jack_ryder (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jack_ryder) wrote2009-09-30 07:20 am
jack_ryder) wrote2009-09-30 07:20 am
District 9
murasaki_1966 and I finally saw this last night and I can't say I was disappointed because-
-it was exactly what I thought it would be like before I heard all the hype.
Kudos to Blomkamp for attempting a serious SF film in today's climate, especially one about a refugee crisis but I found it heavy handed and confused.
How much agency do the "prawns" actually have? There was no attempt (at least, if there was, I missed it) to give them any kind of distinct culture other than the now traditional slumdog aestheticised poverty.
The documentary aesthetic also bothered me. I think it's overused for across exposition but, as this was a film with a political intent, I felt I also needed to know who was making the documentary and for what reason. Like with Van De Merwe's Fly like transformation I was hoping for more, not exactly subtlety, but more exploration.
I can recommend the film (it is one of those parables that I fear will never be outdated) but I think we are so starved of genuinely thoughtful mainstream cinema that we tend to over-appreciate a fairly indifferently prepared meal.
-it was exactly what I thought it would be like before I heard all the hype.
Kudos to Blomkamp for attempting a serious SF film in today's climate, especially one about a refugee crisis but I found it heavy handed and confused.
How much agency do the "prawns" actually have? There was no attempt (at least, if there was, I missed it) to give them any kind of distinct culture other than the now traditional slumdog aestheticised poverty.
The documentary aesthetic also bothered me. I think it's overused for across exposition but, as this was a film with a political intent, I felt I also needed to know who was making the documentary and for what reason. Like with Van De Merwe's Fly like transformation I was hoping for more, not exactly subtlety, but more exploration.
I can recommend the film (it is one of those parables that I fear will never be outdated) but I think we are so starved of genuinely thoughtful mainstream cinema that we tend to over-appreciate a fairly indifferently prepared meal.
no subject
no subject
Yeah, I agree and I was going to make that point but was writing in a hurry (as I was trying to frame my argument before I left for work.)
I was hoping to re-edit it before anyone replied but - too late.
The reviews (and responses of my friends) made me think that "District 9" was going to be a more interesting film than I found it. I still mourn the unexplored possibilities but, as you say, it's not really that kind of film.
no subject
no subject
no subject
thetathx1138, I'm afraid you're wrong. Why? You know those reaction bits where people are asked about how they feel 'prawns' will affect their neighbourhoods? Those are real, except the question was how having other cultures like Nigerians moving in.
As to agency, I think fanwank consensus is they are some sort of worker caste and the leaders are all dead, perhaps except the one we see with all the tech. Or perhaps he's of a tech caste, as his plan is to leave and go find leaders.
I hadn't really thought of the implications of the documentary framing.
Y'know, once upon a time Star Trek would do this sort of thing, in a less gritty manner to be sure.
no subject
So what? That doesn't mean Blomkamp set out to make "Solaris" in South Africa. It means his script needed a specific reaction from non-actors, so he did what he needed to get it. That's thirty seconds out of a ninety-minute movie.
As to agency, I think fanwank consensus is they are some sort of worker caste
That's a theory presented in the film, actually, although the movie seems to be intentionally leaving the cause vague.
no subject
Which is a very good case for Blomkamp's use of the documentary format (in part of the film) as it allows for multiple "truths" to exist within the narrative (without confirming a specific interpretation.)
no subject
Sometimes we need to be aware of the inherent limitations of making a film.
Despite my misgivings - the realities of actually getting a film out there practically require Blomkamp to have a white protagonist. The allegations of racism I was skating around in a lower post (and I think other reviews have made more explicitly) should really take into account the economic realities of marketing films (i.e. - a black hero would practically guarantee that the film would be buried on direct to video.)
no subject
The "passivity" of the worker caste (and "caste" is another hot-button topic for me) is contradicted in the film by the crime reports and the need to search for weapon stockpiles. I assume Blomkamp is using the arguments that were used to strip the black population of their rights in apartheid South Africa against the prawns (hence the need for scenes that raise questions about the assumptions of "caste") but I think he undermines the point (I assume) he is making by not showing the existence of a distinctive alien culture. I was reminded of
I just find it troubling that a film ostensibly about apartheid and refugees effectively marginalises the only two characters that actively try to change things for the better. It doesn't help that one of them is an alien and the other is black - it reactivates the grudge I've held against Mississippi Burning.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I didn't mind it but as far as its subject matter and themes were concerned, it seemed under-researched and under-conceived. It seemed oddly unaware of its literary antecedents as well?
no subject