An unfortunately all-too-realistic portrayal of where we may be headed. Bummer. Although the review was a garbled mess of overanalysis. The ideological despair of late capitalism and feeling disconnected from history leads to massive social upheaval? No, I don't think that's what was going on in the movie, dude.
@sxcdanual I think it takes more than ideological despair and disconnection to cause a future where things have gone that seriously wrong. Something big has happened - global warming, a nuclear war, a massive economic collapse, we are never told exactly what - but basically an extrapolation of several current trends. Ideological despair can bum you out, but it can't cause a total social meltdown, or that would have already happened.
@TheRacistsMustDie He is completely right, it is the "belief" by most that is being shattered and this leads to the fundamentalism of Tea Party, among other right-wing elements, and with no reaction then despair. As Zizek pointed out in ''Violence'', maybe the losers of history did not go far enough; WW1 after 1907 crisis, WW2 Capitalism saved by Fascism, Soviet Union failed coup 1991 etc.
@TheRacistsMustDie He is completely right, it is the "belief" by most that is being shattered and this leads to the fundamentalism of Tea Party, among other right-wing elements, and with no reaction then despair. As Zizek pointed out in ''Violence'', maybe the losers of history did not go far enough; WW1 after 1907 crisis, WW2 Capitalism saved by Fascism, Soviet Union failed coup 1991 etc.
@degree7@fmurrayk I don't know if it is the desire to create new roots that Zizek is suggesting. Late capitalism is the breakdown of "imagined" roots, the roots that allow citizens to form national identities. LC allows us to see the illusion of nationality. The boat represents a space for identity devoid of a history based on land and biology.
I'm pretty sure that Cuarón really would aprove the major of Zizek's comments, I heard him said that that is not a film about some hipotetical catastrofic future, it's about the present.
In 2006 in Children of Men 'Quietus' is the product name of the suicide-kit that is marketed to the public throughout the film.
Quietus™ for Tinnitus Relief.. (An available drug in 2011)
So.. broadcast a sound frequency that causes tinnitus, make people think they're crazy.. either take the drugs - or commit suicide. We lose, regardless.
I think his point is that in late capitalism, we are hanging onto our roots, but they are becoming more and more meaningless, and this is represented by the statue of David. The antagonism or deadlock this society is battling is its inability to create its own new history, roots, meaning, etc, and instead it cynically poses as "cultured", nodding and appreciating pointless statues which have no connection to reality.
@degree7 Zizek is brash, freestyle human. He is is full of bullshit and hot air, but every few moments pure genius and or truth comes out. Contradiction is just another by product. He is special.
"late capitalism" is the stupidest and most annoying concept that's carted out by critics. Absolute nonsense. The problems in our society have nothing to do with capitalism, western society has been developing in the direction of social-fascism and corporatism.
According to his own admission, he had not even seen the movie when making these comments.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that his comments, beginning at 0:25, on what he labels anamorphosis (i.e., how the film's main focus on the background of social decay is both effective and necessarily oblique) are coupled with the opposite: full, direct images of this oppression, even culminating in a cliched foreground shot of The Wizened Old Woman passionately decrying the inhumanity of the state.
@BrunoJA Technically those things you listed are background. Peripheral characters and objects glimpsed briefly as the camera follows the principle character .
@briangaylord No, if you watch the section I'm talking about you will see they are not background. Something that fills the whole frame of a lingering shot does not qualify as background. And it certainly doesn't fit the kind of obliqueness he's describing.
Yes it does when you add time to the equation.over the total duration of the whole scene it is a background element.It may be in the centre of the shot but if you graph out all of the elements of the entire scene over time it is peripheral.It may be pushed froward and 'visible' but this doesn't qualify as foreground regardless of how much of the shot she is taking up.Its the actual meaning that has to be considered and not just the technical point that she is up front for a couple of seconds.
@briangaylord This seems like quite a stretch to me. And it's not just a technical point; it fundamentally changes the scene. To me, foreground means foreground.
@BrunoJA It obviously widely misunderstood. there is nothing wrong with respecting opinions of experts. Apeals to authority, give me a break. I'll certainly defer to an oncologist if and when I get testicle cancer. Plus you might have missed the point that Zizek didn't edit this accompanying film so perhaps this shot was chosen by the producer.
@briangaylord No shit that it was chosen by some hack at Universal. The ineptitude of the editing, which highlights some of the least subtle cinematography of the film and undermines Zizek's analysis, was one of my main points.
And you'd be a fool to defer to an oncologist on matters that do not require any medical training without adequate explanation, as analogous here.
While overpopulation is the main reason of poverty and conflicts around the globe,modern man is able to overlook the obvious and blame the capitalism for everything bad on this world.
This movie goes one step further...it tries to invert reality...
...So lets fool ourselves in order to avoid the conflict between reality and our obsolete political views and drift in the downward spiral of utopic cretinism.
Unfortunatelly the message of most intellectuals nowdays is anachronistic
@gkioniskk The main reason of poverty and conflicts is not overpopulation but gross mis-allocation of resources, lack of education and cruelty against children -- all things which are in one form or another hailed as being A-OK, if not fundamentally good and necessary, by the neo-feudalist American right (esp. the so-called "Libertarians").
The misallocation of resources is a fact and it's the second most important reason of poverty after overpopulation.Unfortunatelly as we re speaking many countries are unable to support their populations,APART from any kind of exploitation from the West.They could revolt,try every economic system,efface social inequalities but still they cant make it without outer aid.Every form of collectivism fails when what you ve got on table aint enough..
Very interesting clip. As always, I agree with him on 90% of things while remaining skeptical on some of his analysis. Still, a great philosopher and a cultural critic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ussygussy No, I think Children of Men is a vain, overblown, embarrassing, politically inept piece of shit of a film and Zizek's opinion of it destroys his credibility. Like, for all time.
@nixsogutstudios I do get it. He's right about how it's a very deep film and a true work of art. He just has an awesome accent! :D Thanks for the offer though :)
When I watched this movie, and saw the dogs in the battle scene I wondered to myself. What will happen to the dogs we have domesticated once we are gone. Will they endlessly search for us? It's horrifying.
@InvisibleDiary Hahahaha... Zizek is saying that cause he mentions the other movie from the same Director (Alfonso Cuarón). His other movie is called "Y tu mamá también". In a part of his dialogue and critique Zizek mentions a characteristic between both films. You have to listen my friend, LISTEN!!! Be intelligent don't be just a conditioned robot and pay attention!
Children of Men has, hands down, one of THE most poignant opening scenes in the history of cinema. It sets up the true atmosphere of a dystopia like no other film like I have ever seen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Zizek is SO highly overrated. Have any of you even read one of his works, let alone comprehended one of them? Do you need your intellectual food handed to you in the form of a whacky slovenian youtube personality before you'll pay any attention?
I despise this new breed of faggy pseudo-intellectuals the internet is churning out - people who haven't read a book in their lives, yet fancy themselves philosophers. Go and namedrop Zizek to your hipster friends you failures.
What I like is that the solution is the boat... it doesn't have roots, it's rootless, it floats around. This is, for me, the meaning of this wonderful metaphor - "boat" - the condition of the renewal means you cut your roots. That's the solution.
I have to disagree with him on the Statue of David. If you'll notice, part of his left leg is missing. Clearly this came as a result of the world going to shit. I think the fact that the statue was damaged gives it a new meaning. It's a symbol of the world these people live in. The world still survives but it's missing something very important.
@olivemike81 I agree with you entirely. I hadn't even noticed the piece of leg missing which supports your argument, but I immediately thought that it retained meaning, but altered. The fact that it is in a new environment gives it new meaning, I don't think such an object could ever lose its meaning entirely.
West world is a hungry world, even if we can not admit it, even if we have the 90% of the money in the world we suffer a deep hungry, wich is translated into violence against the resto of the world.
leftist fond memory of "infertile ridiculous" hahah genius indeed, but do they just need to learn Kant and keep up with real politics and psychology? It would be interesting to found a Leftist-Reeducation seminar facility, or tour one through the academic conferences of the world. The upkeep on our stupid professors would be worth it.
@ElTresDeMayo1808 I personally wouldn't say Inception was all that bad but Children of Men is a work of art. I wouldn't call Inception a work of art. An entertaining film? Sure, but it's not going to make people see the world in a new light like Children of Men did for me.
@murfkaka I don't see what you are trying to get at here. I don't see anything like that in this analysis. In fact I would think that Zizek would mean the exact opossit considiring he is a leftist
So wait, the message of this film in Zizek's eyes is that globalization is in fact leading to the loss of identity within our individual cultures and the film is making a statement on the modern day this way?
For those who don't know, this movie was made by Mexican director Alfnonso Cauron! So stop judging this guy's accent because the director of this great film is Mexican and has an accent aswell.
@iforgotization In the movie, all the other countries are destroyed (or so the British governments narrative in the movie goes). New York was subject to a nuclear explosion. I doubt the ship is from there. Sorry mate. Stop putting your faith in a piece of paper and put it in the space between your ears.
@murfkaka if zizek is correct then what he is really saying is that niggers,,j ews, spooks are tearing away the foundatuion of american life (white christian_ to advance a radical socialest agenda
The best thing of Zizek is,...well I'm spanish and his english pronunciation is quite transparent to me (things of language) and, even assuming it's horrible, I understand all what he says.
@ViewerNotes I envy you, really I am. Greek and German are my first languages and half of the times I am not sure what Zizek is saying. It's so frustrating...
Zizek would love the concept of the Half-Life game series, it relates with this movie more than you might assume.
A web of Citadels which radiates a surpression field which makes reproduction impossible for the citizens. It resembles the entire plot of this movie, an infertile world that doesn't give birth to anything new.
What the hell does zizek mean when he is talking about late stage capitalism having no history? After he talks about the scene with the out of place statue, which I get, he goes on to say GB has no constitution b/c of it's traditions. So.... He goes from saying capitalism lacks in history to saying GB has such strong history that there is no need for the same laws needed by other democracies(when I checked GB was still a capitalist country despite their "socialist" healthcare). Also, with the
@PtAltmVansanTarr His point is that by using the capitalist country most rooted in its 'political traditions', GB (which nonetheless is often compared to Disneyworld - a trivial corporate fairy land), while showing those traditions to be defunct in the crisis of the film, James and Cuaron, bring the metaphor into greater relief about the rest of the world which may already find itself in that historically abandoned condition. narrativeartsblog.wordpress
@JohnOhn Im sorry I don't get it. Your post doesn't make the most sense if you remove the "()" and the part in between them about GB being Disneyworld. Why is a country that has higher living standards than those countries you call historically abandoned more trivial then countries that deal with more poverty? In my exp, humans are able to function better and problem solve at at a higher level when they aren't concerned about the bottom line.
@PtAltmVansanTarr Not sure where you'd find people unconcerned about the bottom line - an ideal socialism, perhaps; 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', though we've never seen such a state. But re the film's aesthetics, GB has THE APPEARANCE of greater historical identity and therefore makes a better EXAMPLE for the filmmakers when that identity is proved trivial in the face of crisis. All the same, I think Zizek would say all ideologies are trivial/superficial.
@JohnOhn Now I understand what you mean. I agree with Zizek. on the bottom line, I guess it depends on your definition of the bottom line. In US, especially the affluent regions,it is a different thing than the bottom line in SA where my family lives. Here means losing face and getting welfare, living of charity(homelessness for the ones who can't live in shelters ).there means living in a slum,the same person transported here may be able to get basic employment.
@PtAltmVansanTarr In other words, a good filmmaker could have made a similar point using Berlin as a background in the thirties, or Red Square in the eighties (had such art been politically possible). Those ideologies were also trivial, though it might be imagined that many of their citizens and leaders presumed deep historical precedents to justify them (German exceptionalism, Russian peasant solidarity, for example).
@JohnOhn Actually, I agree with Zizek to a point. I think democracy isn't as trivial as other ideologies because I think that when we talk about democracy, we partly talk about having a relatively strong civil society allowed by whatever historical events that have been favorable to the development of one . For example, the crime problems in SA urban areas (caused by a # of reasons) prevent civil society from taking as strong roots as in US.
@PtAltmVansanTarr Bear in mind that 'all philosophical mistakes are category errors'. Zizek's a psychoanalyst so he's interested in categories at the level of the mind. 'Democracy' may be externally more comfortable, but I think he would still ask about the hidden costs. Particularly its foundation on exploitation; Africa, Asia and South America were (and are by big Corp), completely colonized, their resources stolen by our democracies. SA in that sense is a permanent part of our unconscious.
I like what he says about the scene with the Davd statue. It's true, if you have an artifact separated from it's setting it invokes nothing. Walking through Rome conjures up images of the ancient world. Seeing a Legionnaire's helmet in a museum doesn't really invoke much, except to maybe appreciate the craftwork of it. But culturally, it has no resonance IMO
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is nothing really that subtle about this movie. To its merit it is entertaining, well-crafted, funny, violent, sad, and over the top. I enjoyed it. I recognized Pablo Picasso's Guernica but if you didn't does that make you dumb or less-understanding of the movie? Displaying artworks in films can be borderline pretentious. I laughed at the satirical Orwellian Brazil-like references. If you didn't snicker throughout about the "future madness" then you might create this dystopia someday.
You are the one who is the pretentious one here. Read the novel on which the movie was based. In the novel people around the world are putting artifacts and art pieces together under one location in hope that in some remote future, after humans have become extinct, someone will find them and know about human civilization.
the art in the movie is not a capricious choice by the director.
@tristanXIV In my defense I merely said that that technique could be "borderline" pretentious. Meaning it can seem pretentious. This film was not a clear example of that but it made me think of that issue as a filmmaker. That being said I highly enjoyed the movie. If I hurt your genius feelings I'm sorry, but for you to tell me I am pretentious (how?) and don't understand the film because I haven't read the book is extra pompous. If I read the book and find it pretentious I'll let you know.
@skootaboy1978 i agree with tristanXIV, if you read the book you will understand the messages a lot better, its easy to be cynical but if you understand it properly you can appreciate the intelligence of it, to the point i cannot fit it in a single comment box so i urge you to rethink your opinion. i recommend you read the P.D. James novel, its a good read.
@youtoobeiz4loosers Thank you for the book recommendation. I agree to the point that reading the book may enhance a viewing experience--but it is not required. A movie should stand on its own. Also developing film theories and criticisms that incorporate both film and book texts can be problematic. Movies and books are apples and oranges.
@skootaboy1978 i totally understand, but i think the film does still achieve these things without the book, i admittedly saw the film before reading the book and i understood it, i suppose what i was trying to say in the nicest way was that if it didn't connect with you the book will clear it up for you despite the significant differences, i personally think they are both great pieces of art both full of excellent content and form.
Interestingly, masculinity is represented throughout the film as the dead phallus of pure force; singularly incapable of incubating any life in a moribund world. The logical conclusion would be a future lost at sea; but instead the emasculated hero effortlessly finds an atavistic direction as he rows through the mists of time. I think they call that a corny ending.
But there any serious introspection stops and as such the moral choices of the main characters lack any serious reflection. Not least; on how we got into this mess and now how do we get out of it. Sentimentality is substituted for morality; with the moral compass needle pointing magnetically in the prescribed direction of a rather hackneyed form of Political Correctness.
Society is portrayed as nothing more than a background screen of successive signifiers; conveying a relentless pessimism that forces a greater withdrawal into the microcosm of personal existence and validation in small things.
The film is not so much a commentary on contemporary social and political alienation; but rather a modern pastiche that is symptomatic of its artistic void. The narrative does not attempt to analyse the condition of actual selves in a historical condition; but instead posits a background of a dream like anti-history where the hero is lost in a chimera of events he neither understands nor feels particularly connected to.
In an egotistical internet based society that we live in today, opening a new tab or leaving a page to youtube is to much of a commitment for most people to commit in.
You are pathetic. Of course i cant speak english very good, it is not my first language. But tell me how many languages can you speak or write?
and,. i am not Slovak, i am Slovenian. There is a difference. But i heard that in usa you have poor geography in schools so i forgive you :) but not only this, it is funny how many of you dont belive in evolution :D how embarrassing for a country with so many great scientist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
bla bla bla...im not american and i dont live in usa..and i can speak most of middle asian languages, turkish,german and english..and about evolution issue, u cant critice people by believing evolution or not u moron !
This man is an absolute genius
jeremyampt 2 days ago
An unfortunately all-too-realistic portrayal of where we may be headed. Bummer. Although the review was a garbled mess of overanalysis. The ideological despair of late capitalism and feeling disconnected from history leads to massive social upheaval? No, I don't think that's what was going on in the movie, dude.
squamish4244 2 weeks ago
@squamish4244 you're quite wrong then and making yourself sound dumb
sxcdanual 2 weeks ago
@sxcdanual I think it takes more than ideological despair and disconnection to cause a future where things have gone that seriously wrong. Something big has happened - global warming, a nuclear war, a massive economic collapse, we are never told exactly what - but basically an extrapolation of several current trends. Ideological despair can bum you out, but it can't cause a total social meltdown, or that would have already happened.
squamish4244 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
squamish4244 2 weeks ago
Great review, and I love this film enormuosly.
zigifrojd 3 weeks ago
It has to be a background because "reality" is simulacra
robertkeeganwalker 3 weeks ago
Humanity will travel this path, without the infertility.
McMeevin 1 month ago
The ideological despair of late-capitalism? This man must be joking, but it is dangerous.
robieski 1 month ago
@robieski No he ain't joking and yes late-capitalism is dangerous :.P.
TheRacistsMustDie 1 month ago 3
@TheRacistsMustDie He is completely right, it is the "belief" by most that is being shattered and this leads to the fundamentalism of Tea Party, among other right-wing elements, and with no reaction then despair. As Zizek pointed out in ''Violence'', maybe the losers of history did not go far enough; WW1 after 1907 crisis, WW2 Capitalism saved by Fascism, Soviet Union failed coup 1991 etc.
noprofitmaximierung 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRacistsMustDie He is completely right, it is the "belief" by most that is being shattered and this leads to the fundamentalism of Tea Party, among other right-wing elements, and with no reaction then despair. As Zizek pointed out in ''Violence'', maybe the losers of history did not go far enough; WW1 after 1907 crisis, WW2 Capitalism saved by Fascism, Soviet Union failed coup 1991 etc.
noprofitmaximierung 1 month ago
never thought of Zizek as a film critic
PersonalSpaceInvdr 2 months ago
Spot on, the background and foreground contrast was the most memorable idea for me.
Neojhun 3 months ago
@degree7 @fmurrayk I don't know if it is the desire to create new roots that Zizek is suggesting. Late capitalism is the breakdown of "imagined" roots, the roots that allow citizens to form national identities. LC allows us to see the illusion of nationality. The boat represents a space for identity devoid of a history based on land and biology.
Bowie0005 4 months ago
I'm pretty sure that Cuarón really would aprove the major of Zizek's comments, I heard him said that that is not a film about some hipotetical catastrofic future, it's about the present.
Fatukut 4 months ago
@Fatukut this is on the dvd so I'm sure he does approve
rickdickboy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey check out my remade trailer watch?v=Wuaj3kYLCQc
Please rate, comment and subscribe :)
XtraTrailer 4 months ago
AMEN! Brilliant analysis of one of the best films of the 21st century
ViperRob42 4 months ago
@ViperRob42 take it easy bra 2011 were at the start of it
zarkoasenov 3 months ago
@zarkoasenov I meant specifically one of the best of the 'zero decade' (2000-2009) lol
ViperRob42 3 months ago
1:31 (on the billboard)
In 2006 in Children of Men 'Quietus' is the product name of the suicide-kit that is marketed to the public throughout the film.
Quietus™ for Tinnitus Relief.. (An available drug in 2011)
So.. broadcast a sound frequency that causes tinnitus, make people think they're crazy.. either take the drugs - or commit suicide. We lose, regardless.
The future is now.
SlowScrewU 4 months ago
I am confused by Zizek's reasoning.
First, he says that the true tragedy of the film is that this dystopian society lacks any history, culture, or tradition.
But then he says that the only way to move forward is by cutting one's "roots".
Did he not just contradict himself there?
degree7 4 months ago 4
@degree7
I think his point is that in late capitalism, we are hanging onto our roots, but they are becoming more and more meaningless, and this is represented by the statue of David. The antagonism or deadlock this society is battling is its inability to create its own new history, roots, meaning, etc, and instead it cynically poses as "cultured", nodding and appreciating pointless statues which have no connection to reality.
fmurrayk 4 months ago 2
@degree7 Zizek is brash, freestyle human. He is is full of bullshit and hot air, but every few moments pure genius and or truth comes out. Contradiction is just another by product. He is special.
Neojhun 3 months ago 3
London / Crydon
madrfadr 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and so on and so on
ksNanoSquid 6 months ago
This is how they plan to induce the immaculate conception, welcome to the world of the escape goat for sororites
iodhadh 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Zizek is an idiot.
billscorpse 6 months ago
dude just changed my mind about Children of Men.
123gwf 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow i watched this movie and didn't think about any of this. I'm going to watch it again.
WOGI5M 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This film is not about the despair of late-capitalism.
It’s about despair caused by naïve immigration policies and failed multi-culturalism leading to Balkanised society.
Pretty much like modern Britain really.
CharlesDickens99 6 months ago
@CharlesDickens99 no, its about the power people like you get when there isn't anything to live for
Sammyboy27007 5 months ago
@CharlesDickens99
If this really is your "interpretation" of this masterpiece then you didn't get anything at all.
TheFluktuationAcht 5 months ago
"late capitalism" is the stupidest and most annoying concept that's carted out by critics. Absolute nonsense. The problems in our society have nothing to do with capitalism, western society has been developing in the direction of social-fascism and corporatism.
powerleg 6 months ago
@powerleg
I believe that corporatism is what he's talking about. John Perkins calls is rogue capitalism...all the same idea.
SJamesGray 6 months ago
That's a pretty horrendous speach impediment.
RonBurgundy161 7 months ago
Renewal means you cut your roots.
I like this guy
nvlptl 7 months ago 6
"The true infertility is the very lack of meaningful historical experience..." Nail on the head.
Andreas0424 7 months ago 10
No one in IMDB can match this review :D
djamorpheus 7 months ago 26
nignag
Calmaruud 7 months ago
I... really enjoy this... and so on, and so on, know?
wuz352 8 months ago
According to his own admission, he had not even seen the movie when making these comments.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that his comments, beginning at 0:25, on what he labels anamorphosis (i.e., how the film's main focus on the background of social decay is both effective and necessarily oblique) are coupled with the opposite: full, direct images of this oppression, even culminating in a cliched foreground shot of The Wizened Old Woman passionately decrying the inhumanity of the state.
BrunoJA 9 months ago
@BrunoJA Technically those things you listed are background. Peripheral characters and objects glimpsed briefly as the camera follows the principle character .
briangaylord 9 months ago
@briangaylord No, if you watch the section I'm talking about you will see they are not background. Something that fills the whole frame of a lingering shot does not qualify as background. And it certainly doesn't fit the kind of obliqueness he's describing.
BrunoJA 9 months ago
Yes it does when you add time to the equation.over the total duration of the whole scene it is a background element.It may be in the centre of the shot but if you graph out all of the elements of the entire scene over time it is peripheral.It may be pushed froward and 'visible' but this doesn't qualify as foreground regardless of how much of the shot she is taking up.Its the actual meaning that has to be considered and not just the technical point that she is up front for a couple of seconds.
briangaylord 9 months ago
@briangaylord This seems like quite a stretch to me. And it's not just a technical point; it fundamentally changes the scene. To me, foreground means foreground.
BrunoJA 9 months ago
Yeah. One of the worlds leading philosophers and cultural critics doesn't understand and is misusing the word 'background'. You're right we're wrong.
briangaylord 9 months ago
@briangaylord I don't care much for appeals to authority, especially regarding a simple word whose definition is widely understood.
You can pick at my words all you want, but if you can't understand the gist of my modest observation, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
BrunoJA 9 months ago
@BrunoJA It obviously widely misunderstood. there is nothing wrong with respecting opinions of experts. Apeals to authority, give me a break. I'll certainly defer to an oncologist if and when I get testicle cancer. Plus you might have missed the point that Zizek didn't edit this accompanying film so perhaps this shot was chosen by the producer.
briangaylord 9 months ago
@briangaylord No shit that it was chosen by some hack at Universal. The ineptitude of the editing, which highlights some of the least subtle cinematography of the film and undermines Zizek's analysis, was one of my main points.
And you'd be a fool to defer to an oncologist on matters that do not require any medical training without adequate explanation, as analogous here.
BrunoJA 9 months ago
@BrunoJA Critics are annoying aren't they?
briangaylord 9 months ago
@briangaylord You don't think that is a stupid generalisation?
Mjhavok 8 months ago
While overpopulation is the main reason of poverty and conflicts around the globe,modern man is able to overlook the obvious and blame the capitalism for everything bad on this world.
This movie goes one step further...it tries to invert reality...
...So lets fool ourselves in order to avoid the conflict between reality and our obsolete political views and drift in the downward spiral of utopic cretinism.
Unfortunatelly the message of most intellectuals nowdays is anachronistic
gkioniskk 9 months ago
@gkioniskk The main reason of poverty and conflicts is not overpopulation but gross mis-allocation of resources, lack of education and cruelty against children -- all things which are in one form or another hailed as being A-OK, if not fundamentally good and necessary, by the neo-feudalist American right (esp. the so-called "Libertarians").
Pastor9764 9 months ago
@Pastor9764
I ve been there..
The misallocation of resources is a fact and it's the second most important reason of poverty after overpopulation.Unfortunatelly as we re speaking many countries are unable to support their populations,APART from any kind of exploitation from the West.They could revolt,try every economic system,efface social inequalities but still they cant make it without outer aid.Every form of collectivism fails when what you ve got on table aint enough..
gkioniskk 9 months ago
His way of speaking distracts me from the actual essence of his comments..
Chrotisofus 10 months ago
Very interesting clip. As always, I agree with him on 90% of things while remaining skeptical on some of his analysis. Still, a great philosopher and a cultural critic.
virtuouslife13 10 months ago
Comment removed
gynarchy13 10 months ago
His point about background/foreground tension is SPOT ON, both in this move and in "Y tu mama tambien", both if which I think were very good films.
tigerz2350 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
geez when will these people die?
communism is over son. capitalism rules.
ImNeilPatrickHarris 10 months ago
@ImNeilPatrickHarris Pure ignorance. Capitalism rules NOW. Communism has never truly existed. Look up something about true socialism then come back.
unsung1984 10 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh dear. I took Zizek half seriously until I came across this video just now.
Children of Men is ONE OF THE WORST FILMS OF ALL TIME.
It is a RIDICULOUS DYSTOPIAFEST.
It has NO CREDIBILITY AS A PIECE OF ART and therefore SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED BY THINKING PEOPLE.
MANY MORE UPPER CASE STATEMENTS could be written about the toe-curling experience of sitting through a screening of Children of Men...
..but in short Zizek has disappeared forever from my list of people to give a shit about.
davidbirkbeck 10 months ago
@davidbirkbeck
You mad?
ussygussy 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ussygussy No, I think Children of Men is a vain, overblown, embarrassing, politically inept piece of shit of a film and Zizek's opinion of it destroys his credibility. Like, for all time.
How about you, you mad?
davidbirkbeck 10 months ago
@davidbirkbeck
Maybe you should back up your arguments next time.
degree7 10 months ago
@davidbirkbeck Caps are not a substitute for an argument, which you lack.
knowtru7h 10 months ago 7
What the hell is he talking about XD
CyReNiUsX 11 months ago
@CyReNiUsX u dont get it? tell me what exactly u dont understand ill help u out
nixsogutstudios 11 months ago
@nixsogutstudios I do get it. He's right about how it's a very deep film and a true work of art. He just has an awesome accent! :D Thanks for the offer though :)
CyReNiUsX 11 months ago
it's a preview.
natearnett 11 months ago
When I watched this movie, and saw the dogs in the battle scene I wondered to myself. What will happen to the dogs we have domesticated once we are gone. Will they endlessly search for us? It's horrifying.
gandalfph 11 months ago
@gandalfph -- Don't worry, we'll have eaten them long before we all die out!
brchful 11 months ago
@brchful Pitbull roast, anyone?
gandalfph 11 months ago
20 people dont see the best diagnosis of ideological despair of late capitalism
gangstylecore 11 months ago 92
@gangstylecore hahahaha man, you made me laugh real hard
scriptycoder 8 months ago
An underrated film by leagues.
rhatcher010 1 year ago 5
love the charaters
worldpeace123ful 1 year ago 2
It was okay.
marlboroman1985 1 year ago
"You cannot say it's really a movie about two young boys re-discovering their sexuality."
Nope, that movie's called "Top Gun."
InvisibleDiary 1 year ago 120
@InvisibleDiary Hahahaha... Zizek is saying that cause he mentions the other movie from the same Director (Alfonso Cuarón). His other movie is called "Y tu mamá también". In a part of his dialogue and critique Zizek mentions a characteristic between both films. You have to listen my friend, LISTEN!!! Be intelligent don't be just a conditioned robot and pay attention!
mcbrave15 8 months ago 3
@InvisibleDiary you do realize he was talking about "Y tu mama también" right? good joke btw
scratchfg212 6 months ago
Children of Men has, hands down, one of THE most poignant opening scenes in the history of cinema. It sets up the true atmosphere of a dystopia like no other film like I have ever seen.
InvisibleDiary 1 year ago 5
@InvisibleDiary Yea it could be.. It still doesn't beat the Resident Evil Afterlife opening scene >=]
Notsofmzo 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Zizek is SO highly overrated. Have any of you even read one of his works, let alone comprehended one of them? Do you need your intellectual food handed to you in the form of a whacky slovenian youtube personality before you'll pay any attention?
I despise this new breed of faggy pseudo-intellectuals the internet is churning out - people who haven't read a book in their lives, yet fancy themselves philosophers. Go and namedrop Zizek to your hipster friends you failures.
Intelectual95 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 Don't be a fool. Zizèk was respected by some academics way before Youtube reached their sights.
mindflashbr 1 year ago 7
@TheLittleFolly I am a middle-aged man and work for the British civil service. Please tailor you lecture accordingly, thank you.
BRussellspouts 1 year ago
marriage and get a trusted women Online *lushfmlk.info*
bvnbmklopvcxzas 1 year ago
What I like is that the solution is the boat... it doesn't have roots, it's rootless, it floats around. This is, for me, the meaning of this wonderful metaphor - "boat" - the condition of the renewal means you cut your roots. That's the solution.
DaveDaranjo 1 year ago
I have to disagree with him on the Statue of David. If you'll notice, part of his left leg is missing. Clearly this came as a result of the world going to shit. I think the fact that the statue was damaged gives it a new meaning. It's a symbol of the world these people live in. The world still survives but it's missing something very important.
olivemike81 1 year ago 5
@olivemike81 I agree with you entirely. I hadn't even noticed the piece of leg missing which supports your argument, but I immediately thought that it retained meaning, but altered. The fact that it is in a new environment gives it new meaning, I don't think such an object could ever lose its meaning entirely.
Sandcat87 1 year ago
West world is a hungry world, even if we can not admit it, even if we have the 90% of the money in the world we suffer a deep hungry, wich is translated into violence against the resto of the world.
kraven131190 1 year ago
@kraven131190 speak for urself, mexico...not all of the West is civilized or lacking culture.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
This is what the future will look like very soon.
ririmja 1 year ago
leftist fond memory of "infertile ridiculous" hahah genius indeed, but do they just need to learn Kant and keep up with real politics and psychology? It would be interesting to found a Leftist-Reeducation seminar facility, or tour one through the academic conferences of the world. The upkeep on our stupid professors would be worth it.
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
the united states is a place of disparities.
full of possibilities, yet also full of disappointments.
echoplex89 1 year ago 3
I've just saw inception and I'm in the mood to puke now.
CHILDREN OF MEN is by far THE movie of the dacade.... I can't believe that INCEPTION SHIT gets hyped so much.
Inception was a little bit better than your usual BLOCKBUSTERmovie that's it.
CHILDREN OF MEN is the only movie since the 90's which has earned a 10/10
(btw I'd give Inception 4/10)
ElTresDeMayo1808 1 year ago
@ElTresDeMayo1808 I personally wouldn't say Inception was all that bad but Children of Men is a work of art. I wouldn't call Inception a work of art. An entertaining film? Sure, but it's not going to make people see the world in a new light like Children of Men did for me.
iamyoyoyodude45 1 year ago
Great movie! Overlooked.
arbide3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online marriage service from Asia gettop5.info
isabngeryer 1 year ago
@murfkaka I don't see what you are trying to get at here. I don't see anything like that in this analysis. In fact I would think that Zizek would mean the exact opossit considiring he is a leftist
timbojangles64 1 year ago
Is this from ''The Pervert's guide to cinema''?
capath 1 year ago
@capath no
isleepinabin 1 year ago
@capath yep great film go watch!
MrJims55 1 year ago
ziss vas a shitty feel-m
perkzo 1 year ago
@perkzo He is from Ljubljana, Slovenia so please.
benooblak 1 year ago
1:36 ITS THE VILLAGE!(people)
t72pwner 1 year ago
I opened a Zizek group... feel free to join in.
Zizekian 1 year ago
So wait, the message of this film in Zizek's eyes is that globalization is in fact leading to the loss of identity within our individual cultures and the film is making a statement on the modern day this way?
Genius!
degree7 1 year ago
For those who don't know, this movie was made by Mexican director Alfnonso Cauron! So stop judging this guy's accent because the director of this great film is Mexican and has an accent aswell.
metalmosh6 1 year ago
i šta je bilo kad si se probudio?
maxcicmax 1 year ago
So...Value is derived by subjective means? ;)
axe863 1 year ago
@murfkaka What's the matter, having a little _Strurm_und_Drang_? Found out what 'aryan' really means?
KapitanoStuff 1 year ago
@murfkaka
>Facepalm<
The genius of the truly stupid is they can make any insight fit their beliefs, simply by failing to understand it.
KapitanoStuff 1 year ago
That ship called tomarrow is probabaly from america. The further we fall from our constitution the further our country falls into fascism.
iforgotization 1 year ago
@iforgotization In the movie, all the other countries are destroyed (or so the British governments narrative in the movie goes). New York was subject to a nuclear explosion. I doubt the ship is from there. Sorry mate. Stop putting your faith in a piece of paper and put it in the space between your ears.
AngryProductions 1 year ago
@murfkaka if zizek is correct then what he is really saying is that niggers,,j ews, spooks are tearing away the foundatuion of american life (white christian_ to advance a radical socialest agenda
DaKewlJamal 1 year ago
if you dont understand zizeks accent its lack of practice probably
the12gauge 1 year ago
he never once mentions pd james...............she wrote the novel after all...
Nipisful 1 year ago
@murfkaka Dude, take a bow, that was brilliant.
begrackled 1 year ago
cant really understand zizek's accent~~
qtyrubnvfm 1 year ago
The best thing of Zizek is,...well I'm spanish and his english pronunciation is quite transparent to me (things of language) and, even assuming it's horrible, I understand all what he says.
ViewerNotes 1 year ago
@ViewerNotes I envy you, really I am. Greek and German are my first languages and half of the times I am not sure what Zizek is saying. It's so frustrating...
psych3577 1 year ago
A good fee-lim.
hazmathew 1 year ago 61
Zizek would love the concept of the Half-Life game series, it relates with this movie more than you might assume.
A web of Citadels which radiates a surpression field which makes reproduction impossible for the citizens. It resembles the entire plot of this movie, an infertile world that doesn't give birth to anything new.
Kali23Yuga 1 year ago 2
@Kali23Yuga Well said. I'd fucking love a Half Life movie(s)
BioQuartz 1 year ago
@BioQuartz
Maybe it would be good. I'd like a fallout movie more though if you haven't you should get fallout 3
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@Kali23Yuga go outside man
DaKewlJamal 1 year ago
@Kali23Yuga Mind = blow.
Mattyd242 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That guy is talking SUCH bullshit.
carlosthepwner2 1 year ago
HAHAHA ANTIFA!
UK is free from socialism. DEATH TO ANTIFA!
fascismexposed 1 year ago
A sexual adventure with a desperate ending....i love this guy
nightwatchman86 1 year ago 2
What the hell does zizek mean when he is talking about late stage capitalism having no history? After he talks about the scene with the out of place statue, which I get, he goes on to say GB has no constitution b/c of it's traditions. So.... He goes from saying capitalism lacks in history to saying GB has such strong history that there is no need for the same laws needed by other democracies(when I checked GB was still a capitalist country despite their "socialist" healthcare). Also, with the
PtAltmVansanTarr 1 year ago
@PtAltmVansanTarr His point is that by using the capitalist country most rooted in its 'political traditions', GB (which nonetheless is often compared to Disneyworld - a trivial corporate fairy land), while showing those traditions to be defunct in the crisis of the film, James and Cuaron, bring the metaphor into greater relief about the rest of the world which may already find itself in that historically abandoned condition. narrativeartsblog.wordpress
JohnOhn 1 year ago
@JohnOhn Im sorry I don't get it. Your post doesn't make the most sense if you remove the "()" and the part in between them about GB being Disneyworld. Why is a country that has higher living standards than those countries you call historically abandoned more trivial then countries that deal with more poverty? In my exp, humans are able to function better and problem solve at at a higher level when they aren't concerned about the bottom line.
PtAltmVansanTarr 1 year ago
@PtAltmVansanTarr Not sure where you'd find people unconcerned about the bottom line - an ideal socialism, perhaps; 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', though we've never seen such a state. But re the film's aesthetics, GB has THE APPEARANCE of greater historical identity and therefore makes a better EXAMPLE for the filmmakers when that identity is proved trivial in the face of crisis. All the same, I think Zizek would say all ideologies are trivial/superficial.
JohnOhn 1 year ago
@JohnOhn Now I understand what you mean. I agree with Zizek. on the bottom line, I guess it depends on your definition of the bottom line. In US, especially the affluent regions,it is a different thing than the bottom line in SA where my family lives. Here means losing face and getting welfare, living of charity(homelessness for the ones who can't live in shelters ).there means living in a slum,the same person transported here may be able to get basic employment.
PtAltmVansanTarr 1 year ago
@PtAltmVansanTarr In other words, a good filmmaker could have made a similar point using Berlin as a background in the thirties, or Red Square in the eighties (had such art been politically possible). Those ideologies were also trivial, though it might be imagined that many of their citizens and leaders presumed deep historical precedents to justify them (German exceptionalism, Russian peasant solidarity, for example).
JohnOhn 1 year ago
@JohnOhn Actually, I agree with Zizek to a point. I think democracy isn't as trivial as other ideologies because I think that when we talk about democracy, we partly talk about having a relatively strong civil society allowed by whatever historical events that have been favorable to the development of one . For example, the crime problems in SA urban areas (caused by a # of reasons) prevent civil society from taking as strong roots as in US.
PtAltmVansanTarr 1 year ago
@PtAltmVansanTarr Bear in mind that 'all philosophical mistakes are category errors'. Zizek's a psychoanalyst so he's interested in categories at the level of the mind. 'Democracy' may be externally more comfortable, but I think he would still ask about the hidden costs. Particularly its foundation on exploitation; Africa, Asia and South America were (and are by big Corp), completely colonized, their resources stolen by our democracies. SA in that sense is a permanent part of our unconscious.
JohnOhn 1 year ago
cool vid bro
Neonman78 1 year ago
I like what he says about the scene with the Davd statue. It's true, if you have an artifact separated from it's setting it invokes nothing. Walking through Rome conjures up images of the ancient world. Seeing a Legionnaire's helmet in a museum doesn't really invoke much, except to maybe appreciate the craftwork of it. But culturally, it has no resonance IMO
mistermajestyck 1 year ago 2
This is superb commentary by Zizek.
rivkajazz 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is nothing really that subtle about this movie. To its merit it is entertaining, well-crafted, funny, violent, sad, and over the top. I enjoyed it. I recognized Pablo Picasso's Guernica but if you didn't does that make you dumb or less-understanding of the movie? Displaying artworks in films can be borderline pretentious. I laughed at the satirical Orwellian Brazil-like references. If you didn't snicker throughout about the "future madness" then you might create this dystopia someday.
skootaboy1978 1 year ago
You are the one who is the pretentious one here. Read the novel on which the movie was based. In the novel people around the world are putting artifacts and art pieces together under one location in hope that in some remote future, after humans have become extinct, someone will find them and know about human civilization.
the art in the movie is not a capricious choice by the director.
tristanXIV 1 year ago
@tristanXIV In my defense I merely said that that technique could be "borderline" pretentious. Meaning it can seem pretentious. This film was not a clear example of that but it made me think of that issue as a filmmaker. That being said I highly enjoyed the movie. If I hurt your genius feelings I'm sorry, but for you to tell me I am pretentious (how?) and don't understand the film because I haven't read the book is extra pompous. If I read the book and find it pretentious I'll let you know.
skootaboy1978 1 year ago
@skootaboy1978 i agree with tristanXIV, if you read the book you will understand the messages a lot better, its easy to be cynical but if you understand it properly you can appreciate the intelligence of it, to the point i cannot fit it in a single comment box so i urge you to rethink your opinion. i recommend you read the P.D. James novel, its a good read.
youtoobeiz4loosers 1 year ago
@youtoobeiz4loosers Thank you for the book recommendation. I agree to the point that reading the book may enhance a viewing experience--but it is not required. A movie should stand on its own. Also developing film theories and criticisms that incorporate both film and book texts can be problematic. Movies and books are apples and oranges.
skootaboy1978 1 year ago
@skootaboy1978 i totally understand, but i think the film does still achieve these things without the book, i admittedly saw the film before reading the book and i understood it, i suppose what i was trying to say in the nicest way was that if it didn't connect with you the book will clear it up for you despite the significant differences, i personally think they are both great pieces of art both full of excellent content and form.
youtoobeiz4loosers 1 year ago
Comment removed
VonBrachner 1 year ago
Interestingly, masculinity is represented throughout the film as the dead phallus of pure force; singularly incapable of incubating any life in a moribund world. The logical conclusion would be a future lost at sea; but instead the emasculated hero effortlessly finds an atavistic direction as he rows through the mists of time. I think they call that a corny ending.
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago 3
you realy like to write dont you?
iComment17 1 year ago
fuck me I think you're possibly the most pretentious person on youtube, congrats
sodiumfan 1 year ago
You talk like fag and your shit's all retarded.
....it makes me sad you are getting downvoted.
VonBrachner 1 year ago
But there any serious introspection stops and as such the moral choices of the main characters lack any serious reflection. Not least; on how we got into this mess and now how do we get out of it. Sentimentality is substituted for morality; with the moral compass needle pointing magnetically in the prescribed direction of a rather hackneyed form of Political Correctness.
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago
Society is portrayed as nothing more than a background screen of successive signifiers; conveying a relentless pessimism that forces a greater withdrawal into the microcosm of personal existence and validation in small things.
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago 3
The film is not so much a commentary on contemporary social and political alienation; but rather a modern pastiche that is symptomatic of its artistic void. The narrative does not attempt to analyse the condition of actual selves in a historical condition; but instead posits a background of a dream like anti-history where the hero is lost in a chimera of events he neither understands nor feels particularly connected to.
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago
long live zizek! this is the oposite of his speeach in hardTalks on BBC :) but still his the best! :)
senovac88 2 years ago
Se llama Cuarón, no Quaron. Deberían dejar de mirarse el ombligo, english speaking people.
motucordis 2 years ago
how ironic. you talk about foreign language and bash at each other in a video of "children of men". the message of the movie is irrelevant hm?
leon5080 2 years ago 27
how many here were just browsing /fit/?
Pleeplapoo 2 years ago 2
someone linked this on /tv/ a second ago
wolfsleepy 2 years ago
why would you disable embedding, I want to show my friends this clip, why do you not want me to spread it?
fsufan850 2 years ago 2
you can easily send them the URL, now stop your bitching. =]
AenemaToology 2 years ago 2
In an egotistical internet based society that we live in today, opening a new tab or leaving a page to youtube is to much of a commitment for most people to commit in.
fsufan850 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why this idiot talks like a duck?
n0s0upfory0u 2 years ago
lmbo!!!
nosey91 2 years ago 2
how do you idiot know how a duck talks ?
kailsan 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i know cuz i saw too many slovak idiots like u which cant even speak english haha
n0s0upfory0u 2 years ago
You are pathetic. Of course i cant speak english very good, it is not my first language. But tell me how many languages can you speak or write?
and,. i am not Slovak, i am Slovenian. There is a difference. But i heard that in usa you have poor geography in schools so i forgive you :) but not only this, it is funny how many of you dont belive in evolution :D how embarrassing for a country with so many great scientist.
kailsan 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bla bla bla...im not american and i dont live in usa..and i can speak most of middle asian languages, turkish,german and english..and about evolution issue, u cant critice people by believing evolution or not u moron !
n0s0upfory0u 2 years ago
du sprichst deutsch?
sen türkçe biliyormusun?
i also, so give me an example or are u just bluffing you dumbfuck.
amana sikim und deinen Vater auch
moribundo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its not " amana" its "ananı" which means ur mother in turkish..und ja, ich kann deutsch sprechen...
n0s0upfory0u 2 years ago