blogs of men
Children of Men: been analyzing this one for a while now. Saw the DVD a while back, and was mightily impressed. Then picked up the book, anxious to read the source material for such a rich and layered film. Turns out that the film is an almost complete departure from the book, only takes the setting, some of the general premise and the names of the characters and goes from there. One interview I read with director and screenwriter Alfonse Curon said that he didn't read the book, but another article said he did. Obviously he did, but maybe didn't read it or refer to it while he was writing his screenplay, probably so he wouldn't be too tied to it. Curon also states that Clive Owen had much writing input as well. So Clive's the man, cause he rules in this film.
I had trouble with the book, not being dazzled by it like I was the film. I kept looking for the film 
in the book and it wasn't there. But after I gave up on the fact the two were totally ifferent
stories, I was able to enjoy the book on its own terms. All said and done, I kinda hate to say it, but the book's not as good as the movie. How often does that happen? Curon, like any good rock star, essentially covered the book, or took the spirit and ideas from a book, and transformed it totally into a new vision, better, deeper, more relevant than the first, in the often brilliant way a band will cover a song, making it wholly their own, quoting the original, but adding something new and good to the world.
I had another look at the film, having fun this time seeing what was absorbed from the book and what was altered. It's funny because the book is not very menacing throughout, yet ends rather cynically and harsh, while the film is gritty and very political and heavily morose throughout, yet ends with dim, yet joyous hope. Characters have been completely re-imagined, yet have the same names as their book-counterparts. So it's a fascinating process. I really wonder what PD James thought of the adaptation.
Also perhaps worth noting is the addition of article "the" to the book's title. PD James has it "The Children of Men." If it's a quote from your favorite book, the Bible, sez Wikipedia: Psalm 90: "…Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men." Which is part of a lament to God about human mortality, the cycles of life, etc. As you may know about me, I can get fixated on one word choice like this, as I did in my Herman Melville essay. Why did PD James add the "the" and Curon leave it off? The difference of writing "The Children of Men," vs. "Children of Men" may be significant. "The" adds emphasis to the word 'children;' where the absence of "the" gives the entire phrase equal weight. James, in her book, emphasizes the actions and decisions of two protagonist male characters that wield power throughout. Their decisions, largely having to do with individual
and collective guilt, effect the whole of "humanity." In the film, these same patriarchs are rewritten, one as a reluctant action hero, without the very heavy guilt of his book-counterpart (in the book, Theo accidentally kills his own infant daughter, destroying his marriage and his conscience; in the film, Theo's child (a boy!) dies from illness). So the film, sans "the" is less about two men, and more about the what has become of the human race, the waxing and waning of humanity regardless of the "men" there to direct it, and perhaps more true to the Bible quote. Again odd, since James, a woman, writes a very patriarchal outcome, while Curon, male, gives the power to revive humanity to its mother.
Don't you wish I was back in grad school and could take out my deconstructions there where nobody gives a rat's ass, rather than here, where… well. Anyway…
Another dude who goes his own way is the writer, George Saunders, who's had at least two (that I've read) brilliant, bizarre stories in New Yorker, Com Com, and Civil War Land in Decline. Sister sent over (yo! Politics and Prose! Whazzup?) his collection In Persuasion Nation, which includes "Com Com" and maybe two or three others that absolutely kill. The collection is uneven, some of the stories don't make sense to me, but that's not nec. a bad thing when the others are so good. In fact I like it when authors I like put out something I don't. Makes them human, normal. I was anticipating some good shit from Saunders on his podcast over at old friends, KQED Writer's Block, but alas, all too human I'm afraid…
Fall is also usually a time when I go ape shit for the Fiery Furnaces. I remember a couple of falls ago, two to be exact I was smitten, then re-smitten with the great "Blueberry Boat." Since the Boat, it's been a mixed bag from those two. "Rehearing my Choir" and "Bitter Tea" had some good stuff, but didn't a hold sway on me (line from their new one...) But that's all in the past. This Fall saw the release of "Widow City" and the Furnaces are BACK! I am way into this one folks. It has supplanted, finally, the Heartless Bastards in the brainspace and is vying for attention with Mission of Burma's "Obliterati" which just showed up from Lala. Obliterati is good too, freaking crazy good. But the Furnaces stick and hold. They get under my skin, play in my brain at dusk and dawn. Perhaps because this release, like the Boat, is a puzzle, a narrative, a problem, while also being great pop, rock and prog music. Like the Boat, these songs overlap and refer to each other, create their own weird world and live in it. The drumming on Widow City really needs props (did I just write "props?" shit…) however props are indeed needed and are given freely to drummer Robert D'Amico, who doesn't turn up a lot in Google except with reference to the Furnaces, and a band called "Set on Stun" which bears checking out for gratuitous Trek reffing, plus a pretty breathless review from these guys: Check 'em all out. Skirblog, working those links so you don't have to…
A few posts ago I mentioned I was seeing a lot of fast moving bald guys. My good bud, Ron H, up there in WA State sent down the following possible explanations for this phenomena:
"As something of an expert on bald guys myself, let me explain (from MY perspective) the
reasons why these bald guys are moving fast:
1. On a sunny day, they move fast in hopes of dodging those slow-moving UV rays.
2. On rainy days, they gotta get outta the rain 'cause the "SPLAT" sound made by fat raindrops when they hit the bald head could be pigeon poo and not rain at all, which makes a guy REALLY nervous.
3. If you move fast, the good-lookin' babes might only notice that you're moving fast and miss the fact that you're bald.
4. You have to move fast to catch your hat when the wind has blown it off.
So that explains it then.







