Children of Men

For the sake of generating discussion, let me outline my thoughts concerning Children of Men, in light of Erik and Yeon's critiques of the movie.

I'd like to begin with the same question Erik considers: how does the film portray Kee? It seems reasonably fair to say that she's not the most dynamic character. Nor is she a paragon of strong femininity. This is perhaps troubling, given that she's a black woman. The entire question of African Americans in American cinema is one that we've considered a great deal, and I'm sure the various issues are fresh in our minds, so I'll be brief in summarizing what I see to be the most relevant:

There is a desire to see black people in cinema portraying strong individuals. But there is also the desire for it to not matter what roles black people play. These two desires are in tension. That is, ultimately, it should not matter that there are black people in movies playing really stupid characters, just as doesn't matter that there are white people playing really stupid characters. This is the same for women and questions of sexism. In the ideal, racism and sexism free world, it would be marvelous to see (in light of the history of cinema) a black woman playing a really weak character, precisely because their success or failure need not be considered emblematic of their entire gender's or race's success or failure. This is how it is with white men. When a white man does an awful job, we don't say - "Oh, gosh, what a shame - what will people think of whites now?" - so, ideally, it would be it be for all actors of whatever color or gender.

But, alas, we do not live in such a world, and so our criticism must take into account these very questions which become frustrating and difficult. Difficult, that is, to feel one is addressing the question properly - doing justice to all those involved. It is within this light that we consider the question of Kee, as well as the other questions brought up by Children of Men. What does the film do with race?

I'll say that the question of race was far from my mind, even despite its relevant importance to the overall politics of the imagined dystopia. Sure, the British are miraculously the only bastion of order in a world of chaos. We see that the immigrants are primarily of other races. And the strongest characters in the movie are white. But I don't really see the problem here. Would the movie be racio-politically more 'correct' if it was set in, say, Japan, if it praised Japanese people for their unique moral resolve which allows them to survive above all other races? No, obviously. So, given that the movie has a particular setting with which we cannot find fault, how does the movie portray race?

The largest role race plays in the movie is when we learn that Kee is running from the government because she is a racialized other unfit to have a baby. The Government will snatch her baby, so she has to run. But when it comes down to it in that last lovely scene in the movie, Theo and Kee are able to walk straight through a firefight, past people of all races who drop what they're doing in awe of the new baby. That it is a black baby is utterly irrelevant to them. This is a little black Jesus who is in fact just a Jesus; that is to say, his symbolic value needn't be couched in the terms of his race. Think about it - everything is coming to an end, humans can no longer procreate. In this moment of rebirth, Cuaron shows us that people, at their hearts, don't see race.