MovieChat Forums > Utopia (2013) Discussion > Children of Men

Children of Men

posted 10 years ago by In_Limbo73
15 replies | jump to latest

Couldn't find a thread on this but I'm sure others have also thought as the premise behind Utopia serving as a reason behind the world-wide sterilisation in Children of Men.

It seems strange to me that Milner wouldn't foresee any of the massive social problems resulting from most of the worlds population not being able to reproduce. She seems so vehemently intent on this plan that over the course of thirty years she hasn't considered not only this but also many studies which are saying that the worlds population will plateau at 9 billion by around 2050, when the poorer countries begin to urbanise etc.

Also I think anyone seriously considering this problem will realise, especially from a first-world perspective, that we really do have enough food, it's just not getting to everyone. Also even China is going to experience a population shrink, in fact it already before the one-child policy was enacted.

Went a little off point there, but wondering what others think..

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ewantbc 10 years ago

We'll eventually reach a point of automation with technology indeed, and what comes with that is advances in crop growing methods that push efficiency through the roof. Not to mention cleaner energy, no gasoline cars etc etc I can go on....

[–] renaisancebill 9 years ago

Overpopulation greatly concerns me, but one thing that Milner, and the series in general, ignore is the promise of technology. It is foolish to assume that all our problems will be solved with new technologies. However, we are already at a point where if we truly had to, we could replace all fossil fuels with nuclear and renewable energies. If we can get thorium reactors working, it will be a bigger leap than when we figured out how to use oil. Also, space technology continues to develop, and with proper funding, we will almost certainly be able to start harvesting asteroids by the end of this century. There are asteroids out there the size of Manhattan Island that are solid iron, nickel, and such.

Food production is probably going to become the harder part, but we're also making advancements there. So long as luddites don't prevent the continuing GMO research, we should be able to engineer crops that survive on less water and grow more densely. We've already figured out how to 3D print food from insect protein, and it will probably only be a few decades before meat can be grown in labs.

[–] Obbykins 10 years ago

The b!tch kills and destroys families already. What does she care about families and people in the future when she's likely dead? She has many, many screws loose.

- We could be men with ven!

[–] Obbykins 10 years ago

Also, I've also wondered why China and India (two of the biggest offenders when it comes to forced child labour...and have the highest individual populations in the world) don't actively prevent and stop child labour.

It happened that way in Britain in the 1800s and, apart from the baby booming period post war, has continued to decline with a better definition of childhood and restrictions on 'use' of children. It's kind of obvious though - Victorian families were bound to stop having 8 or 9 kids when they can't go out and fund their own meals. That's not cruelty, that's just reality. People seem to consciously stop having children as if prior to that children were used (somewhat understandably) as an economic tool - you know, more kids, more help when you're older; more money brought into the family. They'll still need to be clothed and fed whilst they went to school and so on.

Neither China or India have committed to ending child labour, as it would practically destroy their burgeoning economies. I feel like their population (and society) would be much better off if they did that. That's not Orientalism, I just think it's kind of...obvious, again. A lot of 'depressed' or poorer countries have more kids, for whatever reason. If we fulfilled a global curriculum that at least taught the most secular of things - reading, writing, maths, science - then those countries have a better chance of building up what they have.

But I think most countries' economies would be better off if we learnt to stop having children. A great start before we jump straight to sterilisation is getting rid of the stigma of adopting. People don't think there is one, but as someone who has demonstrated a desire to adopt in the future (despite being...well, very fertile) I've seen some pretty *beep* attitudes - particularly by people who have had trouble conceiving and all they want is their 'own' baby. I know it sounds really *beep* but I find it difficult to *not* think that selfish.

But I've rambled on too much now...probably my least aggressive/interesting post on IMDb for a while, ha.

- We could be men with ven!

[–] grappa123 10 years ago

Couldn't find a thread on this but I'm sure others have also thought as the premise behind Utopia serving as a reason behind the world-wide sterilisation in Children of Men.

It seems strange to me that Milner wouldn't foresee any of the massive social problems resulting from most of the worlds population not being able to reproduce.

In that film, however, it was 100% of the population. I figured they calculated a happy medium when they decided to save 1 in 20.

Of course, they'd eventually need to "cull the herd" again even if it worked.

[–] alunrichards-1 10 years ago

This is one of the things that ruined the show for me (and it started so well). The plan is so obviously bollocks that I just couldn't believe anyone would go through with it. They tied poor old Stephen Rea to a chair and tried to get him to explain it, but he didn't seem that interested: 'If we don't sterilize 90% of the human population...well, it'll be bloody awful, probably. Did I mention I'm a scientist?'

That set the pattern: all these powerful people, engaged in a world conspiracy with potentially apocalyptic implications, and none of them seemed that excited about it. They all sounded like they were reciting from a pamphlet on population control some jaded ex-hippie had written in a basement in the mid-70s.

That would be fine if Utopia were a satire, examining how even the most horrifying ideas can become run-of-the-mill if you spend enough time thinking about them, or how the most dangerous and glamorous jobs can end up being as tedious as IT consultancy. But Utopia isn't a satire; it's a conspiracy thriller with a colour chart. And Janus is just another MacGuffin.

[–] x1nd0lent 10 years ago

Why do you assume that it isn't a satire?

[–] alunrichards-1 10 years ago

Maybe I spoke too soon. OK, so without getting into some sort of name-that-genre game, I concede that the show has satirical elements (Paul Higgins's hapless civil servant as harbinger-of-the-apocalypse comes to mind). I just don't think it does anything to justify the absurdity of its central premise. I can imagine a show that focuses on the agents of the conspiracy, exploring the disconnection between the way they appear (omnipotent, malevolent) and how they really are (confused, conflicted, prone to comical mistakes). That might make for a decent satire. But Utopia isn't that show. And the nature of the conspiracy seems entirely arbitrary; they might as well be using a genetically engineered strain of BSE to sterilize people with an excessive fondness for junk food.

Another thought: why do we have to know what the conspiracy is at all? It seems almost completely irrelevant to the action on screen, most of which consists of the main characters attempting to escape/join a shadowy organisation of apparently unlimited power. At least, that was what the show was like to start with; now it's just a series of improbable convolutions, with each episode seeming to have no purpose but to introduce the one after. Like an apocalyptic soap opera.

(Confession: I'm getting swept up in my own verbiage here. Sorry. The show is still pretty good, on the whole. It's just that after the first couple of episodes I thought it was going to be great. I think I even felt a sort of national pride: yes, we Brits can make conspiracy thrillers too, and they're vastly more stylish and surreal than anything coming out of America! It was my own fault. It was my own fault for dreaming...)

[–] x1nd0lent 10 years ago

I think that the problem is that, over the years, most conspiracy series are revealed to not have a very cohesive story. Viewers have been "burned" by being teased about big conspiracies which go nowhere. If the actual story is not about a specific, large, byzantine conspiracy - then it becomes more about the characters, solving problem-of-the-week, etc. Which I think makes such a show more soap-like. This is the possibility I dread with regards to the US remake, that they might focus less upon the bizarre story, and instead pad it out with needless character drama.

Perhaps this is why conspiracies are made to reside in the shadows, not unlike some unconvincing rubber alien suit. If it wasn't preposterous, why would it be hidden away in the first place? I wonder if this itself is part of the satire, that there is no justification for it. That a powerful, globe-spanning conspiracy probably would be about something farfetched, banal, or both.

This is one of the areas where I think British television excels - dark, ambiguous humour. US media has no patience for it whatsoever. I think that, for most, it cuts too close to revealing what a nihilistic and misanthropic culture this can be. Our rationalizations can't withstand this. Just as well, I think.

[–] maddyclairegray 10 years ago

I think you answered your own reservations about the show, you're dissecting the premise, plot and characters motivations in the mechanistic way that we're used to when we watch modern dramas (and particularly American shows where there is a "method" to writing and constructing plot and flow of the story).

Utopia is very much meant to be stylish visually (beautiful, if you will) while conveying the sense of dread, helplessness, powerlessness, ugly, misanthropic view of the human condition and the plausible premise of the conspiracy is just a way to bring it front and center, in your face, if you will of the contradictions in the way we live.

It isn't really about what the characters do, how plausible their actions tie up the loose end of the conspiracy etc etc, it's about the ideas that they are confronting and how close to reality it can get to our real life. It conveys that kind of mood and impression which is why it is quite brilliant to those who get this sort of stuff.

[–] alunrichards-1 10 years ago

I agree that it's stylish, but after that we part company. I don't think it conveys a sense of anything much. There are a few scenes of horrific violence early on, but they made me feel squeamish at worst. I also don't think any ideas are being confronted. Uncontrollable population growth, eugenics and the surveillance state are all in there, but they seem little more than plot devices--like the mutant-hunting robots in X-Men. Then again, perhaps I'm being harsh; X-Men is confronting ideas too, they just happen to be easier to merchandise.

As to whether I'm dissecting things in a 'mechanistic' way...I don't really know. To be honest, up until a few months ago I hadn't watched television in five or six years. I know it doesn't necessarily follow that I haven't internalised the narrative logic of modern American dramas (MADs?), but I like to think I'm receptive to other ways of using the medium. Crucially, it seems to me that Utopia is actually strongly plot- and character-driven. Just look at Arby's arc from the second half of season one onwards. It wasn't enough for him to remain an implacable (and thoroughly bizarre) killer; he had to be incorporated into the family drama. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I refer to the series as a soap opera.

And, my God, if they wanted to make it feel 'close to reality' they definitely shouldn't have got Tim McInnery to play Airey Neave.

[–] DrDavetheHat 10 years ago

they might as well be using a genetically engineered strain of BSE to sterilize people with an excessive fondness for junk food.

You're a genius, Alun. I've put our best virologists to work on it.

We'll be in touch.

[–] miao84 8 years ago

Great observation, this is pretty much my favourite fan theory.

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

9 billion is too much though. they wanted 500 million - 18 times less.

As far as sicioeconomical problems - we are going to face them either way. and to fix that we need to fix our economy. From the ground up. Perpetual growth economy is not working anymore.

We have enough food now, but we wont in the future. We are very quickly running through our fertilizer reserves. Phosphorus will be gone in 20 years at best, other fertilizers will follow suit. If we dont solve population crysis or invent some other form of sustinence were all going to die. Sterilization wouldnt evne help, were too late already.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair