District 9
I saw and enjoyed District 9 on Sunday evening and have been struggling ever since to decide exactly what I really think about it. Now I think I’ve decided that what it really shows is how hollow and crappy so many of our summer blockbusters have become.
One is tempted to complain that the political and social commentary offered by the film is a bit tired and not really all that insightful. But then you fall back on the question of why, exactly, I was expecting a movie that starts with aliens and ends with a big shootout to offer really novel social and political commentary. And I guess it’s because these days when you start watching a high concept movie that’s not utterly witless and boring you think you must have stumbled into an incredibly ambitious art house project. But maybe someone just wanted to make a well-done action/suspense movie about aliens. It’s not unheard of, after all. We’ve got Alien. We’ve got Aliens. Why shouldn’t we have District 9, a fun a summer movie that happens to involve a story that’s actually interesting, actors who have some chops, and characters who are sketched out with a bit of depth? How about a screenplay that understands how to avoid clunky exposition? Wouldn’t that be nice?
And, yeah, turns out it is nice! Very nice. I actually want to go see the sequel.
42 Responses to “District 9”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 18th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I agree. I think reviews that have made the thing out to be a deep comment on colonialism are serving audiences poorly, because that’s not where the movie is strongest.
As MY says, it’s a summer thriller — but one that actually has an original plot, so you don’t have to have a craniotomy beforehand in order to enjoy it.
What reviews didn’t prepare me for at all was the strong comic side of the movie. For much of the early going it feels like an episode of The Office, and the main character has a passing resemblance to Murray, manager of the Conchords. The genre fusion (mockumentary + sci-fi action + horror) is one of the best and most interesting aspects of the movie.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:44 am
maybe it’s actually mockumentary + sci-fi action + political satire
August 18th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Doesn’t read like the words of a Bay apologist…
August 18th, 2009 at 8:48 am
I have to disagree that the commenary is “tired” and not all that insightful. I think the character of Wikus was rather refreshing and very new in how it crafted the leading character of a summer movie.
*SPOILERS*
Wikus is a beaurocrat in a pretty evil system. He follows orders, believes in what he does, and takes pride in being a cog. He’s a very normal person in that sense. Is what he does evil? Sometimes, yes. Is he an evil person? I dont think so. It’s a very complicated part of humanity – being part of an evil system without being really aware of it. I actually took Wikus as a very apt stand-in for a mid-level beaurocrat in the USSR. And there is a certain level of sympathy when you look at a normal person, perhaps somewhat below average intelligence, taking pride in what they do. They aren’t really aware of the meaning of what they do.
Are we to condemn all people who are like this? I don’t think that’s a very fair way to view humanity. I think we need to keep 2 different ideas in our heads at the same times – people can be bad and people can be good. It’s not binary. We are simply the sum of many actions. Wikus does good things and he does bad things. I don’t condemn him for not being a hero, and I dont laud him for not being evil. I just accept him as a pretty accurate reflection of what many people are in this world. And I don’t think this is “tired” at all – I actually have a very hard time thinking of comparable characters in any non-indy movie.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Re “One is tempted to complain that the political and social commentary offered by the film is a bit tired and not really all that insightful. But then you fall back on the question of why, exactly, I was expecting a movie that starts with aliens and ends with a big shootout to offer really novel social and political commentary.”
———–
Er..are we talking about District 9 or are we talking about healthcare blogging?
August 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
@4: I totally agree with you about Wikus. He’s a stand-in for a mid-level bureaucrat in an evil system. And I don’t think we have to go to the USSR for an analogy when apartheid-era South Africa is right in front of us.
By using the word “tired,” I don’t think MY meant to deny what you’re saying. He was just hinting that these aren’t actually very novel insights. If you’ve read Dickens, or if you remember Louis Renault from Casablanca — just to round up a few usual suspects — you’ve seen the complexity of human character illustrated by a decent civil servant in a corrupt system. I don’t mean to be a jerk, but it’s not breaking news. It is, however, groundbreaking in the context of recent summer action movies, which are just remarkably bad.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Next: “District 10: Revenge of the Shrimp.” (Director: Brett Ratner, budget $100 million).
August 18th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@6: I take your point about the meaning of “tired”, but under that standard, what isn’t tired? Human story-telling is thousands of years old. I’m pretty sure we’ve covered all the bases at this point. We need to judge things in context. So can you name me another sci-fi/action movie where you get a character like this? Where you get such a strong arc? Where the hero of your movie is an unlikeable and realistic flawed person? It’s certainly not common. And in an era where Transformers 2 and GI Joe dominate the summer movies, I just find it grating when people look at movies like this or Star Trek (IMO the two best summer action movies, for totally different reasons) and feel the need to poo-poo them. Come on, now.
Shakespeare wasn’t original either when he gave us an indecisive prince. It’s not about being the first to do something. It’s just about doing it well and making a cultural impact.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:29 am
@8. Blade Runner. BUT I would admit that it’s done better here. In part, perhaps, because I really do think the movie has learned a few things from The Office (prob. the UK version) — which really did break new ground in likably pathetic antiheroism.
Another place where D9 is genuinely sharp is in the way it handles the relationship between political critique and corporate power. Anti-corporate plots are nothing new, as the Slate reviewer says. But I do think there’s something graceful — and deeply depressing — about the way the movie quietly, simply, never even *raises* the question of whether the corporation will be dislodged or chastised by political criticism. (At the end of the movie, of course, precisely nothing has changed, and the whistleblower is on trial.) If you want a connection to health care blogging, I think I would take that one, with a handful of anti-depressants.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I think you’re all missing the point. Obviously, the Prawns represent Americans suffering under the yolk of socialized medicine. Wikus represents the bureaucratic death panel, deciding who lives and who dies, who gets to raise their own children and whose children are kidnapped by the state. Ironically, Wikus himself almost falls prey to socialized medicine when he goes for treatment and ends up in a experimental lab where the doctors are planning to slice him up for parts.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am
There’s always something a bit melancholy about satirical posts like #10 here… after all, it’s not that over the top. Something much nuttier will be posted about this film on a right wing blog in 3… 2… 1…
August 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
“Shakespeare wasn’t original either when he gave us an indecisive prince. It’s not about being the first to do something. It’s just about doing it well and making a cultural impact.”
You’re comparing “District 9″ to “Hamlet”? That’s beyond absurd.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:34 am
It does say something when a film that fundamentally isn’t any smarter or more imaginative than the James Cann/Mandy Patinkin buddy movie ALIEN NATION is held up as some sort of breathtaking cinematic achievement.
The one big criticism I would make of DISTRICT 9 is that they used pretty much the same pseudo-documentary, hand held video style for the whole movie, even the scenes where no camera or cameraman could possibly have been present. It kind of destroys the whole point of that style of storytelling.
Mike
August 18th, 2009 at 10:45 am
The sequel? Please, Hollywood will make sure to FUBAR it. In the words of Bullworth: must be the money, right- it turns everything to shit! Which aptly describes the healthcare ‘debate’ also, eh?
August 18th, 2009 at 11:15 am
The one big criticism I would make of DISTRICT 9 is that they used pretty much the same pseudo-documentary, hand held video style for the whole movie, even the scenes where no camera or cameraman could possibly have been present.
dOOd, if U put camera-jitter in every single shot, it guarantees that TEH KIDZ will like the movie becuz camera-jitter is HIP and EDGY.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:38 am
The really good science fiction movie this summer is “Moon”.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am
@Ragout – Ha, classic.
MY, Distric 9 wasn’t so simple a construction as someone “just” wanting “to make a well-done action/suspense movie about aliens”. The director was born and raised for a time in South Africa, and was very fluent with the ravages of apartheid and the structural violence that emerged from it. His personal stamp was very present throughout, and welcomed. I for one found it very refreshing to have an alien movie that did not center around the White House being threatened or any other American-centric plot lines.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
dOOd, if U put camera-jitter in every single shot, it guarantees that TEH KIDZ will like the movie becuz camera-jitter is HIP and EDGY.
And if you spell your comments in some sort of weird, fake leet-speak, you’re leveling a devastating and insightful criticism of contemporary pop culture.
Regarding the hypothetical sequel, I wouldn’t take it for granted that “Hollywood” will fuck this up. Peter Jackson seems to more or less do what he wants, because he can. There are never any guarantees in this crazy world, but I don’t see any reason he couldn’t bankroll a decent follow-up.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
There will be more intelligent blockbusters when audiences stop being satisfied with the crap that’s consistently shoveled their way.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Heh, I left the theater thinking “how did this movie get released in major theaters, playing next to the likes of G.I. Joe?” I look at things the way they are and ask why. Matt looks at things that never were and asks why not.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
What MBunge/Mike said…except that we have become so accustomed to this kind of half-televised, half-experienced reality that I overlooked its distracting quality readily.
Perhaps the revolution will be televised…badly.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I thought D9 was a great movie but I felt the message was kind of brow-beaten into us.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“You’re comparing “District 9″ to “Hamlet”? That’s beyond absurd.”
You’re right. D9 is far more entertaining and has more to say about politics and culture than Hamlet.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Nah. Comparing D9 to “Hamlet” *is* absurd — because it should obviously be compared to Kafka’s “Metamorphosis” instead.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Well said, Matt. That would have been a good counterpoint to post in Ackerman’s comment section yesterday. He may have been over thinking the thing.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
There will be no Hollywood sequel. PJ financed the movie himself, so there’s no studio that will have the contractual power to force one through.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
It’s funny how Americans completely miss where writer-director Neill Blomkamp is coming from, even though he’s given countless interviews explaining what the movie is really about.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The moments of real pathos came when the oppressed (first the alien, then Wikus) try desperately to argue legal rights at gunpoint. I hope the reality of life in South Africa wasn’t that nightmarish. I suspect Neill Blomkamp got it right.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“It’s funny how Americans completely miss where writer-director Neill Blomkamp is coming from”
You’d have to be a coma to miss where he’s coming from. DISTRICT 9’s message has all the subtlety of a kick to the crotch. Making a sci-fi allegory about the ills of apartheid in 2009 is a little like making one about the Nazis in 1960. It needs to be a bit more than “Look! That was bad!” to qualify as smart or daring.
Mike
August 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“Making a sci-fi allegory about the ills of apartheid in 2009 is a little like making one about the Nazis in 1960. It needs to be a bit more than “Look! That was bad!” to qualify as smart or daring.”
Blomkamp, an Afrikaner whose family was driven out of South Africa in 1997 when he was 17 by the explosion of black crime under the black government, has given countless interviews explaining that this is a post-apartheid parable. Yet, Americans just don’t get it because everybody here assumes that after Mandela was elected in 1994, They All Lived Happily Ever After.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“has given countless interviews explaining that this is a post-apartheid parable”
Oh, for pity’s sake. The time frame of the story is clearly set in post-apartheid South Africa. Yet the situation of the prawns couldn’t be anything but an allegory for apartheid. Again, other than saying “Look! That was bad!”, what message was Blomkamp trying to make? Is the fact that all of the prawns, save two, are superstrong, stupid and carelessly violent meant to justify the segregation of black South Africans?
Mike
August 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
The writer-director has explained what it’s about over and over. For example:
http://www.kansascity.com/412/story/1387833.html
August 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Seriously, had none of you heard of the District 6 relocation in Cape Town? *That’s* the goddamn parallel.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“Blomkamp reimagined this racial infighting in his film as conflicts between black people and the space aliens”
Except the film has white South Africans, black South Africans (who are barely in the movie), Nigerians and prawns. There is no conflict between the Nigerians (who are barely more than cartoons) and the aliens, there’s just exploitation. The conflict in the film is quite obviously between the aliens and the white South Africans. If Blonkamp couldn’t forsee how everyone else on Earth will see that as an apartheid analogy, he’s not that bright.
Mike
August 18th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“If Blonkamp couldn’t forsee how everyone else on Earth will see that as an apartheid analogy, he’s not that bright.”
Blomkamp is very bright. So is his producer, Peter Jackson (also not the most politically correct of filmmakers). He has no intention of having his career Watsoned by the usual mob, so he throws in a lot of palliatives to distract and mislead naive movie fans in other countries.
For example, although the ethnic cleansing of District 9 is clearly the decision of South Africa’s black government in response to voters’ demands (most of the voters are black, of course), and Blomkamp has confirmed exactly that in interviews, you can’t make the sainted black government of South Africa look bad in a movie, so the actual job of relocating the aliens is delegated to an integrated but white-led evil company with the particularly unimaginative name of Multi-National United.
But in the end caption, the movie’s Malthusian logic is made clear: three years later, despite the disruptions of the relocation to the concentration camp, the alien population has reached 2.5 million (up from 1.8 million at the time of the main part of the movie). At that 11.5% annual growth rate, in exactly 100 years the alien population on Earth would pass 100,000,000,000.
Armond White, who is black, is the only critic who sort of gets it.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Here is part of an interview with Blomkamp in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/08/12/blomkamp/print.html
August 18th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Just as 1981’s Road Warrior, with Mel Gibson as Mad Max, memorably re-imagined the Australian experience of an empty continent, District 9 symbolizes the Afrikaner history of an increasingly full continent in which the weak can eventually triumph over the strong by outbreeding them. Much of District 9 is a formulaic video game-style shoot-‘em-up complete with the predictable bonding of the human hero and the alien hero to battle the evil human corporation. Still, what gives the film its distinctive power is its bitter Malthusian wisdom distilled from the Boer diaspora, reminiscent of the recent novels of J.M. Coetzee, the South African Nobel Literature Laureate who has fled to Australia.
From interviews with Blomkamp:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/district-9-director-neill-blomkamp,31606/
August 18th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I liked the fact that they showed the whole thing as complex. The human government and MNU are being assholes for keeping the aliens penned up in a shitacular ghetto where they’re preyed upon by Nigerian gangsters and the occasional vigilantes, but it’s not like it’s one-sided – as it mentions early on, the Prawn tended to steal shit, and had only a weak idea of private property.
Moreover, there really wasn’t anything they could do to the Prawn aside from try and keep them contained. With Christopher gone with the ship, who knows what might return – a rescue effort? A war effort against Earth?
August 18th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
That’s certainly within the realm of possibility. The movie only cost $30 million to make, and it brought in $49 million (domestic and international gross) already.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:01 am
District 9 is an Afrikaner’s nightmare of what came to pass: An Arrogant Black Empire. And (the director) is obviously venting this personal horror (albeit very creatively) via this film. Ultimately, this is a film of race-fear and along the lines of typical white (colonist, nation-building, occupying, proslytising)paranoia of (inevitable)victim retribution. I love the ending cos it deals with that obsession _ quite well. O woe the white man’s burden.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I think Sailer is reading his own anti-anti-apartheid views into everything he quotes Blomkamp saying here. I mean, the lengthly blockquotes make sense in context of the movie itself and of Matt’s post, but what do they have to do with Sailer’s own views of black people and race relations? Nothing that I can see. It is not politically incorrect at all to point out that different underclasses are often at each others’ throats. For an example from another movie, Gangs of New York; for an example from real life, the Republican Party’s desperate and failed hope during Bush’s first term to bring Hispanics into their coalition against black people.
Some people (like attackerman, who Matt linked about this to a few posts ago) have the idea that the movie is racist, but I’d disagree or at the very least say that those elements are more than balanced out by everything else. Attackerman is simply wrong when he says that the MNU is civilized (or he’s simplifying too far in the name of brevity); it’s just a different kind of barbarism. And, overall, Wikus becomes more sympathetic and admirable as the movie goes on rather than less.
What’s this talk about a sequel, though? It’s not needed. The movie sort of set itself up for one, but not really. The point of the movie isn’t what the characters were speculating about at the end, it’s what we saw. A sequel would either suck so much that it would drag the original down with it, or it would take this alternate history off on a track that quickly becomes unrecognizable. (Which isn’t necessarily bad, but is very unlikely.)
August 19th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
[...] didn’t want to make too much out of District 9’s political message since “racism is bad” is really not the [...]