Alfonso Cuarón's 2006 film "Children of Men" is a text that explores the interaction between past, present and future on both a personal and social level. Many characters in the film are obsessed with reiterating the past in an endless cycle of stagnation. In the case of Jasper's character, this is limiting and unnecessary but can become dangerous and destructive, as in the case of the British government using nostalgia to maintain a level of control over a revolting population and maintaining the past at the expense of the future. In contrast, fugitive characters who act in opposition to the government seem downright destructive and ignore the ability of the past to inform and influence the future. Ultimately they seem baseless and helpless rather than a genuine case of political activism. Ultimately, the film favors sacrificial characters who willingly choose to use their lives to advance the cause of the human race as a whole, rather than maintaining a comfortable status quo. The characters then use their past to create a moment of presence in which they are able to improve humanity and allow the possibility of hope and future. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The film continually raises issues of nostalgia when faced with a present without a future. Many characters in the film insist on maintaining old-fashioned customs and traditions as a reaction to the film's traumatic violence. Ultimately, their attempts to cling to the past are portrayed as, at best, circular and pointless and, at best, dangerous and oppressive. This is because the futureless world of the film offers no room for development and change; everything becomes stagnant. This is perhaps most evident in the British government which constantly reinforces the importance of the past and attempts to create security through a sense of historical solidarity. Throughout the various newsreels and advertisements depicted in the film, the government repeatedly references national pride and England's history in an attempt to justify their actions. At one point, Theo witnesses a horse guard in full uniform parading through the city streets, a stark contrast to the images of chaos and violence in the subsequent scene at "Fish" headquarters. The purpose of this nostalgia is ultimately to preserve the past and maintain it when it is threatened with decay. Jasper's character provides an interesting counterpoint to government nostalgia. Jasper's character is an amalgamation of various "hippy" character clichés: his costumes, musical taste, political attitudes, and penchant for psychiatric drugs are little more than clichés. Although both he and his wife were politically active in the past, at the time of the film, Jasper appears to have little purpose or motivation aside from caring for his catatonic wife and, metaphorically, her nostalgic image. Perhaps it's fitting, then, that most of the film's exposition is conveyed through his character. The most iconic emblem of film nostalgia, however, is perhaps The Human Ark project, which aims to locate and preserve human achievements that are culturally significant to some. undeclared purpose. Like Jasper and the government, the Human Ark project appears to have little motivation beyond the preservation of what exists. When asked for an explanation for this seemingly pointless project, Theo's brother says, "I just don't think about it." Ultimately, these three entities all rely on this weak logic. Deprived of their ability to change and develop, they return to maintenance and preservation, usually to themdetriment. Conversely, those entities that appear to seek positive change are portrayed as dangerous and violent. Activism is a recurring motif in the film. This aspect of the film is explored primarily through Pisces, who advocates for better treatment of fugitives in Britain. In contrast to the national government's nostalgic campaigns, the fugitives represent a homogeneous instability. The group is ethnically diverse, includes members of different national and racial origins, and is initially controlled by a woman. While the government represents an adherence to the past down to the last detail, the fugitives are mostly subjects without a past, without much exposition on the background or character of any of Fish's characters. As a result, they appear to lack a clear motivation both in terms of political goals and the management of Kee's pregnancy. That is, they are aimed at the future without taking into account a consolidated past. Pisces' actions provide a counterpoint to Theo's apathetic disaffection. Theo's past serves the opposite function of the aforementioned nostalgia. Julian says he carries the memory of his deceased son Dylan with him “like a ball and chain” and considers himself “the monopoly on suffering”. His past prevents him from developing any kind of future. This is reflected more generally in the idea of ​​conceiving a child in the setting of a film. The cause of the infertility crisis is never directly explained. Theo is of the opinion that the infertility crisis was and remains secondary to the state of the world. The film opens with a series of voice-overs from a reporter: “Day 1,000 of the siege of Seattle. The Muslim community is calling for an end to the army's occupation of mosques. The national security bill is ratified. After eight years, Britain's borders will remain closed. The deportation of illegal immigrants will continue. Good morning. Our main story. Here, the film explicitly connects the action of the film to contemporary political issues: the interaction of Islamic culture with the West, issues of national security and personal freedom, fugitive immigrants. At one point a radio announcer introduces a 'classic' song from 2004, “a time when people refused to accept that the future was just around the corner”. The film deliberately indexes the trauma of the film's present with the actions of the film's past; that is, contemporary politics. If we, as an audience, accept Theo's suggestion that the infertility crisis was not the cause of the global decline, one could perhaps infer that the causal relationship can be reversed. That is, it is possible that the infertility crisis is the cause of the global decline. In a literal sense, the crisis is hypothesized to have occurred due to some human failure: genetic manipulation gone awry, a worldwide contagion, or something similar. Metaphorically, if the children of the world represent hope for the future, then it seems appropriate that a world with a questionable future like the one presented in the film should be stripped of its symbol. In other words, the film may be implicitly postulating that giving birth in the film's world as it is would be a futile exercise, since human civilization is collapsing in on itself anyway. The film also appears to represent a fascination with the cultural meaning of death, with many characters dying or philosophizing about death over the course of the film. Heidegger suggests that human life is given meaning as a consequence of mortality: the very finiteness of life lends dignity to what would otherwise be a banal, existential life.# The film's philosophy seems to offer a rereading of Heidegger. While human death can confer dignity andimbue human existence with a meaning that it would not otherwise have, this can only be true in the case of a death that makes the present progress towards a future. The character of Jasper, for example, although generally gripped by a regressive nostalgia, is able to work towards the future through his death. When he realizes that Kee's son is "the miracle the world has been waiting for", he is willing to sacrifice himself to give her a chance to escape. The euthanasia of his catatonic wife becomes a symbolic gesture of his desire to abandon the past. Likewise, Julian's activism is confirmed by his willingness to sacrifice himself for the future of humanity. When she is shot, she doesn't worry about her own safety, but instead looks back at Kee, putting the child's safety above her own. Perhaps it is fitting then that his impromptu funeral is accompanied by chants of “shanti, shanti, shanti” – meaning 'hope'. Naturally, the overall narrative thrust of the film progresses towards Theo's sacrifice on behalf of Kee and his son. Ultimately, he is able to overcome his apathy and sacrifice himself for the good of humanity as a whole. The child therefore acts both literally as a source of hope for humanity and as a metaphor for the idea of ​​hope. This is reinforced by the film's use of religious symbolism in reference to Kee and her son. When asked about the father of her child, Kee jokingly compares herself to the Madonna: "I'm a virgin!" Furthermore, when faced with Kee's unexpected pregnancy, the characters in the film almost always react by exclaiming "Jesus Christ" or making the sign of the cross. Indeed, the film's narrative serves as a parallel to the biblical story of Mary and Joseph and their journey to Bethlehem – all the more appropriate considering the film's US release date falls on December 25. Despite the rather heavy use of religious metaphor, the film's use of these symbols is ultimately ironic and playful rather than dogmatic. Kee's comparison to the Virgin is immediately followed by exclamations about her sexual promiscuity, fear of venereal disease, and consideration of abortion – ideas that seem completely incongruous with a traditional understanding of the Christian faith. However, like Kee's son, for most of the film, hope remains nascent. It is always the potential for hope rather than unambiguous redemption. There are many possibilities considered for the child. As mentioned above, Kee considered aborting the child – an attempt to preserve the present and deny the possibility of an alternative future. Furthermore, the little girl also grants political power to any party that controls her. Pisces wants to use the child as an emblem of the "refugee" cause and unify the disparate subversive movements in England. It is also suggested that the government would kidnap the child and claim that she was the daughter of English citizens, presumably to reinforce English superiority over the fugitive groups. At the end of the film, the child advances towards tomorrow. In a literal sense, he boards the boat “Tomorrow” to escape the Human Project and metaphorically, the child's safety serves as a promise of hope to restore the human race. The child was not only born, but removed from the violence and political strife of England. Furthermore, Kee's choice to name the child Dylan grants the child a connection to the past that embraces what has come before and reconfigures him into a new and promising future. In summary, the film "Children of Men" deals with the use of the present as an intersection between the past and the future. The film destabilizes the distinction between the two and denies agency to those characters who favor one over the other. Those.