And I can state this as fact rather than opinion – why? Because where a certain friend and I – who almost always disagree on movies – both love a movie, it must be great!
What? Does anyone other than John Demetry, Mr. White himself, or other film students even understand that reference? Which brings me to a second point – that film critics are a ludicrous sort, people whose entire body of work relies upon the perceived success or failure of others’ work – that is, having no independent merit at all.
After reading about Mr. White’s status as a “controversial” critic, it seems to me that he rallies against the status quo just to be heard, just to be different. While everyone else was complaining about Transformers 2 (although I’ll admit it was overblown), he was praising it, and now that everyone is praising D-9, he’s slamming it. He, like the rest of the mainstream media, will say or do whatever it takes for people to pay attention to their particular spin. It’s not enough to report on something; they have to somehow make it about themselves or make it work to their benefit.
The review itself is pretentious hogwash – the above bit about John Demetry providing case in point. It’s so overstated, in fact, that it becomes hard to follow. White tries to discuss all the points where the film fails as an Apartheid analogy, using a bunch of big words that only amount to “it failed because I said it did”, instead of actually offering an example of how it failed, or how it could’ve been better.
He says:
District 9’s South Africa–set story makes trash of that country’s Apartheid history by constructing a ludicrous allegory for segregation that involves human beings (South Africa’s white government, scientific and media authorities plus still-disadvantaged blacks) openly ostracizing extraterrestrials in shanty-town encampments that resemble South Africa’s bantustans.
But never elaborates on how exactly the allegory is ludicrous.
He says:
District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema—the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture. No surprise, this South African fantasia from director Neill Blomkamp was produced by the intellectually juvenile New Zealander Peter Jackson.
Yet he never elaborates on how exactly D-9 represents pop cinema, what he means by “second rate film culture”, or how exactly Peter Jackson is “intellectually juvenile” – this coming from a man with no disability to pontificate, having spent paragraphs explaining how Michael Bay is a “visionary”.
Mr. White criticizes the film for not representing specific events from the Soweto riots, as if any allegory has ever required a point for point alignment with historical events. It’s an allegory, Mr. White, which means it requires some brain work on the part of the audience. And honestly, I think a lot of people are thankful that Jackson didn’t resort to his usual long-winded tactics and make the movie three and a half hours, as would’ve been required to meet Mr. White’s standards.
The allegory was obvious – as one speaking on racism – although perhaps not so obviously about Apartheid in particular, especially to Western audiences. That is to say that I, with relatively little knowledge about Apartheid, did not know exactly what events the film was invoking. The film could’ve just as easily been – and was for me – speaking on segregation in the Jim Crow era of the U.S. I think Mr. White, knowing the intended allegory, judged the film on how precisely it delivered on that allegory rather than enjoying the film for its own sake.
Mr. White attacks D-9 with obscure references that only other film critics would know – perhaps an attempt to gain traction amongst his professional brethren who probably regard him as a hack, again emphasizing the film critic’s pathetic lot – to forever claw and scratch for recognition by other film critics, since no one else – namely those other film students who went on to actually make films – gives a damn.
That all said, let me get into why Mr. White – and the other critics – are wrong about District 9. I’ll spare you any specific plot details so as not to spoil the film, and avoid any discussion of the lighting, cinematography, or set pieces, since I don’t know anything about those things.
Perhaps because District 9 was made by an independent writer/director and a virtually unknown cast, it had to make certain concessions for Hollywood, to make it more widely marketable. Those concessions probably came by the order of Peter Jackson, who – in spite of Mr. White’s claims that he has a child’s brain – knows exactly what is required to make a blockbuster.
What stood out most to me about District 9 was that in spite of these concessions – mostly in the form of comic violence, metamorphosis, explosions, and an all out mech battle – it managed to avoid the majority of Hollywood clichés. That is quite an achievement. D-9 is so outside the norm that it ran into resistance from my years-long Hollywood sci-fi conditioning. By the film’s end I found myself feeling that something was missing, and I even started to argue what it could’ve done better – before I realized that I was making a case for those exact clichés!
It is what is missing from District 9 that makes it a great movie. The main character is not one with which you’ll want to sympathize – you might even hate him. There is no E.T.-style alien-human bonding in the face of adversity; instead D-9 depicts humans – through main character Wikus – as almost irredeemably anchored to their nature. There is no saccharine moment of revelation that we (humans) are wrong – we just continue to be wrong, until literally left with no choice.
There is no cheesy romantic side plot, and what little relationship story it does have is relegated to a few phone conversations – more another nod to human failings than any attempt at redemption. And finally, there is no happy ending, no ten minute wrap-up that resolves the impossibly massive conflict, which would’ve been forced, and rang painfully disingenuous.
In fact, if there was anywhere the movie did capture reality in its allegory, it was in how the problem was not fully resolved, because black South Africans today still suffer disadvantages in the aftermath of Apartheid. A saccharine ending would’ve undermined the subtle dimensions to the conflict for the sake of satisfying audiences lacking the stomach to accept a more harsh reality – not unlike many apologists today who incorrectly saw the official end of Apartheid as an end to the much longer and more widespread legacy of racism.
Since this has been more a review of District 9’s critics than the film itself, let me go on record again as giving it my highest recommendation. It has something for everyone – action fans, sci-fi enthusiasts, indie film snobs – everyone except those too conditioned by Hollywood fluff to appreciate something different. It even has something for the film critics who claim to hate it – another opportunity to co-opt the success of others to gain personal recognition.
«
