Reference no: EM133455519

Case Study: Epidemics, in its literal meaning, are the rapid spread of a disease that can infect a large number of people and is highly contagious. Personally, I would not like to have to go through something like this, but if we use the meaning of the word and use it to describe another word, we could have a different perspective on other situations, and this could be just as dangerous and infectious as if we speak specifically a virus or disease. If we talk about war as an epidemic, we could deduce that war can spread and stay in people just like an infectious disease, eventually becoming a global pandemic. As a child we could hear and see how some adults, media, television, etc. describe going to war as something that only the brave and strong could experience, and don't get me wrong, becoming a soldier is a brave and strong decision that not everyone would make, but the problem is that those people and media that paint it as "We need you, protect your country!" they are never sincere with their young audience and just make it seem that war is like a playground where you just have to use some weapons that make you look "cool" and reach the goal. But when you face reality, you realize that in war there is only death, cruelty, destruction, and fear, where groups of young men and women go to fight against people they have never met, and who probably don't even hate each other. In the 2007 film Children of Men directed by Alfonso Cuarón, we realize that it takes on a very particular setting, and that is war. The film takes this scenario and makes us understand that in a state of war where humanity
Ortiz 1

is in continuous conflict, people are cruel and have no compassion for others, hurting each other. Although this is not the main message of the film, it is an aspect that I could not stop leaving my mind every time the characters changed the setting, becoming a characteristic aspect of the story that caught my attention a lot. I want to show you how this message is present in the film and how the characters and certain events that happen are the perfect representatives of how war and conflict consume them, even if they are not the ones causing it.
The film opens with the news that Diego Ricardo, the world's youngest person, has died, and everyone is shocked and saddened by the loss. Immigrants are illegal and the world seems to be on the verge of collapse because people have been infertile for a long time, so there are no babies or pregnant women, and this is where we start to notice the very particular environment. The first situation is between the first scenes of the story, when Theo (the main character), leaves work and sees a bomb being thrown at the building he was leaving. Theo freaks out and everyone else screams in fear, which shows how it is that in a state of war, people are in danger all the time, plus Theo is left with a "ringing" in his ear, demonstrating another consequence (physical specifically) of the unexpected bomb. The scene where Theo, Kee, Miriam, Julian, and one of the "Fish" members head to a farm to rest, a mob of civilians come out of nowhere to stir up a conflict, and Julian is killed as a result, highlighting for the first time in the movie one of the greatest consequences of war: death, this with a touch of crying and screaming of pain from others when they see a dead colleague, something that also happens with the death of Jasper, Theo's friend that helped them take shelter. In the parts where Theo and Kee go to the Bexhill Refugee Camp, it shows how, even in this closed and not so big place, there was chaos and war. In another of the scenes shared by Theo and Kee in the refugee camp, they, along with Kee's baby in their arms, try to get out of the building to get to the boat that Milenka offered them, but
Ortiz 2

are unable to continue due to heavy gunfire and shelling of the place, which shows us how difficult it is for people living in war situations to get out of those places without being injured or maimed. Before the mentioned scene, Theo had killed Syd, but after he's done it, he looks at his bloody hands, as if he doesn't know what he did or as if he doesn't recognize himself, giving us an image and feeling of what it is like for a human being to destroy another individual with their own hands because of conflict and the impulsiveness of survival, something that, for example, could happen to a soldier when he mutilates his "enemy" for the first time. The part where Theo, Kee with her baby and others are touring the city, shows a very violent scene of how several are fighting, leaving no one alive, letting us see the cruelty, hatred, and dehumanization of war, where only the strongest survive. Activism and propaganda are also an aspect of the film that characterizes these times of ongoing conflict. When the movie shows the refugee camp, we can only watch all the people living in poverty, immigrants are treated like garbage and brought exclusively to this shelter because of all this world war. It shows how families cry for a dead member in their arms, tanks drive through the streets, people scream and tremble with fear, etc. You can also see how the streets, houses, and people are all piled up, dirty, full of garbage, and lack clean space and homes. This huge panorama that is not only limited to the refugee camp, where we can see two extremes: one where the rich and powerful people, like Nigel (Theo's cousin), are not having such a bad time and continue to enjoy a better life and without having to fight, and another where the most vulnerable and powerless people cannot enjoy the same comforts, where they have to face their days hiding and living in places where there is no compassion, much less peace, where it seems to be an environment dirty and even polluted, and everyone kills each other without mercy, this scenario is the perfect description to define war.
Ortiz 3

Now that we know about the presence of this message, we may be able to turn it into a lens that will help us see another external situation of common life, and what situation is that? Family problems. Many families, if not all, have gone through tense situations. It must be remembered that the connotation that I am using in this case is a negative image of war, where cruelty and continuous struggle do not perish, I am not talking about a meaning of honor or courage on the part of people to achieve a common goal that can have positive consequences for the party that is supported. By family I am using a different idea than simply referring to a nuclear blood family made up of two parents and their children, I am referring to a joint family, whether blood related or not, which is made up of the aforementioned members, plus grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc. whether they live together or not. Just like being at war, family problems can reach dangerous and cruel limits that one would never think could happen, affecting certain members physically, emotionally, psychologically, and financially. Like the epidemic of war, anger, revenge, and power are the virus that is transmitted from member to member, allowing themselves to be consumed by the virus and ending up in a pandemic with the whole family included. Both in wars and in family conflicts, some factors that lead to problems can be due to hostilities, misinterpretations, revenge, power, money, among many others. Hasty conclusions such as thinking that the increasing transmission of HIV is the fault of a certain group and imprisoning them just for belonging to that group or concluding that a nephew's money is an uncle's stolen money and suing him, could lead to a problem that later it turns into an ongoing conflict. In a state of war, the most vulnerable and powerless bear the brunt: ordinary civilians and people in poverty, or the youngest family members without much right to express themselves. Or perhaps attack other people and start a serious conflict by appealing to tradition, where a person or family member is discriminated against or blamed for a problem simply for
Ortiz 4

thinking differently or being against a practice or belief that for many or most find it acceptable or superior. This side of conflict factors, consequences, and people involved can be taken as a useful way of looking at family problems through this war perspective because you must consider the root of those conflicts and see this lens as a possibility of what could happen in this situation. On the other hand, this lens isn't very useful when it comes to seeing smaller problems or conflicts that don't seem to lead to something bigger, so this infectious epidemic analogy might be flawed in that regard. In a family conflict there may or may not be the use of weapons as in battlefields, but that would depend more on the members and the place or country, or culture of the family. Death is also an aspect of war that may not be very common when dealing with a family conflict. In addition, comparing the size or severity of a war where two nations or social groups in the same place are or have been in a conflict would not be so common, since a joint family is not equal in size and power, however these conflicts may break these limits. It is not necessary to see the conflict in a bigger way than it is, since not all family problems are the same, some can be solved quickly, and there are others that are not so easy, since they can be very strong or exist from a long time ago. That is why it is better to analyze and try to understand more about the problem first before jumping to hasty conclusions.
As the movie Children of Men demonstrates, war is a state where humanity is in continuous conflict and people only hurt each other. This message has a useful application in family problems; however, it must not be forgotten that it also has some usefulness defects. The result that I am giving is that family conflicts can be like a war: people being in a continuous fight, becoming cruel and hurting each other even though they are a family, and the most affected are the most vulnerable and without a voice that can be heard. Even if they don't use weapons or cannons as such, the damage is done, and not just physical.

Questions: Answer the questions

Prompts:Lens/Object

1. State in your own message the message from the film the author is using as their "lens," And identify by page and line number where in the draft the author makes clear this message.
2. What evidence/specifics from the film does the author uses to justify their interpretation. Identify several.
3. State in your own words what situation the author is using as their "object," and identify by page and line number where in the draft the author makes clear this message.
4. What is one question you have about the situation/object that would help you better understand it for the purposes of this essay?
5. State in your own words what conclusion(s) the author comes to about the application of the lens/message to their chosen situation/object, and identify by page and line number where in the draft the author makes clear this conclusion.