Filed under: Sci-Fi
In a world like today’s (albeit with aliens) how will the media oversimplify complex class struggles? The answer: District 9. News footage and interviews tell of the day twenty years ago when an alien mother ship came to a halt right over Johannesburg, South Africa. A human recovery crew enters the ship and discovers an ill-kept alien race, clearly abandoned without any hope of survival. These supposed millions of aliens (although at most a dozen are ever shown on-screen at one time) are relocated to an internment camp in Johannesburg, and segregated from mainstream society. The story picks up in the present day, when multinational company peon, Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is appointed head of relocating said alien threat to a new camp a few miles outside of the city. The bumbling Wikus talks of his job with pride and fulfills his duties with a comically misguided zeal. After exposure to an alien contaminant, Wikus becomes an invaluable asset in alien research, and is subjected to a battery of increasingly inhuman tests by his corporation. A good while after it has become obvious to the viewer, Wikus suddenly realizes that those strapping him to a table and preparing to dissect him are evil. How does the decidedly timid Wikus respond? He spontaneously transforms into Rambo. From this moment on he exhibits a warrior spirit that completely defeats the purpose of establishing him as an antihero in the first place. He might not have the best aim, but regardless he throws himself into battles with a fearlessness completely uncharacteristic of his previously established character. Every massive character change in the movie is completely based around a turning point that might last all of two seconds. There is never any sense of building motivations or mounting change. This gives Wikus’ character a bipolar quality that makes his motivations too convoluted to relate to.
District 9 starts with an incredible original documentary feel. Exposition is revealed via interviews and shown in clips compiled from fake news footage. Eventually, the movie takes on a Cops feel, as a cameraman trails the characters as they explore the alien camp. Unfortunately, as the movie progresses, this documentary footage is replaced by very standard action cinematography on regular film. Whereas the presence of the news crews or surveillance cameras fit into the narrative style, the sudden apparition of an omnipotent camera simply doesn’t fit. Whenever interviews suddenly come back on the screen, it becomes terribly ambiguous what the film is trying to be. Cutting between surveillance footage and regular camera work similarly makes no sense. Within the first half hour, the Cops vibe is gone, and the presence of a film crew ceases to be justified or explainable.
Redemption seems to be a central theme of District 9. The lead character is essentially an oppressor, then because of situations beyond his control he must ally with the oppressed against the oppressors he previously belonged to. This device has been used countless times. Unfortunately, this time it is completely missing any contemplation, and therefore any potential pathos. At the beginning of the movie is a scene where Wikus happily destroys an entire nest of alien larvae. After he has “seen the light,” there is never again any mention of his past sins. He fights with the aliens out of necessity, and it’s very obvious that he hates doing it. There really isn’t any redemption for Wikus. There is only convenience and Sun Tzu’s principle: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Any film about internment camps is obviously going to have some type of political message. I believe the entirety of District 9’s political message is summed up by a quick comment from an interview early on: “If [the aliens] were from another country, we’d understand.” I get it. They’re aliens. But they’re people too. There’s no statement really here to make, aside from the obvious, “discrimination is bad.” Ideally, writer-director Neill Blomkamp could have extrapolated and gone on to explore such complex ideas as the necessity of repression for the effective policing of certain groups, or even shown more (or any) of the alien backlash, or even actually show their “dehumanizing.” At most, there were a few “no aliens allowed” signs, but no real interactions between mainstream humanity and the aliens were shown. A few testimonials at most were meant to convey any possible message the film had. (Unsubstantial as it might have been.)
District 9 is actually based on a six and a half minute short film from 2005 written and directed by Blomkamp. Alive in Joburg has a nearly identical setup, but uses its limited time to interpolate on a modern apartheid that is revealed by the narrative completely in medias res. Incorporating these themes into a sci-fi movie is an incredibly original idea, and provides a new take on a story that’s been around since H.G. Wells first published The War Of The Worlds, 111 years ago. It’s a tragedy that District 9 just devolves into yet another overblown action cliché. Each chase scene alternates with a firefight, and they seem to occur on such a smoothly planned rail. In a tight spot, a character glances over to a table, grabs a conveniently placed bomb, and blows out a wall that happens to lead to a parking garage. Endless climaxes make way for increasingly comical escalation. By the movie’s end, our once lovely dimwit is in a conveniently found mechanical exoskeleton, fighting off a dozen bald tan men with machine guns. A nice, entirely human antihero was established, only to be lost amid an orgy of blood and brain remnants splattering onto the camera lens.
-Paul Brinnel
5 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Here’s a link to Alive In Joburg in case anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHYBpljIckE
08.20.09 @ 10:36 am
I tend to disagree. You point out that “Ideally, writer-director Neill Blomkamp could have extrapolated and gone on to explore such complex ideas as the necessity of repression for the effective policing of certain groups, or even shown more (or any) of the alien backlash, or even actually show their “dehumanizing.” ”
The movie absolutely does those things. Did you see the first half hour of the movie? The humans barge into the slum with guns distributing eviction notices. Sure, I get it… humans bad, repressed aliens good. Right? Except what about the scenes where an alien rips apart a soldier for pointing a gun at him, or the scenes where aliens are shown derailing trains and overturning cars? The film clearly makes the point that these extreme measures are necessary, and that creates conflict in the viewer’s mind. “I know I shouldn’t be on their side, cause they have guns, but man these aliens are DANGEROUS.”
You also point out that the film poorly executes the concept of ‘redemption.’ Well, isn’t that kind of part of the point? The film more or less says that from the start, when it says that the people at home watching the crew enter the alien spaceship are expecting “music from heaven”, and then it shows these filthy, contemptible creatures. The rest of the exposition is about humanity’s “buyer’s remorse”, and the overall disappointment of expecting a great and wonderful alien species, maybe the secrets to the universe, answers to life’s questions, and ending up with what are basically humanoid vermin.
These elements, for me, created such a powerful setting that I probably would have liked the movie no matter what happened afterward. But in my opinion the rest of the movie is fantastic also.
I do want to address one more point. You say that the transformation of Wikus is transparent, poorly executed, that he “spontaneously transforms into Rambo.” I disagree. He is loyal to his company, because he wants to be successful, so that he can care for his wife and (presumably) family. This is the case right up to the point where he sees his arm transformed into an alien appendage. How can you say that any change in his character or demeanor is too abrupt when you consider the ramifications of that event? The prospect of his lost humanity? The horrible thought of “what am I becoming?”
And even then, his transformation into “Rambo” isn’t sudden. At first all he wants is an explanation for his condition, hopefully a cure. Then later when they have him test out the guns (under coercion by men with tasers), he resists, becoming increasingly upset, until they finally force him to shoot and kill a Prawn test dummy.
That moment is when he develops empathy for the creatures. After seeing that he is taking on their characteristics, and then being forced to murder one of them in cold blood, he stops seeing them as monsters, at least for the most part. He still retains some of his disgust for them (he tells the Prawn child, “we’re not the same”), but that sentiment fades as he befriends Christopher.
It’s important to note that in the scene where he is forced to test the alien weapons, he realizes the power he has gained from his transformation. He knows that no other human can use these weapons, and he sees the devastation they cause and the strange reverence that his military captors have for them. Even then, he doesn’t “spontaneously transform into Rambo” until the moment when an electric saw is inches from his chest, and the men in the white coats have openly stated their plans to kill him and harvest his organs. With all these factors in play, how can you say that his transformation of character was unrealistic or without “building motivations”?
I have much more to say about this movie, and not all of it is criticism of your review. But I don’t have the time or, frankly, the desire, to fully organize and express my thoughts.
I hope that you have read and considered what I’ve written, and I hope that perhaps it has caused you to reflect again on this movie, one that I feel deserves the highest praise.
Comment by Dylan
08.20.09 @ 11:32 pm
When I posted that rant above (that turned out much longer than I planned), I used a fake email address. That’s usually what I do when I post on sites with this forum style. Then the thought occurred to me that you might want to follow up or give me your thoughts on what I’ve written, present counter-arguments, what have you.
I’ve decided, in short, that I’m interested in what you might have to say, if anything. So I’ve posted this comment using my real email. If you want to contact me for any reason, you can do so at the posted address. Cheers.
Comment by Dylan
08.20.09 @ 11:38 pm
Nice to note that another reviewer sees this oversold (and as a “sleeper” yet!) movie for what it is — even if your review is to long for what the movie is worth. (The comment above is also way too long, but that is to be expected from a “fan.”
Comment by James van Maanen
08.25.09 @ 6:09 pm
The film was a great disappointment.
I expected a lot but it only turned out to be an irritating camera-shaking videogame. The plot-line was ridiculous and had great holes.
The biggest crap in 2009!!!
It’s time writers should read more traditional literature to create strong storylines. Not silly, mindless violent cinematic video-games.
Comment by dork
08.28.09 @ 9:03 am
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>