Dog motif in Children of Men

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

Veteran
Anyone want to put their thoughts on why dogs are so present and important in the movie 'Children of Men'?

1) The coffee shop (which explodes) has a woman in the front stroking a welsh corgi as baby diego's death is announced.
2) Many guard dogs are seen in the background, as well as a particular guard's dog lashes out at Theo on the way home from work.
3) Jasper has a dog which is in many shots (sitting by the car when Theo and Jasper first meet, sits next to Jasper on the couch, etc) and referenced alot. (Theo has a cat next to him if that means anything. Bonus points for a good guess)
4) Guard dog outside of the Ministry of the Arts Bridge.
5) Theo's cousin has two dogs which are featured in the opening shot with the statue of david. The two irish wolfhounds stand up when Theo approaches. Are in the background for the rest of the time. (There is also a poodle in the park on the way to the ministry of the arts, but that is minor)
6) The rebel 'fishes' give Theo a 'lost dog' poster to post on a bulletin board, should he ever want to contact them again. Which he does later.
7) Further in the film, Theo is at the dog-race track when an old woman approaches him with the same 'lost dog' poster which leads him to meeting Julian on a bus.
8) When Theo arrives to the fishes' 'safe-house' the farm dogs greet theo welcomely and the farm owner comments on how the dogs dont usually like anybody. Those same dogs later in the movie, approach theo while he is hiding and eavesdropping. They don't make noise on his command. Those same dogs soon after are featured prominently in the 'escape' scene from the farm. They playfully chase his car down the hill and to the street.
9) During the dining room table meeting to decide what to do (at the 'safe house') one of the fishes is holding a small dog in her lap... meanwhile bonus points for why the kitten is scratching at Theo's leg after he makes the decision.
10) Back at Jasper's the dog (forget its name) accompanies theo as he covers the automobile with treebranches and goes on his walk. The dog is later poisoned with Jasper's wife when Jasper stalls the 'fishes' knowing he will die.
11) After this point it's pretty much the jail... so there are lots of guard dogs, but nothing really to speak of. Dog barking in background noise, etc.
12) The annoying girlfriend of sid, or whomever that 'woman' was. Her dog sniffs out the newborn baby and gives them away. The same woman carries the dog with her throughout the future scenes she is in.

So yeah... the appearance of dogs slows down in the end to simply guard dogs and the annoying woman's dog... but for a film where every time a dog is in the shot it was a pre-meditated decision, I have to wonder what the connection is. I have theories, but I'm curious on what you think.

-ryan
 
Well if dogs can still reproduce they would be like surrogate children to humans, the next best thing to having a baby would be a puppy.
 
My thoughts exactly and also 'man's best friend'. But even then, I found it odd.

And god spelled backwards is dog :P haha, I don't think that actually has anything to do with anything.

What does the cat represent? The only two cats we see are always affiliated with Theo.
 
Maybe it's the fact that dogs are more of our "kids" than cats. Theo lost his only child, so cats can represent his lost paternity.

I'm not really sure, but COM is my all time favorite film. Cuarón is a genius.
 
I think the dogs represent dogs and cats represent cats.

Not trying to be rude, but I think when you start saying things like "this small detail represented a characters emotion", you're destroying the whole cinematic experience. I mean, he DID put a lot small details in the movie, and I think its more likely to be something like what the poster said above- the next best thing to a baby is a puppy, so it'd be likely that people bought tons of animals to feel close to life.

But I don't think it was some sort of convoluted symbol...I think that's just projecting and kind of destroys the world/characters he was trying to create.
 
MeAgain said:
I think the dogs represent dogs and cats represent cats.

Not trying to be rude, but I think when you start saying things like "this small detail represented a characters emotion", you're destroying the whole cinematic experience. I mean, he DID put a lot small details in the movie, and I think its more likely to be something like what the poster said above- the next best thing to a baby is a puppy, so it'd be likely that people bought tons of animals to feel close to life.

But I don't think it was some sort of convoluted symbol...I think that's just projecting and kind of destroys the world/characters he was trying to create.
Click to expand...

I don't think that in a movie that is as "designed" as "Children of Men" that a persistent motif like the use of dogs and their images, and our attempts to understand the use of this motif is detrimental to the film. I also don’t think that these persistent motifs in a film have to be fully intentional by the filmmaker for them to be significant to the meaning or impact of the film. During the creative process, a lot of decisions are made, that, at the time they are made, may not seem significant. However, it is the culmination of these seemingly insignificant choices, that may make the end product a work of art. Any work of creativity should be “Consumed” in its final totality. It is the prerogative of the consumer of that work of creativity to subsequently ponder on the individual elements of the work, and their meaning, and from these ponderings, the work of creativity may be, in some instances, elevated to the level of art.

I believe that the film “The Children of Men” is a work of art, and that ponderings on the meaning of isolated elements of the film, like the dog motif, is valuable to the enjoyment and appreciation of the film.
 
I think it's the kind of stuff I had to do in 8th grade. I'm not saying it's a crime to notice details, I'm saying when you start saying "this is a symbol for this" you're wasting your time. Notice people don't/can't do this with instrumental music, like Jazz. Film is not much different.

From interviews I've read, most directors don't purposely think of this stuff, it's people projecting it and insisting on meanings for tiny tiny things afterwards. Once you nail down definite, straightforward meanings to details like that you're killing it for yourself. I prefer to analyze stuff like why Cuaron chose to use handheld, or why he wanted to create the illusion of extremely long shots, or the emotions that come from the moment the deer runs through the school. The atmosphere and implications of the deer running through an empty school and the way Cuaron edits it (by letting us here the sounds first) are much more interesting to toss around than extrapolating whether or not that deer represented "life" or some sort of silly, hackneyed and boring concept. If the movie is complex as we're saying it is, we should treat it like that.

It's like avoiding what's really important in a work of art because you don't want to face the complexity of it. I like Theo as a human character, if I can start turning his emotions and problems into dogs and cats, and might as well go do a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle.
 
I think not thinking about it is a sham. Nor do dogs simply represent dogs and cats represent cats. Look at the film. There is no way that dogs, simply represent dogs, and cats, cats. They play a much bigger role. I doubt at the end of the dining room table scene, Cuaron was like " and when Theo makes the decision, I want a kitten on his leg... but not for a reason, I just want a kitten. F#$k it, people love kittens."

That's not the case. These animals were put there intentionally.

My point is that for every dog in every scene, it HAS to be written to be there. The need for the actual dogs, a handler, and etc is necessary.... money and time. Although shot in similar style, this isn't a documentary. The fact that dogs are in almost every scene is not an accident nor a coincidence. The dogs are included, on purpose at the request of the director and/or writer. Sure we don't need to know why the dogs are there for the initial meaning, but after watching the film for the 20th time, I realized that dogs are a heavy motif throughout.

I'm not saying you have to know why the motif is there, but you simply cannot argue that the dog motif is accidental or not to be thought of. It's there and so heavily in the design that one who studies it must take notice. You don't need it to enjoy the film, but it's there regardless. And it may not have an obvious answer... although the first response is a nice way to explain why they are there in the 'world' but not necessarily why they are in the shots and design.
 
Last edited:
Maybe he likes dogs and he felt they brought a sense of humanity to the movie. Why can't dogs be dogs?

For that matter the characters aren't really people, just symbols. If you deal with everything as concrete things within the world of the movie, it's way more interesting.

I always saw the cat scratching his leg as a sort of punctuation to the scene that had a lot to do with taking action. Everything was way over the character's head. There are a lot of moments like that in the film, like when Michael Cain gets killed, Cuaron pans up to swaying trees. The trees are trees, they're nature, they have infinite feeling and meaning, and everytime you watch it you get a different emotion from it. I haven't seen it in a while, so I can't say more than that.

A scene where dogs are guarding Michaelangelo's David says more about what art has become in the future and who owns it and why- then what the dog or statue symbolize.

I'm not saying these things aren't motifs or patterns. I'm saying I believe in looking at it in a concrete way, within the film, than saying "This cat represents his hope, this dog represents his sorrow". Why bother making the film if it's just a bunch of codes to figure out? He could have just made 'Sudoku: Children of Men edition'.
 
If you don't want to participate in this, then just ignore it. For many people (myself included), looking at certain aspects of a film that others might not pay attention is a fun and educational experience. It allows us to extract our own meaning out of a film.

Children of Men is an absolute masterpiece. Alfonso Cuarón is an artist that looks at even the smallest details in a film. He presented us with a work of art for which we could extract our own meanings and opinions.

Like you said, every time you watch it, you get different emotions from shots, you get something new. What's wrong with discussing these things?

Every type of art is given to you with the possibility for you to come up with your own meaning. This is part of what being a filmmaker is all about. This is educational. We are able to broaden our minds by seeing whether or not something within a film, within a shot of the film, means something. Whether it gives us something more than its simple presence.

It's not necessary to look at films like this, but for many filmmakers, it's very important and enjoyable.

If you find this to be useless, then go ahead about your business, but don't try to stop others from extracting their own meanings out of the art.

Every single friend of mine that saw "Collateral," for example, thought the two coyotes that cross the street were just there "because." I say bullshit.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Anyone want to put their thoughts on why dogs are so present and important in the movie 'Children of Men'?

1) The coffee shop (which explodes) has a woman in the front stroking a welsh corgi as baby diego's death is announced.
2) Many guard dogs are seen in the background, as well as a particular guard's dog lashes out at Theo on the way home from work.
3) Jasper has a dog which is in many shots (sitting by the car when Theo and Jasper first meet, sits next to Jasper on the couch, etc) and referenced alot. (Theo has a cat next to him if that means anything. Bonus points for a good guess)
4) Guard dog outside of the Ministry of the Arts Bridge.
5) Theo's cousin has two dogs which are featured in the opening shot with the statue of david. The two irish wolfhounds stand up when Theo approaches. Are in the background for the rest of the time. (There is also a poodle in the park on the way to the ministry of the arts, but that is minor)
6) The rebel 'fishes' give Theo a 'lost dog' poster to post on a bulletin board, should he ever want to contact them again. Which he does later.
7) Further in the film, Theo is at the dog-race track when an old woman approaches him with the same 'lost dog' poster which leads him to meeting Julian on a bus.
8) When Theo arrives to the fishes' 'safe-house' the farm dogs greet theo welcomely and the farm owner comments on how the dogs dont usually like anybody. Those same dogs later in the movie, approach theo while he is hiding and eavesdropping. They don't make noise on his command. Those same dogs soon after are featured prominently in the 'escape' scene from the farm. They playfully chase his car down the hill and to the street.
9) During the dining room table meeting to decide what to do (at the 'safe house') one of the fishes is holding a small dog in her lap... meanwhile bonus points for why the kitten is scratching at Theo's leg after he makes the decision.
10) Back at Jasper's the dog (forget its name) accompanies theo as he covers the automobile with treebranches and goes on his walk. The dog is later poisoned with Jasper's wife when Jasper stalls the 'fishes' knowing he will die.
11) After this point it's pretty much the jail... so there are lots of guard dogs, but nothing really to speak of. Dog barking in background noise, etc.
12) The annoying girlfriend of sid, or whomever that 'woman' was. Her dog sniffs out the newborn baby and gives them away. The same woman carries the dog with her throughout the future scenes she is in.

So yeah... the appearance of dogs slows down in the end to simply guard dogs and the annoying woman's dog... but for a film where every time a dog is in the shot it was a pre-meditated decision, I have to wonder what the connection is. I have theories, but I'm curious on what you think.

-ryan
Click to expand...

what about the pigs in 'y tu mama tambien' and the giant pig balloon in 'children of men'?
 
diego, I'm participating in this discussion with my own point of view. So, please, try reading my posts first-

Like I've said over and over, I'm NOT saying you aren't allowed to discuss details in a film, or that directors put things in for "no reason".

What I'm saying is these things are less interesting when they're only taken as symbols. As in a cat representing lost paternity. To me, cats are already interesting enough and dealing with them as real cats as opposed to a visual code that REPRESENTS a theme is much much much more interesting.

For instance, the wolves in Collateral. Now, we can say they represent A, B or C, or we can observe the fact that both main characters, as well as the audience, would never expect to see a wolf walking through the streets of L.A. We can look at their reaction, how the filmmaker edited the scene, and what effect the director was trying to convey, how we felt about the moment, experience, etc....

Or we could say, the wolf represented repressed anger.

All I'm saying is that cinema is all about experience and while the directors choose to put these details in, sometimes they have absolutely no reason why they're doing it. The experience of it is much more interesting to me to discuss than an exact coded meaning.


If you like simply talking about what you think things "represent' or "symbolize", that's fine, I won't stop you. I just think it's limiting and was offering my view.
 
ugafan said:
what about the pigs in 'y tu mama tambien' and the giant pig balloon in 'children of men'?
Click to expand...

Homage to Pink Floyd in CoM... as far as I knew.


But the Pigs in Y Tu Mama Tambien were not coincidental. That was symbolic, although used more sparingly and probably more successfully. Animal farm anyone?
 
Last edited:
MeAgain said:
For instance, the wolves in Collateral. Now, we can say they represent A, B or C, or we can observe the fact that both main characters, as well as the audience, would never expect to see a wolf walking through the streets of L.A. We can look at their reaction, how the filmmaker edited the scene, and what effect the director was trying to convey, how we felt about the moment, experience, etc....
Click to expand...

I thought this symbolism was fairly obvious, one lone wolf on the prowl recognizing another. My guess is the dogs in Children of Men are a detail that was probably more in the forefront of the novel, but due to the time constraints of a film had to be pushed into the background as just a visual.
 
One level at which a work can be enjoyed is play with interpretation of symbolism in the work: what the artist put there deliberately, as well as what the viewer finds there whether it was consciously placed for them to find, or not.

Sure, appreciating the cigars just for cigars in the context of a film is a perfectly reasonable way to experience it - and a film like Children of Men can be experienced more than once and in more than one way. But there's nothing wrong with finding larger symbolic associations and meanings, either.

diego said:
Every single friend of mine that saw "Collateral," for example, thought the two coyotes that cross the street were just there "because." I say bullshi*.
Click to expand...

Absolute bullshi*, for sure. I don't believe there are accidents in Michael's films. I think that the 'just because' interpretation is really only a sign of inexperience with film making, or perhaps with creative arts in general. No one who knows what goes into staging a shot - or even selecting a shot to cut in editorially - thinks that things happen 'just because.'

MeAgain said:
we can observe the fact that both main characters, as well as the audience, would never expect to see a wolf walking through the streets of L.A.
Click to expand...
1) Not wolves, coyotes. It's an important difference.

2) I can tell from this post that you either do not live in Los Angeles, or have not lived here very long.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top