Strangers in a Strange Land
Forget man's inhumanity to man. District 9 is a deft satire of man's inhumanity to alien.
Human history is a story of minorities versus oppressors: us against them, one family quarreling with the neighbors next door, one tribe pitted against another. District 9, the first film from South African commercial director Neill Blomkamp, takes this familiar story and extrapolates and exaggerates it into a simple science fiction question. If humanity can't manage peace and equality amongst its own, how would humans fare when faced with the truly foreign? Forget man's inhumanity to man: Blomkamp's debut, part energetic sci-fi romp, part apartheid parable, is a deft satire of man's inhumanity to alien.
District 9's title refers to the name of a shanty town located just outside of Johannesburg, South Africa. Caged inside are nearly 2 million aliens—yes, the kind from outer space—whose ship mysteriously stalled out over the city two decades before. Needless to say, the aliens, who've been derisively dubbed "prawns" by the locals, don't mesh well culturally. They're dirty, fly-attracting garbage foragers who have a tough time with private property and treat cat food as an addictive delicacy. Despised, and often abused, by the city's human residents, the story starts when the contemptuous local authorities begin implementing a plan to forcibly relocate the alien population to an even grimier shack-town 200 kilometers away.
Blomkamp's film, which he co-scripted with Terri Tatchell, is a story of clashing cultures, and it poses questions similar to those raised by Orson Scott Card in the later books of his Ender series: Could an alien mind ever be truly knowable? Is peaceful interspecies coexistence even possible? Card treated these questions philosophically, as problems of culture and empathy. Blomkamp seems more interested in needling the human tendency toward brutal class segregation.
That manifests as a frequent eye toward bureuacracy and cruelty, which, often enough, turn out to be the same thing. Prawns, herded into walled-off slums, are beaten, lied to, and pushed around by heavily armed authorities. Their spawning grounds are deemed illegal, then set alight, while human captors chuckle over the "popcorn sound" the eggs make as they burst into flames. Those who cause problems quickly find themselves faced with a slew of regulations designed to give authorities maximum leeway. And when the aliens resist, or protest, they're casually shot. Still, Blomkamp is no government hater. The film targets the barbarism of private security forces hired to police District 9 as much as it does the local civil authorities.
Granted, the movie's not perfect. There's probably a dose or two of social-commentary too many, and the South African setting makes the film's political parallels too explicit. Blomkamp clearly takes it all very seriously and personally, and at times his outrage veers toward the melodramatic and obvious: Apartheid was a great evil, and so is the continued toll it takes on South African underclass. But no one seriously disputes this, and the film's occasionally weighty tone suggests that the director may be over-impressed with his own boldness.
Still, at the tail end of a cinematic summer of dumb, it's hard to criticize a sci-fi shoot-'em-up for slightly overestimating its own socio-political intelligence. And on the guns-a-blazin' front, the director's action-savvy is unmatched so far this year. The mechanized, no-holds-barred finale is the summer's best action setpiece—all the more impressive considering the film was made for about $30 million, less than a sixth of what Michael Bay reportedly spent on his joyless, insipid Transformers sequel.
Indeed, it's almost certain that the comparatively small budget was what allowed Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson to buck studio pressure and produce a fantastically gory, socially-engaged film with no stars set in a foreign country. In Hollywood the little guy is also often pitted against uncaring overlords—but as Blomkamp's clever, thrilling movie shows, sometimes outsiders can still eke out a victory.
Peter Suderman is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If humanity can't manage peace and equality amongst its own, how would humans fare when faced with the truly foreign?
You don't need to be a dude of sci-fi to know that humans would (will?) respond by completely losing their collective shit.
Movie looks interesting, though.
We'd do something irrational and stupid.
It would be a great day for humanity. Finally, we'd have somebody to oppress without being racist about it.
I really want to see this, mostly because the effects look likey're absolutely incredible, considering the (relatively) low budget.
My son and I watched the trailer and we're pretty sure we can predict all the major themes.
(1) Ordinary people will be hysterical bigots.
(2) The hero will be an articulate intellectual of some kind i.e. journalist, lawyer, activist, movie director etc.
(3) The military/police will be depicted in a bad light.
(4) Any business people in the movie will be greedy monsters with no thoughts for anyone except themselves.
(5) In the end, the articulate intellectuals will save everyone and educate about our morally failings which they completely lack.
My son observed, "Just once, I'd like to see a movie (especially a sci-fi/Horror movie) where the redneck was right and the college professor gets eaten. "
The subtext in many of these movies is how great articulate intellectuals are and how bad everyone else, especially people in business or military, are. After a few decades, it gets a bit tedious.
Hmmmm.... You got 3/5, which isn't bad.
But vikus is as FAR from the articulate intellectual as possible. He's a nerdy, bigoted, cruel, luckless bureaucrat with bad english. It's awesome how his story played out.
I'm surprised at the somewhat dismissive review Roger Ebert wrote. I'd have figured a movie like this would hit all his sweet spots. Still, he did give it 3 stars.
I'm with Shannon Love; almost every SF thing on TV or in the movies is an allegory about racism, antisemitism, homophobia, or some closely related theme. In SF literature, as well, there is a long long tradition (Slan, perhaps, was one of the first) of stories about minorities with special powers who are oppressed. I don't think I have to enumerate them for the Reason crowd. It is kind of tired.
Apparently Shannon has never seen Independence Day.
My son and I watched the trailer and we're pretty sure we can predict all the major themes.
I had the same reaction. I'm still planning to see the movie, though.
Shannon Love
After reading several reviews, I can say you're definitely wrong on #2 and mostly wrong on #5.
Does anyone here think #1 wouldn't happen?
"Just once, I'd like to see a movie (especially a sci-fi/Horror movie) where the redneck was right and the college professor gets eaten. "
You never saw Deep Blue Sea? Samuel L. Jackson's enlightened scientist character gets bit the fuck in half by a shark while in the middle of an inspiring monologue.
No alien is illegal!
No alien is illegal!
No alien is illegal!
No alien is illegal!
Meanwhile, see this (h/t Kochtopuswire). Somehow I think they forgot some of the costs involved, no?
Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.
Samuel L. Jackson's enlightened scientist character gets bit the fuck in half by a shark while in the middle of an inspiring monologue.
That was a wonderful moment.
Harry Turtledove did an alternate-history series about aliens who invaded earth during World War Two. I think his take was pretty accurate: some humans would be smart enough to set aside their differences to fight the common enemy, but the crazy ones would still be crazy; the Hitlers of the world would still try exterminating the Jews, for instance.
That was a wonderful moment.
Yeah, it was one of the few genuinely surprising scenes i can think of in recent movies.
If humanity can't manage peace and equality amongst its own, how would humans fare when faced with the truly foreign?
Ask the Neanderthals.
Really, though, this question depends almost entirely on whether the polity involved is a liberal democracy. The U.S., Germany, and Russia all had concentration camps, but treated the people in them very differently.
"they ate me....a shark ate me"
My son observed, "Just once, I'd like to see a movie (especially a sci-fi/Horror movie) where the redneck was right and the college professor gets eaten. "
How about Mars Attacks!?
I love the scene where the aliens come to Congress to "apologize" for the "misunderstanding" of the violent first contact and instead kill everyone in the room.
(1) Ordinary people will be hysterical bigots.
(2) The hero will be an articulate intellectual of some kind i.e. journalist, lawyer, activist, movie director etc.
(3) The military/police will be depicted in a bad light.
(4) Any business people in the movie will be greedy monsters with no thoughts for anyone except themselves.
(5) In the end, the articulate intellectuals will save everyone and educate about our morally failings which they completely lack.
Actually,
#1. Ordinary people aren't hysterical bigots, they're mostly just bored with the aliens because they turned out to be nothing special, and annoyed at all the welfare funds they consume.
2. Completely wrong. The "hero" is an asshole bureaucrat who only got his job due to nepotism who doesn't want to help anybody.
3. You're right on this one, they do attempt to depict the South African military and police realistically.
4. Well, since the businesspeople in question are milking off a UN contract, they pretty much SHOULD be depicted this way. For realism's sake, again.
5. Nope.
You didn't do too well with your guesses.
Slim saves the day.
Ripley's character blasted that 7-foot, acid bleeding bastard into space on the original, and then blasted the bigger & breeder bastard into space out of the airlock in "Aliens"
I'd say the acid-bleeder was quite foreign, as species go
I have had it with these motherfucking sharks in my motherfucking monologue.
Why can't the aliens ever be those easy green chicks Shatner was always making out with?
I'm surprised no one's mentioned 1988's flick "Alien Nation" as a cinematic predecessor. Maybe I'm the only one who saw it...
Hey, I liked Alien Nation. Jimmy Caan, General Zod, Inigo Montoya--all good stuff.
My son observed, "Just once, I'd like to see a movie (especially a sci-fi/Horror movie) where the redneck was right and the college professor gets eaten."
IIRC, the '80s TV movie "Starcrossed" had the noble researcher killed by the bad aliens.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned 1988's flick "Alien Nation" as a cinematic predecessor. Maybe I'm the only one who saw it...
I actually remember the subsequent TV series a bit more.
In case any of you haven't heard, SyFy is reviving Alien Nation.
Goddam, I'm encouraged by Fluffy's synopsis.
No more, though, without Spoiler Alert warnings, please.
Try Kin-dza-dza!. The aliens are all human-looking, but their behavior is completely alien. You can only get it as a free fansub download, since it was never released outside of Russia. It lacks the suicide-inducing tone of other Soviet-era films.
It's definitely worth seeing, if only as a commentary on how Russians viewed the class structure of the Soviet system.
Rascist Obama-in-shrimpface poster in 3...2...
From the Ebert review:
That's funny shit.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned 1988's flick "Alien Nation" as a cinematic predecessor. Maybe I'm the only one who saw it...
Saw it; enjoyed it.
I thought it had already been brought up here. I must have seen it somewhere else.
Does Red Dawn come close enough?
I mean, Patrick Swayze leads the high school football team to repel the bad guys and save America.
Does Red Dawn come close enough?
I mean, Patrick Swayze leads the high school football team to repel the bad guys and save America.
That's being remade, too.
Actually,
#1. Ordinary people aren't hysterical bigots, they're mostly just bored with the aliens because they turned out to be nothing special, and annoyed at all the welfare funds they consume.
OK, so she's mostly right.
2. Completely wrong. The "hero" is an asshole bureaucrat who only got his job due to nepotism who doesn't want to help anybody.
Well, I guess that means he isn't a hero doesn't it?
3. You're right on this one, they do attempt to depict the South African military and police realistically.
Yeah, that supports her point, not refutes it. The movie is set in South Africa for a reason.
4. Well, since the businesspeople in question are milking off a UN contract, they pretty much SHOULD be depicted this way. For realism's sake, again.
and all businesspeople work for the UN? So far it's Shannon:4, Fluffy:0
5. Nope.
I'll let you know after I've seen it.
PS: Independence Day was one of the few non-PC aliens come to Earth movies in recent times. That is why
1. critics hate it
2. it made a zillion dollars
I don't understand why people do this. It is a rare remake that has anything to offer at all, much less improves on the original.
But making a worse version of Red Dawn?!?
Apparently Shannon has never seen Independence Day.
And she's a better person for it.
I mean, Patrick Swayze leads the high school football team to repel the bad guys and save America.
He does not. He merely creates a small faction which acts as a regional resistance group. You know, like the French Resistance, except more effective.
Blow me qwerty, you cunt.
Paul,
Without hyperbole, Hit&Run would be much less fun.
So quit harshing my buzz, OK?
Oh, and it wasn't until I got through the whole Firefly series before I realized there were no aliens. No wonder that series was so good.
Without hyperbole, Hit&Run would be much less fun.
So quit harshing my buzz, OK?
Sorry man. I was a kid when Red Dawn came out and I thought it was pretty cool. As an adult I look back on it, and I can't help but be struck that as a movie... as entertaining cinema, it was put together rather well. Story, pacing etc. But I do have to admit that over time, it appears too self conscious.
I remember that people in the 80's hated it because they felt it was Reaganesque propaganda.
Maybe I should describe the movie as a guilty pleasure. Yeah, that's it.
I don't think that Independence Day or Mars Attacks really undermine my point. In both cases, the entire premise of the movie was an attack by overtly hostile aliens. No one going into the movies thought there was any possibility of the aliens being the good guys. Besides both those movies were just shoot-em ups. They had no serious undertones.
I can't think of any thoughtful science fiction/horror movie in which the tropes I listed don't govern the plot. That is also true for movies and books in general. I also note that in my sons video games, corporations are always evil and if the story has an evil government in it, 9 times out of 10 it is an evil "corporation" that is the government even when that doesn't make any sense. Wall-E is a good example of the latter.
This has broader implication than just boring Basically, we have a specific class or subculture producing our societies stories. They keep creating stories in which people of that subculture are the heros and all the subcultures social and political competitors are the villains. After a few generations of these stories, the perceptions of the subculture become the perceptions of culture at large.
We're reverting to a condition like that of the medieval era where the military aristocrats controlled the stories. In the end, the language itself called the professional killers nobel and the people of vills (villages) who grew food and killed no one became "villians." We have the same concept today in which articulate intellectuals are stereotyped as intelligent and altruistic and business people as stupid and greedy.
It's no wonder the free-market is such a hard sell. Most people have been trained since birth to believe that only a small elite part of the population can be trusted.
I have a category I call "So bad it's good". Red Dawn qualifies for me, as does Tank Girl, Wizards, and Hudson Hawk.
And I shall hear no derision.
http://www.slate.com/id/2225285/
I have to agree with Shannon. The bureaucrat that everyone sees as typical (mailing it in on a regular basis) saves the day after being "enlightened" by the alien's suffering. Those outside District 9 don't want to help people because it hurts their bottom lines and they're not the most desirable creatures to have around (if you could only understand). The government and corporations are all evil and make up the establishment.
In my understanding the movie basically says: If you selfish, self-centered, materialists just had a little empathy you would see that these aliens are just like us! Who are you to judge them!?
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I probably should've mentioned that the Slate article is a review of the movie, as well (and tends to reiterate some of the points people have made in this thread).
And also, a social commentary really needs to be boiled down to the bare minimum if it's going to be analyzed. You really think that people are going to walk out of a movie that shallow and say to themselves, "Well, I guess businesses that get awarded government contracts suck." No. They're going to say, "Oh my God, how could they treat those poor things like that those evil bloodsuckers."
I don't think that Independence Day or Mars Attacks really undermine my point. In both cases, the entire premise of the movie was an attack by overtly hostile aliens. No one going into the movies thought there was any possibility of the aliens being the good guys. Besides both those movies were just [shoot-'em-ups]. They had no serious undertones.
I can't think of any thoughtful science fiction/horror movie in which the tropes I listed don't govern the plot. That is also true for movies and books in general. [...]
FWIW, I forgot to mention earlier "A Small Talent for War" (from the '80s "Twilight Zone").
Blow me qwerty, you cunt.
I'm reminded of an expression involving glass houses and stones...
Red Dawn is being remade? The only things that movie had going for it are 1) John Milius may be a right-wing crank, but the man knows how to write, and 2) if you are a teenage boy, it's the coolest thing you've ever fucking seen, ever.
How will they bring these elements to a new movie? Oh right, they won't.
In my understanding the movie basically says: If you selfish, self-centered, materialists just had a little empathy you would see that these aliens are just like us! Who are you to judge them!?
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Yeah, it sounds like common moral fucking sense. But I'm sure that's not where you were going with that.
How will they bring these elements to a new movie? Oh right, they won't.
I was also dismayed by the announcement. What could a remake possibly bring to the table?
In other impossibly stupid news, AICN was reporting that Bryan Singer is angling to direct a BSG movie absolutely unattached to the Ron Moore interpretation. Re-tar-ded.
The below actually happens in Aliens... I cant be alone to reference that outstanding sequel ?? Hicks (Biehn's character) was right, and Burke gets smacked in the face by an acid-bleeding 7-foot alien. Burke of course playing the scum, out for himself business person.
"My son observed, "Just once, I'd like to see a movie (especially a sci-fi/Horror movie) where the redneck was right and the college professor gets eaten. " "
F**k the Red Dawn remake, yet another signal that Hollywood has become quite lame...in another 5 years what are they gonna do, remake Goonies ?
# Tingy Wah | August 14, 2009, 4:35pm | #
# I'm surprised no one's mentioned 1988's flick
# "Alien Nation" as a cinematic predecessor.
# Maybe I'm the only one who saw it...
Reading the WSJ's take on District 9, the first thing I thought of was "Alien Nation starring Zoidberg."
I loved the move and TV series both. Isn't the guy who played the alien lead (Francisco) in the TV series now hawking spoon sized shredded wheat on TV? I can never see that guy without imagining him having a bald head with spots. I'm sorry about the mental typecasting, but he was just so good -- dare I say beloved? -- in his alien role.
As far as South African sci-fi imports are concerned, make mine Charlie Jade. My son saw D9 last night, though, and liked it well enough.
Does 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' make this listing ?? Consideration is all I am seeking....
"I have a category I call "So bad it's good". Red Dawn qualifies for me, as does Tank Girl, Wizards, and Hudson Hawk.
And I shall hear no derision."
Red Dawn sucked. On all levels.
I found League of Extraordinary Gentleman to be so bad it was bad.
But that is just me...
Red Dawn sucked. On all levels.
Whoa. Harsh!
I found League of Extraordinary Gentleman to be so bad it was bad.
But that is just me...
To me it seemed like two films spliced together. The part with the story and plot and what-have-you was a hideous cinematic abomination. The other part, the one with the witty inter-character banter, was halfway serviceable.
Nope...that was a hideous abomination. My enjoyment of burning $8 on a ticket would have been better spent...actually burning the $8 with fuel and ignition.
I didn't really like it overall, but I was fooled by all the things that I read claiming it was a really good movie.
Which is a surprise, because I almost always go into a movie thinking it was going to suck, and being pleasantly surprised when it isn't as bad as I assumed. I am basically very critical of movies.
Not to say there weren't some cool parts of the movie, but there were some parts that I really disliked, as well. I did not realise that it was going to be as gory as it was, for instance.
Treat very cruel way to weak minority is inborn human nature. Even
animal who are living in group they also donot tolrat outsider, they bit them drive awy them.
There is another reason man always want some group for hate,some victim to their default.
@ EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
Actually, I always thought Wizards was pretty good. It's the one case where Ralph Bakshi actually hit the target he was aiming for.
For the "so bad it's good" list I'd add Flash Gordon (the one with the soundtrack by Queen). Max Von Sydow *was* Emperor Ming. And Topol as Dr. Zarkov? That's gold right there. 🙂 It's probably one of the best damn looking bad films ever made, including the gaudy, retro spacecraft designs. And I liked the idea of little worlds floating around in a vast atmosphere. King of like Larry Niven's "Smoke Ring", but without the science.
I found League of Extraordinary Gentleman to be so bad it was bad.
Having read the Alan Moore graphic novel, I couldn't even make my self watch the film. When I heard they changed the educated, cultured and take-no-shit Mina Harker from the group *leader* into a yet-another-sexy-vampire, I wrote it off.
In the book, Alan Quartermain is washed up, drugged out sod that Harker has to drag out of an opium den, and forcibly dry him out by locking him into a room on Nemo's sub.
And you just *know* what the Hollywood execs said. "What? The woman is the leader? We can't have that! Make her like that sexy babe in Underworld."
Just saw the movie. It's fantastic. Highly recommend it.
I can't think of any thoughtful science fiction/horror movie in which the tropes I listed don't govern the plot.
X-Files: Season 7, Signs and Wonders. The whole episode is set up to make you think that the bad guy is the crazy snake-handling evangelical preacher, when it's really the moderate mainline Protestant minister who turns out to be the monster.
Haha... Hilarious... I am watching Underworld right now. I also have a penchant for "so-bad-it's-good" and occasionally "so-bad-it's-bad" movies.
A couple weeks ago, for instance, my roommate and I buckled down with beers and watched "Transmorphers" (you're reading that correctly).
Good times.
Anyway, I actually only wanted to add that I thought/think/will always think that Wizards sucked a donkey's bollocks.
So does Fritz the Cat.
I saw the flick today and loved it. I can't remember a recent sci-fi movie that I've liked more than this one.
It did everything for me. The fact that there's a badass mech warrior kinda sealed the deal for me.
I can't wait to see District 9.
Quiet Desperation, I agree with you. Flash Gordon(1980) is a pleasure to behold.
The whole episode is set up to make you think that the bad guy is the crazy snake-handling evangelical preacher, when it's really the moderate mainline Protestant minister who turns out to be the monster.
That was a good episode.
Election 2000?
No, the bureaucrat does everything he can to save his own ass and only becomes "enlightened" when he fails miserably.
You can't say the movie was "blame the corporations" when every single human in the movie is portrayed as evil.
Besides, who doesn't want to blame corporations when they go around murdering innocent "people" for no reason?
It's a bit hard to argue a movie is anti-libertarian when corporations murdering civilians get their comeupance from individuals acting in their self-interest.
Trying not to reveal too much....
Good one, Tony :D. 'Course, the one who seemed more "folksy" was really a blueblood, too.
yet some movies have a redeeming quality not captured in the plot or story lines...Beckinsale in leather, woo hoo...some would find a redemptive quality
"Haha... Hilarious... I am watching Underworld right now. I also have a penchant for "so-bad-it's-good" and occasionally "so-bad-it's-bad" movies"
Besides, who doesn't want to blame corporations when they go around murdering innocent "people" for no reason?
It's a bit hard to argue a movie is anti-libertarian when corporations murdering civilians get their comeupance from individuals acting in their self-interest.
I think the point that some are concerned about is that corporations in real life generally don't run around committing mass murder. That's usually the realm of goverment. Actual corporations are general very vanilla and very concerned about their image.
**MINOR SPOILERS**
However in this movie I would say it is clear the corporation in question is clearly a rent seeking government hybrid that in many ways is more of a stand in for the UN. Hence all the white vehicles and equipment.
My one beef with the movie is the characterization of the people working for MNU. The movie basically makes them look like they just hire sociopaths. While organizations tasked with those kind of duties certainly can become corrupt, it usually is with a large coating of euphemisms and "it's for the best" attitudes that allows humans to salve their concious. It's not a prison, it's an "internment camp." "It's for their own protection." It's not racial extermination, it's "The Final Solution" and so on.
They did a little bit at the beginning with the "eviction" notices which I thought was spot on. But for much of the rest of the film I felt their attitude was a little too cartoon villain for my taste.
Otherwise I thought it was a really good movie. Probably the best I have seen all summer other than Up.
Flash Gordon had Brian Blessed in support, too. I've always liked his work.
The 1980 Flash, was a stinkeroo, made worse by the fact that I had fond memories of watching the original serials. New York's Channel 11 used to run a chapter a day on their afternoon kiddie show hosted by Chuck McCann. Besides the 3 Gordon chapterplays, they showed Tim Tyler's Luck, Buck Rogers (also starring Buster Crabbe), The Purple Monster Strikes, The Phantom Empire with Gene Autry (the 1979 TV series, Cliffhangers had a plagiarized version homage to this called The Secret Empire) and many others.
This never stopped me from seeing Flesh Gordon in first run, however.
Kevin
Shannon,
How about V? That had serious undertones.
I agree with your larger point, though: there's a definite undercurrent that is anti-business, anti-capitalist, even anti-Western. That was one reason I loved 300 so much: it was an unabashed paean to Western Civ.
The invisible hand will always be a hard sell next to images of the poor. Of course, anyone can see the Soviet Union collapsed and Cuba is running out of toilet paper if they look, but no one makes movies about it.
Was Flash Gordon the one that had the episode with the giant robot that had a big brain in a long glass cylinder and put needles in people's necks to control them? I remember at the end of the episode the hero has been captured by the evil robot, which is about to put the needle in his neck, and he says "It's no one's fault really" to the woman and then pushes the robot into a trap in the floor, where it thrashes around in some sort of liquid.
Saw it when I was a kid, made an impression, but I can never remember what it was from.
Alien Nation is not a movie, it's cinema. There was an npr interview with a dutch resistance member when Red Dawn came out. He said it was a very accurate porteayal of partisan life.
A
A
It'll be interesting to see District 9. If you don't know,m it's basically a full-length version of a short that Blomkamp did called "Alive in Jo'burg" which is available on google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1185812222812358837
I can't think of any thoughtful science fiction/horror movie in which the tropes I listed don't govern the plot. That is also true for movies and books in general. I also note that in my sons video games, corporations are always evil and if the story has an evil government in it, 9 times out of 10 it is an evil "corporation" that is the government even when that doesn't make any sense.
Agreed. Earlier today I was with a group of a dozen friends, each of whom is well past fifty, and who collectively follow a wide variety of genres. I asked them to list movie and TV corporations that were portrayed as "voluntarily doing the right thing."
We got zip.
I think the real issue presented by this film is whether or not society is heading toward a point in which it cannot engage in a film unless it features nauseating, hand-held, fake-documentary shots.
Just saw District 9 at the Chinese Theatre. Actually really good experience overall...
These may be my own libertarian proclivities coming out here, but I didn't really see the Multi-National United "company" as a business really. Or perhaps, more accurately, it just seemed like a defense contractor working for the United Nations... Point being, it didn't really seem so much like it was vilifying "business" so much as it was vilifying apartheid-style concentration camps segregation.
Yes, there is an obligatory moment where the CEO of MNU has to be a complete bastard, but mostly it just seemed like a rent-seeking government offshoot.
Also, I had a delicious Bacon-wrapped Hotdog after the show on the street. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Black-markety goodness!
I suspect that the reason corporations are portrayed in a generally negative way in popular film and television is that the creators of the show are really using the fictional corporations as a surrogate for real studios. They can sublimate "the heartless moneybagged patrons don't appreciate my struggles as an artist" into a familiar trope, while furthermore cathartically depicting their aesthetic misgivings thusly: "why did X-Men Origins: Wolverine suck so bad? I blame the approval/marketing-by-committee process, and its indicativeness of the clumsy, unartful hands of big bidness (particularly that rat-bastard studio head who wouldn't greenlight my magnum opus".
That, and most of Hollywood is made of bleeding-heart leftists. 😉
But, really, I'm hearing mostly positive things about District 9 (tips hat at Sean W. Malone.
I could really use a copyeditor, but I stand by the content of my last post.
Art, speaking from close proximity & some personal experience, I think you've mostly hit the nail on the head.
A lot of Hollywood's hatred of "business" stems from the fact that the relationship most film directors/writers have with studio execs who actually fund their projects is identical to the relationship a 15 year old girl has with her father, especially when he's telling her not to date her pierced-up idiot boyfriend.
Quite a few "artists" really get off on whining about shit like that. Invariably, it's sort of immature and petty as they are shocked to find that when someone puts them at the reigns of a large project with $100 million on the line, the people who ponied up the cash tend to want some say in how that money is spent.
So we get endless kvetching.
But also, I think, no one here should under-estimate just how stupid and ignorant most of the people in this town really are. Before I moved here I was prepared for some percentage of crazy, ignorant and dumb, but I really did not expect the percentage to be this high.
They don't understand economics, business is a foreign concept to most of these guys and worse, many/most aren't even capable of formulating the thoughts that would carry them to proper conclusions. It's embarrassing mostly... As a result, we get these stunted projects where the director doesn't deviate from the playbook at all.
Sean W. Malone,
Interesting. I definitely have sympathy for both sides (studio and filmmaker). Either side can definitely have a hand in an epic fail comitted to film. Creative types with their deforming artistic excesses or studio types mangling a property with some horrible misconception about "what sells".
Heaven help us whenever both have a hand in it.
committed* man, this is not my morning.
Since we are wishing for the ideal science fiction film, here are my desired features:
1. The illogic of not being able to find that massive control room which fell off the giant spaceship to earth - it hurts my brain! Necessary for the plot, but destroys any suspended disbelief.
2. Humans learning absolutely nothing about the aliens over a period of 28 years. I don't think so.
3. Aliens able to manufacture complex weapons, exotic computers, and distill extremely powerful fuels - who cannot figure out over 28 years how to interact with the human economy to their own benefit. Impossible that none of them would never find a way to use that stuff to their advantage beyond trading for cat food.
4. Aliens who own complex weapons, exotic computers, and extremely powerful fuels - who cannot use them to improve their own situations. Again, I don't think so. Where are the gangs of weapons-wielding aliens TAKING all the cat food they want?
5. Humans too stupid to use anything other than brute force and vivisection to learn about the advanced technology. Good lord, do you think the Vatican might have shown an interest in the aliens, and sent a Jesuit or three down to investigate their culture? Do you think HP or Bill Gates or Lockheed or Monsanto might have slipped a few of the smarter aliens out of the slum ghetto and into their research centers (with or without the permission of the MNU and the UN), given them all the cat food they wanted, and told them to make whatever they wanted, just for the fun of seeing what they came up with?
Enough. The holes in the internal story logic, the lack of multiple modes of real human behavior, and the pure stupidity of the aliens made this movie a simple morality tale when it could have been much, much, much more.
I only hope it was just a prequel for the return of the mothership.
Mikee:
1) It's existence was speculative- who knows how hard they looked. Maybe it was shielded?
2) We learn plenty about their genetics. Their tech is capable of FTL travel- their understanding of physics is levels of magnitude beyond our own. How much would a stone-age tribe learn from a laptop in twenty years?
3 & 4) This is key: there are 1.8 million aliens. Specifically, there are 1,799,999 low-functioning drones and Christopher. Notice how they walked the mech to the compound but didn't demonstrate its non-trivial capabilities? Without a leader's direction, they can't. so:
5) They have no culture, and there are no smart ones except Christopher, and he kepps it to himself.
Remember that Sci-Fi Channel movie where the alien is disguised as a gorgeous blond? She seduces a couple of guys, and they end up in a pool of blood in their jacuzzis. Prawns and lizard aliens, whether good or evil, are no fun.
The movie is monumentally stupid, in all sorts of ways.
First, the Aliens have a spaceship and advanced weapons. They are the Afrikaners, the Dutch Colonists, the Boers, not the Bantu or Zulu tribesmen MAJORITY.
That's freaking stupid. Aliens with Spaceships in internment camps. It's like a story where Superman is imprisoned because ... well because of evil racism by bad White guys who are inferior to ME! Dammit. It's all about ME ME ME and how enlightened and anti-racism I am.
Second, Apartheid has been dead for 18 years. Like every other nation in Africa, South Africa has been led by superstitious (AIDS caused by "spores" and cured by sex with virgins) and corrupt, and polygamous Presidents. SA under the ANC cannot even keep the power on in Johannesburg. Rape, murder and assault are at traumatic levels, never seen before, and one survey had 1/4 of SA (Black) men admitting to being part of gang-rapes. EVERY prediction by Apartheid supporters about the misery of Black self-rule has come true, as it came true everywhere in Africa.
Because Africa was colonized for a reason: Africans in contact with "Aliens" from "outer space" (Europe) confronted a challenge: a vastly superior technologically, and economically, colonizer who did not care one way or another about them or their ways of life, and simply sought their resources. NONE of the colonized peoples, split by tribalism, superstition, magical thinking, and Big Man-ism were able to adapt and adopt Western technology, way of living, and everything else to prevent from being colonized. They wanted to stay African and did, but at a price. Being ruled by others, until said others got tired of it, and left, leaving them as pathetic and tribally poor and primitive as before.
When Japan was faced with "aliens" (Commodore Perry's Black Fleet) opening up them to trade by force, they crash-modernized. They remained partially Japanese, but only in part, much of them becoming Western. Though not enough, as their over-reliance in WWII on "fighting spirit" and the "samurai surprise stroke" (killing the enemy in one blow) demonstrated. However modernization did not come without huge bloodshed in Japan against those who wished like Africans to be what they were, without change even if that meant defeat, versus those who wished to be not colonized.
The movie was stupid -- the story of Aliens showing up is one of not "racism" and elite White guys showing how enlightened and morally superior they are, but rather the struggle of small peoples and groups to stay as they are, even being ruled by Aliens, vs. those (China, America, Russia, Japan) with the power and will to lead a united World government to crash-modernize their own spaceships, weapons, and so on. New Zealand and South Africa would be useful for resources, but little else, and have no say in anything, and no one would care about "racism." The world would care about technology, getting more of it, better each time, and that's it.
Agreed to everything said by Mikee and Whiskey said.
With the caveat that as a marginally mindless sci-fi movie, it was well done and has a good story-arc (the "hero" actually exhibits a relatively large personal change throughout the film - emotionally and physically).
But yes, you really have to suspend disbelief a lot to see a million & a half aliens with intergalactic technology and remarkably powerful weapons in some kind of concentration camp with no attempts to improve their lot or escape in 28 years. That's pretty bizarre.
I think the implication of Christopher is that most of the aliens aren't smart enough to improve their lot or escape. They're much like 70 IQ humans. Christopher may not be able to control enough of them to launch an attack against humanity. Even with advanced technology, the mass of your forces matter.
Maybe that's why the ship stopped at Earth in the first place. It's essentially a crash landing, because all the other "leader" aliens are dead and Christopher can't control enough of them by himself to crew the ship or run the food processing systems (they were starving when found).
Just had to jump in here to address Mikee and Anonymouse's #1.
The big "brain" that fell out of the ship was actually Christopher Johnson's basement. Remember at the end where it went up and fit INTO the ship.
That was what was going on.
Wasn't made very clear, but trust me, that's what was happening.
Shannon Love, your predictions aren't quite accurate. By chance I happened to see the film directly before reading this article, and it is the best film I've seen this year by far. See the film before you judge...also, regarding this comment, "In the end, the articulate intellectuals will save everyone and educate about our morally failings which they completely lack" you should probably watch Mars Attacks!, Feast and Escape from L.A.
Whiskey, you couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Also, for all of you analyzing this film on an exclusively socio-political level...don't. It succeeds in so many other ways. Amazing CG characters, which usually takes me out of a film (Lord of the Rings, new Star Wars, King Kong etc), brilliantly executed acting and directing and so on...Any director that can make you despise computer-generated characters and then form an emotional attachment to them in the course of an hour has achieved something special. The political overtones may have been overt and clumsy at times, but there is much, much more to this film that should be celebrated and enjoyed by as many viewers as possible.
Good movie.
Too much time spent on the action film subplot. Most of the weaknesses in the film came from the need to have the action sequences. This includes the need for over the top villains and the need for lots of high tech weapons. Otherwise, this was a really good film. The political points, I think, were not as simplistic as some have implied.
Shannon's predictions miss on 3 of 5.
2. Humans learning absolutely nothing about the aliens over a period of 28 years. I don't think so.
Well, they did learn their language. At the very least. It was also clear that they learned a lot more. I don't think you were watching very carefully.
As for 3,4,...well, let's just say you may have missed some evidence for those activities that wafted around in the background.
And as for 5...no evidence one way or the other. But certainly tangential to the plot.
OK, libertarians, since some of you were clearly not paying close enough attention, I'm going to speak your language:
The aliens seen in the movie aside from Christopher are basically the bugs from Starship Troopers without a brain bug. Only instead of simply dying, they have some kind of rudimentary intelligence that seeks short-term survival.
Think of when the humans open the ship and all the aliens just stare at them not moving. They are terrible at processing new situations and stimuli, except Christopher, his friend, and his son, who are of some other bug caste or class, and are highly intelligent.
Space Fiend,
That is alluded to in the film, but may be in there as a nod to idiotic theories that Africans are not capable of leading themselves (see rant above). Remember, that was a theory put forth by the humans. The difference between Christopher and the others could as easily been education and class as raw intelligence.
But even if the "bug worker class theory" is correct, you are low-balling the intelligence of the worker class based on their behavior by several orders of magnitude.
Their behavior was depicted as very similar to that of humans in similar conditions.
Another point regarding the technology, that I think people are missing...When you live embedded in technology, you don't need to know how it works. And when the technology you rely is made with a sophisticated infrastructure, even if you know how to make it, doesn't mean you have the means.
Saw the movie. My verdict - mildly interesting but don't waste your money. It'll be out on cable soon enough.
Somebody should have told Blomkamp that, unless you're going to feature the exploits of a fantasy heavy metal rock band with hot chicks, 'mock-umentary' is the best way to a kill a movie. I didn't learn a thing in those parts of the movie that couldn't have been more effectively and engagingly demonstrated in real movie scenes. Real movie scenes would probably have made the 'man's inhumanity to humanoid crustaceans' preaching a bit too obvious so the 'banality of evil' approach is somewhat redeeming. The actual movie was a fairly pedestrian and predictable sci-fi action shoot-em-up once you got to the 'suspend your disbelief now' part. The action scenes were very well done. That's pretty much the only redeeming feature of the film.
I walked out with a different take on the South African apartheid theme. It seems an obvious comparison because of the location but take a closer look at some of the details. The 'prawns' aren't even minimally integrated into the economy even though they are tremendously strong, have advanced technology, and we can communicate with them. They live in a sprawling fetid camp supported almost entirely by a UN style organization and illegal trade. The camps are surrounded and raided frequently for weapons caches, contraband, and to enforce 'population control'.
To me it doesn't sound so much like the real aphartied setting as it does the 'Israel is practicing apartheid /Final Solution on the Palestinians' meme. There's even a little of the 'Elders of Zion' blood libel coupled with the 'Israeli' MNU acting like Nazi's. (At one point the main human character admits that the new home for the prawns is a 'concentration camp').
It's also pretty rich that in a movie with such an enlightened racial attitude, the group that comes off the absolute worst in terms of ignorance and superstition is the Nigerians.
Any attempt to debate the alien social structure is seriously flawed by the way they do pretty much anything the director wants them to do at a given moment in the film. (A minor spoiler example - babies are shown incubating in a sort of hive but Head Bug Christopher has a son?) It's not a matter of looking close enough to spot things as what you wind up projecting on the film to fill in the gaps in logic.
Neu Mejican, I think you have a point with the comment about having the knowledge but missing the means. The only flaw I can see there is that if the aliens just fookin' ran out of foockin' gas how come it seems to be part of every thing they make? Their actions and situation are simply whatever the storyteller wants them to be at any given time.
I felt like it started from a great premise, but then halfway through it turned into Goldblum's "The Fly" and then became just another shoot-em-up (albiet very well done).
Shannon:
Try the original "The Thing."
DerHahn,
As I said above, I think the plot problems (there were some, although I don't know if the son is an issue at all) come from an attempt to merge an action movie with a more serious film about a more serious topic. The "do what they need to now" elements, to me, seemed to come from the need to set up an action sequence.
I think it was actually a smart move to leave a lot of the details in the background and up to the viewer. Filling in the gaps is what makes it engaging.
I agree that the camp is closer to Gaza than a township...at least conceptually. Darfur came to my mind, as well.
Saw it, enjoyed it.
(1) Ordinary people were not kindly disposed towards the aliens, but weren't hysterical (but at the time of the movie, the aliens had been on earth for 20 years)
(2) The hero was a bureacrat who got ahead by marrying the boss's daughter. Not the benevolent, public-serving sort of a bureaucrat, but the kind that tells an alien who refuses to sign forms to be relocated to a concentration camp that he'll take his kid to child's services.
(3) There are no military/police in the movie, per se; see #4.
(4) True, although the "business" in this cases is basically Halliburton+Blackwater+UmbrellaCorp; there's no evidence that they do anything other than for-profit application of coercive force (aside from researching related technology, i.e. arms).
(5) Not really, but it isn't a "save everyone" kind of plot.
I did think it was a little odd that the prawns didn't use their superior firepower to create a colony; on the other hand, there were about a million of them, and versus several thousand times as many humans, so it probably wouldn't go too well. The fact that even Christopher couldn't create more fuel and had to salvage it was also a little strange, not to mention I still don't understand why they came to Earth and why they left and so on. But it doesn't matter too much, really.
Action was fun, although I did feel like I was watching someone playing a video game from about 10 years in the future.
I enjoyed the responses to my criticisms of the film. Thank you.
Again, despite all the negatives of the hole-filled plot, let me state my hope about the film: I hope that it serves as a prequel to the return of the mothership, three years after the original movie ended.
I'd really like to see a movie about the intelligent "prawns" interacting with humanity.
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets..
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books
is good