At a Theater Near You

Don't you hate it when they turn one of your favorite books into a movie, and they change the story/characters/dialogue in ways that--as far as you are concerned--just ruin the whole thing?

Well, The Children of Men by P.D. James is not one of my favorite books, but it's up there next to The Handmaid's Tale on my shelf dedicated to the literature of infertility (it's not a particularly large shelf).  Anyway, one thing I found interesting about The Children of Men (the novel), which is about a futuristic world in which no children have been born in 20ish years, is that the author takes great pains to explain that this is a male factor fertility crisis:

Overnight, it seemed, the human race had lost it's power to breed.  The discovery in July 1994 that even the frozen sperm stored for experiment and artificial insemination had lost its potency was a peculiar horror....The world didn't give up hope until the generation born in 1995 reached sexual maturity.  But when the testing was complete and not one of them could produce fertile sperm, we knew that this was indeed the end of Homo sapiens (p. 8).

That's pretty unambiguous: no fertile sperm.

So, imagine my surprise when I walked by a theater displaying a poster for the movie: "In 20 years, women are infertile.  No children. No future.  No hope.  But all that can change in a heartbeat."

Now, I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't speak to the reason this change was made.  Maybe there's a good reason, but right now, it just pisses me off as another example of the enduring belief that infertility--even in a futuristic dystopia--is a woman's problem.

Thoughts?

Comments

[DD]

Marketing. Women drive a majority of the movie industry... unless it involves Sylvester Stallone or Jean Claude Van Damme(sp).

[K&M]

Ok now that pisses me off. I was really looking forward to that movie, too, but now...not so much. Will definitely have to read the book.

[Sarah]

Bastards--this is one of those times when a college era rant about the patriarchy seems apt.
Sarah

[Brooklyn Girl]

But DD--what a mistake the marketers are making! Granted I'm only anudience of one, but I'm now much less likely to see the movie (because the alteration disturbs me)...and much more likely to bash it.

[Erin]

I can feel my blood pressure rising now. The change pisses me off and makes it less likely that I'll see it. Ever. Otherwise, it might have piqued my interest.

Also, it was directed by a man, and as we all know, men who are infertile aren't manly. *choke, snort* He probably couldn't handle the idea of MEN being infertile. If it had been directed by a woman, I'm almost certain that wouldn't have been changed.

It pisses me off that they're not only perpetuating the myth that infertility is solely a female problem, but that they're not taking the opportunity to show that male infertility isn't something about which to be ashamed.

[Abby]

I read a review of that movie just a day or two ago. The reviewer said that movie is SO UNCLEAR about why there are no more children that it's a ridiculous story line. It leaves viewers with a lot of unanswered questions, apparently.

Amazing that the poster gives more to the story than the actual movie.

[abogada]

I think a lot of men don't want to own up to it. I know that I usually looked at my infertility as a medical condition more than a failing as a woman, though sometimes, I did feel like a failure as a human being.

My RE told me that he was a guest speaker at a meeting concerning infertility, and one of the couples was there that he was treating for male factor. Each of the couples were supposed to introduce themselves and give a brief description of their problem. The woman introduced herself and her partner, and then she said that they had "unexplained" infertility, rather than telling the truth. My doctor said that was typical of what he had seen -- women tend to be more open; men like to hide the truth. Though I'm sure that's not true with all men; I don't think my husband would have been like that.

My guess is the film was produced/directed/etc. by men!

[Elle]

I'm glad you posted this because while I have neither seen the movie nor read the book I have heard lots of discussion from people about how totally unclear the movie is about why there are no children.

Anyway probably the hollywood honchos couldn't fathom making an action movie with manly men who also couldn't make sperm. Perhaps they didn't think an infertile male hero would sell. Easier to say the problem lies with the ladies.

I can't recall what explanation, if any, was given in The Handmaid's Tale for the widespread infertility.

[Ariella]

Elle, in The Handmaid's Tale, the reason given for the infertility is the pollution and toxicity of the food the people are eating. She's fairly vague about it, but intimates that it was society's own fault that they were infertile due to pollution, etc.

[Ali]

Wow. That really angers me. Nothing new however. I think most people assumed that I had the problem, including my doctors even prior to any testing(it looks like they may be right--but then again, we may never really know).

[swissmiss]

Well of course it's always women's fault.

From a marketing standpoint, even if I weren't infertile (and, I guess, actually I'm not as we have a male factor issue) as a woman that tag line would not inspire me to run and see this movie.

Wasn't part of the explanation in the book something about the chemicals in everyday household plastics containing estrogen (?)which altered male fertility? Which is not necessarily only fiction? Or am I making that up?

[Mollywogger]

Damn it. Finally something that could have shifted some of that societal blame, and it missed the mark.

I'll still see it because fantastically steamy Clive Owen is in it, but damn it.

[Brooklyn Girl]

James is vague about the causes of infertility in the novel too--she makes the point that there is no particular germ or virus to blame; no explanation about why the men were afflicted. She says that declining birthrates were noted in the 1990s and "that the fall was deliberate, a result of more liberal attitudes to birth control and abortion, the postponement of pregnancy by professional women pursuing their careers, the wish of families for a higher standard of living" (p. 8).

[Sara]

Well, you always teach me something, BG. I didn't know it was originally a book, but I did see the movie.

I think if I wouldn't have known the book took the route you said, I probably would have liked the movie more. I actually found an interview where Cuaron spoke about how he didn't want to explain why infertility existed in the movie - he also stated how he hated the original script and changed it all. So, it looks like it was mostly his doing.

There is one brief moment in the movie where the midwife is talking about how suddenly, many years before, all of her patients started miscarrying. Miscarrying their babies late in pregnancy, and then earlier and earlier until there were no upcoming prenatal visits. That is certainly suggesting it was the women, in some sense, who were infertile, or couldn't maintain their pregnancies. Just the idea disturbed me, but if anyone mentions miscarriage in a known-blog-oriented setting, I pretty much flinch and leave the room. Too much sometimes . . .

I will have to read the book, but there were aspects of the movie that touched me. It seems the whole end-of-the-world thing going on is in direct relation to the fact that there are no children, thus, everyone has nothing to live for. I think he was trying to make it a circle, if that makes sense.

It wasn't horrible, but I had higher hopes for it.

Here is that interview:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1159246/reviews.php?rid=1563932

[Brooklyn Girl]

Thanks for that link Sara. That actually makes me madder. First, there's the fact that Cuaron couldn't be bothered to read the novel itself because "I didn't want to second-guess myself or sidetrack." That's lame. Beyond lame.

In response to the question about why women have become infertile in the film, he answers: "To be frank, I don't care about it because it's not true. It's just a premise. For me, what's important was the metaphor of the premise."

If that's true, then why change the story so that it's the women who are infertile instead of the men? Why change the premise if it's just a "metphor"?

I'll have to look, but I don't remember anything about miscarraige in the book. There is a midwife in the novel, and she describes the moment she had realized that she had no future deliveries scheduled: "I was doing a stint in the antenatal clinic at the time. I remember booking a patient for her next appointment and suddenly noticing that thepage seven months ahead was blank. Not a single name. Women usually booked in by the time they'd missed their second period, some as soon as they'd missed one. Not a single name. I thought, what's happening to the men in this city" (pp. 148-9). [Of course, one might ask what makes the midwife jump to the conclusion that the problem is with the men.]

I think you're right about the circle that "the whole end-of-the-world thing going on is in direct relation to the fact that there are no children, thus, everyone has nothing to live for," but that is true regardless of whether the infertility is male or female factor. So, why the change?

[anon]

I have to say, I'd never heard of the book, but I saw the trailer the other night and thought, "Wow, I'll bet that that movie is going to really piss me off if I go see it." Now I know more and, well, that's $7 saved...

[Suz]

I've never heard of the book, either, but now I want to read it. I was interested in the movie, although admitted I would never go see it because I just couldn't sit through almost three hours of a tale about women not being able to have children. I think that they didn't want to alienate the male audience - that's it.

[Chickenpig]

I think it's a crying shame that it was changed. Especially since male factor is on the rise, one in six cases of infertility is due to male factor, and no one knows what is causing the increase. Some people blame hormones in the beef, and in increasing levels of radiation. If the movie actually had male infertility at it's heart, it might get some people talking. Sure, it's unlikey that we will ever run out of men that can make babies, but it's a serious health issue in any case.

[Joanne]

I actually saw this movie a week or so ago and loved it as it is visually stunning and well acted all around. Then I read your post and it got me thinking and kinda pissed me (and my DH) off. We were upset that they would change such a big aspect and "make it all the woman's fault".
But then I had another thought today. The movie deals with a woman who has miraculously become pregnant and she is going to prove to be the savior of the human race. If, in fact, the infertility WAS all due to the males then the movie (and the book?) would have to pursue a line of thought of "Oh we must find this last fertile man!" making it a man who saves the human race.

Just interesting that making the infertility a female thing, also made it possible for a female to be the ultimate heroine.

[Bella]

That is really annoying! Why do you think they made that change? Will it satisfy more male viewers?

[marion]

I think the change was made because the producers/writers/whoever believed that women would be willing to go see a movie where women couldn't get pregnant, but men would not be willing to see a movie in which men could not impregnate women. Whether this is true or not is another matter.

However, thinking about it as a writer...Books have a permanence that movies often lack, IMHO. Most of PD James's other books are parts of ongoing series. I have no idea whether or not she thought of turning _Children of Men_ into an ongoing series, but I can totally believe that she'd write it in a way that would leave such a possibility open. In order to do that, you have to have some hope. A world in which virtually no women are fertile is a world in which you really can't keep the population alive in any real way. Women can only have so many babies, because each one takes a while to gestate, and if you try to push the female reproductive system too much, you risk putting it offline forever. (Not to mention the fact that you are, in essence, forcing a woman to go through a great number of physically taxing pregnancies.) On the other hand, men can theoretically father hundreds of children...and you can freeze their sperm and help them father hundreds more one women they'll never meet. And their bodies aren't affected negatively in a physical way by the act of creating children. You need a *much* smaller pool of fertile men to keep the human race going in a sustainable way. If I had to guess why PD James made infertility in her book a male rather than a female problem, that would be my guess as one of the major factors...that, and the fact that we know that sperm counts seem to be declining but have no equivalent way to judge female fertility. After all, the number of women that children bear is affected by many factors, level of fertility being just one.

It's entirely possible, though, that Cuaron wanted to tell a story of a human race that was doomed, to make a better movie. So, he tells a story of the birth of a miracle child...but does so in a way that doesn't preclude the ultimate death of mankind. Does that make sense?

(All that having been said...from what I remember of the book, if Cuaron is making infertility a female problem, he CAN'T be telling the same story that PD James was. There's a particular part of the book that would have to play out differently on screen. Hmmm.)

[millie]

I saw the preview for the movie the same day I read your post. And, boy, did it piss me off. I'm very interested to read the book, though. And I might succumb to the charms of Clive Owen. I'll still be pissed though.

[Karen]

I find this extremely frustrating. I've never read the book, but when I heard advertisements for the movie on the radio (I rarely watch tv, so I havne't seen a preview), the tagline always frustrated me. I thought, "Why does it have to be the women?" Now that I've read the Cuaron interview, I'm incensed.

[legalmama]

May be spoilers ahead.

I just saw the movie last night, haven't yet read the book (I'm buying it today), but without knowing yet that the book had the men being infertile, Dh and I discussed last night why they had to make the women infertile and not the men.

I think there are actually some valid narrative reasons, which are not overtly revealed, but make some sense to me.

The movie is all about bringing this woman through a horrifically dangerous situation to keep her and her baby safe, so that they can get them to the right people, and perhaps restore hope to humanity. It is a harrowing journey, made more so because she is heavily pregnant. They need to conceal her condition, and also she is weakened at the end by her condition. She goes into labor at a very inopportune and dangerous moment. While I understand the book is much more about how universal infertility impacts humanity, the movie is much more about the journey of this particular woman, and the man who is helping her, against the backdrop of the world created by universal infertility.

The image of her pregnant belly is so shocking, and beautiful, in this infertile world. If all women were fertile and only men were infertile, the whole journey to get her to the right people, and to keep her free from danger, would really lose something in an emotional and visual way. While it would be important to protect her baby, it would be more important to protect the man who fathered the baby so he could father more babies, and so they could figure out why he could father babies when no one else could. The whole oddyssey would have a very different feeling, and a different visual effect, if it were the man and his sperm being protected. First of all, his fertility would not be apparent to anyone, and not a secret that you needed to closely guard. It wouldn't be like if his coat fell open, everyone would know that he has sperm that work. He wouldn't be in a weakened state, needing help from a good-looking Clive Owen. And you wouldn't need to get the woman to the right people, who may or may not even exist; you would have to get the man to the right people. Or maybe even just a vial of his frozen sperm.

And the idea of this one woman being the beginning of the rebirth of humanity is much more romantic and poetic, and visually beautiful, fitting with images of fertilty throughout the ages, than it would be if it were a man playing that role. Are there even any images of men associated with fertility? I don't know of any. Okay, so if you want to repopulate the world, you put they guy in a room with a bunch of porn magazines, to produce freezers full of sperm, and start inseminating all the women who are already fertile. Just not the same as the image of this young woman with swollen breasts and swollen belly, holding the secrets in her womb and her ovaries. Her fertility is simply a much more precious commodity than his would be.

And also as a technical matter, I think that, in our day and age, infertile women would be much more of a problem than infertile men. They make it clear in the movie that it starts with women miscarrying their babies, not just no one getting pregnant. If women could still carry babies, then in 2027, when the movie takes place, I would bet that embryos could be cloned, and that sperm would not even be necessary. So they imply that not only can women not get pregnant, they can't carry their babies. This issue is not discussed, but it made sense to me that it was a consideration.

While it might feel as if the movie now blames the women for the infertility, I didn't get that feeling at all.

I think the movie and book are probably so different that you have to consider each on their own merits, and not compare them.