When I was 6 years old my 12 year old sister used to read out loud one chapter every night from The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. I loved this book and would often beg my mom to rent the low budget 1980s BBC movie adaptation. And by low budget, I mean the beavers were taller than the children because they were just adults in giant cardboard toilet paper rolls with fake buck teeth. At least I think they were fake but it was made in Britain so it’s a toss-up. At some point it was explained to me that the story was a Christian allegory. I remember thinking “That’s great but I really just like it because the lion can talk so can I go back to my baggie full of Cheerios now?”
In late high school, The Matrix came out and in my opinion it was one of the most ground-breaking action films to date. However, one of my friends (a real friend since my imaginary ones usually were too cool to hang out with me) tried to explain to me that the movie was an allegory about religion. I remember thinking, “That’s great but I just like it because of the action scenes and the gnarly special effects so can I go back to thinking of excuses why my fake girlfriend from Nebraska can’t make it to senior prom?” This scenario is not restricted to movies either. To the gentleman in the karaoke bar, my 23 year old self would like to thank you not only for choosing to drunkenly warble “Brick” by Ben Folds Five but for taking the time to explain to us that the song is about abortion. “That’s great and I knew that but I just like it because of the piano playing and Ben’s dreamy voice so can I go back to my beer and debating with my friend on whether Goldeneye or Halo is the definitive multiplayer video game now?”
My point is this: No matter what hidden or secondary meaning a body of work may have, it still needs to be entertaining and able to stand on its own based solely on its surface content. It is with this in mind that I give my two cents on District 9, the Neil Blomkamp directed film that centers on stranded alien refugees living in a segregated Johannesburg, South Africa. I had heard mostly positive word of mouth so my expectations were already a bit high. This film surpassed even those expectations starting with the acting of relative unknown Sharlto Copley. Copley plays a government agent, Wikus Van De Merwe, whose sole responsibility is to control and now relocate the alien refugees by any means necessary. His character does not crave violence but is still relatively ambivalent to the conditions or feelings of these aliens or rather “prawns” as humans derogatorily refer to them. Wikus is exposed to some alien biotechnology which causes the story, as well as Wikus’ view of prawns, to shift drastically. There’s little I can say following this that won’t give too much away but the last hour is some of the best realistic sci-fi action I’ve seen and the door is certainly left open for a sequel.
I was aware that the film was an allegory for the apartheid and conditions that exist in South Africa. I don’t see movies like District 9 for an educational lesson though. I feel educated on this subject but I know that I do not possess one iota of what it’s like to live in some of the conditions that exist in Africa. And to think that watching an action movie will change that is at best naïve and at worst arrogant. Running the Sahara, The Last King of Scotland, God Grew Tired of Us, and Hotel Rwanda are all exceptional movies depicting some of the brutal conditions of Africa. Most of these movies do not appeal to the masses though and what District 9 attempts to do is present this same message to a different demographic and in an unconventional manner. Blomkamp succeeds in and should be applauded for showcasing the effects of apartheid as well as the provoking the question of what really happened in South Africa’s real life District 6. However, the metaphors and the allegory aspect of the story barely crossed my mind while watching the film.
What stood out particularly was how much Blomkamp and his editing team kept the action moving and the story progressing while not sacrificing too much character development. As Wikus begins to change and becomes more and more bewildered with what is happening to him, the scenes become shorter thus keeping us in the same state of mind as the panicked Wikus as he moves from location to location in the city before finally landing in District 9 for the last hour or so of the film. The rest of the actors do a fine job as basically fulfilling the story stereotypes: evil father-in-law/boss, supportive wife struggling to make sense of what is happening to her husband, and brutalistic military villain.
That said, this is a fine arrival for Copley in a role that could have just been woodenly acted while allowing the special effects to do most of the work. He walks the fine line between panicked confusion as to what’s happening to him and but never falls into the trap of chewing the scenery mourning for the way his life used to be. At no point does he ever oversell it and his legitimate panic and eventual anger lend credibility to what could otherwise be a ridiculous scenario. He and Blomkamp keep the action almost scarily realistic from the graphic violence (much more than I thought there would be) to the haunting shots of the mother ship hovering over Johannesburg.
I walked away saying it was an action movie with a relatable and likable central character to whom I was genuinely attached by the end of the film. For summer fare, movies like this should become the standard as opposed to the rule (I’m looking at you G.I. Joe). Some will walk away from District 9 discussing the apartheid allegory and it is absolutely their right to do so. “That’s great but can I get back to dictating movie reviews to my imaginary secretary now?”
By the way, this entire review was an allegory to the 1998 Bulls championship team. Aaaand debate!
Rating: Out of a maximum of 5, I would buy District 9 four beers in a bar.
No comments:
Post a Comment