THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Shok Xone Studios on 13 Aug 2009, 21:14
-
I attended a preview screening of the film tonight. We had free passes and they were giving out movie posters on the way in, so already we were off to a good start. Add to that the audience was full of adults who FUCKING KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE IN A MOVIE THEATER, and we're in for a fun time at the movies. Then the movie is so good the audience breaks into applause at the end credits; now that's a trip to the cinema, folks.
"District 9" strikes one of those great balances of brains and spectacle that we don't get nearly as often as we should. D9 not only presents a startlingly bleak "what if" scenario of first contact, but provides enough slam-bang visuals to put many a major blockbuster to shame.
The movie is presented at first in a mockumentary style, then dips into a straight narrative, and hops back and forth a few times as events play out. This is the style I hope the eventual "World War Z" film would take, and after seeing it put to such amazing use here, I'd recommend handing the project to Neill Blomkamp and co. Along with newsreel and documentary footage, the action has something of a Paul Greengrass feel while inserting some stylish action shots, including a "gunbarrel POV" steadicam effect that I grew quite fond of.
The action is centered on Wikus (Sharlto Copley), an agent of the MNU assigned to handle the relocation of the residents of District 9, nicknamed "prawns" by the human race (and rightfully so, as they look like distant relatives of Zoidberg). Wikus starts out as a smiling bureaucrat, happily joining in on the humiliation and oppression of the alien refugees. His turnaround starts as he's exposed to a strange chemical that turns him into an enemy of the state, forcing him back to D9 for help. The film is cast entirely with unknowns, making everything that transpires all the easier to accept, as you're focusing on the story rather than the actors, although I bet Copley will be hard-pressed to stay anonymous if this movie makes the big bucks I hope it will. He handles the character with a certain slimy charm and goofiness as the film begins, turning slowly but surely into a believable reluctant hero, while remaining imperfect person; he's first driven by company loyalty, then by selfishness to cure his new-found "condition", resulting in some realistically bad decisions on his part. Only at the very end does he become a truly noble character, and it's here the film slips precariously into cliche and sap, but with all the fireworks going off at the story's climax, you're likely to forgive a misstep or two.
Effects-wise the film also shines. The prawns' CGI is highly-detailed and surprisingly emotive; you never quite get the sense they're really there, but certainly that there's a living on-screen presence, especially in scenes in which no humans are involved. Also of note are the alien weapons, including a hulking cyber-suit that plays a central part in a thunderous shootout. Imagine an upgraded version of Ripley's power loader from "Aliens" and you'll have a good sense of the shit this thing tears up.
The aliens' hand weapons are of importance to the film's subplot, in which government researchers and black market dealers (led by a super-creepy guy in a wheelchair with ambitions of consuming the aliens' power through consumption) collect and test the machinery, though they can only be activated by prawn DNA. Once we see this stuff in action, the film earns its R rating faster than Donald Trump earns your annual salary. There are few greater joys in cinema than a theater full of people reacting in unison to something sick happening on screen, and such was the case as human bodies were literally turned to greasy red smears on the ground and walls.
I love watching shit blow up, and I love movies that can make me think; if I can get the two hand-in-hand, all the better. "District 9" reminded me a great deal of "Children of Men" in its themes and filmmaking style, and in my humble opinion can happily take a place next to it on the list of great 21st-century sci-fi flicks.
P.S. Dear Hollywood: Let Jackson and Blomkamp make "Halo" already.
-
(http://www.theaterhopper.com/wordpress/comics/2009-08-14.jpg)
Just for the lolz. I really wanna see this.
-
Peter Jackson talks about District 9 and some other stuff (http://io9.com/5321837/peter-jackson-spills-all-about-the-hobbit-the-lovely-bones-and-world-war-i-airplanes)
ehhh I probably won't be able to see it.
-
(http://www.theaterhopper.com/wordpress/comics/2009-08-14.jpg)
Just for the lolz. I really wanna see this.
This movie was fucking awesome, saw it at midnight last night and was completely blown away. I am quoting this because the friend I saw it with was complaining that "the aliens weren't evil enough" after we got out, while simultaneously saying the film was too hollywood.
But really this is one of the best sci-fi films I've seen in a really long time.
-
Saw it today. So good. So very good.
Go see it. really. dont wait for DVD, dont download it. Go see it. there is nothing that can mirror the thing of being in a cinima and feeling the floor vibrate with the deep noise of the engines. or the full sorround sound, with the interveiwers speaking from behind you and the person on the camera speaking from the screen.
also before the guy gets in the robot thing, when it does the thing with the bullets .... So fucking cool.
so just to reiterate. GO. SEE. THIS. MOVIE.
But really this is one of the best sci-fi films I've seen in a really long time.
-
I really, REALLY want to see this film but I have to wait another week. My girlfriend has promised to see it with me but she doesn't move down to Victoria for another week, so hopefully I'll see it within the next two weeks. I have really, really high expectations for this film and from what I've heard, I'm probably not going to be disappointed.
-
I really want to see this too but right now it isn't even mentioned in the 'Coming Soon' list in the cinema. :(
-
Oh man, so good. I especially love that lightening gun. Every time they used it my cousin and I cheered.
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4761/district9.gif)
:cry:
-
Exploding people were awesome, 'nuff said.
Go watch this movie, everyone! I enjoyed it, minus the shaky-cam. It wasn't exactly a direct metaphor for the Apartheid either, but I could see some similarities.
MMM CRAWFISH AND CATFOOD
-
(http://a.imagehost.org/0834/alg_district-9.jpg)
This is, hands down, the film of the year. I cannot think of a single criticism to level at the work, it's simply flawless*.
Link to the excellent OST, for those interested:
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,19792.msg848317.html#msg848317 (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,19792.msg848317.html#msg848317)
* To avoid confusion, I feel it prudent to note that the word "flawless" is used here to denote that the subject has nothing negative to report about the film. There is no guarantee (implied, expressed or otherwise) that the film itself is, indeed, "flawless".
-
I will probably check this out at a Saturday matinee this weekend.
-
I don't know whether or not hype factored into the fact that I enjoyed District 9 as much as I did, but I wouldn't say it's flawless. The pacing of the movie is a bit slow during the beginning "documentary phase," but I suppose that's what the director intended. Also, if you can stand the shaky cam, props to you, because I felt nauseous throughout the movie.
That said, I'm glad District 9 became District 9 and not the Halo movie that it was originally intended to be. Sharlto Copley did a great, great job acting as Wikus, and I'm predicting an Oscar nom for him.
-
Oh man, so good. I especially love that lightening gun. Every time they used it my cousin and I cheered.
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4761/district9.gif)
:cry:
what is it he is petting, a flower? looks so innocent and cute. Please tell me the tears isnt from some sniper taking him/her out. :(
-
To write anything about that image would be a serious spoiler. In fact, it's kind of a spoiler in and of itself.
That'd make a sweet avatar, though.
-
there is nothing that can mirror the thing of being in a cinima and feeling the floor vibrate with the deep noise of the engines. or the full sorround sound, with the interveiwers speaking from behind you and the person on the camera speaking from the screen.
I couldn't agree more!
Unfortunately, I live in a city directly between two large metropolitan cities - both of which have excellent theatres. The two theatres in my town are owned by the same Middle Eastern fellow who, with no competition, has let them decay into the most pathetic movie houses in America. Not a single unit utilizes surround sound and the entire sound system sounds like it consists of a couple of 6x9s wedged below the screen.
So, needless to say, it was worth traveling eighty miles to see "District 9" in Memphis, TN.
-
So. This movie was pretty awesome!
It's kind of amazing to me, especially in the day and age where the Wolverine movie gets ruined months before it comes out, that a movie like this could almost come out of nowhere like it did. (Did it? Or was I just oblivious to it?) This is the kind of movie that really makes me not as sad that books are slowly fading away as movies are slowly becoming more and more important... When I think that the ___ Movie line is more popular that pretty much anything written by Michael Chabon, for example, it makes me sad, but District 9 helps me feel a little better about things.
Can I get a little metaphor-y? I love the mothership that just hovers in the background for the whole movie. Like, the hate the humans feel towards the prawns the whole movie is just there, ugly and right in front of them, but they're so used to it now that they don't even notice it as being weird or out of place or even (dare I say?) wrong. Having that ship hovering over Johannesburg the whole time (especially the scale of it, and how it was so realistic looking) was a cool thing, indeed. This movie was good.
-
The only real criticisms I have against this movie are that the documentary motif is dropped way too quickly and the underlying themes of the film are really unsubtle. The former is way worse than the latter - the shift away from documentary is jarring and then they shift back and it doesn't make a ton of sense to do it that way. Stylistically it also seems like a weird choice, mostly because they knocked the documentary scenes out of the park.
It was still a really good movie for a lot of reasons. Part of its excellence came from the fact that there was genuine suspense! I haven't seen a movie this legitimately tense in a while. The climax is especially riveting.
-
I suppose they dropped the doc format mid-way because those people had no idea what happened to Wikus, or indeed what really happened in District 9. Their commentary would've been much as it is at the end - mere conjecture.
-
I liked this movie, but describe it as "flawless" is pretty amusing. The way it shifted into Hollywood-style action/chase film was fine, as I think the tension was ratcheted up so high in the first third that it was an effective release. And it certainly did a good job of maintaining a level of tension throughout most of the film, which is difficult to achieve without slipping into a film that's just uncomfortable to watch.
But while the major players - Wikus, Christopher - were well-developed, there was rarely a sense that the supporting players were real individuals for most of the film. I can excuse the aliens, as they were supposed to be "worker drones," but Wikus's father-in-law and the colonel were both caricatures of "bad guys," and Wikus's wife never really seemed like anything more than a plot element to me. I can understand that they didn't have time to develop full characters of them, but they could have certainly done a better job. Aside from all that, there seems to be a significant plot hole in that the motivation for most of the humans in the film was to gain access to the apparently ridiculously powerful alien weaponry - and yet we never once see the aliens attempt to use this technology against humans, nor is there any implication that they've done so in the past. Forgivable, certainly, but hardly a flawless film.
All that said, I enjoyed it. Hopefully it's successful enough that modern sci-fi/action filmmakers learn some lessons from what it does right.
-
I just came back from this movie. Out of my group of 5 I was the only one who liked it.
That said, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought the premise was really neat The only problem I had was the last half of the mechwarrior scene. It just seemed contrived.
-
I liked this movie, but describe it as "flawless" is pretty amusing.
Are the 'flaws' you listed the benchmarks behind which this film could be considered 'flawless'? There was no need to develop the secondary characters because the focus of the piece is specifically centered on Wikius and Christopher. They are the impetus behind every event, so it naturally follows that the secondary characters serve as 'plot elements'.
The goal of film pacing is to remove as much of the extraneous detail as possible, this is particularly important with American audiences who are infamous for having five-second attention spans. I really can't imagine what you were expecting with respect to their development. If they shot a scene of the colonel at home petting a kitten would that make him more complex?
-
You can't really argue that characters who aren't very well-developed help to make a film "flawless," especially if they're antagonists!
They dropped the documentary midway through cause they wanted to make an action movie, and that's fine, it was just kind of jarring. They could have made a movie about the exact same events in documentary style but it would have been a lot less punchy and explosion-filled and then it wouldn't have been a summer blockbuster.
-
You can't really argue that characters who aren't very well-developed help to make a film "flawless," especially if they're antagonists!
Okay, if you guys want to argue semantics: obviously no film is "flawless". Yet "District 9" has very specific themes to express and it nails each one of them, weaving a complex tale in the process. It was exciting, intelligent, immersive, and above all entertaining. There are, perhaps, four or five other films I can credit with accomplishing this.
I suppose the filmmakers, to satisfy those who are craving a full-on faux documentary, could've had the commentators drop hints here and there, and eventually by the end of the film the audience has pieced together the bigger picture. Yet outside of something like a Christopher Guest comedy, this is something that could never quite work. Audiences have the collective attention spans of gradeschool children, and as Johnny mentioned the goal is to create a blockbuster in the end.
-
"District 9" reminded me a great deal of "Children of Men" in its themes and filmmaking style, and in my humble opinion can happily take a place next to it on the list of great 21st-century sci-fi flicks.
I had much the same thoughts during the film. The tiresome method of shooting fight/battle scenes with crazy epileptic jump cuts needs to be at an end. "Children of Men" used incredibly long takes to give the audience the feeling that they were standing right beside Clive Owen as all hell broke loose. It was very cool to see the intricate rig they constructed to shoot the scene where their car is attacked in the forest, which is documented in the special features. Brilliant work there. But I digress...while "District 9" doesn't have any notable long takes, the action is just as immersive as in "CoM" because of the adept direction.
-
Okay, if you guys want to argue semantics: obviously no film is "flawless". Yet "District 9" has very specific themes to express and it nails each one of them, weaving a complex tale in the process. It was exciting, intelligent, immersive, and above all entertaining. There are, perhaps, four or five other films I can credit with accomplishing this.
Whoa. I liked the film a lot and it's one of my favourites from this year for sure but you gotta put this into perspective.
-
It's totally in perspective if you haven't seen that terribly many films.
-
My only real complaint about the movie was every time the lightning guns were pulled out and someone exploded bits of them would splatter against the screen - one step of logic means that it woudl spat agains the camera, when there clearly is not supposed to be a camera - this might have been less annoying had they not had the doco part of the film ealier.
Also the main soldier dude suffered from a major case of "C'mon be serious, your dead. Just die."
-
You can't really argue that characters who aren't very well-developed help to make a film "flawless," especially if they're antagonists!
Okay, if you guys want to argue semantics: obviously no film is "flawless". Yet "District 9" has very specific themes to express and it nails each one of them, weaving a complex tale in the process. It was exciting, intelligent, immersive, and above all entertaining. There are, perhaps, four or five other films I can credit with accomplishing this.
I suppose the filmmakers, to satisfy those who are craving a full-on faux documentary, could've had the commentators drop hints here and there, and eventually by the end of the film the audience has pieced together the bigger picture. Yet outside of something like a Christopher Guest comedy, this is something that could never quite work. Audiences have the collective attention spans of gradeschool children, and as Johnny mentioned the goal is to create a blockbuster in the end.
I don't have a problem with minor characters, even major antagonists not having significant screen time spent on their development. But it's a bit hard to argue that the colonel was anything other than a scenery-chewing stereotype, in my opinion. Now, I have no problem with that evaluating it as a pure action-film (which it obviously was not), but in the context of a film that up until then has done a great job of making the world feel real, it was an extremely annoying element. It would have been very easy to have him feel like a real person without changing the plot any - maybe that was more a problem with the actor than the script, but still (although "I love watching you bugs die?" C'mon. A very small step up from "That makes me feel angry!")
I was okay with the film slipping in and out of the documentary style - so many films abuse that documentary approach to the point of implausibility that it was better just to abandon it. But the exposition was ham-handed at times, and could certainly have been improved significantly while retaining a strong message. Example: "That was 20 years of work!" right near the start. Unnecessary, and clunky.
Do any of these problems make District 9 a terrible film? Of course not. It's a very good, arguably great film, especially given its genre. But it's hardly the flawless masterwork that you are representing it as.
-
Okay, if you guys want to argue semantics: obviously no film is "flawless". Yet "District 9" has very specific themes to express and it nails each one of them, weaving a complex tale in the process. It was exciting, intelligent, immersive, and above all entertaining. There are, perhaps, four or five other films I can credit with accomplishing this.
Whoa. I liked the film a lot and it's one of my favourites from this year for sure but you gotta put this into perspective.
True enough, I suppose I'm the token fanboy here. This film just stands head and shoulders above the rest of the dreck I've waded through over the past few years, it's easy to become a bit over-excited about it.
-
It's totally in perspective if you haven't seen that terribly many films.
What? Oh right, you're trying out a joke. That's good, a bit on the nose, but a fine attempt.
Come back with something more substantial next time.
-
Do any of these problems make District 9 a terrible film? Of course not. It's a very good, arguably great film, especially given its genre. But it's hardly the flawless masterwork that you are representing it as.
Oh, I completely understand. Half the fun of watching a film, particularly among friends, is playing armchair director afterwards.
I suppose what floored me the most about this particular one was that I'm left bereft of any suggestions for improvement, and that very rarely occurs.
-
So I saw this tonight. Thought it was great. I would've liked it better, had it had a consistent narrative voice throughout, but, for what it was, it was very enjoyable. Thank God original movies aren't all dead.
-
I know I shouldn't go around saying this in front of people who loved the movie, but I found it to be at best just above average.
As far as alluding to actual historical events, it was decent, but obviously that wasn't the entirety of the film.
I felt that the only characters I could relate to in any way were the main human and alien, and that the others were boring and unrealistic.
There were a couple of plot holes that I just couldn't shake throughout the movie, and at least one giant plot device.
All up, I wouldn't really classify this as a great film to remember from 2009; I probably won't even watch it again.
-
OK I am struggling with dealing with serious criticism of the movie. The docu-style was fun in the beginning but implausible towards the middle and end, but I do appreciate they kept the shaky "being filmed by a crew chasing after Wikus" as well as completely making any scene without him impossible. But by keeping the shaky-cam it made the movie have a sense of history even if fictional.
The apartheid comparisons were good, not a reason I saw the movie, now particularily central to the movie, this is an alternate history after all. But having a friend come back from helping the poor in Rwanda with quite nearly the exact same experiences (of racism and separation) it really made it quite believable. If she ever sees the scene where the little alien and Wikus are holding their arms together and the little alien says "Like me" she will quite literally cry as she has had similar experiences and being a white woman in Africa, she cant help but be treated differently (and often with great hostility).
As far as the characters go, the father and wife were merely story elements played actors/actresses, they were characters, they were extensions of Wikus. The Colonel on the other hand was, but he was mostly just representing an alpha-racist who is particularily driven as he sees Wikus escaping as a an insult to his abilities, and running to D9 for help as an insult to his race. Sure he was a bit over the top, but it made an effective villain that allowed the fantastic action scenes at the end to even exist. And I for one am grateful that they did as they were quite amazing.
As far as the aliens using the alien weapons. Well it was suggested that they had been using them, but not in a grand offensive against the humans (whose hostility scaled up for the initial camp being setup to the slums it became in the "present" of the movie. But it was suggested that the aliens used it in small amounts in gang warfare (bearing in mind the majority of the weapons were seized, the remaining majority is in the hands of the Nigerians).
-
Sure he was a bit over the top
Oh come on, he was a two-dimensional piece of artificial rubbish. The Colonel was a horrible, horrible character.
-
Frankly the way I see it there was only ever two characters in the movie, one was an alien, guess what the other was.
There was many human plot devises, but bottom line is the Colonel didn't worsen the experience for me, he was a personification of racism, and the key to some amazing action sequences.
-
Sure he was a bit over the top
Oh come on, he was a two-dimensional piece of artificial rubbish. The Colonel was a horrible, horrible character.
Haha, okay. How about one-dimensional characters? Hans Landa, from "Inglourious Basterds", is perhaps the worst characterization I've seen this year. He's selfish, arrogant, and above all viciously cruel - exactly like every Nazi character we've seen for the past fifty years. Yet he gets a pass because the masses think "Well, he is a Nazi. And Nazis were bad. So it makes sense." This isn't to denigrate the performance of Waltz, which is undoubtedly one of the best this year, but even a brilliant performance and crackling dialogue can't save a poorly conceived character - particularly a primary player in the film.
The Colonel was crafted to be precisely what he needed to be - a career military sort with an absolute hatred of the prawns. He was only needed to provide a static villain to Wikus, as opposed to hordes of random Nigerians and nameless MNU soldiers. It's a funny criticism to say characters like this are "two-dimensional". You can pretty much say that about the secondary characters to any film because they're, by definition, "two-dimensional". It's interesting some seem to get hung up on things like this and ultimately miss the point entirely. In the end, it's not about the Colonel or anyone else - it's the Wikus and Christopher show.
-
I started reading that thinking you were disagreeing with me, Im glad I didnt tl:dr and jump straight to the retort as we seem to be on exactly the same page when it comes to the Colonel.
On the otherhand, I kind of disagree with you entirely about Hans Landa. It was a beautiful portrayal of a bad guy. I mean, he was pure evil but he was seemly very nice and pleasant. But for those who would be his enemies, his pleasantness and uniform make the situation so incredibly tense and if he was a barking dog that was Hitler, it just wouldnt be the same.
-
A lot seems to have been said about this movie in retort to things that people have said that they thought were bad. But I agree with the good parts; like I said, it was a decent film. The obvious plot holes and the silly plot device (it was basically a magical elixir of infinite power) took away from that experience. And I also have to say that one of the problems I had was that the aliens (particularly Christopher) felt far too human. When I go to see a sci-fi movie, I expect for there to be at the very least characteristic differences in the alien species. But in this movie, the emotion was the same, the anatomy was the same.
-
On the otherhand, I kind of disagree with you entirely about Hans Landa. It was a beautiful portrayal of a bad guy. I mean, he was pure evil but he was seemly very nice and pleasant.
haha Yes, I'm probably in the minority on this one. I've seen dozens and dozens of WWII films from the forties and on into the present and I can tell those who haven't that Hans Landa is (in some form) starring in nearly all of them.
On a related note, this is precisely what impressed me so much with the development of Wikus in D9. A lesser film would've have the events transform him into a more compassionate person, maybe even becoming some sort of freedom fighter for the prawns during the climax. Instead, D9 presents us with a very real, very flawed character. So much so that it's quite easy to view Wikus as an unlikeable protagonist, because even his most selfless act in the film is tempered by the fact that it's still in his best interests to do so.
I liked the contrast between Wikus and the alien Christopher, who is ironically the most human character in the film. It made sense to script the characters this way, considering D9 is one of precious few alien films that makes the humans out to be the oppressors/aggressors and the aliens the oppressed innocents.
-
I can think of quite a few movies where humans are the invaders/oppressors actually. The films don't always purposefully portray it as such, but there are plenty on both sides of the fence.
-
And I also have to say that one of the problems I had was that the aliens (particularly Christopher) felt far too human. When I go to see a sci-fi movie, I expect for there to be at the very least characteristic differences in the alien species. But in this movie, the emotion was the same, the anatomy was the same.
But isn't the point of the movie that they are just like us? The only difference was in appearance and language?
-
I can think of quite a few movies where humans are the invaders/oppressors actually. The films don't always purposefully portray it as such, but there are plenty on both sides of the fence.
Awesome, do tell. I might be interested in seeing some of those.
-
the colonel has several clear motivations for tracking down wikes and we never get a really clear reading on it, it's not just "racism" unless you're inattentive to dialogue and character relationships
-
Well the professional insult of a loser like Wikus evading him was pretty high up there.
-
I can think of quite a few movies where humans are the invaders/oppressors actually. The films don't always purposefully portray it as such, but there are plenty on both sides of the fence.
Awesome, do tell. I might be interested in seeing some of those.
For starters, Starship Troopers.
-
IT'S AFRAAAAAAAID
-
But isn't the point of the movie that they are just like us? The only difference was in appearance and language?
[/quote]In a way, and that's kind of what annoyed me. They didn't have to be aliens. The movie could have been about District 6, and still been the same movie. An alien movie should show some difference.
-
But isn't the point of the movie that they are just like us? The only difference was in appearance and language?
In a way, and that's kind of what annoyed me. They didn't have to be aliens. The movie could have been about District 6, and still been the same movie. An alien movie should show some difference.
[/quote]
But it couldn't have been the same movie. If it had been about humans the entire message of the movie would be completely lost. It would completely lose it's feel. Imagine if they were humans. The movie would be incredibly depressing and very, very tough to watch. The fact that they're aliens allow us to go "wow, we would/do treat humans in exactly the same way." The fact that they're aliens help us as an audience realize our own xenophobia while still seeing an incredible and fun film at the same time.
I spent the first 10 minutes wondering when the protoganist would show up. I think that Wikus was absolutely perfect and the guy who did him really deserves some recognition. The guy was so incredibly believable in everything he did.
That was my favourite film of the summer, hands down. Usually I like finding little things about movies that bug me but I came out of the theatre amazed. My girlfriend and I had such a fun time, even if she cringed during some of the more shocking scenes. I'm going to keep my eye on Neill Blomkamp, he's a great director.
-
The fact that Wikus might've just sacrificed all of humanity for selfish personal reasons isn't a bleak ending?
-
In a way, and that's kind of what annoyed me. They didn't have to be aliens. The movie could have been about District 6, and still been the same movie. An alien movie should show some difference.
I beg to differ, I think they *had* to be aliens. You guys seems to be under the impression the general public is well versed in the apartheid, and quiet frankly you are absolutely wrong. By using aliens as placeholders it lets Joe Plumber experience and enjoy the film and accidentally get some understanding of the situation. Then maybe as everyone is happily walking out of the theatre, he will hear that apartheid word he doesn't know again and decided to learn a little more about it.
Standalone with absolutely no historical backdrop to work off of, this is an excellent movie, and the racism was played very well in terms of the little thing. Once again I will go back to the Chris's child and Wikus sitting in the spaceship, where he point at his own arm then at Wikus and says "like me". That kind of enlightenment actually happens, but the reality of life in many African countries and middle eastern, is much of the strife comes from people believing they are different from each-other. Much of it isnt even about different truly different races but about different clans or sects of religion but it all generally plays out the same.
Think about Sunni vs. Shi'ite Muslims or the Tutsi vs. Hutu in Rwanda or naturally the Whites vs. Blacks in South Africa.
-
I beg to differ, I think they *had* to be aliens. You guys seems to be under the impression the general public is well versed in the apartheid, and quiet frankly you are absolutely wrong. By using aliens as placeholders it lets Joe Plumber experience and enjoy the film and accidentally get some understanding of the situation. Then maybe as everyone is happily walking out of the theatre, he will hear that apartheid word he doesn't know again and decided to learn a little more about it.
I don't really get the point you're trying to make. Are we supposed to have sympathised with the aliens in a way that we wouldn't for humans? The only alien I felt any sympathy for at all was Christopher, and even he was a little on the annoying side.
-
What I am saying is you can extend the viewing audience, and as such the message, by hiding a highly political movie in a sci-fi action film with explosions and fun.
-
I can think of quite a few movies where humans are the invaders/oppressors actually. The films don't always purposefully portray it as such, but there are plenty on both sides of the fence.
Awesome, do tell. I might be interested in seeing some of those.
For starters, Starship Troopers.
That's a bit borderline, isn't it? Granted, it's been awhile since I've seen the film, but I recall both the humans and the aliens were pointlessly hostile. The theme of the piece seemed to be that the humans were just as vile as the aliens. I did a bit of checking on my own and found the two films D9 is most compared to are "Alien Nation" and "Enemy Mine", so I've got both of those on my list. I suppose three films can be considered "quite a few" if you take the expression at its most literal interpretation, but maybe ackblom12 can suggest a few more.
My complaints: I had a hard time believing the aliens had all that weaponry and never defended themselves.
The film is never quite clear on this. One nameless prawn is seen firing a weapon into the air, but the only prawn who actually uses alien weaponry in combat is Christopher. It's not because their access is entirely restricted either, because it's made clear (when a couple of prawns trade the pseudo-mechwarrior machine for cat food) that some still own alien weapons. Of course, the film does mention that the overwhelming majority of the aliens appear to be worker drones. They're good at taking orders, but lack initiative entirely, probably because their leadership died off as a result of disease.
Still, I'm unable to reconcile that with the fact that many prawns are seen wielding human weaponry (one is seen in a helmet and AK-47, another is seen in a pink bra and a shovel, etc.) I can only surmise that they're engaging in random acts of violence, which certainly doesn't require initiative. Christopher appeared to be the only one with any leadership qualities, as even his assistant lacked notable intelligence, considering he was one-upped by a child in his first scene. Here's hoping there will be an extended cut on blu-ray that will shed a bit more light on things like this.
-
I don't know, I interpreted that one alien wearing human clothing and brandishing a human weapon as an attempt to appear well... more human, even though he is clearly a "prawn." I could be wrong of course, it could've been done in mockery or for no particular reason at all.
And variable_star, as for your complaint that no one has produced a list of movies so far that exhibit humans as the oppressors rather than the oppressed, I did a quick search and found this great article:
The Best of Science Fiction's Oppressed Species (http://io9.com/5340280/the-best-of-science-fictions-oppressed-species). It includes some obvious examples where stranded aliens are forced into human slavery (ex. Alien Nation, which you already mentioned) and less obvious examples where the humans have artificially created creatures to serve as a workforce and they rebel (ex. Cylons in Battlestar Galactica or the Exosapiens in Exosquad). Even the mutants in X-men, though they resemble humans and not the traditional "alien," have to fight for their civil rights.
So there you have it, a handful of significant movies where humans aren't the most dignified race. As for upcoming movies that focus on this relationship between humans/aliens, how about James Cameron's Avatar?? (encroaching on another planet in blatant search for materials, which results in violence consequences).
-
Actually, Blomkamp answered that in a FAQ somewhere.
The way their species is laid out is sort of like an insect colony. There's a "royal family" that gives orders and binds them together in a sort of low level hivemind. The reason the mothership came to Earth was because the royals controlling that ship (it was an exploration and mining vessel) got infected by a disease and died off. The ship then went into autopilot and flew to the nearest habitable planet to deposit the drones, disconnecting the control module so that they will stay put and not put themselves in danger by attempting to fly the ship. Without leadership, however, they were listless, disorganized, and somewhat less intelligent.
Eventually, however, temporary leadership can come from a particularly intelligent drone- Christopher. These drones would usually be subservient in a complete prawn society, but take control if the royals are dead, then proceed to rebuild their society, eventually causing a new royal to be born and take command.
-
I'm not sure if this is the one you are talking about specifically, but here is an interview (http://www.avclub.com/articles/district-9-director-neill-blomkamp,31606/) with him. He covers some of those points towards the middle/end.
-
Speciesm, guys, not racism.
All-in-all, I thought it was a fantastic movie. Nothing I could say about it hasn't already been said in this thread, so I'll leave it at that.
-
Ok fine, speciesism is an allegory for racism in this movie.
Did you have any other semantics you would like to discuss? No? I thought not.
-
was there any need to be hostile dude
-
I liked this movie quite a bit but I was a bit caught off guard at just how violent it was! Not that it was a bad thing, I just didn't expect going in to see guys exploding into bloody paste once every 10 minutes for the second half of the movie.
-
I don't know, I interpreted that one alien wearing human clothing and brandishing a human weapon as an attempt to appear well... more human, even though he is clearly a "prawn." I could be wrong of course, it could've been done in mockery or for no particular reason at all.
And variable_star, as for your complaint that no one has produced a list of movies so far that exhibit humans as the oppressors rather than the oppressed, I did a quick search and found this great article:
The Best of Science Fiction's Oppressed Species (http://io9.com/5340280/the-best-of-science-fictions-oppressed-species). It includes some obvious examples where stranded aliens are forced into human slavery (ex. Alien Nation, which you already mentioned) and less obvious examples where the humans have artificially created creatures to serve as a workforce and they rebel (ex. Cylons in Battlestar Galactica or the Exosapiens in Exosquad). Even the mutants in X-men, though they resemble humans and not the traditional "alien," have to fight for their civil rights.
So there you have it, a handful of significant movies where humans aren't the most dignified race. As for upcoming movies that focus on this relationship between humans/aliens, how about James Cameron's Avatar?? (encroaching on another planet in blatant search for materials, which results in violence consequences).
Again, those are all really quite borderline. I was looking for films that specifically cast humans as the aggressors/oppressors and aliens as the innocents/oppressed. In BSG, the cylons prove themselves to be much worse than humanity in the end and many of the X-Men prove to be just as evil as the humans who oppose them. They certainly share some similar themes, but ultimately they're much too divergent in their respective narratives to directly compare with D9.
-
There wasn't a need to be hostile Johnny C, but it is kind of anal/irrelevant insisting that "Speciesism" be used instead of "racism" in District 9, when the "alien species" is clearly a metaphor for a particular "race."
The point is, you can use the two terms interchangeably in discussion of D9 and we'd still get your point. It doesn't matter.
PS: variable_star, I don't see how "compulsory alien servitude" in the movies the io9 article listed doesn't illustrate a human oppressor/alien innocent relationship to you. I think by being overly critical, you're missing out on watching some really worthwhile sci-fi. If you're looking for a rehash of D9, I don't have any further suggestions for you. Just because a downtrodden species decides to rebel (in a violent fashion) against its captors doesn't necessarily change the fact that they were originally persecuted or exploited. To compare this concept to a recent film (say, Inglourious Basterds), did the actions of the Basterds or Shosanna in retaliating against the Nazis somehow undermine the fact that millions of Jews suffered? I don't think so.
If you ask me, alien-human relationships (hypothetically speaking) would never be so black-and-white. Even in D9, the aliens aren't completely blameless (for example, the scene at the end when a group of Prawns rips a MNU soldier apart), though there are definite situations where humans are reprehensible (such as when Wikus is forced to shoot a captured Prawn in the science lab). Yes, the aliens were cruelly treated, yes, it was the fault of the humans, but the Prawns are not harmless creatures, either. IMO, a movie dealing with a human oppressor/alien innocent relationship wouldn't be as interesting if the aliens were fragile, defenseless creatures incapable of fighting back.
-
Damn, lots of deep commentary going on. And of course some sniping and griping, but that's to be expected.
I just wanted to say that I saw it and thought it was much better than I'd expected. There was enough sci-fi to make it interesting (DNA- or bio-based tech is kinda neat) and the story was highly metaphorical but I didn't find it to be the horrible heavy-handed message that some people - not here - are making it out to be. Maybe because I'm not as close to the issue as some. Yes, I know what apartheid is, but I focused on Wikus' journey through it and experiences on both sides rather than getting all upset that someone was being allegorical with the human/prawn stuff. Or is it metaphorical? I'm not sure anymore.
-
The main problem I had with this film (other than finding the change from faux-documentary to action film a bit jarring at first) is that an allegorical portrayal of racism would probably be a little clearer if it didn't have "evil Nigerians" as a main part of the plot.
-
As if you couldnt find 10 examples of 'evil nigerian' exploitation in Africa within the last 50 years. As bad as the rest of the world is at exploiting Africa, its pretty damn good at exploiting itself too.
-
Right. Go. Find me ten examples of "evil Nigerian" exploitation, please. Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
It's one thing to make the point that some Africans exploit other Africans. Fair enough. That's not the issue at hand, though. My point was that the Nigerian gang in the film would not have been out of place in a 60s Bond film. It struck me as being quite a racist protrayal, to be honest - "Look at these unsophisticated fools with their eating of body parts and what not, silly backward Nigerians."
-
Right. Go. Find me ten examples of "evil Nigerian" exploitation, please. Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
Well, the Niger Delta does actually have a pretty damn high violence rate because it's an area with corrupt local governments trying to control a ton of oil revenue. The New York Times likes to blame gangs, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/world/africa/09nigeria.html?_r=1) but these "gangs" aren't the quite the same animal that North Americans or Brits are likely to think of when we hear the term "gang" tossed about. Basically, the good ol' capitalists come in offering to buy resources and then the Nigerians get to fight over who can provide them (or who gets to keep the money for the job, at any rate). If you want to hire security to protect your operations in Nigeria, you have to make a deal with the locals and a lot of these locals are quite happy to fight over who gets the contract. So, really, the only part that hit me as over the top was the part about wanting to eat the dude's hand; a simple mercenary attitude would have been enough to get the point across.
-
Oh yeah, I wouldn't for a second deny that there's a metric shit-ton of violence in Nigeria for economic reasons and so on, and in large parts of the rest of Africa as well. The "evil Nigerians" thing, though, is a bit more along the lines of the 'eating body parts' and generally being dicks for little reason (eg killing the prawn for body parts after they buy the deathsuit). The gang seemed to be fairly one-dimensional evil rather than having the slightly more believable motivations of most of the other actors in the story (nasty soldier-man who likes watching prawns die being the exception.)
-
Im more referring to warlords and tribes and such. A couple examples, Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, the Hutu in Rwanda, pretty much every faction in DRC. and Somalia etc etc.
I didn't even really consider the whole eating alien flesh thing as being evil. I thought it was more an insane feeb wanting to walk. But lets face it, alot of the forces I mentioned arent strictly political, alot of them are clans and tribes who are lead by the tribal leader, as well as spiritual leaders hence the witchdoctor as the tribes are very often supersticious. This kind of thing (assuming we are going to follow the allegory and call eating aliens 'cannibalism') *does* happen.
-
The scientists were just as bad as the witch doctors.
Yeah I think this is probably the most accurate reading of it. The levels of sophistication are moot in the face of the identical ethics of the MNU and the Nigerian gangs. They're meant as moral parallels.
There are black people in the movie who are smart and aren't evil.
-
Just saw this finally, and I probably have more to say.
What struck me after thinking about it for a while is that the allegory isn't apartheid, it's the current situation with many of the refugee camps in Africa. You have the (generally) white do-gooders who hand out food and really hope they can make things better, but still probably end up thinking "why can't these people just get their acts together" mixed with the local warlords who see the masses of helpless people as either a source of their powerbase (stealing kids to be their soldiers), or as just somebody they can rule over with intimidation and fear.
While the first group in real life doesn't have the lure of the alien technology in this parallel, what they do have behind them are governments who see the disposition of these refugees as a matter of larger global issues that can be exploited. Whether it's China buying oil concessions to whoever has control over that piece of land that day, or western powers putting pressure on the local government to "clean out" the camps where terrorists recruit and train. Working towards an actual solution starts to fade into a secondary goal at best, and in some cases a real solution runs counter to the interests of both internal and external groups.
So it's really talking about the dehumanizing of the refugees in various parts of Africa (and the world), much more than racism. Even the "solution" parallels a lot of what happens in the real world, we don't fix the problem, we just occasionally upgrade the camps from squalid to cesspit, shuffle people around a bit, and expect the local government to handle all of it on top of caring for their own people.
EDIT: Oh, and I have a theory that explains everything about the prawns: The ship was an interstellar football fan charter.
-
Wow, that sounds pretty good to me. Even the bit about them originally being on an interstellar charter bus. It broke down in some crappy neighborhood somewhere, and look what happened.
Unfortunately for me I guess, I'm not very familiar with what's going on in Africa, or South Africa (which I realize is part of Africa but definitely has its own identity and its own issues) so I don't know how well your analogy works. But it's refreshing to hear an interpretation other than "it's supposed to be apartheid but a lot of the details are wrong/skewed". If it's not supposed to be apartheid in the first place, that argument goes out the window.
-
Storyline question (POSSIBLE SPOILERS):
How did Wikus escape from the testing facility? I had the same reaction to this movie as Cloverfield and left for the bathroom during the gun-testing bit and returned to see Wikus outside.
-
"it's supposed to be apartheid but a lot of the details are wrong/skewed".
Neill Blomkamp has said outright that he meant it as an allegory for apartheid.
-
The plight of the film’s crustaceanlike extraterrestrials can be easily read as a metaphor for the persecution of South African blacks under apartheid. But Mr. Blomkamp said he was also trying to comment on how the country’s impoverished peoples oppress one another. While “District 9” was being filmed in the Chiawelo section of Soweto, Alexandra and other townships were ravaged by outbursts of xenophobic violence perpetrated by indigenous South Africans upon illegal immigrants from Zimbabwe, Malawi and elsewhere.[1] (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/movies/06district.html)