The Genesis Children

Judging from comments on other sites, people either love or hate this movie. I was warned that it would be crap, but I was even more enticed by the theme: A bunch of teens doing what they are best at - being beautiful.

And that was exactly what it was. There is no story whatsoever and the so called philosophical theme is just there as an alibi - its naive statements make you laugh. What's more - the acting sucks. The Genesis Children really is a pathetic movie, by normal movie standards.

The only point with The Genesis Children is to show teenage boys naked. And God, that's a great point! That is *radical* in today's society. I watched the movie smiling, both at the boys' beauty and at the fact that such a film has been made at all.

I found Falconeer's review most convincing. Therefore the following cites Falconeer (by "") at some points, while adding several own thoughts.

First -- I can only underline Falconeer's remark that "the creators obviously have an almost reverent love and respect for this special time of life before we must accept responsibility ... So I find it profoundly sad to read so many people trashing this movie, based on the scenes where the kids are playing and swimming plainly nude." Having surmounted the threshold of doing away with their clothes, "the characters don't even seem to be aware" any more of any peculiarities "of their being naked, so I have to wonder why it is such a big deal for the adult audience ... kids ... would have a deeper understanding of it than many adults". Yes, indeed.

Second -- "Genesis Children is showing the difficult journey that we all take" in order to become what we always were, and to that end the boys are taking part in a 'play to be performed before God'. At a certain point close to the end of the film, after having engaged in a 'ritual' of burning an old van which they had rammed into their self-built shelter the day before, a turning point of the play is reached, where some of the boys decide to leave the place and the play. Here I locate what is perhaps the central sentence of the film: 'Aren't you going home?' asks one of those who have put on clothes again and are about to leave. 'I am home', replies one of those who stay. In a somewhat cryptic manner one could say that some have not moved during the play and are therefore bound to leave and continue their quest for 'home', while the others do have moved and therefore can stay.

Now I want to put forward another essential point. One can view the message of this film as the third part of a trilogy. On Aikman's own home page (still available) there is noted 'Often compared to Lord of the Flies'. This other classic, filmed after the famous novel by William Golding just 10 years before The Genesis Children, refers in turn quite explicitly to Ballantine's novel 'Coral Island' from the mid-19th century. In all 3 cases the theme is the acting of a group of (male) kids left alone on some island or shore (i.e. deprived of a direct civilized environment and set out in a purely natural setting), with an undertone of investigating where evil comes from or how it is overcome. But while in Ballantine's novel the point of view is clearly optimistic in the colonial sense common in the 19th century (Wikipedia: 'obsessed with the purity of God, Trade and the Nation, and written for the future rulers of the world'), Golding decidedly destroys the optimistic world-view of a self-proclaimed master-race. In his story, which like Ballantine's still features dominance, struggle and victory or defeat, these impulses do not create an ever growing sphere of ordered civilisation, but lead into complete destruction within the shortest possible time. Here Aikman's film appears as a response to Golding's 'solution', and its purpose is, I believe, to feature less crude impulses than dominance or struggle and victory. There is never aggression or any struggling for dominance between these children, who in the beginning practise a fully cooperative way of living with astonishing ease and great naturalness. I think Aikman wants to show that this way of living is endangered in the first place in a more subtle way -- 'boredom, hunger and homesickness were our enemies, and that's why we started to argue'. Instead of aggression it's a feeling of futility with regard to the quest for 'home' by some of the boys, which finally divides the group.

This leads to my final point. Other reviewers were concerned that so much nudity might be considered a bit gratuitous. Much nudity? If I count all the nudity scenes, I end up with about 1/8 of the film, and even in this moderate part nudity often can only be intuited, because the boys are visible only in the distance as silhouettes against the light or otherwise blurred. The nudity scenes are not to bluntly showcase naked bodies but do have some particular message. They never lack respect and reverence, and above all they are presented as sort of sacred dance and breathe a sabbatical ease and peace, underlined by the music score changing to liturgical songs and church bells and evoking allusions to Psalm 126 ("release of captives"). I wished -- pedophiles-hunters, calm down, there's nothing here for you to get -- they would take 1/4 of the film or more. By the way, that they appear predominantly in the first quarter of the film is also a reference to Lord of the Flies. And gratuitous? I suggest to view it just the other way round: in the natural environment into which the Genesis Children are placed there's no need for a specific reason for being naturally naked, rather there have to be reasons for wearing clothes. And in fact, there are a few scenes where I find it a bit gratuitous that the boys appear more or less clothed. Where Golding sees civilisation compromised and endangered by the brute struggle for dominance exploding to plain war in the end, it seems that Aikman wants to show (among others) civilisation and humanity compromised long before by the much subtler struggle for dominance and by the hiding game clothing is a part of, and he wants to explore what still can compromise when these dangers are removed, and to what extent they can be removed at all. In this sense, there is quite a surprising finale, which rounds out the numerous (but in their essence not explicit) religious overtones of the film.

Btw, it is also a quiet film. Out of 84 min. total runtime just under 25 min. (29%) contain speaking (thereof 6 min. background narrator voice). The rest is underlined by the music score or by just the natural sounds of the beach. I consider this noteworthy.

One could hardly discern Aikman's intentions as a filmmaker at first glance. There is no real conflict in this movie, which means that in the strict sense, according to grammatology and narrative guidelines, there is no story at all.

This statement, however, could be quite deceitful, as one could easily argue that there is, indeed, a story of some sort, albeit not a traditional one. "The Genesis Children" deals with male beauty: there is a strenuous emphasis in the naked bodies of a group of boys, and that alone serves as reminder of certain theories. Can beauty be found in physical form? Or, as Plato would have it, can real beauty only pertain to the Ideal and thus belong to the sphere of ideas and not to the real world? There is also another conception of beauty that could be useful. When Nietzsche defined the Apollonian beauty he referred to symmetry, cleanness, perfection; and clearly some of that approach is present in Aikman's film, however, Nietzsche would also consider the Dionysian aspect almost as vital or, perhaps, even more relevant. Throughout the narrator's soliloquy this dichotomy comes forward "amidst beauty there is decay", thus accepting that, indeed, one cannot understand beauty while looking only at the bright side of it.

Nietzsche once concluded that art may deconstruct or defile modernity's values. Perhaps, in this most controversial production, the director intended to confront morality with creativity. One could wonder how this movie came to be. After all, it displays the naked bodies of eight young actors, all of them underage, and at points the camera seems fixated on certain areas of their anatomies (all of it would be absolutely forbidden by today's legislations in most countries).

Some of these boys have barely reached the onstage of puberty, while others have just started adolescence. There are long scenes in which they wander around naked, frolicking, playing in the water, and perhaps part of the audience could have considered all that nudity a bit gratuitous. After all, some people might argue than to watch the penises of several boys dangling around while they run to the ocean would not really advance the plot in any direction. Nonetheless, if there is no plot then why should the viewers be concerned with such visual trinket? Certainly, these young boys do not decide for themselves to spend several days on a secluded Mediterranean beach, spending most of their time naked for no apparent reason. They had been summoned by a newspaper ad: "Wanted boys to act in a play to be performed before God at Pavicelli. Come unprepared for your parts". The man who has written the ad is a mysterious bearded individual that appears to them as a priest.

Since the first minutes up until the last ones, the boys comment constantly that they feel like they are being watched by someone. That would be no surprise, after all, it's clear that they are there to be observed. In an almost metalinguistic retort, one of the boys says that instead of someone "something" might be watching them.

As was previously explained, the absence of a "story" shouldn't be a real hindrance; nevertheless, the lack of character development and some of the abrupt decisions the boys take can be a bit unfavorable story-wise. For example, after being naked for entire days, one of the boys gets up and decides to leave while shouting to the rest "You can stay here and run around naked in the sun if you want to, but I think it's obscene". If it was obscene, why did he indulge in such activities for so long? Why does he suddenly find it obscene at one point when he had no conflicts about it before? Perhaps, a more character-based approach would have served better the intentions of the director. Nevertheless, as any artistic work that deviates greatly from established norms, it bears some interest but I would not recommend it to impatient viewers.

Its theme remains obscure. The grow up, the naturism, the freedom, the lost or Paradise or the temptation and presence of authority. Its plot - just a convention. Clear - the influences. The lovelz scenes on the beach and in Rome. The boys . The eulogy to naturism. The desire to give a start point for reflection. A beautiful film. Maybe too naive or tool of too idealistic perspective about life. But usefull for the feeling behind it. And, maybe, is the most significant purpoise. Or only virtue.

This a kind of Roman beach holiday for boys, with philosophical overtones. In a kind of reality play acted without a script, a group of boys discover freedom on an Italian beach and analyse the conventions that they otherwise obey. Religion is ever present by a character who first advertises for actors in a play and then appears in many guises throughout the film. In their freedom the boys (early teens) frolic on the beach and carry out their 'roles' in a naturist fashion - i.e. without clothes. But the boys are relaxed with their nudity and not at all embarrassed. It is evident that these boys are not professional actors and this, combined the nudity should not be misread as gay movie. The countryside is beautiful and the beach cliffs, dramatic. It's an unusual film and the type that would be considered an art-house film. But if you end up confused and disgusted, then you're watching in the wrong way. This is a film that does have a message, but one that we frequently obscure.