Loss of Human Rights Paves the Way for Present-Day Apocalypse

The loss of human rights: what does that mean? According the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, human rights are international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Does this include the on-going sexual abuse of women and young girls in Darfur? Or the torture of suspected terrorists by the US in Jordan? The answer is simple; if it involves breaking a human right then it needs to be stopped. It does not matter which countries promote human rights and which countries do not, because human rights should be universally accepted and practiced by all peoples of this world. It is ridiculous to think that, in a world as expanding as ours, that people could so easily ignore these rights and continue treating people as nothing more than the dirt they walk on. The ideas that govern people to think like the ones who conduct the genocide in Drafur must be thrown out, for all our sakes. If we continue to let the world believe that only selected peoples should get human rights, then we are on a train ride to the apocalypse.

According to the United Nations' Universal Declaration for Human Rights (1948), they involve all manner of laws, preambles, and situations. Everyone in the world is entitled to every right listed under this Declaration; however, many people know that several countries choose to ignore this Declaration and what it entails. While we might not care what happens to other people in other countries because we live in a country where every human right listed under the Declaration is practiced daily, that does not mean that we can blindly turn our heads in the opposite direction to what is going on elsewhere in the world. The sexual abuse of women and young girls in Darfur should never have even been allowed to get as far as it has gone. We are five years into the genocide of the peoples of Darfur, in which government officials and rebels of surrounding countries hope to wipe out the people by raping the women and annihilating the Darfur people through sexual abuse. It is disgusting to think that no surrounding countries who do not take part in the abuse of these women will even try to help. Instead, they sit back and allow it to happen without thinking of the consequences.

If the peoples of Darfur are forever wiped out by rape and sex abuse, then we will lose an important piece of our world. Everyone in this world is important for future development and understanding of different cultures and ways of life. It is sickening to think that people in government systems are responsible for most, if not all, of the attacks on these women; because of the fact that it is being done by those people we trust to protect us, how can we trust our own leaders? The women of Darfur have lived too long in fear of being raped and sexually abused, and it is utterly ridiculous to know that no one will jump to their aid. If people can so carelessly ignore the injustice being done to these women, then how can we expect people to want to preserve and respect other cultures? We can't, which means that no one in this world is safe from what is happening to the women in Drafur.

This genocide is exactly the kind of thing that is leading humans down a path of destruction. It may only be the women of Darfur that are being targets for destroying one culture of this world, but what happens when they are completely wiped out? People will focus on other countries and cultures that they do not want surviving and will take action against them as they have done in Darfur for the past five years. It is well known how many countries dislike America and the people who live here, so it is only a matter of time until people begin to conduct a plan to wipe us out. This would more than likely include a nuclear war, in which case America has about 2,600 more nuclear war heads than anyone else, so we would not go down without a fight. It would end up creating a large-scale world war that would wipe out most of the world. This is an apocalypse and a very realistic one. We cannot allow the genocide in Darfur to continue if we do not want the people responsible for the genocide thinking they can wipe out cultures just because they do not like them.

The issue in Jordan is another terrible fact of an ignorance of human rights, but this time is by the leaders of our own country. It may be easy for Americans to ignore the genocide in Darfur because they think it has nothing to do with them (when in fact it has everything do with everyone in the world), but it would be difficult to ignore the facts that our country is supporting the loss of human rights. It is understandable that our country wants to protect its people from future attacks, but torture is not the way to prevent those attacks. There are other means of finding out information and who might be behind terrorist attacks that do not include a breach of human rights. According to the Human Rights Worldwide News, the United States of America has been responsible for sending dozens of people to their deaths by torture in Jordan. To think that our own country is accountable for breaking one of the first laws of human right, that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is unbelievable; especially when our leaders so openly practice all of these rights.

This loss of human rights is what will cause the apocalypse so many people think is just around the corner. When the people of this world have little to no respect for the other people in it, how can we stop them from destroying everything and everyone? The only thing we can do is protect ourselves, which will in turn have its consequences. The only thing people seem to know how to protect themselves is by using weapons of mass destruction. So, if we use weapons of mass destruction, that means that we will be destroying mass amounts of humanity. We remember all too well the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II and the effects it had on the entire world, let alone on the people of Japan. America would no doubt have dropped another atomic bomb if Japan had not surrendered, which should make everyone shutter at the thought of the damage that could have caused. America has also been known to threaten to use atomic bombs to have their way, and with the knowledge that we have already dropped two, why would anyone risk putting our threats to the test?

The genocide in Darfur and the torture of terrorist suspects in Jordan by the US should be enough proof that this world is heading towards disaster. The people who are trying to save the women in Darfur either are not doing enough or do not have enough support to end the tragedies; however, this should not stop them from giving Darfur their full attention. More support needs to be given, as well as advertising the subject all over the world. The biggest problem that Darfur faces (besides genocide, of course) is that not enough people know or care about what is going on. Jordan is another matter altogether, because it is the leaders of our own country who are involved in the illegal actions against the terrorists being held there. If our country, one that practices the human rights listed under the Declaration so fervently, cannot even follow the rules it created, then there is no hope for this world.

America, as well as any other country, should not have nuclear weapons for reasons previously stated. To have that kind of power almost ensures that the world can be destroyed with the push of a button. It is terrifying to think that people are not afraid of a total nuclear war. Too many people in this world shove aside human rights to get what they want; whether it be fear of one's country or fear of another country, leaders take advantage of their people. The apocalypse will surely involve the peoples of this world growing tired of everyone and turning against each other. But, hasn't that already happened? Will it take another world war to see of this world can handle any more man-to-man violence? If there is another world war then I do not think the countries that have nuclear weapons will be able to hole off on using them and will ultimately send us head first into the apocalypse.

Knowing about current cultural issues will help everyone in the world from making a huge mistake, such as going into another world war. The problem with this world is that too many people know nothing about any other country besides the one they live in. To understand issues and know how to help, one must be educated. The media in America does not do enough to keep the public informed about current issues around the world. It might focus on some serious issues such as terrorism or new diseases being spread, but those are not the only things people should worry about. Genocide is a huge problem in this world, one that we should have learned from, thanks to Adolf Hitler. No culture deserves to be wiped out. Basic human rights were created for reasons that have become current issues. Torturing someone for information is gruesome and wrong, which is why it has been outlawed under the Declaration. The fact that America practices the torturing of individuals is erroneous. For a country that protects human rights so proudly, we sure are hypocrites.

Cause for Hope throughout The Road

Throughout this morbid post-apocalyptic novel, The Road provides the reader with a bleak outlook on the end of the world, with "nights dark beyond darkness and the days more grey than each one than what had gone before." The cold, hard truth of the surrounding world post-apocalypse leaves the reader weary with hopes of goodness and life; however, the only life to be found on the road as that of a father and a son, ruthless cannibals, and wandering loners willing to do whatever is necessary to survive. While nearing the end of the book the reader loses all anticipation of a miracle. You would think that a novel about the apocalypse would be chock full of dreary and depressing happenings, but there are many things throughout the novel which require hope for the main characters in The Road: the father and his son's survival day by day. Yet, can there really be a happy ending to the end of the world?

To the extent of The Road, its plot is cynical. Everywhere they go, the man and the boy constantly stumble upon old abandoned structures-houses, a boat, a supermarket-and vigilantly scour them for useful items to ensure their survival. As they keep a wary eye out for other survivors, the signs of life are distressing. No longer is the world inhabited by people who can look out for others as well as themselves; rather, any survivor is distrustful of everyone else's motives. McCarthy describes the boy and man's relationship as "each other's world entire," which gives the reader a perfect idea of exactly how much each depends on the other. The father cannot survive without the son, and the son certainly cannot survive without his father.

Some say the end of the world will happen suddenly, such that a meteor will strike the earth and leave it dead within a matter of minutes. Others consider Cormac McCarthy’s approach to be more believing, because a wide-spread idea of the end of the world as humans know it today is through theories that we are slowly but surely killing the earth. Either way, McCarthy’s bleak and desolate novel has earned its way to the Pulitzer Prize and gained notoriety with Oprah’s Book Club list. I find it rather ironic that Oprah would suggest reading such a dismal novel to the public. Yet, as you read this narrative of a father and son heroically surviving the worst of the world post-apocalypse, you cannot help but think Oprah actually knew what she was doing when she posted this book on her web page.

An occurring theme throughout the novel that proves to be interesting as well as terrifying is the man's constant struggle with his faith. There are times where he wants to curse his God for the things he and his son have to endure, and yet there are times where the man is almost certain that God does in fact exist. Although, we can see this recurring theme even today, where people blame their God for the bad things in life and praise him for the good things. In the very beginning of the book we read several passages of the man's faltering faith. When it begins to snow, the father reaches out his hand and catches a flake, where he "watched it expire there like the last host of Christendom." However, if we lived through an apocalypse, would we be able to keep our faith when all the world has died?

In a sense, the book is oddly reassuring with its never-ending despair and grief. The reader knows not to expect a miracle to come along, so when a miracle does happen the reader is stricken with curiosity. When the father and son have gone five agonizing days without food, proper footwear, and sleep, all hope seems lost to them. Someone would have to be ridiculously morbid to not think that their finding of the bunker, stored to the ceiling with everything they would ever need, was a miracle that was long overdue. As the father and son contemplate what they have as their first meal in the bunker, the boy decides on pears, which the father thinks to himself, “[t]hese will be the best pears you ever tasted. The best pears. Just you wait.” For the next several days, as they wash and prepare themselves for when they have to leave, it is perceptible that they are going to make it to the ocean; their original destination.

As depressingly morbid as McCarthy wrote The Road, it is wonderful to read to gain a sense of desperation for those involved in the novel. When the father and son stumble upon goodness, as well as food and shelter, the reader acquires new hope for them. The son, having been raised in a cruel and unloving world is the most compassionate of the characters throughout their journey. Yet the father, having lived most of his life in the pre-apocalyptic world, is the most cautious and hesitant of anyone they encounter on the road. With the shifting of these roles one has to wonder how either of them can survive the other. The son continually wants to help the people they run into along the road, such as the boy they find in a deserted town. However, the father’s reluctance to help anyone frustrates and angers the boy throughout the story. At one point in the novel, the father and son come across an old man traveling alone. The boy suggests that they give the old man something to eat, and after a long deliberation the father curses under his breath and succumbs to his son’s everlasting will to help someone. However, the father makes it eminently clear that they will not allow the man to travel with them, in which case the boy replies, “I know,”. With this conversation the reader sees the boy grasping his father’s idea of not trusting everyone; even though this exchange happens a bit later in the book, it helps us understand the events at the end of the book.

In a review of The Road on nybooks.com, Michael Chabon’s article, titled “After the Apocalypse”, describes his views and varying opinions on themes in the novel. He uses an entire paragraph to depict his feelings on the singed bodies the father and son find lying on the road as charred and horrifically life-like. Chabon describes the world post-apocalypse as “a dead planet, full of human corpses, grotesque and pitiful and vividly depicted, living in it.” Although Chabon found McCarthy’s novel to be “morbid to the last page”, others would say that the miracle at the end of the narrative is a blessing. Other reviews, such as this one by Michael Helm of The Globe and Mail, portray The Road as the darkest novel you are likely ever to read... With reviews such as these, what sort of person would even dare to read something so forbiddingly described by the Publishers Weekly as “a haunting and grim novel about civilization's slow death after the power goes out”?

As the novel comes to an end, the boy has learned to be cautious of other travelers. This is an important feature the boy has learned from his father, albeit he comes to no harm. The surprising miracle at the end of The Road was both a reassurance and a blessing. With all the death and grief throughout the novel, all hope of them finding the ocean or surviving the next day is lost. Nevertheless, when the father and son continue trudging on through the ash and harsh weather conditions, the reader knows that some sort of miracle will happen. It would only make sense, don’t you think? To make the reader lose almost all hope for the father and son and then have a miracle come along and save the day? McCarthy knew exactly how to write this perfectly depressing novel with the perfect ending. Perhaps this is why he won the Pulitzer and a spot on Oprah’s notorious Book Club. Or maybe McCarthy simply realized the world’s need to read a novel that would open their minds to what an apocalypse on this earth would mean to everyone. Either way, he has done a magnificent job of frightening all his readers into hoping the apocalypse will not happen in our lifetime.

28 Days Later: Zombies or People?

This gruesome apocalyptic film takes place in an abandoned England and is filled with horrific scenes of death, murder, and violence. Directed by Danny Boyle (Sunshine, The Beach), this film is full of thematic elements and cinematography that one would expect from Boyle. Non-stereotypical characters, grotesque images, and idealistic camera shots place the viewer in the movie and its horror. For England, society has ceased to exist, which is exactly how someone would view the apocalypse. An end of the world catastrophe surely contains no civil people, if any people at all. The characters are all strange in their own ways and allow the viewer to connect with either one or all of them. However, it is not the characters of 28 Days Later that captured the attention of critics, but the so-called zombies that plague the film.

Boyle stylistically opens up this film with an explanation to the events that will transpire. A blood-born pathogen called “rage” has been created by scientists and injected into several apes for testing purposes. When three activists try to free the animals, thinking they are under-going terrible mistreatment, they soon find out why they were hidden away from the world. Boyle uses this scene to portray a stereotype that some people may have towards activists; that, no matter what, their prime directive is to free an animal being locked up for testing purposes. Nonetheless, they soon find that they made the gravest of mistakes by interfering with them. As an ape bites one of the activists, a scientist who walked in on the activists’ rescue attempt tries to kill the bitten activist, but fails as she attacks everyone present in the room while spreading this disease. At this point, while watching the woman “turn” from being a human to this creature filled with rage, the viewer cannot help but think that she is not a zombie. Rather, she is just a human being who has been infected with a terrible disease.

For an apocalyptic film, 28 Days Later introduces the cause of the apocalypse almost too fast for the viewer to catch and store away for later use. Instead of seeing the evacuation and the first true effects of Rage on millions of people, Boyle throws his audiences into the character's shoes as they are forced to play "survival of the fittest" against these raging machines full of a disease that mimics pure hatred. After the first scene, the viewer has no idea what is going on and focuses for a minute on the details of an eerily abandoned London. However, Boyle does not leave us in the dark longer than we have to, and we are quickly introduced to the "zombies" that critics claim are loads of horrific fun.

When trying to disassociate the infected people in this film from the zombies the viewer was expecting, consider the differences between the two. Zombies are the walking/living dead who eat brains, walk haphazardly, and are extremely unintelligent. The infected people in 28 Days Later possess none of these qualities. They are living, breathing humans who happen to be contaminated by a disease born from science. They are extremely intelligent and posses the same capabilities as humans do when it comes to rational thinking. They are incredibly fast and have the ability to appear out of nowhere. Instead of dying, they develop into these infected people who, when the blood of an infected person enters an orifice of their body, turn into a person filled with no emotions besides rage. Considering all of this, should the infected people be regarded as zombies?

While it is true that the infected people eat other people, it could simply be that they do this because their bodies no longer recognize a need for credible food sources and find the hunt appealing. In a scene where an infected soldier is trying to kill another soldier, the infected one does not bite him. Instead, he attacks the soldier, pins him down, and then proceeds to vomit excess amounts of blood onto the soldier. Safely assuming that the soldier did not intend to consume any of the blood being thrown up onto him, he does happen to get infected by it entering into his body. So, do the infected only think about eating flesh and brains as zombies do? Or are they simply acting out as an enraged person would when no other rational thought can enter their minds?

It is important to keep in mind that the most prominent distinction between zombies and the infected people in this film is one of their intelligences. In a scene where the four main survivors of the film attempt to leave London in order to seek the safety of a blockade, Selena (Naomie Harris), Jim, (Cillian Murphy), Frank (Brendan Gleeson), and Hannah (Megan Burns) have to drive through a dark tunnel. While driving over a huge pile of parked cars they get a flat tire and the infected people start running towards them. Boyle does a fantastic job of prolonging and intensifying this scene by constantly moving the camera from one person to the next and then to the approaching infected people to make the viewer squirm uncomfortably in their seat, wishing they would hurry up and fix the flat tire. Nevertheless, they all get away unharmed. However, that is not what captures the viewer’s attention, but rather how the infected react after Frank quickly puts the car in gear. They ran at them with surprising speed and agility, yet when the car began to move further away, the infected realized they were not going to catch them and halted their advance. If theses infected people are supposed to be zombies, then Boyle did a terrible job of portraying them as such. No zombie I have ever seen was either fast or clever.

The one thing that is constant in the viewer’s observation of the infected people is that they are violent. However, when we are introduced to the soldiers later on in the film, one cannot help but put the infected people in the same category as the soldiers. No matter how sick the infected people are, at least they have a reason for their violent actions. The soldiers’ violence towards Jim, Selena, and Hannah is inexcusable. It is crazy and foolish to think that humans can cease to be cruel even when the world is at an end. Their feigned kindness towards Hannah, Jim and Selena quickly turns to madness as they realize why the soldiers were so eager to help them. Two women prove to be extremely valuable to men who have been so “courageously” fighting off the infected. When Jim fully comprehends what the soldiers have in mind for the women, he tries to escape with them. Nevertheless, the soldiers seem to be one step ahead of them and catch them before they even leave the house. Jim is taken from the women and sent to be executed, where the true madness begins.

The final scenes of violence in this film are controversial. Jim turns into a madman as he sets free a soldier, Private Mailer (Marvin Campbell), who became infected and was imprisoned in a small courtyard. As Mailer realizes he is free, he looks at Jim with an almost “thank you” in his eyes and begins to tear through the house. Jim is non-existent for a few minutes as Boyle focuses on Mailer’s apparent revenge for being locked up and starved to death, infection or not. This scene proves to the viewer that the infected people are not only infected, but they are also people. When Jim finally makes his appearance, Selena is being taken away by the most vulgar soldier of them all, Corporal Mitchell (Ricci Harnett). Knowing that Selena and Jim have a growing affection for each other gives the reader insight as to why Jim went as mad as he did on the Corporal. While some may view Jim’s unexpected change from being a passive character to a stark-raving madman as absurd, others can see that Jim was in his right mind to have acted out the way he did. He acted out of love for Selena and for what Mitchell had threatened to do to her. However, Boyle went a little far with adding somewhat “blissful” music in the background as Jim violently kills Mitchell. Even with Jim’s new found violent side to his personality, the viewer can tell it won’t be permanent, therefore excluding any distinction between him, the soldiers, and the infected people.

As obviously different as the infected are to zombies, some people would not agree. Well-known film critics for “Rotten Tomatoes” and “The Internet Movie Database” include this film with others such as Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. However, the infected people are no more than humans who are acting out against others in rage. You will not be disappointed to find that these people are not zombies, but rather you will be amazed to find a horror film filled with gore and guts that does not have mindless zombies getting in the way of the action. It is very much like Francis Lawrence’s I Am Legend when it comes to the creatures not truly being defined as zombies, but as people who have been infected by something man-made. The distinction between zombies and the infected people of 28 Days Later is so important because it distances itself from normal zombie movies. If every zombie-type movie was the same, would you want to see all of them?

War of the Worlds: What Went Wrong?

Steven Spielberg's reputation for directing spell-binding films such as E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind set all his viewers up to watch what they thought would be another masterful catastrophe. Instead of seeing friendly aliens who want nothing more than to make friends with humans, the viewer gets a race of extraterrestrials that aim to destroy all humanity. Although, I do not think it would be fare to put all the blame for the failure of Worlds on Spielberg alone. The script writers Josh Friedman and David Koepp seriously lacked the skill to transform H.G. Wells' timeless novel into a present-day horror film about the apocalypse. To say that the script is "flawed" would be a charitable statement. Even though the changes Friedman and Koepp made were to modernize the story for audiences, it had extensive errors. Even with Spielberg's directive brilliance behind each and every turn of the film, he was not able to stop the film from driving full-speed to its own destruction.

Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a typical amateur construction worker who lives in a typical bachelor's house; no food in the refrigerator, evidence of his job strewn haphazardly throughout his house, a blatant disregard for his kid's needs (considering they are 10 and 16 years old, yet share a room with barely fit for toddlers). He hurries home from work to meet up with his Dakota Fanning) and Robbie (Justin Chatwin) who get dropped off by his ex-wife Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) for a couple of days. Ray's lack of a relationship with his kids becomes obvious as Robbie completely avoids any contact with Ray and Rachel gives him a hug filled with utter disappointment at having to be placed in his care. However terrible Ray's relationship with his offspring is, the day only gets worse. Bizarre lightening storms have wiped out the oddest source of power (i.e. automobiles) and produce massive tripods from beneath the earth's surface. While entire towns are being leveled and people are being zapped right out of their clothes, Ray grabs his kids and makes a run to the countryside with, miraculously, the only working vehicle. However, every corner they turn sends them head-first into even more danger. This begs the viewer to ask, where can safety be found when the world no longer belongs to humans?

For the majority of the 117 minutes, Spielberg has the ability to thrust us from one horrifying scene to the next with barely a chance to catch our breaths. The film is as unyielding as its bad guys with constant raids on massive groups of people and grotesque images of what the aliens actually use humans for. Along with scenes of true horror from our uninvited guests, the viewer gets a taste of how dire the circumstances have become; base and elevated aspects of human nature are shown in full force. Mobs of desperate people and selfless acts of bravery devour the scenes as the aliens try to take hold of every aspect of human life. When the aliens aren't dominating the scene, natural human survival instincts are. Ray is forced to do some things that no one should ever have to do in life for the sake of his kids, which brings out the fatherly side we needed from him in the beginning.

Worlds is kept as clean and simple as any horror film can be. Spielberg earned his PG-13 rating by keeping the scenes free of vulgar language and gruesome images. While the viewer knows exactly what is going on and the true validity of the situation better than any children who might watch it, parents need not fear that their child is being subjected to a film such as Nightmare on Elm Street. While it is true that they might have nightmares, the kids will not pick up any new words that would earn them a one-way-ticket to a good beating. Spielberg keeps it so that we never really know anything more than what he and his kids know.

Along with scenes of mass chaos, we see simpler scenes that invoke a different kind of fear rather the than instant destruction of mankind. Spielberg gives us usual destructive scenes, such as building being obliterated and entire cities being destroyed, along with simpler scenes, such as a hoard of dead bodies floating down a river with creepy music rising higher and higher as the scene progresses. To have a scene start out so innocent and turn into such a nightmare is what made this scene forever stand out/ They all become permanently lodged in the viewer's memory throughout the film, but it's those unexpected simple scenes that make this film horrifyingly unique.

An emblematic scene that will forever stand out in Worlds is the scene when Ray, Robbie and Rachel finally reach the ex-wife's house, only to find it empty. Ray is desperately trying to keep his sanity in tact with fixing them all peanut butter sandwiches. However, instead of looking through his ex-wife's shelves to find suitable food, he sticks with what Robbie happened to snag from Ray's fridge (which was practically enough bread for one sandwich each and varying sauces). When Ray finds out how little he truly knows about his kids, what little reasoning he had flew out the window. Ray turns from his kids and throws a half of his PB sandwich against the window where he proceeds to mutter things about staying calm. While the camera closes in on Ray's distraught face, the viewer cannot help but eye the wary sandwich as it hopelessly slides down the glass. Perhaps Spielberg wanted us to view the sandwich as Ray's hope slowly fading away, or perhaps it represents his connection with his kids falling even further from where it first was. Yet, where Spielberg obviously wanted to grab some sympathy from the audience for Ray, the viewer cannot help but laugh as the sandwich slowly inches further out of view. We are fully able to convey the depth of Ray's despair as reality finally sets in about his lack of fatherhood without the metaphor of the sliding sandwich. Yet, no matter how comical scene this scene was, the audience is able to feel Ray's fear as clear as glass.

The most eye-catching scene in the movie, however, does not include one with an alien destroying mankind. One can hardly forget the images that people will go to their graves with of the world post-9/11, and the scene where Ray enters his house after the first tripod appears is extremely disturbing. Covered in the dust of the people who were zapped by the aliens, he presents the audience with a view no one will ever forget; a terrified man either unsure or unwilling to believe what has happened, covered in the ash of an attack on mankind. The horrific scenes of 9/11 flash across every one's minds as they watch Ray numbly walk into his house, trying to understand what has just happened. Spielberg uses this scene to set his audiences up for several lines that refer to terrorism, showing the mindset of of the world post-9/11. Tying the tragic attack on the World Trade Centers in with this movie allowed audiences to see how people think about attacks and who might be behind them. Our immediate reaction is terrorists instead of thinking of all the possible beings that would want to harm humanity.

Worlds deserves the all-too-happy it received, but it could have been much less clichéd. There was no true conclusion other than leaving the viewer with the knowledge that the aliens could not survive our world due to bacteria. The world has virtually been wiped out, and Spielberg ends the movie with a sappy reunion of the family? It was definitely not the desirable ending many people had hoped for, such that the aliens were not destroyed by man, but by tiny living organisms that can't even be seen without special microscopes. It was a shame to think that mankind probably would not have been able to defeat the invaders if not for bio-organisms that have lived on this planet for millions of years before men. Nonetheless, Spielberg's reputation for action and thrill preceded him through most of the movie. It would have been more entertaining to see the aliens and humans in more combat against each other rather than scenes of humans wildly running away from the aliens and hiding like cowards.

Children of Men: Kee as a Nativity Figure

Human infertility, segregation, and terror plague the screen of this morbid apocalyptic film. Based on the novel by P.D. James, Director Alfonso Cuaron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, A Little Princess), offers the viewer very little insight as to what the movie will hold, according to what we can gather from the other movies he has directed. However, Cuaron gives the viewer a pretty good idea of what the entire movie will hold in store after the first scene erupts into chaos. The death of the youngest person on the planet, "Baby Diego," flashes across every television set in the background and is heard on every broadcast station. The first scene, which introduces Theo (Clive Owen) into the film, has him in a small shop surrounded by people watching the horrific murder of Baby Diego. The shop gets bombed merely seconds after Theo exits, in which a slight ringing in his ears begins. This sound plays an important role in the film, because it puts the viewer in Theo's shoes; feeling the shock of the explosion in a physical and mental manner. The sound becomes an annoying, yet persistent, noise in the background. Cuaron uses thematic elements such as this immaculately, which incorporates the viewer into the movie.

Throughout the next few scenes, Theo is kidnapped by his ex-wife Julianne (Julianne Moore) and asked to deliver special immigration papers that would ensure the safety of a woman into London who is carrying an extraordinary package. Although the viewer already knows what this woman holds in her clutches, Cuaron does a wonderful job using dramatic irony to keep the truth of her circumstances from the people in the film. This gets the viewer more involved in the film. When the viewer is introduced to her, Kee (Claire-Hope Ashity) is rather rough around the edges and not as mature as one would think a pregnant woman should be. She is rude an uncouth to Theo, especially given that he is risking his own safety for hers without knowing her secret. As the nativity figure of the film, Kee is far below the expectations of a Madonna that the viewer has produced.

When comparing Kee to the Virgin Mary, she falls so far short of Mary's qualities and accomplishments that one wonders of Kee truly can be described as a nativity figure. However, Kee proves everyone wrong when she innocently reveals the truth of her need for safe passage to Theo. She looks so young and fragile standing amongst cattle and bathed in a soft glow of light that the viewer can't help but imagine if that is what Mary herself looked when she and Joseph arrived in the barn before the birth of Jesus. With the importance of Kee's pregnancy hanging in the air between them, Theo realizes that her baby will not only be the savior of England, but of the world from total chaos. Kee seems to be placed in a position similar to that of Mary when the significance of just who's babe she held in her womb came to light. Although, it's not a matter of whose baby it is for Kee; rather, it's the fact that it is the first successful pregnancy in eighteen years. This baby could end the segregation that plagues England and, undoubtedly, the world.

After Kee's revelation, Theo finds out that the people who were sworn to protect her ("Fishes") are planning on using the baby for their own purposes. Theo manages to escape with Kee and an interesting woman named Miriam (Pam Ferris), who seems to be Kee's protector and maternity expert. This new thought of Kee as a present day Madonna does not leave the mind of the viewer for the rest of the film. It is extremely important to keep this idea of Kee as a nativity figure in mind because of how prominent her pregnancy is for the plot of the movie. Her child can put a stop to the thousands of people being ruthlessly murdered, tortured, and immigrated out of England for being anything less than a citizen. If Kee was simply looked upon as just any pregnant woman trying to find safety for herself, then the film loses its significance as being something other than a movie filled with death. Instead, it is a movie filled with the promise of life; a life that can save the world from completely destroying itself. Keeping Kee looked at as a Madonna figure allows the viewer to want Theo and Kee to succeed in locating the Human Project (a secret society dedicated to saving the world from oppression).

With this new perception on Kee and her baby, the viewer is left to question, what exactly does Kee and the Virgin Mary have in common? From what history tells us, Mary was an innocent when she conceived Jesus, leaving one large difference between Mary and Kee. When Theo asked Kee who the father of her child is she jokingly stated that she is a virgin, in which Theo looked so utterly shocked that his reaction served as a slight comical relief. After giving Theo a moment to dwell on the thought, Kee unashamedly told Theo that she had no idea who the father is or could be. With this simple, yet extremely significant difference between Kee and Mary, can we really be allowed to view Kee's child as the present day savior? Simply because the circumstances are different for Kee than they were for Mary does not make her child any less of a savior of mankind. Mary's baby was conceived at a time when God knew the world needed to be shown the extent of his love and power for mankind. Kee's baby would ultimately provide the same outcome as Jesus' birth did, and would undoubtedly be looked at as another Jesus Christ.

As Kee and Theo try to make their way to the Human Project, they meet up with a long-time friend of Theo's named Jasper (Michael Caine), who gives them food and shelter. When danger arrives, Jasper sends them to a man named Syd (Peter Mullan) who gets them inside the city walls of the immigration camps where a woman named Marichka (Oana Pellea) will be able to lead them to the Human Project. In the midst of the poverty-ridden city of London, Kee and Theo are almost separated, giving the viewer quite a scare. When they find Marichka, Kee and Theo are taken to a room where Kee promptly begins to give birth to her baby. This scene becomes almost comical as Theo scurries around the room, trying to prepare himself for the delivery of virtually the most important being on the planet. When the child arrives, angelic music begins playing, only fueling the viewer's idea of Kee being a present day Madonna. As Kee situates herself with her babe, the scene fades to black, leaving the viewer with wistful hopes that the babe survived its first night in the worst possible conditions for a newborn.

The next scene that unfolds in a beautiful bath of sunlight gives the viewer hope for Kee and her little savior. The light plays softly over the child and Kee, making them both look like pure innocents. The idea of Kee playing the role of a present day nativity figure is now set in stone. The emblematic scenes that unravel this truth to the viewer are what give this film its hope. Her child is the only person who can make people see what they are doing to each other without lifting a hand to fight or a gun to shoot. The entire world has turned its back on sensibility and compassion for others, which is what lead them down the road of infertility in the first place. Whether it was an environmental or religious explanation, mankind was put to the test and failed miserably. The hope of Kee's baby is what gives this movie so much light in a world enclosed in darkness. Without Kee and her child, the film would be morbid and depressing, which is what anyone would expect from an apocalyptic film; yet, when given this ray of hope, people cannot help being optimistic, even in an apocalypse

The most prominent emblematic scene in this film is when Kee and Theo are exiting a building that is being fired upon by the British army. As they try to leave the baby cries out, grabbing the attention of everyone in the hall. Soft angelic music plays in the background as people realize that Kee holds a child in her arms. People swarm to her, astounded at the little bundle squirming in Kee's arms. They would fall to their knees, pray, lightly touch the baby, and (in the case of two soldiers) make the sign of the cross across their chests. This scene screamed Mary and Jesus. Not only were the people utterly shocked in the presence of the baby, but there was an obvious religious connection with the child. It is going to be savior of the world.

The infamous Uprising talked about throughout the movie happens right as Theo and Kee are leaving to find the Human Project. People are shouting "Allah Humana!" (Go with God) and firing their guns into the air as a sign of freedom from England's hold. Considering the rise of the oppressed happened the day after the birth of Kee's baby, the viewer gets the idea that things are going to turn around. When Jesus Christ entered the world, oppression of the people who followed a different religion started to dwindle. Kee's baby would be the final constituent in ending the injustice done to the world. However, Kee and Theo are discovered by the Fishes who wanted to use Kee's baby as a means for their own purposes. Things go from bad to worse as Kee and her baby are once again threatened with their lives. The final scene is bleak and disturbing as, when Theo and Kee finally find a boat, the city (and Uprising) gets bombed. All hope starts to fade as they slowly row away from the island in nasty brown water and dense fog. But the end holds a wonderful surprise and a light for humanity. As the scene comes to a close, you hear children laughing in the background. Can we assume that the earth was once again populated with children and their cheerful voices? Or is Cuaron simply toying with our minds after leaving us with a puzzling end?