A pig flies in this movie.

Aug 31, 2009 by Joshua    No Comments    Posted under: film, film feature

So I finally got around to seeing “District 9″ today. What can I say about the movie that hasn’t already been said?

After giving it a lot of thought, I decided to do a bit of poorly structured analysis on the social implications of the film. Please bare with me as I ramble on about a topic that I am probably not very qualified to discuss. This isn’t so much a review or a description as it is a somewhat in-depth look at a particular aspect of the film. As such, it contains a few comments that, while not spoilers, may hint at important plot points. So, you have been warned.

Title: District 9

Directed by: Neill Blomkamp

Genre: sci-fi/mockumentary/sociopolitical/action?

I enjoyed the film. For those who haven’t seen it and don’t know what to expect, it is something like a mockumentary action political caper of sorts, with quite a bit of violence – both close-up and disconnectedly distant – and lots of tense drama. The film definitely has a message, intentionally drawing a number of ties to the history of apartheid, but it does not become too preachy as to sacrifice plot and excitement.

The greatest criticism I have heard about the film is its unfair and possibly racist portayal of Nigerians. My primary argument to that is the film isn’t really fair in its portrayal of anyone, be they white or black, African or European/American, alien or human. Yes, the Nigerians are depicted as scum who revel in base and crude activities while subscribing to primitive beliefs. But likewise, the aliens are shown as reckless and disgusting creatures while many of the white characters come off as gun-crazy and malicious.

Anthropological implications abound. The aliens, for instance, come from a different planet with its own cultures and history. Perhaps their actions have a particular meaning to them. And the Nigerians, also, may act as they do, extorting the aliens, because the hierarchy of the society around them does not allow for any other more legal option. As for the inclusion of witch doctors and the desire to consume the flesh of the aliens to gain their powers, one could also argue that those beliefs and actions stem from the leader of the Nigerians in the movie, not Nigerians as a whole.

Then comes the outer layer of it all, the fact that all of these activities and interactions are merely depictions created by the scriptwriters, the directors and anyone else with say in the development of the film. Were they just in their choices? Are the decisions they made crucial to the telling of the story? I can say, without giving too much away, that the Nigerians are used effectively as a plot device on more than a few occasions throughout the movie.

One big question, whatever the situation, is whether or not those depicted in a poor light are given the chance for redemption and whether or not they take that chance. Any director can throw in a stereotypical villain, the sort who kicks puppies and blows up city hall, but those characters become flat caricatures without any kind of depth or substance. One has to ask why a villainous character acts a certain way, what his or her motive is, what he or she stands for.

It’s possible, as in this case, to suppose a reason (for instance, the Nigerians do everything in their power to exploit the aliens because they see an easy way to make money in a world where they are denied any other opportunities), but unless the filmmakers take steps to reveal that to the viewers, it’s tough to use it as support for their decisions. Given that the film was directed in South Africa by someone who was raised in South Africa, however, it may have seemed obvious to him that people would understand the correlations to actual events and practices in the area. For instance, methods of witch craft are still practiced in parts of Africa, though they might not be of the same nature as the ones depicted in the movie.

I mentioned redemption earlier but I didn’t really elaborate on it. I also mentioned that nearly everyone depicted in the movie is shown in a bad light at some point or another. The soldiers, for instance, enjoy killing the aliens whenever they get the chance, and they are quick to “shoot first and ask questions later”, as Wikus, the main character, sort of says. Both they and the Nigerians are unchanging in their ways, and they meet predictable ends.

Wikus, on the other hand, undergoes a figurative (and literal) transformation as the film progresses. He starts out as a happy-go-lucky office man whose life is on the up-and-up, but by the end of the film his eyes betray his panic and desperation. From the viewer’s perspective, he initially appears indifferent to the plight of the aliens, but over time he comes to understand their strife as it becomes inexorably linked to his own – though he remains a right bastard for a good deal of the film.

The point is that, through Wikus, the filmmakers demonstrate the possibility to overcome differences and see the world through the eyes of another – obviously, a main theme of the film. Of course, the message might have come across more clearly if they had included, say, scenes of the man thinking of his wife and relating that love with the love between the aliens and their children/freedom/homeworld. I guess it’s better that such an observation wasn’t forcefed to the audience, though they did make sure to remind the viewers how much Wikus had changed by the end of the film by replaying an early scene of him, before the events that would change his life.

But despite this message of redemption, the film’s resolution of the Nigerians (and other rather flat characters) is much less deep or allegorical. Still, I enjoyed the film, mainly because I remembered an age-old saying that has gotten me through many a shallow production: It’s just a movie. I had issues with a few other parts of the film, such as the number of times that someone has been saved at the last second from certain death, despite lingering in that state of near-death for a good five minutes or so prior. Yet, as I have stated, I enjoyed the film, and I would recommend it to others if given the chance.

Oh, here’s a trailer, assuming you haven’t already seen one. Nearly half the footage in the preview is not actually in the movie – mainly the interview scene at the end. Actually, the film isn’t much at all like it appears based on the trailer, which might lead one to believe it is more of a documentary-style movie when it most certainly is not.

Got anything to say? Go ahead and leave a comment!

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CAPTCHA Code *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail