District 9 - Film Review
Sep. 6th, 2009 09:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[Did a fandom poll in last post - not sure 36 is a good sample? Not that I'm doing anything remotely scientific with the poll. Purely out of curiousity. Sort of want to know where people are falling generally on the topic. Hope more people respond. If you haven't - please do. ]
Saw the flick District 9 yesterday with CW.
Two random bits of conversation with CW:
CW: I don't like movies very much.
Me: yet you go to quite a few of them and seem to enjoy them.
CW: I only go if people drag me.
Me (pondering to myself, not aloud, because didn't seem a good idea - uh, actually going to District 9 was your idea, not mine, you suggested it - just like you suggested seeing Watchman with me - and no, you did not drag me either- there was no dragging involved. Plus, you liked the film, so why claim you were dragged to it?? What's all this dragging about? It's a movie! Why can't you admit you like movies??? Bewildering.)
To the awesomely funny trailer of Zombieland (not a fan of zombie films per se, but this was hilarious. I kid you not.)
CW: Now, some people like vampires, but I prefer zombies! Zombies! (she chuckles crazily)
Me: Well to be honest, vampires are sort of hitting the saturation point, zombies may be on the upswing, then again maybe they've always been on the upswing.
CW (still cackling at trailer): Zombies! Yay! Zombies!
(I confess that I don't get the appeal of zombies. They are decaying and falling apart - which is gross. They eat people - also gross. Mindless - which is just disturbing. And somewhat stupid. Vampires on the other hand - while creepy, do still have a mind, and are a metaphor for repressed sexuality and addiction (not sure what zombies are a metaphor for - outside of group mindcontrol or mindless consumption or lemming syndrom or disease, which are my buttons and turn-offs). Granted most vampire fiction unnerves me - because vampires remind me of spiders and I'm an arachnophobe. Also, I don't tend to buy the whole vampire biting you as romantic - so much as a rape metaphor or spider, and eww. Which may explain why I don't like a lot of the vampire romance fiction out at the moment. Buffy and Angel and the Lost Boys worked for me - because being bitten was never considered a good thing. That said, I prefer vampires and zombies to werewolves. Very hard to do werewolves well - they always look silly. The only Werewolf movies I've liked were Wolf (Jack Nicholson), Ladyhawk, and An American Werewolf in London. That said, Zombieland - I might actually go to, looks like a laugh riot.)
Not sure how to review District 9 - the odd thing is, I haven't seen anyone else on my flist review it. Considering it is a sci-fi film, fringing on political allegory, and executive produced by Peter Jackson - I find this a bit interesting and bewildering. Why no reviews? Did people not see it? OR did they just have zip to say? Or did I manage miss the reviews (which is of course possible)? If they haven't seen it, is it not in wide-release? (appears to be, made the top ten box office this past weekend). Or did you hate it? Curious that more people saw the big blockbuster films and not this little gem. Granted it is a weird little gem.
District 9 is a South African film directed by Neil Blomkamp and written by Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell. It is executive produced by Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame). It stars Sharlto Copley who plays Wikus, a bureaucrat assigned to manage the eviction and relocation of an alien species from a refuge camp outside Johannasburg to a new one managed by MNU International Corporation - a corporation that specializes in weapons manufacture. His duties include hunting weapons and serving eviction notices, as well as capturing resisting aliens. The aliens are called "Prawns" and showed up in Johannasburg several years ago, their space ship hangs in the air above the city - a huge ship, reminiscent of the one seen in the film Independence Day. While doing his duty, Wikus accidentally sprays a can of alien fluid onto his face and arm, which combines with his human DNA and causes him to start mutating into one of the aliens.
The story is filmed in Johannasburg, South Africa. All the actors are South African. The dialect is South African. The filmmakers are South African. And it comments indirectly on the political situation in that country - the refuge camps and the violence - through the use of metaphor and aliens. It is a morality play of sorts, but not of the preachy variety - shows more than tells.
Genre wise - I'd place the film in science-fiction noir or political allegory. I've seen this story done before. It's not a new idea. But never in this way nor from this angle. Torchwood:Children of the Earth in some respects ponders similar themes, but very differently. Both stories are dark tales about humanity - specifically white men and the white male power structure, although I'd state that all human men come across in a derogatory manner in this film. Women are present, but not as part of the power structure, nor as an active part of the film. Even the aliens shown are more male than female. The only female alien depicted is killed, rather brutally, in the beginning. She's also depicted in a derogatory, or supplicant manner. This is not a feminist genre - it is definitely sci-fi noir.
ME: I've been debating seeing this film.
CW: Why?
Me: I knew what it was about and women aren't really present or in a positive way, and I'm not sure about that.
CW: You need women to be in a movie to enjoy it? (I should mention that CW is african-american female - so most of the movies she sees don't include people that are like her.)
ME (realizing I may be whining here): Being in a field that is all men, most of the time. It gets wearying.
I'd say it was racist towards the black south africans, but to be honest, no human male is depicted in a positive light. Wikus is a bit of an anti-hero. When he gets infected or his DNA gets infected, he goes on what can best be described as a redemptive journey - as he becomes more and more like the alien "prawns", he becomes in some respects, more and more sympathetic, less selfish, and less opportunistic. The best of Wikus comes out, when he takes up the "prawns" cause as his own and fights back.
The film is shot entirely through a hand-held camera, documentary style film footage, grainy news reels - it is shown as a documentary or a film that may be a documentary. The colors are deliberately washed out. The acting is improvisational. It is a film style that I would call hyper-realism, the exact opposite of Star Trek - which is pretty, with special effects, no improvisations, and the good guys win. Hyper-realism usually comments more directly on our own situation and can at times feel like political allegory.
Wikus is a fully etched character though - which doesn't happen in allegory. His arc is well-defined and perhaps the best I've seen in a film, science fiction or otherwise this year. Granted I haven't seen that many films this year. The changes he goes through are gradual not abrupt. And Copley's acting style is natural, you believe he is going through this. It feels real. As do the other performances.
The Prawns equally are well-defined and well performed. They do not look human, although they are bi-pedal. And are gross and unattractive. Alien. Their language clicks. There is an insectoid look to the prawns. As if someone mixed a lobster or shrimp together. But, it is to the films credit that as you progress through the film, the prawns become more appealing.
You like them more than the humans. Wince when they get blown apart, while you don't when the humans get blown apart.
The violence is graphic, but no more so that 85% of the tv shows on. It's actually not as bad as True Blood or Supernatural. I actually muttered at one point during the film, this isn't that bad. Hmm. I may have watched one too many violent tv shows and films in my lifetime.
(I thought this after someone got blown apart by a gun.) As CW stated, it's video game violence - quick and to the point.
The film does not end on a nice note, like most sci-fi noir films of this particular genre, the hero accomplishes his task, returning a father/son prawn to the mother ship so they can go home a la ET, but he cannot quite save himself or he is unable to return to his former world, former life and home. His punishment is almost karmic, and definitely ironic, if you consider what he did in the beginning of the film - he becomes literally the very thing that he once degraded and treated as beneath his notice. Yet, when he becomes a prawn, the other prawns accept him, he has proven himself, and joins them. In that way - it does end on a happy note, if a bittersweet one.
The final scene, which does leave chills, is two-fold, his wife showing the camera crew a metal flower that was left on her doorstep, similar to the ones her husband once gave her - and then, we see, a prawn, making a flower similar to the one she has just shown us. We know in that moment what happened to the hero. And what he is doing. Prior to this sequence, we are told that no one knows what happened to Wikus. They assume he is dead. Then, subtley with little dialogue the filmmaker shows us what did happen.
I think the message is fairly clear - there but for the grace of god go I. The filmmaker who is a native of Johannasburg, is clearly stating that but for circumstance, he could be one of the refugees. How he treats the refugees, the "other" reflects back on him. Who is the monster - the prawns, the illegal aliens, or those of us who have demonized them? Who is the animal, the person beneath us? The film is about abuse of power, and those who do not have any. Clearly depicting what power can do to people - how it can change them into monsterous creatures - human, fine, on the outside. Wikus becomes a better person, kinder, when he changes. His redemptive arc begins when he accepts his mutation, when he fights for someone else and not himself, when he stops separating himself from the prawns, my tribe vs. yours.
It's a theme about tribes as well, how we view ourselves based on our race or ethnicity.
Wikus sees himself as human and separate and is desperate to be human again. While the gang leader (with his stockpile of illegal weapons) - sees power in the aliens and envies Wikus's power, wants Wikus to cut off his alien arm - so that he, the gang leader, a Nigerian, can eat it. Become powerful. The white men who are in power, the MNU leaders, see Wikus as a tool to bring them more power and wealth. Not human, just a thing. And the prawns Wikus encounters - bargain with Wikus and state they will help him become human again if he can help them. It is the prawns who ironically help him. Ironic, because at the start Wikus treats the prawns with derision. Also it is the prawns who save Wikus and accept him.
The film stays with you long after it is over, which is not something I can say about most of the films I've seen this year. It is a film that makes you think, that you flip over in your head.
It is worth seeing I think.
Saw the flick District 9 yesterday with CW.
Two random bits of conversation with CW:
CW: I don't like movies very much.
Me: yet you go to quite a few of them and seem to enjoy them.
CW: I only go if people drag me.
Me (pondering to myself, not aloud, because didn't seem a good idea - uh, actually going to District 9 was your idea, not mine, you suggested it - just like you suggested seeing Watchman with me - and no, you did not drag me either- there was no dragging involved. Plus, you liked the film, so why claim you were dragged to it?? What's all this dragging about? It's a movie! Why can't you admit you like movies??? Bewildering.)
To the awesomely funny trailer of Zombieland (not a fan of zombie films per se, but this was hilarious. I kid you not.)
CW: Now, some people like vampires, but I prefer zombies! Zombies! (she chuckles crazily)
Me: Well to be honest, vampires are sort of hitting the saturation point, zombies may be on the upswing, then again maybe they've always been on the upswing.
CW (still cackling at trailer): Zombies! Yay! Zombies!
(I confess that I don't get the appeal of zombies. They are decaying and falling apart - which is gross. They eat people - also gross. Mindless - which is just disturbing. And somewhat stupid. Vampires on the other hand - while creepy, do still have a mind, and are a metaphor for repressed sexuality and addiction (not sure what zombies are a metaphor for - outside of group mindcontrol or mindless consumption or lemming syndrom or disease, which are my buttons and turn-offs). Granted most vampire fiction unnerves me - because vampires remind me of spiders and I'm an arachnophobe. Also, I don't tend to buy the whole vampire biting you as romantic - so much as a rape metaphor or spider, and eww. Which may explain why I don't like a lot of the vampire romance fiction out at the moment. Buffy and Angel and the Lost Boys worked for me - because being bitten was never considered a good thing. That said, I prefer vampires and zombies to werewolves. Very hard to do werewolves well - they always look silly. The only Werewolf movies I've liked were Wolf (Jack Nicholson), Ladyhawk, and An American Werewolf in London. That said, Zombieland - I might actually go to, looks like a laugh riot.)
Not sure how to review District 9 - the odd thing is, I haven't seen anyone else on my flist review it. Considering it is a sci-fi film, fringing on political allegory, and executive produced by Peter Jackson - I find this a bit interesting and bewildering. Why no reviews? Did people not see it? OR did they just have zip to say? Or did I manage miss the reviews (which is of course possible)? If they haven't seen it, is it not in wide-release? (appears to be, made the top ten box office this past weekend). Or did you hate it? Curious that more people saw the big blockbuster films and not this little gem. Granted it is a weird little gem.
District 9 is a South African film directed by Neil Blomkamp and written by Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell. It is executive produced by Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame). It stars Sharlto Copley who plays Wikus, a bureaucrat assigned to manage the eviction and relocation of an alien species from a refuge camp outside Johannasburg to a new one managed by MNU International Corporation - a corporation that specializes in weapons manufacture. His duties include hunting weapons and serving eviction notices, as well as capturing resisting aliens. The aliens are called "Prawns" and showed up in Johannasburg several years ago, their space ship hangs in the air above the city - a huge ship, reminiscent of the one seen in the film Independence Day. While doing his duty, Wikus accidentally sprays a can of alien fluid onto his face and arm, which combines with his human DNA and causes him to start mutating into one of the aliens.
The story is filmed in Johannasburg, South Africa. All the actors are South African. The dialect is South African. The filmmakers are South African. And it comments indirectly on the political situation in that country - the refuge camps and the violence - through the use of metaphor and aliens. It is a morality play of sorts, but not of the preachy variety - shows more than tells.
Genre wise - I'd place the film in science-fiction noir or political allegory. I've seen this story done before. It's not a new idea. But never in this way nor from this angle. Torchwood:Children of the Earth in some respects ponders similar themes, but very differently. Both stories are dark tales about humanity - specifically white men and the white male power structure, although I'd state that all human men come across in a derogatory manner in this film. Women are present, but not as part of the power structure, nor as an active part of the film. Even the aliens shown are more male than female. The only female alien depicted is killed, rather brutally, in the beginning. She's also depicted in a derogatory, or supplicant manner. This is not a feminist genre - it is definitely sci-fi noir.
ME: I've been debating seeing this film.
CW: Why?
Me: I knew what it was about and women aren't really present or in a positive way, and I'm not sure about that.
CW: You need women to be in a movie to enjoy it? (I should mention that CW is african-american female - so most of the movies she sees don't include people that are like her.)
ME (realizing I may be whining here): Being in a field that is all men, most of the time. It gets wearying.
I'd say it was racist towards the black south africans, but to be honest, no human male is depicted in a positive light. Wikus is a bit of an anti-hero. When he gets infected or his DNA gets infected, he goes on what can best be described as a redemptive journey - as he becomes more and more like the alien "prawns", he becomes in some respects, more and more sympathetic, less selfish, and less opportunistic. The best of Wikus comes out, when he takes up the "prawns" cause as his own and fights back.
The film is shot entirely through a hand-held camera, documentary style film footage, grainy news reels - it is shown as a documentary or a film that may be a documentary. The colors are deliberately washed out. The acting is improvisational. It is a film style that I would call hyper-realism, the exact opposite of Star Trek - which is pretty, with special effects, no improvisations, and the good guys win. Hyper-realism usually comments more directly on our own situation and can at times feel like political allegory.
Wikus is a fully etched character though - which doesn't happen in allegory. His arc is well-defined and perhaps the best I've seen in a film, science fiction or otherwise this year. Granted I haven't seen that many films this year. The changes he goes through are gradual not abrupt. And Copley's acting style is natural, you believe he is going through this. It feels real. As do the other performances.
The Prawns equally are well-defined and well performed. They do not look human, although they are bi-pedal. And are gross and unattractive. Alien. Their language clicks. There is an insectoid look to the prawns. As if someone mixed a lobster or shrimp together. But, it is to the films credit that as you progress through the film, the prawns become more appealing.
You like them more than the humans. Wince when they get blown apart, while you don't when the humans get blown apart.
The violence is graphic, but no more so that 85% of the tv shows on. It's actually not as bad as True Blood or Supernatural. I actually muttered at one point during the film, this isn't that bad. Hmm. I may have watched one too many violent tv shows and films in my lifetime.
(I thought this after someone got blown apart by a gun.) As CW stated, it's video game violence - quick and to the point.
The film does not end on a nice note, like most sci-fi noir films of this particular genre, the hero accomplishes his task, returning a father/son prawn to the mother ship so they can go home a la ET, but he cannot quite save himself or he is unable to return to his former world, former life and home. His punishment is almost karmic, and definitely ironic, if you consider what he did in the beginning of the film - he becomes literally the very thing that he once degraded and treated as beneath his notice. Yet, when he becomes a prawn, the other prawns accept him, he has proven himself, and joins them. In that way - it does end on a happy note, if a bittersweet one.
The final scene, which does leave chills, is two-fold, his wife showing the camera crew a metal flower that was left on her doorstep, similar to the ones her husband once gave her - and then, we see, a prawn, making a flower similar to the one she has just shown us. We know in that moment what happened to the hero. And what he is doing. Prior to this sequence, we are told that no one knows what happened to Wikus. They assume he is dead. Then, subtley with little dialogue the filmmaker shows us what did happen.
I think the message is fairly clear - there but for the grace of god go I. The filmmaker who is a native of Johannasburg, is clearly stating that but for circumstance, he could be one of the refugees. How he treats the refugees, the "other" reflects back on him. Who is the monster - the prawns, the illegal aliens, or those of us who have demonized them? Who is the animal, the person beneath us? The film is about abuse of power, and those who do not have any. Clearly depicting what power can do to people - how it can change them into monsterous creatures - human, fine, on the outside. Wikus becomes a better person, kinder, when he changes. His redemptive arc begins when he accepts his mutation, when he fights for someone else and not himself, when he stops separating himself from the prawns, my tribe vs. yours.
It's a theme about tribes as well, how we view ourselves based on our race or ethnicity.
Wikus sees himself as human and separate and is desperate to be human again. While the gang leader (with his stockpile of illegal weapons) - sees power in the aliens and envies Wikus's power, wants Wikus to cut off his alien arm - so that he, the gang leader, a Nigerian, can eat it. Become powerful. The white men who are in power, the MNU leaders, see Wikus as a tool to bring them more power and wealth. Not human, just a thing. And the prawns Wikus encounters - bargain with Wikus and state they will help him become human again if he can help them. It is the prawns who ironically help him. Ironic, because at the start Wikus treats the prawns with derision. Also it is the prawns who save Wikus and accept him.
The film stays with you long after it is over, which is not something I can say about most of the films I've seen this year. It is a film that makes you think, that you flip over in your head.
It is worth seeing I think.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-07 02:26 pm (UTC)But I found that a week later I was still thinking about the characters, particularly how powerfully the aliens/prawns came through, and I was really very impressed with the film. I think it is something pretty special.
It isn't as user friendly as Ironman, or even Watchmen (IMO), but it is very much worth seeing.
Sometimes it is hard to go with the immediate impressing, some movies resonate better after some time (most are completely forgettable).
no subject
Date: 2009-09-07 02:39 pm (UTC)But it wasn't as violent as I expected. (Which probably means I watch a lot of violent tv dramas and films.). It is however violent and I winced and cringed at different portions.
I felt much the same way, hesitant to recommend it to people...because it is an unsettling film and while very much worth seeing, I'm not sure how people will react to it.
And yep, most movies are completely forgettable. I can't remember half of them. They blur together after awhile.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-07 05:05 pm (UTC)