Children of Men

My Son and I just went and saw this movie this evening. I must say I was very impressed with the length of takes. I mean my god the shots were so long, I could not believe my eyes. I found it almost comical. I was chuckling in the theater, floored by action, the acting, the camera work, the color correction.... See this movie. It was worth every penny...
 
Any academy member who claims to know anything about directing better give Cuaron his Best Director oscar. I mean the directing challenges he faced, overcame, and actually thrived in, are the stuff they made the award for.
 
Hands down the best movie I have seen this year.

I cannot believe how great this movie was. The lighting during the long long long shots stunned me. And there is one part where a hand held lantern is the key and.. and and and. Its just stunning. SEE IT! :)
 
Here's a spot answering the famous 'did he cut because the blood disappeared question' on that nine-minute take. As stated above, it was an accident that was later cropped out, and the entire scene was in fact a nine-minute shot. Impressive too that they got all that in only four takes.
When I watched that scene in the movie it dawned on me after four or five minutes 'holy $%^@ this is all one take' and I was literally holding my breath for the next five minutes...it was an exhilerating scene from a dramatic and technical standpoint. It would be an injustice if it doesn't go down as a classic in moviemaking.
 
Sorry got carried away...here's the article, from IMDB:

"ANATOMY OF A SCENE: 'Accident' really a blessing in shot for 'Children'

By Steve Murray
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/29/2006
The futuristic thriller "Children of Men" (now playing) has three breathtaking sequences filmed in single, unbroken tracking shots. But the one near the end of the film —- lasting some nine minutes —- is a near-miracle of technical inventiveness and, well, just plain luck.

Star Clive Owen races through a bombed-out landscape of tenements and cratered streets that resembles wartime Bosnia. The camera follows as he dodges gunfire and explosions, running over rubble, inside buildings and through crowded corridors and stairways in search of a young woman.

Amid all that chaos, the camera never cuts away.

So how'd they do that?

Director Alfonso Cuaron explains.

The location was a cluster of buildings in Bexhill-on-Sea in England's East Sussex district, which the film crew secured as a filming location for 14 days. Most of those days were spent rigging the area with explosive special effects, rehearsing the countless extras fighting in the streets, and mapping out the complex route Owen (and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki) would follow.

"Day 12 arrives, and we haven't even rolled camera yet," Cuaron says. "Everyone gets nervous —- particularly the accountants."

Finally, on the 13th day, he attempted to shoot the sequence for the first time. "And it's a fiasco," he recalls. Accidents and blunders ruined the shot. Every time he had to start over, Cuaron's crew needed several hours to move the tanks back into place, re-rig explosives in the street and walls, and equip ill-fated extras (the ones caught in the movie crossfire) with fresh blood packs. (More about the blood later.)

Not only was Cuaron facing the loss of his film location, he was also shooting in the middle of a bleak English winter —- when daylight can last as little as six hours.

The director was, um, a little anxious on Day 14, his last chance to shoot the scene as planned.

On his first attempt, things were going great ... until six minutes into the shot, when the cameraman stumbled.

"We only have one more chance," Cuaron remembers. And by the time everyone was ready to try again, the sun was already lowering into the west.

"We start to shoot, and everything is going great," the director says. Ducking gunfire, Owen hides inside a derelict schoolbus. But a female extra also inside the bus gets "hit" by a bullet —- and her exploding blood pack spatters the camera lens red.

"I yell cut," Cuaron says. "But thank God, there is an explosion, and nobody hears me."

Owen keeps running, the camera pursues, and seven minutes later, the actor and cinematographer are jumping around, exhilarated at completing the shot.

"Everyone is going, 'Whooo!' " Cuaron says. "Such exhilaration. Clive is so wired after running and ducking.

"But I said, 'Yes, guys, but the [bleeping] shot is ruined —- the blood hit the lens.'

"And the two of them turn at me with this mad face and say, 'Are you crazy? That was the miracle!' "

In fact, Owen and Lubezki had to remind Cuaron of the aesthetic philosophy he himself brought to shooting "Children of Men": He wanted it to feel as though every scene on-screen is unfolding in the moment, that anything —- good, bad or bloody —- could happen in an instant.

"That is what you're craving for," he admits, "the accidents. Truthfulness comes from what you don't create. You choreograph a lot of stuff to look improvised, but the beautiful moments are the ones you would never imagine."

Keen-eyed moviegoers can be forgiven for thinking there's an invisible cut somewhere in those nine minutes. After all, at the end of the scene, the blood on the lens has vanished.

Well, not really. "The blood was great, but after a while, it started to feel like it was on your face," Cuaron says. "It started to feel distracting." So he hired a computer-effects artist to digitally erase the blood from the final image, a very painstaking job.

"It was the biggest nightmare on planet Earth," he says, "and apparently she hated us every single second."
 
Oh, and one more thing... I think that the locations, the sets in regards to the destruction were so top notch. I can remember turning to my son during the scene where Clive is walking through the alley ways with all this graffiti and garbage and saying "Why can't I find cool looking locations like that"?
 
Last edited:
killer film. kudos to the dp. there were some incredible moments. it was one of those movies that stays with you for a few hours after you leave the cinema. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Children of Men

well I just got home from viewing children of men, a film by alfonso cuaron
to begin I must say that it's a good story. The reason why I did not post this on the post already started on children of men is because I want to discuss something that I find odd in today's cinema. This movie was shot in free hand style just like amores perros and among other famous freehand movies that have been done in the past, my concern is, what is exactly happening to modern cinema, are we viewing a drastic change in the way movies are made today more than ever? I am a film lover and an "indie" director as they call us, and I have seen the evolution of cinema and its a wonderful change but this?? how is it fair for multimillion dollar studios like the ones that produced children of men, they can get away with "freehanding" a movie and its viewed as art to the critics but when us the "indie"directors do it we get slammed as being unprofessionals and amateurs even if we do a good job.
what ever happend to the beautiful dolly shots among all the other beutiful things that complement great cinematography, I dont care who you are and where you come from but as far as I am concerned when you free hand a movie, like this one, I truly believe that it gives the viewer the undeniable feel of a camera being present as we follow the talent. now the movie has some great moments of choreography that are indeed very hard to accomplish
so that tells me that today's cinema and movies are made with a "let's see how hard we can make this shot so the audience knows and appreciates" attitude, is that it? I am just wondering overhere, so what's next? maybe in a couple of years we see:
children of men part II...."the first film shot with absolutely no cuts"
"95 minutes of non-stop action in one single movie with no cuts of course"
so that the audience comes out from the theater saying "wow did you see that ... they did not cut, not even once..I bet that was so hard"
"now this guy is my favorite director because he made a movie in which he did not cut not even once" what the hell is going on with movies? so now its about how hard the movie is to make, is that it? maybe I am wrong, who knows, I invite anyone to share some imput regarding this
 
I think there's a place for both styles... look at the cinematography in Poseidon (new version) and it's very sweeping and smooth... where as Children of Men is more gritty and rough... both style work for each film, and I enjoy both styles.
 
Wow. That's the most harrowing experience I've had in a movie theater, since "Hamburger Hill." And this was much worse, because 'Hamburger Hill' didn't have a young woman and her newborn running through the middle of it.

I walked in planning to keep a close eye on the cutting and shots I'd heard so much about, and two minutes in had been so grabbed by the film, that I watched it without any running mental technical commentary, at all. Which is very unusual, for me.
 
Sad Max said:
Wow. That's the most harrowing experience I've had in a movie theater, since "Hamburger Hill." And this was much worse, because 'Hamburger Hill' didn't have a young woman and her newborn running through the middle of it.

I walked in planning to keep a close eye on the cutting and shots I'd heard so much about, and two minutes in had been so grabbed by the film, that I watched it without any running mental technical commentary, at all. Which is very unusual, for me.
Click to expand...
So I'll take that as a recommendation. :thumbsup:
 
Not overly impressed with it. It was good, but not great. I had heard that it was being called "the new Bladerunner."

I couldn't disagree more. :nads:
 
24fps4ever said:
I am just wondering overhere, so what's next? maybe in a couple of years we see:[/SIZE]
children of men part II...."the first film shot with absolutely no cuts"
"95 minutes of non-stop action in one single movie with no cuts of course"
so that the audience comes out from the theater saying "wow did you see that ... they did not cut, not even once..I bet that was so hard"
Click to expand...

have you heard of russian ark? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/
personally i felt the hand-held long takes added a lot to the chaotic feel of the sequences... i've never had a problem with any particular style of shooting as long as i felt it was justified narratively, but that's another subjective aspect of filmmaking. .. i've seen many "indie films" that utilize the hand-held camera quite effectively. i felt children of men was well worth my money, for the technical aspects alone, and i enjoyed the somewhat ambiguous elements of the story.....long post.
 
24fps4ever said:
how is it fair for multimillion dollar studios like the ones that produced children of men, they can get away with "freehanding" a movie and its viewed as art to the critics but when us the "indie"directors do it we get slammed as being unprofessionals and amateurs even if we do a good job.
Click to expand...
Well first of all, he may be doing handheld, but the production value on this movie is first rate. The sets, the special effects, the action scenes. All of those things take your focus away from the fact that the movie is handheld. But when you're watching some long artsy boring independent film that's handheld, it's all you can think about.


I dont care who you are and where you come from but as far as I am concerned when you free hand a movie, like this one, I truly believe that it gives the viewer the undeniable feel of a camera being present as we follow the talent.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree with you more. What it does is give the viewer a closer connection to the story. I believe static shots or dolly shots or pans are the shots that draw attention to themselves because they're on a tripod or a dolly or a fluid head. They're mechanical. When someone goes handheld, it has a more organic feel. What you're forgetting is that filmmakers and people in this business notice that stuff but the general public does not. I just talked to two of my friends who saw the film who are not affiliated with filmmaking at all and once I explained to them that we never cut in those few scenes, they were shocked. They had no idea. They said they felt subconciously something different was going on. But they didn't know or care. They just loved those scenes. Filmmakers, while loud and outspoken in their critiques, are a minute percentage of the general audience.
 
This film sounds amazing and the more you all talk about the more I hate that I can't see it. :(


Note: If you've already paid to see it and want to relive it, YouTube has that 10 minute scene (dubbed) that you're all talking about. But, just for the record, the "one take shot" is 6 minutes (still amazing). Not sure why everyone keeps saying "9 minutes" and "one take". Where did that 9 come from? The video on YouTube shows exactly 6 minutes (one take) and then normal cuts once dialogue begins and they start leaving the building. Or maybe there's another 3 minues that happens before the video on YouTube starts up. Is there?


Either way, they should go ahead and give the movie the Oscar just for that scene alone.
 
Last edited:
Saw it this weekend and it was an amazing film...the handheld shots are totally unnoticeable and very well done. I agree with the artsy movie handheld style, can never get through those, but this film was amazing. Also, the Pink Floyd and Abu Gharib elements were quite amusing.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Not overly impressed with it. It was good, but not great. I had heard that it was being called "the new Bladerunner."

I couldn't disagree more. :nads:
Click to expand...
I'm semi with you...I did think it was very impressive, but I agree that 'new Blade Runner' is not a good description.

oneinefiniteloop said:
but this film was amazing. Also, the Pink Floyd and Abu Gharib elements were quite amusing.
Click to expand...

You mean, the giant floating inflatable detainees, or the pink pigs in detention camps...?
 
The giant floating pig and that one scene where they first drive into the Bexhill refugee camp, in the cages there are people in exact poses as the photos from Abu Gharib.

Still trying to figure out your flip flop Sad Max :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top