Great Witty Title!

Hello everyone! Today we're going to discuss the concepts of Deleuze and Guattari's War Machines, the State, and its relationship and distinction from Nomads. All of this combined with the fantastic film "Children of Men" promises to be a fun and absolutely intellectually exhausting ride! Oh joy! Let's begin.

Objective Review

The scene we're going to be taking a look at today is from fairly early in the film. Our protagonist, Theo, is a disgruntled, cynical bureaucrat and he's just been kidnapped by an activist/terrorist organization known as "The Fishes". Now, at this point The Fishes have explained that they're not really into the business of bombing and killing and maiming anymore, but we don't completely believe them yet. After a quick chat with his estranged wife (who's supposed to be dead but that's completely beside the point) Theo is yet again whisked away with a shroud over his head. Here, we find our focus point for today. As he is about to be unceremoniously dropped off at the sidewalk, one of the men from The Fishes warns Theo against reported this incident to the police. Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?

Patric

This never fucking happened, so don't go telling tales 'cause we'll be watching you. At work, when you sleep, when you have a piss, we'll be watching. All the *fucking* time...

Theo

Geez your breath stinks...

Patric

No it doesn't...

Theo

Yes, it does.

This dialogue is particularly important because it represents much of The Fishes' mentality shown throughout the rest of the film. The importance of which I will explain shortly....

Reaction

I really like this movie! I watched it in theaters when it came out and I remember totally geeking out about the long, continuous, one take scenes. Aside from my subjective reaction, Children of Men is also an incredibly well crafted, intentional film with loads of material for analysis. Just today, we were talking about the Pink Floyd reference when Theo is visiting his cousin. Furthermore, Cuarón's attention to detail and valuable experience (not to mention its very sizable budget…) lends the film an impressive production quality.

Analysis

As I stated previously, today we’re going to be focusing on the Deleuzian ideas of the State, the Nomad and the War Machine. First, let’s get on the same page about the difference between a Nomad and the State.

The way I see it, the State has several key characteristics. First, the State’s main goal is to control the space within its reign (and sometimes of course, as we see in empires, expand that space). The state accomplishes this by working to striate that space; it takes smooth space over which an endless number of lines of flight and relay points are possible, and constructs a regimented system that allows lines of flight only in certain directions and ways. My favorite way to understand this concept is the one used by Deuchars: in chess, “Each piece can only move within the pre-ordained grid and there is no way to modify or escape the codes of chess” (2011). Not only is movement regulated throughout the chess board (striated space) but the pieces themselves are assigned roles and values. For example, a pawn can only move in such a way and is less valuable than a Queen, which can move in a variety of ways.

In the illustration of our film, the State is clearly represented by the government reigning over the UK. This State is constantly working to maintain its stratified space and constrain/ regulate the movement of the pieces within this space.

In contrast, we see the Nomad. Let me explain three key characteristics about the Nomad. The Nomad exists outside of the regimented world of the State’s striated space, but still operates within that same space. Following our chess example, let’s say that suddenly we find a checkers piece on the chessboard. This checkers piece is clearly not part of the State’s structured, striated space and even resists attempts to make it so. Which leads us to our first characteristic: the struggle of the Nomad is essentially a “war of becoming over being” (Deuchars, 2011). The Nomad resists any interpretation of itself and recognizes that its identity is an ever evolving one. Secondly, the Nomad is trying (or succeeding) to move through new lines of flights that are not dictated by the State. In other words, the Nomad does not color within the lines as dictated by the State. Finally, the Nomad lives to operate within this space. Like a cute little sea turtle that has just hatched, it can’t wait to jump into the ocean of smooth space before being snatched up by one of the gulls of the State. Deleuze and Guattari describe it like this: “A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo” (Treatise on Nomadology, 1987).

Now, here comes the analysis part. When one hears our description of the Nomad, one’s mind may initially go to The Fishes, our story’s “resistance fighters” who are trying to overthrow the oppressive state. I argue however that this is not the case. Rather, The Fishes are in fact another form of State attempting to replace the current strata with their own. Let me explain. The Nomad’s use of the War Machine is a “war of becoming over being” (Deuchars, 2011). The Nomad is focused on continuing to operate in those smooth spaces and not being controlled by the State. The utilization of the War Machine by the Nomad is a mechanism to avoid appropriation by the State. The Fishes however, are not simply being survivalists. Instead, The Fishes are appropriating the War Machine and using it to wage war. D&G tell us that this is a tactic that The State uses! “It is at the same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine, subordinates it to its "political" aims, and gives it war as its direct object” (A Thousand Plateaus, 1987). Following this line of logic, we realize that The Fishes are using the War Machine with the primary objective of causing war, not simply evading capture.

Our chosen scene also reflects another telling trait about The Fishes. The environment described in the little speech that Patric gives Theo is not conducive to The Nomad. Instead, it is indicative of a Society of Control. Let’s compare this speech with another very similar one from a different piece of art.

When I was watching this scene, I was immediately reminded of a famous speech that is given by another Nomad: the character Tom Joad from Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. (In actuality this isn’t true at all. In reality, the moment instantly triggered The Ghost of Tom Joad song from Rage Against the Machine, which is actually a cover of a Bruce Springsteen song. Regardless, both songs feature lyrics focused on the words from Steinbeck’s original monologue).

“I’ll be all around in the dark – I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build – I’ll be there, too.” John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath



Here we see a stark contrast. The “true” Nomad’s speech is focused on freedom of will, the encouragement of smooth space and the act of resisting the stratification of space by the State. The Fishes’ speech however, talks of setting up new stratified space, one in which Theo will not be able to do anything that The Fishes are not aware of. Theo must act according to their established rules; the epitome of a Deleuzian State.

So! What did you think? Were there areas that my understanding of the concepts clashes with yours? Have I perhaps missed something in my analysis? I can’t wait to hear about it!

Thanks for reading,

Nate