"Children of Men"

[qos]

I went to see the movie Children of Men this afternoon with _storyteller_, and I strongly recommend it.

The premise is that all human women have become infertile approximately 18 years previously (dogs, cats, cows and other animals continue to breed). The world is in a state of collapse as our already existing problems are heightened by the awareness that human life is about to come to an end. Into this world-wide despair comes a young woman of color, an illegal alien in England, who is pregnant. Fearing that the government will take her baby and pass it off as the child of a rich citizen, the girl is taken in by a resistance movement which promises to get her out of the country. An everyman, played by the always-excellent Clive Owen, becomes her coincidental guardian.

There's a lot to like about this movie: fine performances, intelligent script, marvelous cinematography. But the movie was important for me because of one brief but powerful scene.


Somewhat to my surprise, the young woman, Ki, has her baby in an internment camp, and Clive Owen's character Theo has to get her out. As they make their way through a building that is the site of a battle, the infant starts to cry. People who have not seen a baby in at least 18 years, people who believed that there would never again be another human baby, are entranced as Ki moves down the hall. They sing, they murmur prayers, they reach out to touch the tiny foot poking out of the blanket. They weep.

When Ki and Theo start down the stairs, they encounter English soldiers coming up to do battle with the resistance fighters who are also in the building. Their weapons are up and ready, but when they see the baby they too are stunned to silence and wonder, lower their weapons, and let the child and mother pass. One man shouts into a headset to his companions to cease fire.

Ki, Theo and the baby emerge from the building to face an entire company of soldiers who would have shot the grown-ups without hesitation, but who are powerless in the face of the baby. Two of them go to their knees, crossing themselves.

Although I am a mother myself, I had never before really 'got' the reverence for woman as life-bearer, never really felt the sacred power of the mother, especially in the face of the warrior. I had never before understood the profound hope that a baby embodies. I had tears in my eyes as I felt the new awareness go through me.

Will this make a difference in my life going forward? Perhaps not. Most of us who want children (and I am acutely aware right now of those who are exceptions) are able to conceive. I have never defined myself or my value by my fertility or my status as a mother, nor do I intend to. Woman's cycle of fertility has never been part of my spirituality, nor will it become one.

But I will remember that scene, and the power, and I will not take certain things for granted anymore, and I will listen to certain stories with a deeper, more reverent understanding than I was able to previously.

ETA: For a reviewer's take on the movie, see _storyteller_'s post here

Comments

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Too often that aspect of femaleness is used against women: anti-abortion activists, battles over birth control availability, rapes, questions about what a childless woman "is waiting for", pressure on mothers to not work outside of the home, etc. Even in movies, it is made into something inconvenient and ugly and embarrassing and worthy of jokes. It's interesting to know there is a novel and movie out there which portrays it as something powerful and sacred.

That novel is one of many I own which I have not yet read. I may remedy that oversight this weekend.

[qos.livejournal.com]

I was never interested in motherhood when I was growing up and even less interested in having my destiny defined in terms of my biological potential, so I have always been acutely aware of those who use motherhood or the potential for motherhood as an excuse for condescension, limiting choice, or taking control of a woman's body.

wlotus

[amqu.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I understand your comment. You mention entertainment twice with a "movie out there which portrays it as something powerful and sacred" and "in movies, it is made into something inconvenient and ugly and embarrassing and worthy of jokes." Is the "it" in both references "the reverence for woman as life-bearer...the sacred power of the mother?"

If so, is that what you're saying is used against women by "anti-abortion activists, battles over birth control availability, rapes, questions about what a childless woman "is waiting for", pressure on mothers to not work outside of the home, etc." In turn, which form of above-mentioned entertainment do you feel is representative of the causes you listed?

Re: wlotus

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

The causes I listed may be represented by some movies, but I was thought of and mentioned them separately from movies. Those issues use a woman's ability to conceive and bear children against women by demanding they be saddled with children they cannot or do not want to have, if they dare have sex (for example, anti-abortion activists and the medical and insurance industries' unwillingness to make birth control as accessible as, say, Viagra is.) In the case of rape, a woman's birth canal and other orifices are taken over in an invasive power struggle; her body is not her own, it is her rapist's. People who ask what a childless woman is waiting for consider it odd at least and utterly selfish at most for a woman to choose not to conceive and bear children. And once a woman chooses motherhood, she often gets pressure from others to give up her career and her life separate from her child(ren), as though her ability to conceive makes her unworthy of having her own life in addition to sharing a life with her child(ren); giving in to that pressure will leave her with less opportunity for advancement in her field, while put her a far behind her former peers once she re-enters the workforce, and cripples her ability to save adequate funds for her retirement. In all of those cases, others use the sacred power of motherhood to impose penalties on women, either for choosing motherhood or for NOT choosing motherhood.

Movies are just as bad, though in different ways. Pregnant and delivering women are often portrayed as jokes, not as women who should be emotionally supported and looked after. Her odd food cravings and emotional swings are followed by laugh tracks (or the laughter of a live audience) in sitcoms. Women who approach pregnancy and childbirth as something sacred are reduced to screaming, irrational banshees when labor pains hit; why not have her labor and delivery go exactly as she'd anticipated as she is supported by loving people? The baby may be considered cute, but the woman whose powerful body produced that baby is comic relief in movies and on television. Even menstruation (the proof of our life-giving power) and its associated symptoms are joked about, both in movies and in real life, if not dismissed as something "nasty".

Does that help you understand what I meant?

Re: wlotus

[amqu.livejournal.com]

Very informative, thank you. I see where it is you're coming from, although it doesn't really address what I'm confused about regarding your first comment.

I'll tell you how I interpreted it, and then you can tell me whether I read you correctly, and if not how I misinterpreted you.

"(A)nti-abortion activists, battles over birth control availability, rapes, questions about what a childless woman "is waiting for", pressure on mothers to not work outside of the home, etc." are clumped into one bunch who make femininity and motherhood "into something inconvenient and ugly and embarrassing and worthy of jokes."

Then it appears you contrast this with a different view of womanhood represented by a movie that portrays it as "something powerful and sacred," presumably enjoyed by the counterparts to the first group of people.

So are you equating rapists and anti-abortionists with people who find femininity and motherhood inconvenient, ugly, embarassing, and worthy of jokes, and their opposites, pro-abortionists and nonrapists, with people who find femininity and motherhood something powerful and sacred? It doesn't seem like that is what you would say, but that is how I'm reading it.

Several things in your further comment make me believe that is not what you are saying. It sounds more like you find culture in general antithetical to a woman's choices about reproduction and her authentic power as mother. Your first comment was more or less a comment on that and the movie references simply a jumping off point.

If that is so and my interpretation of your first comment was incorrect, may I ask you a different question? Do you feel that those who support reproductive freedom have many of the same prejudices against "sacred femininity and motherhood" as do the above-mentioned groups, or do you think they are more apt to appreciate it?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my first question, BTW.

Amy K.

Re: wlotus

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

So are you equating rapists and anti-abortionists with people who find femininity and motherhood inconvenient, ugly, embarassing, and worthy of jokes, and their opposites, pro-abortionists and nonrapists, with people who find femininity and motherhood something powerful and sacred?

No, they are not equal in my mind. The two groups (rapists, anti-abortionists, etc. vs. those who find femininity inconvenient) and their opposites (pro-choice activists, non-rapists, etc. vs. those who find femininity and motherhood powerful and sacred) are not necessarily mutually exclusive, either.

It sounds more like you find culture in general antithetical to a woman's choices about reproduction and her authentic power as mother.

Yes.

Do you feel that those who support reproductive freedom have many of the same prejudices against "sacred femininity and motherhood" as do the above-mentioned groups, or do you think they are more apt to appreciate it?

Some of them do. Some of them do not. The answer is an different as each woman and her background and her feelings about herself.

Re: wlotus

[amqu.livejournal.com]

Thanks, wlotus, for clarifying your answer for me.