flashy and futuristic city one was expecting. On the contrary, it shows a dystopian London that is a reflection of our own London that looks remarkably familiar. It is marked by degradation and pollution with rubbish piled on the streets and dirt covering the cars. Cuaron said of this dystopian future, “We’re not creating; we’re referencing here. Everything has to have a reference to the state of our times”.[2] When the bomb explodes in the café, the ensuring scenes of chaos are a reference to other contemporary war zones and other examples of terrorism. The image of the woman stumbling out of the smoke and clutching her severed arm can be linked to the images of those suffering in “Palestine, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Balkans, Chernobyl”[3] which were images of violence and conflict common place in the media. It is this referencing technique that brings the ‘terror’ and reality of this contemporary problem home for the viewers because London has become a “war [zone] of extraordinary plausibility”.[4] A few weeks before shooting was due to begin on location at London’s Fleet Street, there had been the London bombings of 2005. Cuaron refused to change his decision to shoot the bomb explosion sequence on location and as such this sequence was filmed shortly after. His reasoning was both because it would have been difficult to replicate the view of London’s Fleet Street and its view of St Paul’s cathedral within a studio because they were such recognisable and iconic aspects of London’s architecture and space. He also saw it as an opportunity for the viewers to relate to the circumstances in regards to terrorism and violence that were taking place within the film. They would have been able to connect with the opening sequence and indeed the film itself, on a much deeper level if they recognized  their own world within it.

Terrorism is connected to an increase of anti-immigration sentiment which is yet another example of an urban social issue the film explores and it is an issue that is clearly seen in London’s background during the opening sequence. As Americans saw in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in the early 2000’s and during the ‘War on Terror’, perceived national crises are often linked to an increased awareness of borders and an increase of outward signs and symbols of nationalism. Cuaron draws upon these influences within the film. As Zizek puts it, “the true focus of the film is on the background”[5] which reveals the grim truths about real-world life that otherwise would not have been as representable to viewers in a more ‘direct’ fashion. In the opening sequence, the buildings on Fleet Street are wrapped in advertisements and government propaganda which portrays terrorists and immigrants alike as a faceless and invisible enemy. They are full of slogans that compel British citizens to report them with statements such as “suspect it? Terrorism relies on surprise”[6] and “Suspicious? Report all illegal immigrants".[7] These slogans stigmatize terrorists and immigrants by equating them both as the evil Other, linking them to violence such as the bomb exploding in the opening sequence. Anti-immigration sentiment exhibited in the background is a strong example of the urban social issues of which London in the film suffered from.

 

The harsh treatment of immigrants known as ‘foogies’ at the hands of the militarized state is further explored within London’s background which is yet another example of the social tension. Cuaron never explicitly revels what is going on, except that the audience has to actively investigate the symbolism of the background. Due to the depressive economic reality of the dystopian world within the film, the immigrants are being deported back to their homeland amid a great deal of violence. As Theo is walking to work in Bethnal Green[8], he passes by cages full of immigrants awaiting deportation by the police. The image of the caged, dirty and poor immigrants is similar to the images of the Jews in the concentration camps during the Holocaust and the photographs depicting treatment of middle Eastern ‘terrorists’ at Guantanamo Bay. Immigrants are treated inhumanely, the use of cages suggesting they are sub-humane and alike to animals. In the opening sequence, there are police patrolling in the background of the streets and they are seen yet again within this scene policing the immigrants. It is clear that the true terror is inflicted by the one-dimensional representation of the armed forces who are the ones to inflict pain and torture upon the ‘foogies’ within the film.

 

It is within this film sequence that the camera technique is truly used to explore the significance of London’s background. Theo is an apathetic character who attempts to suppress his emotions and ignore the unpleasant reality of the situation around him. He barely glances at the immigrants as he walks by them. It is at this moment that the camera becomes preoccupied with what is happening in the background. It moves past the cages and focuses on the crowds of immigrants being detained and having their belongings thrown out of their balconies. Throughout the film the camera follows the journey of the main protagonist but when the camera actively breaks away from this identification, it actively engages with what is happening in the background. These are images that the lead character doesn’t see or notice but we are made forcefully aware of them. As Zizek puts it, it is in the “wonderful tension between the foreground and the background”[9] where one can see the true extent of the immigration problem in the dystopian London of the film. The director leads us to question the very perspective of the film itself and the filtered gaze that we see London and its problems through. We are unable to ignore the inhumane treatment of the immigrants as Theo is able to do. The background forces us to confront the severity of the immigration issue within the visual framing of London.

 

When Theo goes to visit his cousin Nigel at Battersea power station, a different perspective of London is provided which highlights yet another urban social issue. While the opening sequence of the film depicts scenes of violence and degradation, Nigel offers the perspective of the privileged. He is the Minister of Art and a high-ranking government official and there is an implicit criticism that he is unaware of the true dystopian nature of the situation around him. Shaw claims the film “gives the best diagnosis of the ideological despair of late capitalism”[10] which has given way to economic disparity. Cuaron himself says of  the socio-political atmosphere that “the tyranny of the 21st century is called ‘democracy’”[11] which has essentially been transformed into a dictatorship by the government.  At timestamp 0:20:44[12] Nigel and Theo are standing next to wall length windows which looks down onto London’s skyline below covered in impenetrable fog. The window here is less of a window than a mirror which reflects Nigel’s power and social status, implied in the impossibility of the gazer to ever literally see what is happening ‘below’ and the reality of the situation because it is covered by fog. The use of a vertical long shot and the point of view from the city above further alludes to his image of power and even social stratification. Battersea power station is unwelcoming and difficult to enter as there is private security at the gate which Ogrodnik called an example of “anti-social elitism”.[13] The view outside the window depicts a mode of stasis, a vision of literal unseeing of the upper social class that the film repeatedly attacks throughout. His privileged point of view is supported by the brutal socio-political reality which the film is constructed upon and he is clinging to his privileges in a world that is falling apart.

Theo’s journey to Nigel’s ‘Ark of the Arts’ is framed in monarchical terms which is once more negatively associated with power, privilege and social inequality through the use of London’s cultural references within the background. At timestamp 0:17:21[14] the car driving Theo there passes under Admiralty Arch which is used as the ceremonial entrance to Buckingham palace, thereby implying Nigel’s governmental role is just as important. It was commissioned by King Edward VI which further emphasises its association with the monarchy. The grandeur of the Arch is emphasized by the low-angle shot that capture much of the building in its entirety. The white clouds in the sky cast a brighter light over head in comparison to the darker tones used in the opening sequence. When passing under the Arch, diegetic background music is played, a song called In the Court of the Crimson King by King Crimson who were a British rock band formed in the late 1960’s. It is another way in which privilege and monarchy is evoked in this scene. During the 1960’s in London there was a change from the utopian ‘hippy’ world to a much more dystopian one. Even though the British were not directly involved in the Vietnam War, the song In the Court of the Crimson King carried anti-war sentiment in reaction to the conflicts in the world at the time. The lyrics presented the ‘Crimson King’ and his court in nightmarish terms. The original concept behind the song was to hold the ‘Crimson King’ as responsible for the ‘crimson’ bloodshed’.[15] These are the lyrics sung right as Nigel enters the scene. It directly links him both as being described as this hellish devil and as the king of his court at Battersea power station, which presents the monarchy in negative terms through its visual framing in connecting the scenery to the use of sound.

The giant pink pig floating above Battersea power station at timestamp 0:20:44[16] functions as another form of subtle protest within London’s background against political corruption and the capitalist class system through its associations with political art. The inflatable pig is a recreation of Pink Floyd’s album cover Animals (1977) whose songs in turn were loosely based on George Orwell’s book Animal Farm (1945). Thus, there are multiple underlying intertextualities to explore within the pink pigs visual framing in London’s skyline. Animal Farm was a satirical novella that warned about the dangers of communism leading to the eventual rise of totalitarian regimes and contains the famous motto: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others",[17] which seems to correspond with Nigel's discourse. He is constantly framed with the pig in his background, for example at timestamp 0:19:11[18] when he is eating lunch with Theo, the pig is framed behind his face. Thus he has become the figure of political inequality through association. Pink Floyd’s lyrics in Animals depict a world devoid of empathy and compassion which is precisely the world in which the characters live in. Domingo says of the two textual references, “the first [is] a critique of the communist regime and the latter of capitalism. In both narratives, pigs are presented as the exercisers of a tyrannical totalitarian regime.”[19] Pigs represent the animals of political corruption within Animal Farm, and are a reference to the greed of the elite whereby the pink pig is also similar to a giant floating piggy bank. Neither Theo nor Nigel acknowledge its existence when they are talking, but the Pink Floyd pig floats outside as an ironic synecdoche for Great Britain as it floats above London’s skyline.

Children of men ultimately deals with the fatal weakness of ideology within the visual framing of London: anti-immigration sentiment, capitalism, the tyranny of democracy  and economic inequality. Cuaron artfully recycles symbolic references to London’s cultural scene as well as contemporary social issues to enforce the reality of these social issues. The disturbing realism of the mis-en-scene evokes powerful emotions in regards to anti-immigration sentiment and terrorism issues. One could not avoid looking at the cruel treatment of the immigrants because the camera forced one to look at their issues directly. The constant presence of anti-immigration government propaganda and the militarized state created a dystopian world in which the characters lived.

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 ‘Children of men. Filming and Production’, IMDb (2006), <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/locations> [accessed:08/05/2020]

 ‘DVD Transcript from Slavoj Zizek’, Scholarship@cc (2009) <https://schol.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/dvd-transcript-from-slavoj-zizek/>[accessed: 08/05/2020]

Children of men, dir Alfonso Cuaron, 2006 (US: Universal Pictures) [on DVD]

Cook, Jeremiah, ‘In the Court of the Crimson King by King Crimson’, Classic Rock Review (2014)  https://www.classicrockreview.com/2014/02/1969-king-crimson-court/ [accessed: 16/04/2020]

Domingo, Julia, ‘Liquid Cinematography and the Representation of Viral Threats in Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men" , Atlantis, 37.2 (2015), 137-153

Manohla, Dargis, ‘Apocalypse Now, but in the Wasteland a Child Is Given’, The New York Times, Dec 25 2006, <https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/movies/apocalypse-now-but-in-the-wasteland-a-child-is-given.html >[accessed: 08/05/2020]

Ogrodnik,Ben, ‘Focalisation Realism and Narrative Asymmetry in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men’, Sense of cinema (2014) http://sensesofcinema.com/2014/feature-articles/focalization-realism-and-narrative-asymmetry-in-alfonso-cuarons-children-of-men/  [accessed: 17/04/2020]

Ridley, Jim, ‘The Connecting of Heartbeats: Director Alfonso Cuarón on the Movie of the Moment, the Sci-Fi Thriller Children of Men,’ Nashville Scene (2007) www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/the-connecting-of-heartbeats/ Content?oid=1194162 [Accessed: 19/04/2020]

Visual Hollywood, ‘Children of men’,(2006) cited in Deborah Shaw, The three amigos: The transnational filmmaking of Guillermo del Toro, Alejandro González Iñárritu, and Alfonso Cuarón (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013)

Zizek, Slavoj, ‘Slavoj Zizek reacts to Children of men’ (2007) <http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2007/01/01/slavoj-zizek-reacts-to-children-of-men/> [accessed: 20/04/2020]

 

---

[1] Children of men, dir Alfonso Cuaron, 2006 (US: Universal Pictures) [on DVD]

[2] Jim Ridley, ‘The Connecting of Heartbeats: Director Alfonso Cuarón on the Movie of the Moment, the Sci-Fi Thriller Children of Men,’ Nashville Scene (2007) www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/the-connecting-of-heartbeats/ Content?oid=1194162 [Accessed: 19/04/2020]

[3] Ibid

[4] Dargis Manohla, ‘Apocalypse Now, but in the Wasteland a Child Is Given’, The New York Times, Dec 25 2006, <https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/movies/apocalypse-now-but-in-the-wasteland-a-child-is-given.html >[accessed: 08/05/2020]

[5] Ben Ogrodnik,‘Focalisation Realism and Narrative Asymmetry in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men’, Sense of cinema (2014) http://sensesofcinema.com/2014/feature-articles/focalization-realism-and-narrative-asymmetry-in-alfonso-cuarons-children-of-men/  [accessed: 17/04/2020]

[6] Cuaron, Children of men

[7] Ibid

[8] ‘Children of men. Filming and Production’, IMDb (2006), <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/locations> [accessed:08/05/2020]

[9] ‘DVD Transcript from Slavoj Zizek’, Scholarship@cc (2009) <https://schol.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/dvd-transcript-from-slavoj-zizek/>[accessed: 08/05/2020]

[10] Slavoj Zizek, ‘Slavoj Zizek reacts to Children of men’ (2007) <http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2007/01/01/slavoj-zizek-reacts-to-children-of-men/> [accessed: 20/04/2020]

[11] Visual Hollywood, ‘Children of men’,(2006) cited in Deborah Shaw, The three amigos: The transnational filmmaking of Guillermo del Toro, Alejandro González Iñárritu, and Alfonso Cuarón (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013), p. 214.

[12] Children of Men, Cuaron.

[13]  Ogrodnik, ‘Focalisation Realism and Narrative Asymmetry in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men ’

[14] Children of Men, Cuaron.  

[15]Jeremiah Cook, ‘In the Court of the Crimson King by King Crimson’, Classic Rock Review (2014)  https://www.classicrockreview.com/2014/02/1969-king-crimson-court/ [accessed: 16/04/2020]

[16] Cuaron, Children of Men.

[17] George Orwell, Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, (New York: Signet Classics, 1996), p. 142.

[18] Cuaron, Children of Men.

[19] Julia Domingo, ‘Liquid Cinematography and the Representation of Viral Threats in Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men", Atlantis, 37.2 (2015), 137-153 (p.145)