DISTRICT 9 Post-Release - Page 9

There's simply no question it was allegorical of apartheid. Blomkamp has admitted as such.

In this thread, or in general? I think it's refreshing that a summer blockbuster film could be controversial in any meaningful way, intended or not. Blomkamp may have introduced problematic political ideas in the film, but I doubt it was unintentional.

Troubling in what way? I mean to ask, how does it trouble you?

I'm not disregarding that subtext at all. Meant more in jest due to the reactions that this, and anything else involving race relations brings out in this board. Oh, and there's absolutely no denying the parallels to apartheid, that would be the dumbest thing for me to say. I never said that it's more like this than what it's actually about.

I kept coming up with responses, none of which were good, most of which were already said (not a 1:1 analogy) and all of which I said afterwards, 'Idiot, don't get into a race fight with DaveB. You will lose, badly.'

I don't think it is troubling. Most good sci-fi explores current human problems in a futuristic context. It hopefully allows you to think about the problem at a distance without your ingrained bias getting in the way or feel like you are getting a lecture.

Okay, I'm going to walk everyone through my steps one last time.

First, we acknowledge that there's a parallel between apartheid and the segregation in the movie, right? No one's contesting that, correct?

In the movie, there's an MNU statement that the surviving aliens are genetically (not just culturally) predisposed toward laziness and disorganization. This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that a racist justifying a segregationist policy would say, right? And, in real life, most people would consider this not only offensive, but factually incorrect.

But this isn't jarring in the context of the movie. The truth of this statement is left ambiguous, as we meet Christopher and his friend, who appear to be quite intelligent. We don't know if this means that the MNU is lying to the general populace, if they completely underestimated the intelligence of the aliens, or if the aliens played dumb on purpose.

Here's the problem:

In the AV Club interview, Blomkamp suggests that we should take that MNU statement as literal truth - specifically, that the segregated aliens are genetically predisposed to be lazy and disorganized until Christopher has some kind of spontaneous genetic evolution at some point.

I'm not so concerned with this point about Christopher evolving. Whatever. I suppose you can read "spontaneous genetic evolution" as "political awakening," if you want.

But the idea that MNU's statement is meant to be taken literally suggests that the aliens - our stand-ins for blacks in the thinly veiled apartheid metaphor - are genetically predisposed toward laziness.

Do you truly not see that this is a little wrongheaded?

I mean, this problematic racial politics were discussed as far back as the first page of this thread when Armond White's review was linked. I don't go nearly as far as White, since I quite like the film and I don't think its racial politics are nearly as screwed up absent Blomkamp's intentions as stated in the interview, but it seems like willful ignorance to try to rationalize them using the defense of less convincing metaphors or to dismiss the apartheid parallel only when it veers too close to offensiveness.

Dave, I agree, it's pretty sloppy of the movie to force us to pick and choose when its just a metaphor and when we should accept what the characters are saying as truth. If it's both, then the truth about the films thoughts on race problematic. Further, we have the War Lord. Monsters like this exist, of course, and I like the connection between him and MNU (they're really not that different, which is the point) but why does he have to be crazy enough to believe in voodoo and dumb enough to think that eating the alien body parts will bring him their power? Lame...and possibly a little racist.

He might not believe eating the aliens gives him power, but his people certainly do, and that's what matters, doesn't it?

I agree with Parker and Dave. It's obviously not quite "Gimme two watermelons and a alien leg", but it's there. That being said, I disagreed with Armond White just because he seemed to be reaching a little far in his eagerness to damn the movie as something irredeemably stupid and racially insensitive.

Not too far off base though. It is set in South Africa and witchcraft has a fairly large prescence there.

Plus, it's not terribly different from the belief that a rhino's horn, or other animal part, will bring sexual potency from its ingestion, and that's evidently widespread enough to endanger plenty of animal species.

Ha... yeah.

In regards to the racial allegory, I immediately think of the Ewoks VS the Empire ("it's like Vietnam!") and the differences between the 2 alien races (Ewoks VS Prawns). Ewoks... A superstitious, primitive people using sticks and stones to beat back a technologically-superior force. Seemingly harmless tree-livin' spear-chuckin teddy bears. But they're so cute... And they win... That's not racist, or is it? "Racism" (atleast overtly) isn't really brought up till TPM (JarJar, Trade Federation, etc) and more due to stereotypical dialect than theme.

But here in D9, the "other" is mistreated, segregated, butchered. The dehuminization is severe, the casualties are many, and the events are closer to home (here on Earth). But also, the "other" is dangerous (size, strength, weapons, number)... and Ugly (at least to human standards). Man's relationship with arthropods consist of 2 scenarios... 1] Eat (shellfish), or 2] Exterminate (bugs). It's easier to see them as disposable. They sure aren't Teddy Bears.

But those sort of feelings projected on a sentient being brings about doubt, sympathy, and guilt. As they should. Judging a book and all.

It's interesting for sure.

Saw this last night - what a good movie this is.

It's a mistake, I think, to try and draw a straight-line one-to-one comparison between the situation in District 9 and apartheid. Yes, the signifiers are all there, but what the film manages to do is broader and more inclusive than that. It comments on the human urge to dehumanize those we don't identify with. It's not just about apartheid. It's about Nazi concentration camps, Japanese internment camps, Guantanamo Bay, and every other segregationist atrocity we've perpetrated.

Setting D9 in Joburg draws the obvious parallels, but if that's all White is getting out of the film then he's even more blinkered than I'd thought.

The real world parallels are nowhere near as explicit in Return of the Jedi, but for the sake of argument - just because a character or group is shown to be admirable in some ways or is ultimately triumphant does not mean that they don't embody racist traits in other ways. The noble savage archetype is just as condescending as the brutal savage archetype. Basically, Return of the Jedi is probably served better by not harping too heavily on the Vietnam analogy.

That's the point I was trying to make. Only that D9 seems a bit more "obvious" (and perhaps negative), due to tone.

I should have put "But they're so cute... And they win..." in quotes.

I don't understand why anyone would want to dismiss that parallel, to be honest. In doing so a great deal of interesting (if sensitive) dialogue is rent from discussions of the film. With Blomkamps's intentions in mind the entire parallel becomes concerning, of course, and that shouldn't be overlooked or dismissed either.

My problems with Blomkamp's stated intentions are two-fold. Aside from the obvious conflict that comes up when examining the film's racial allegory (which is admittedly the more troublesome problem, for me), it takes away a lot of mystery and ambiguity, which I love in my movies. In Blomkamp's explanation, there's no room for government propaganda spreading baseless lies about the aliens. Not only is his statement problematic to the film's racial politics, but it shallows broader discussion about his film.

Just got back from seeing this incredible movie. What a ride. And like everyone else, I simply cannot believe how good the movie looks considering their budget. Once I get caught up on this thread, I'll post more, but I have so much to read before that.

Fantastic movie!

Only if you don't believe in "death of the author".

The fact that the movie is about apartheid does not mean "aliens = black people". Again, the point is more that an alien intelligence would be treated this way by humans--not that Blomkamp is simply rehashing apartheid via SF means. That's boring. It's like the people who tried to read Battlestar Galactica as a straightforward recreation of 9/11 (which is already stupid, since the terrorists didn't murder 99% of Americans and turn the rest of them into refugees) and then started whining that the show had "betrayed" them when they spun around and made the Cylons stand-ins for the American occupation of Iraq. These guys apparently wanted the show to be an exact fictional recreation of their perception of reality. Which, again, is boring. The whole point of doing it as a SF show is that there are going to be major differences, and aspects that challenge our assumptions about certain aspects of whatever themes they're exploring.

It's the same way with District 9. No one's going to disagree with the premise "racism is bad!" It's more challenging if we're dealing with something legitimately Other, something that--in this case--seems to be specifically modelled on "movie aliens" who we're used to seeing as cannon fodder. I do wish Blomkamp had made the humans more sympathetic at the beginning, so that we, the audience, had been taken along with Wikus's journey a little more effectively--if we'd found ourselves agreeing a little more with the idea that these aliens needed to be segregated for what would have seemed like legitimate reasons. But Blomkamp is clearly trying to push us in that direction by making the aliens so foul. Having them be regular folks in bug suits would have made the movie too pedantic.

Yeah, I never imagined I was supposed to read the movie for exact parallells; just that it was intended to provoke thought about the subjects involved.

Prawns vs. Ewoks...I think Darkmites has just cracked the sequel guys!

Also, who would win in a fight, MNU or OCP?

At the beginning of the movie there is mention made that the aliens like to derail trains and other "antisocial" acts and "don't understand" that it's not right to do so.

I do think it is a (minor) weakness that the film doesn't reference Aliens in movies or culture...basically for decades we've seen aliens portrayed as friends or threats, but always with significant advantages over us. The D9 aliens do have advantages but are so helpless that they inspire contempt by humanity.

That answers to agracru's secondary problem re: the lack of ambiguity, but it doesn't necessarily speak to the primary one.

My problem is with the interpretation that suggests we should take what MNU says about the aliens literally. Blomkamp says it, but I suspect a lot of people will take that plot point for granted without ever reading his comment. So it's not necessarily a "death of the author" conversation. It's a problem with a particular interpretation that happens to be shared with that of the author.

Also, I don't think the fact that the movie is not setting up a one-to-one analogy has much bearing on the particulars of this argument. Blomkamp is absolutely playing with apartheid imagery and, as such, is subject to criticism regarding how that imagery is used.

Besides, black/white, apartheid or other form of intolerance - it doesn't matter. Move this to Nazi Germany or Guantanamo, and there's still the suggestion that the claims of genetic inferiority made by the oppressors have some truth to them.

Wikus says "That doesn't work" to the people about to cut his arm off for consumption, not to anyone thinking about simply using an appendage for the alien weaponry.

How many ED-209's does OCP have at their disposal???

Dave, I cant see where the director says in the interview that we should take what MNU says in the film literally. (actually I cant even remember MNU saying the aliens are 'predisposed towards laziness and disorganisaton', anyone got a specific quote?) I just remember them being called 'anti-social' and 'not understanding' certain things, like 'derailing trains is a bad thing', said pedantically by the voxpox dude. They're aliens so: no shit.

Rather than inexplicably rationalise racist beliefs of MNU in the interview, I instead see the director elaborating on the idea of the aliens being like a termite hive and being aimless without a leader. Also:

I guess the danger of mixing sci-fi with real-world events can result in dodgy territory, but I just personally cant see any problem with the mixture in this film. The guy grew up in South Africa, its not like he picked it randomly and plopped the story there without thought.

Blomkampt doesnt mention MNU in the interview or that the aliens are genetically predisposed to being lazy and disorganised. He says Joburg is the future of the world (overpopulation, fewer resources), and that the aliens are gross because they're based on an insect design, and act accordingly, so their behaviour is just sci-fi cliche, nothing more.

And watching the film without this interview in mind, I still couldnt detect any conscious or subconscious racial boneheadedness or faux pas or anything. (except for what I mentioned earlier about the voxpox lady saying the aliens mug people for their brand trainers! I felt like she was saying that because she just hates them so much, not because its true though...) We dont even get an alien version of Mandela. Actually, if we did then the whole 'aliens = black people' angle would take on another dimension, but instead the film is more about the people doing the oppressing than the ones being oppressed, of which we barely know anything about.

I think the director is just a sci-fi geek and almost overstretched himself with subtext, perhaps feeling it was obligatory to fit in allusions to apartheid but not bothering with exploring it at depth, as is clearly evidenced with the crazy action midway through and cartoonish villains. More exploration would have eased the problems we're having with the textual analysis going on here.

Another aspect of the movie just occurred to me. Here we have a scenario where Humanity has known for a fact (for 2 decades) that there are Alien civilizations that are capable of interstellar craft and devastating weapons...that we cannot reverse engineer or even get to work. So I think there could be a lot a desperation and frustration informing the actions of the MNU execs. Because at any moment another ship could arrive, with the higher caste Aliens, or some other species, ready willing and able to treat us like the Amerinds were treated by the Europeans....

It's implicit:

I don't have the dialogue memorized, but one of the MNU talking heads says something to this effect. In the film, it sounded like rationalization, because it strongly resembles the stereotypes that racists employ to justify their racism: the oppressed race is intellectually inferior.

If interpreted literally - that is, we assume that the MNU guy is a completely reliable source, which given what we learn in the movie seems like a really bad idea - you end up with a pretty fucked up subtext.

Yeah, they're aliens... in Johannesburg. In prison camps. Sometimes, a cigar isn't just a cigar.

I'm not suggesting he's doing it on purpose. It seems more likely that he's getting a little carried away with the plot points without realizing the impact it has on the subtext.

He doesn't have to. He presents his interpretation and it confirms what the MNU talking head says in the film. They're a bunch of "drones."

Exactly what I've been saying. My issue is with a possible interpretation, specifically one that Blomkamp put forth and that some viewers seem to be buying into, as well, on the basis of information given by MNU. The subtext easily avoids "racial boneheadedness" when you assume that the MNU guys misunderstand or misrepresent the aliens.

And I can see why White (and maybe other critics) might have problems with that, as well. It's another instance of the great white (or, in this case, human) hero freeing the oppressed, inferior race rather than the freedom coming from within.

But that's another argument, and it's somewhat more dependent on a straight-up South Africa allegory reading. Obviously, in some cases, the oppressed have historically required help from outside sources (Nazi Germany, for instance).

Yes!!! Okay! I'm not arguing anything more than that.

Why is it so hard for people to admit that there might be an unpleasant, probably accidental subtext of racism in this film? I mean, nobody is saying it makes it terrible or less of a work of art. You guys have seen The Searchers, right?

Because I don't think it's accidental, and I think you guys are reading it the wrong way. For the umpteenth time: if these had been pleasant and perfectly "human" but funny-looking creatures, it wouldn't have been challenging. Having the aliens actually be substantially different from us in a way that a modern, non-racist mind can still see as "inferior" is important to the story.

And the story is set in Johannesburg because Blomkamp is from Johannesburg. He's saying, "This is how the South African government/society I know would react to aliens." We have a much more narrow view of Joburg and apartheid because we're not from there.

That's the only reason, huh? Bullshit. The movie is set in South Africa only because the director is from there. It doesn't connect with issues of apartheid at all, huh?

Come on. In interviews he's said that the movie is about apartheid and also said that what MNU says about the Prawns is true.

We get it. They're aliens. They're not blacks. But do the math....it's messy water the guy is in. He's having his cake and eating it too.

"This is about apartheid." "The Prawns actually are lazy and listless."

Listen, again, nobody is saying the director is racist. Nobody is saying "this is how he feels about blacks in South Africa." What we're pointing out is that the combining these true truths about the movie calls some problematic issues into question. I'm kinda surprised more people don't get this...

Speaking of racism, why didn't NB just put a bone through the noses of the Nigerians? They were portrayed worst than the Africians in Blood Diamond.

That is my one nitpick with this awesome movie. The Nigerians were tribal savages who believed in eating aliens to gain their strength.

This debate is pointless because all the people who think it is racist wouldn't be swayed no matter what anyone says. There is no point to debating an issue when one side is only arguing for the sake of argument.

The movie was really good if a little bit "mix-tape'y" towards the end. Also the bad guy had a bad case of Before I Kill You Mr. Bond syndrome.

This movie should make Michael Bay feel like a failure for all of his crowing about how efficient he is as a film maker too. 30 million bucks to his 175 and the special effects in this are equal or better.

(I haven't seen it yet, so feel free to ignore me.)

The Hive leaders died, correct? Can Blomkamp be drawing parallels between the drone aliens and a segregated black population whose leaders (Mandela, Biko) were absent because of imprisonment and murder? If you take any group and remove the leaders, the rest usually become demoralized/aimless/tractable/whatever.

I mentioned that above, too. I don't doubt that some Nigerians believe in voodoo, but come on...

Who is arguing "for the sake of argument?" And debating is pointless because we believe in different things about the movie?

This is a movie discussion forum. Sorry I'm doing something other then ejaculating all over District 9. I loved the movie. I can love a movie and still point out some of its racist subtext. Jesus Christ you guys are weird...

You should ask District 9 when it stopped beating it's wife.

The only thing about that is that the film specifically indicates that the power of the alien weaponry is only available to aliens... or to this human who has, in unprecedented fashion, bonded with them; it's not an old wives' tale.

As I posted earlier, it's not that far a stretch from killing rhinos to eat their horns for sexual potency, to wanting to eat Wikus' arm in hopes that it will bond the warlord with the aliens to the point of being able to use the weapons.

Worst offender? The guy with the dreds trying to pull him out of the wrecked car while cackling evilly, completely focused on going after the lead despite 100 million bullets impacting all around him.

But they were designed as an ironic parallel to MNU who were doing the EXACT same thing with the experiment lab to gain access to the alien weapons!

I saw a while ago that some people were wondering where they might have seen the very last shot before, I think I might have found the answer (I haven't checked too far back so I apologize if this has already been addressed):


[IMG][/IMG]


This obviously isn't an actual screenshot from Wall-E, but I'm pretty damn sure that's where we may have seen that kind of shot before (that's Wall-E looking up and holding the flower in his hand... sorry the image is a little small).

Its.

Also...what?

Really? They were eating arms while practicing crazy scary racist voodoo? I like the parallel, but no.

They weren't eating arms,but MNU was perfectly comfortable drilling into a living man's chest to take out his heart and gain his "power."

Maybe you should read what I said.

"The bad guy"? Everyone except Christopher and his kid was the bad guy, and even Christopher's motives weren't clearly exposed as definitely noble. Maybe their whole mission, before whatever went wrong went wrong, was to take over Earth and enslave us all good and proper, and once Christopher gets his ducks in a row again we're fucked.

But I know what you mean, that merc leader (was his name Kobus?) did it twice and both times it was just a little too much of a, "What the fuck are you waiting for?!?!?" moment. There were a few of those little pacing hiccups but the momentum overall was great.

I think this is still an important point however, to know just what exactly is being said about the aliens. I mean all I remember is a guy saying they're anti-social and have destructive behaviour, and I clearly remember him using his fingers as a quotation mark at one point, as if even he doubts what he's saying. I think we all need a good rewatch of the film to see if our opinions shift in anyway and also to check the details.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm not good enough at articulating my thoughts, but I'm just still not seeing it 100% from your perpective. Also, another thing to note: what 'MNU' actually stands for. Whatever derogatory thoughts are aimed at the aliens, they're from a multicultural multiethnic people, including the ones that may or may not be being insulted in this film.

I know its the biggest allegory to fixate on, but because we learn almost nothing about the aliens, its easier to concentrate on the society they're imprisoned in, so the critique of the environment/oppressors of apartheid seems a better talking point than the allusion of the aliens being black. I know this is tenuous thinking, but the aliens are just not developed enough for me to associate them for stand-ins. Blomkampt (and I suppose me) are trying to have a cake and eat it I guess. It is interesting how a writer's subconscious appears in the final product (Blomkapt is co-writer of the film it should be noted, but hey, nobody gives a shit about screenwriters unless they direct as well)

I can understand this view point and agree with it. To be honest though, like I said earlier, what's affecting me more than anything else is that viewers keep calling the aliens 'prawns', I found that very interesting and after I left the cinema I couldnt bring myself to call them that.

The director is likening them to an insect species which is a classic sci-fi trope, and MNU are likening them to shellfish because of their appearence. Ok, not the greatest idea to plop them in camps in South Africa without developing their character more, but like the director says in the interview, after the initial setup and seeing how they're treated by humanity, the allegory drops and it remains a sci-fi tale. Well, its supposed to anyway.

Do we agree that the MNU guys are actually correct about the aliens by saying the following on screen:

They look like prawns.
They're anti-social and destructive.
They are this way possibly because of a loss of leadership.

Its just not enough for me to feel offended because there's is a typical human reaction to the Other. What I was uncomfortable with was the reactions of the citizen voxpox interviewees, most notably the lady who claimed the aliens kill to steal brand trainers which was admittedly humurous to me, but also just unnecessary, and brought to mind allusions to this type of crime that I noticed heavily during the 90's that was attributed to black youth by the media. By attributed I mean you saw more imagery of black teenagers than any other race. Why would aliens check the brand of your trainers? I mean its funny because its so ludicrous, but the connotation is too thick for me. (yet the other connotations being discussed in this debate arent to me for some reason)

Is this film going to be labelled the Edward Zwick of sci-fi movies?

We're not seeing completely eye to eye, but its an interesting debate and its not one I've simply dismissed either, I'm part defending my view and part playing devil's advocate here. Cant wait to rewatch the film many times.

I'm too groggy atm to dig through and see if this has been posted already, but here's a really cool article on io9 with some facts about D9, including the fact that EVERY alien in the movie is played by the same guy and that the shacks the aliens live i are actual hovels that a community of poor people had been recently evicted from.

http://io9.com/5341120/5-things-you-...out-district-9

Does this really apply to this movie? The aliens were on the verge freeing themselves until Wikus inadvertently interfered. Wikus did assist on getting the canister back, but only so he could be cured. He then directly interferes and tries to take the ship himself when the aliens were on the verge of success, leaving Christopher to die only because Christopher tried to focus on the welfare of the millions vs. the one. Only at the end when he realizes how badly he has messed up Christopher's chance for success does he act heroically. Just because his arc ended at a heroic note doesn't necessarily negate all the negative things he did previously, such as killing alien babies.

One thing I can't prove, but I thought interesting to consider: If he was 50/50 human/alien when he was about to be dissected, then by that point he was more alien then man, so could he have started to act heroically in the end because he himself was more alien by that point, and may be starting to get a hive mind mentality too?

Correct me if I'm wrong about what you said.

1) The aliens are different then us. Something that a child could understand, and something nobody is disputing. The point has been brought up over and over again that despite the fact that the aliens are quite different from us, the movie is obviously about apartheid. Obviously the movie wouldn't have the same effect if the aliens looked like us. That would be Alien Nation. They need to be weird, they need to be different. No, it's not accidental. It's on purpose. I got it.

2) Since the filmmaker is from South Africa and Johanesburg, the film maker knows how the government and country would react to weird looking aliens. Nobody is questioning that either. But here's what I'm asking you: does the movie, does the director for one second justify anyone's racism by making the parallel from the obviously different aliens to black South Africans?

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but being "lazy" is a common racist charge lobbied at black people everywhere. Connecting that with these aliens, different as they might be, is problematic. No amount of good intentions can erase that, not in my mind. It's there. It's in the film. The metaphor is there and its strong. For the metaphor to work, there needs to be connections. The apartheid connections are obvious. What other connections are there? Someone watching the film could see the prawns as being lazy and see that as another connection. Someone racist or someone critical like you and I. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "it's a metaphor sometimes, other times...forget about the metaphor." Why is this so difficult to understand?

But again, that doesn't make this a bad movie.

"Drone" is also a biology term (especially in the insect word), not just a derogatory slur. It denotes "role", not necessarily mental/physical potential or a lack of motivation. But being that humans feel themselves superior to the rest of the "beasts" on Earth, I'm not surprised that a similar attitude is directed towards an alien species that resembles the lowest of the low. Had the ThunderCats shown up, we might have had a different outcome.
I came in to post something similar.

A classic warfare/combat maneuver is "kill the head, and the body will follow". They were disorganized, not lazy.

Course, there is the timeline to consider. They were disorganized for a couple decades. Were there any uprisings prior to this film? Protests? Angry letters?

I'm kind of surprised they weren't placed into work camps, to earn their catfood. Maybe they are lazy. Even the zombies in SHAUN OF THE DEAD winded up useful in the epilogue.

Like I said, it's not an argument I'm all that interested in, since there's not much to support any given position over another. We see the story through Wikus' eyes and he's our focus, which you can either see as a means of getting us into the story or as a continuation of the same trope that always keeps the privileged viewpoint as our focus in movies about the disenfranchised (which might even be a meta component, in this case, since it's a new spin on that kind of movie).

Regardless, that's a knottier argument that I can see going in any number of directions.

Could be. It would certainly have an interesting effect on what we consider his arc, though. In fact, can something be considered an "arc" at all if a character's behavior changes through no agency of his own?

Who's to say their train derailments and whatnot weren't demonstrations against their oppression? Who says MNU didn't cover up their resistance and 20 years later they've largely given up.