I was thinking about the movie on the train this morning, when I realized that it's probably a fairly good movie if I'm still seriously pondering it after two days.
Here's what I was mulling over...
1) Did anyone else feel like it was only 30 minutes long? Maybe it's because I watched it in two sittings? Maybe it's because so many of my questions about what was going on were still unanswered? I looked it up online and it was supposedly a 109 minute runtime.
2) Let's discuss the title: Children of Men. Why? Why not "Children of People," "Our Children," "Human Children," or just "Children" ? It doesn't make sense. Men can't have children alone. Does that have something to do with the basic premise? Thoughts?
Titling is one of the hardest things for me at work. People are always so opinionated about titles -- they seem to know intuitively what a title should be -- and I feel like I can never come up with anything. I spend a crazy amount of time stuck on titles and what makes a good title vs a bad title.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think it was based on a book. Same title? I don't have time to look.
It was based on a book, but no one said you have to keep the title.
RB, often times the agreements between authors and studios stipulates that the original title be kept. As far as where PD James got the title for his book, acording to Cuaron (the film's director), the title for the original book came from Psalm 90, verse 3 (King James Version):
"Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men."
Makes sense, because that Psalm is all about god treating people like shit and people asking for him to stop, and so is the movie (on one level). So there you have it.
P.D. James is a lady.
Maybe its more a reference to "mankind", and Children of Mankind sounds dumb.
Post a Comment