Log in

No account? Create an account
When fiction lies - Baxil [bakh-HEEL'], n. My Sites [Tomorrowlands] [The TTU Wiki] [Photos]
View My LJ [By Tag]

August 19th, 2009
04:42 am
[User Picture]


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
When fiction lies
(NOTE: If you were linked directly to this post instead of reading it on my journal or your friends list, it contains many spoilers. Beware.)

I have a bad habit, and I'll admit it: I nitpick movies.

It comes with being a writer. When you tell stories, you care about stories. When you care about stories, you explore them -- savor them. When someone else comes along with their story, you want to leap into it with both feet. And when someone comes along with a movie with great potential and poor execution, you feel betrayed.

The thing is, this feeling is totally independent of the quality of the movie. When I watched Watchmen, I spent 90% of my review ranting about how they removed the source material's moral ambiguities, before adding in almost as an aside that it was great and worth seeing. I've harshed on Star Wars (I still don't think aris_tgd has forgiven me for that one ;-)) and demolished 300, so I get critical on the good and bad alike.

['District 9' movie poster] If you think this is leading up to something, good call: kadyg and I watched District 9 on Sunday.

With an introduction like that, you know I'm going to be critical of it, so the real question is: Was it a good movie? And this is hard for me to say, because it was technically excellent, inventive sci-fi ... but, no, not really.

I will admit up front that I am biased about this. I care about stories ... and all of this movie's failings were on the story level. If you want a brainless blockbuster with some generic Hollywood liberal moralizing, you'll love it. And if you don't mind being lied to --

Lied? you might ask. How does a piece of fiction "lie?" Aren't fictional stories lies by definition?

... Okay, so here's the thing.

When good fictional stories lie, it's in the service of exposing deeper truths about the sapient condition. They set up what-ifs to provoke thought. They shake us out of comfortable expectations. They help bring us to a new perspective on something we deal with here in life.

When bad stories lie, they don't tell the truth.

['No Humans Allowed'] Take a closer look at this sign in the "District 9" movie poster. Take a look at the ominous warning of the slogan. Now, I'm about to give you a spoiler, but it's an important and nonspecific one: That sign occurs nowhere in the movie. This is not a movie about the oppression of humans ... except allegorically, and even there it fails in some important ways.

Before you even walk into the theater the movie is not telling you the truth. This is not, if you will pardon the pun, a good sign.

There are a few places where the movie gets technological details wrong -- such as when one character eludes authorities for days while carrying an active cell phone -- but these can generally be forgiven as lies in the service of the story. (To their credit, they do lampshade the cell phone bit, by having the authorities trace the one call he does receive.) Unfortunately, the key word is "generally." When the technological glitches spill out into character glitches, the story starts falling apart.

Let's dip into the spoilers for an illustrative example:

There's a long sequence where Human Main Character and Alien Sidekick break into Evil Corporate Headquarters to retrieve the Plot MacGuffin, armed with high-tech weaponry that is keyed to alien DNA and so only works for the Good Guys.

Let me stop and give some context for that. The first 30 minutes of the movie shows the systematic oppression of the mean humans over those poor aliens: the Evil Corporation is kicking them out of their garbage-strewn ghetto to relocate them to somewhere less offensive to their human neighbors. Yet these horribly oppressed aliens have guns powerful enough that two characters can hold off the human army. In fact, simply breaking into the building by firing a single shot from an alien gun creates an explosion big enough to be mistaken for a major terrorist attack; they evacuate the block.

We also know that these aliens have active smuggling operations for their contraband high-tech guns; in the long intro sequence, we see both weapon sales being made and weapon caches being found. So the aliens are established as both gun-havers and beings capable of criminal acts ... yet they sit there in unified submission, with no guerrilla fighters or even lone malcontents, as the humans waltz a tiny band of mercenaries through their slums to evict them all?

Christ, it would have been so easy to live up to the movie poster here! The humans finally cross the line, resistance flares up, aliens with scary guns riot and gain control over their ghetto turf, and it's payback time. It would have been a much better movie, too. Less lying, more excuses for summer-blockbuster violence. But noooooo, can't have the antagonists driven by noble motives. Not contrasty enough with the morally awesome Human Main Character. Let's rewrite the shit so he can fight against two different groups of Other Humans willing to murder him for money and power. Yeah!

... Ahem. Anyway, HMC and his Alien Sidekick are in the ECHQ basement, pinned down by the Obligatory Mercenary Henchmen. They're there to retrieve the fuel that AS has spent 20 years collecting, and they've finally found the canister. HMC is unsure how they're going to escape. AS grabs a few random pieces of Scattered Technology, and MacGyvers together a bomb --

Hang on, I need to stop and unpack that again.

The movie says in its backstory narration that the aliens lost their leader when their ship landed; being some sort of quasi-hive-mind or something, they promptly lost all initiative and intelligence beyond the basic ability to arrange their own subsistence. This would be a reasonable piece of lampshade hanging if it worked, but as it is, it's just a smokescreen that they turn on or off as necessary to hide the plot holes. Dude disassembles high technology to rig up a huge explosive. And in his spare time, lives in a shanty that a strong wind could push over, and trades guns to Nigerian scammers for cans of cat food.


There are aliens smart enough to smuggle guns, assemble bombs out of random technology bits, and -- wait, let's not forget -- carry out a 20-year plot to resurrect their mothership, and yet there's no freakin' resistance when the Evil Corporation raids the ghetto with eviction notices?!

The rule of thumb for a fantasy/sci-fi story is that you get one free "what-if" that changes the world -- what if people could turn into dragons? what if the toys on your dresser were real people? what if aliens landed? -- that your audience will accept without explanation, and every other fantastic element you introduce has to be justified in some way. Otherwise, suspension of disbelief becomes difficult. District 9 uses up its allotment of free what-ifs when the alien ship lands in Johannesburg, South Africa to make a racial meta-point; they sorta kinda pretend to justify the aliens living in the slums despite technology far beyond Earth's. But they've lost suspension of disbelief by the time the aliens -- without exception -- play helpless victim to Evil Corporation's bullshit.

And speaking of Johannesburg ... by far the worst of the movie's failings is that, while ostensibly a socially conscious parable about race and racism, it spends the entire film kicking you in the face with White Privilege.

The plot is about how awful racism is. The story is about how White Guys are important, and it's the Lesser Race's job to be passively grateful at Whitey's good intentions because after all Whitey knows best.

You think I'm exaggerating or being overly sensitive. I wish I was.

The examples just drip off the film. But one of the most iconic moments has to have been the pro-alien protests by a group of bleeding-heart liberals at the beginning.

The aliens are never actually named as a species (!!!); all the official movie material refers to them canonically as "non-humans." (!) However, the movie's Evil Corporation employees immediately coin them "prawns" due to their vaguely crustacean appearance. "Prawn" is thrown around as an ethnic slur throughout.

Guess what the pro-alien protesters have on their signs?

This is ... I don't even know how to address that sort of thoughtlessness. Would the movie makers go to a Black History Month rally with a sign reading "We ♥ Coons"? Dear god, no, because that would be offensive beyond the bounds of reason. I'm ashamed that I even had to write that for purposes of the analogy. Yet we're supposed to believe entire crowds of nonhuman sympathizers would make that monumental of a gaffe?

Then there's the human main character. Let's just call him "Whitey." The primary theme of the movie is that Whitey is a dick, but that's OK because ... well, you really need to see it to understand why this is such a huge privilege issue. This is going to be long, but I will try to make it entertaining, and I promise I'm building up to a point.

Here is how he meets the alien who ends up becoming his sidekick:

Whitey: Sign here so we can evict you.
Chris: You have to give me 24 hours notice.
Whitey: I see we have a slight misunderstanding here. That your kid?
Chris: Yes.
Whitey: Sign or we take him away.

This conversation is never apologized for. In fact, it is never mentioned in the movie again. Despite this, Chris repeatedly puts his life into Whitey's hands. Because clearly Whitey has had a change of heart and would never do anything bad to ... you know. People beneath his station.

Chris later realizes, after Whitey "switches teams," that Whitey is the key to the Plot MacGuffin. Somehow Whitey gets to Chris' house without being ripped apart by angry aliens, despite having earlier shown up in person to evict the whole district. They then have this conversation:

Chris: Let's go get the MacGuffin.
Whitey: No.
Chris: ... Um, okay.
(time passes)
Chris: Hey, I was thinking, you're right about the MacGuffin being a suicide mission. Maybe --
Whitey: Let's go get the MacGuffin.
Chris: ... Um, okay.

Now that it's Whitey's idea, it's on. They get the MacGuffin.

Chris: Well, thanks. The thing I promised you I'd do if we cooperated? That will have to wait because Evil Corporation is doing evil things I must fix.
Baxil: Oh my god, somebody besides Whitey just had a moment of character development!
Whitey: Oh, well fuck you then.
(Whitey clubs Chris on the head and steals his vehicle)


The vehicle gets shot down. Whitey, once again, has fucked up the plan Chris has spent 20 years working on, this time seemingly permanently. They get separated and Whitey's kid pulls a Wesley Crusher, activating some of their high-tech gear. Whitey gets attacked by the Evil Human Gang.

Giant Alien Mech: *ACTIVATES*
Whitey: I'm about to die!
City full of millions of non-humans: Hey, it's one of our giant mechs!
City full of millions of non-humans: "..."
Whitey: Nifty alien tech, don't mind if I do! (hops in)

Whitey finds Chris, who has been captured by Evil Corporation's mercenaries. There is a firefight.

Whitey: My giant invulnerable mech is taking small arms fire. Hope you don't mind me running away and letting them turn you into a medical experiment, Chris.
Chris: "..."
Whitey: We cool? We cool. Later.
White Human Mercenary: If you're going to be a chicken about this I'm just going to kill the prawn now.
Whitey: SADJKFADKJ YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!1! (leaps in slo-mo to save Chris' life)

But Chris has been wounded. Please note that I have not exaggerated the following scene.

Whitey: Hey man, because I really am a nice guy and haven't fucked up your life three times now, I want to take you back to your kid.
Chris: Leave me behind. I'm hurt too bad. I won't make it.
Chris: Oh, okay then. *gets up*
Whitey: Okay, we've got to sprint for a mile and a half to the ship. Jog behind the mech.
Chris: Can do!

So. *deep breath*

In isolation, Whitey's unbroken streak of stunning assholery could be written off as Hollywood protagonist behavior. But this is not a movie that gives you the luxury of ignoring its context.

District 9 made a big point of filming in Johannesburg. They had a huge opening sequence showing the evils of apartheid and the nightmare of mistreatment handed down from the bureaucracy. All of their web promotional material is explicitly about the racial unfairness that nonhumans face. In short, District 9 itself made race an issue. And here you have the main character, a white male human, at every possible turn screwing over his nonhuman ally, even to the point of physical violence, and being unconditionally forgiven for it, with no discussion or apology or even any need for such.

Then look at the pattern again, and put it together with the earlier issues brought up in the ECHQ infiltration scene. Not only is Whitey above criticism, he is also the only one who is important. We never see an actual alien operating any of the alien weaponry; that's Whitey's privilege. We never see a plan being executed unless it's one that Whitey OK'd, or one that was done on Whitey's behalf. And Whitey has no obligation to any of the aliens; he is driven largely by his interactions with other (white) humans (the mercenaries and his wife).

If this were all deliberate, it would be brilliant: a movie about racial oppression meta-critiquing racial oppression! But it is not; and so it's somewhere in between stupefying and scary.

The film explicitly presents itself as a critique of racism. If the film meant to critique the things I am pointing out here, it could have done so. It does not; there is not even an attempt. The main character is never held responsible for his outrageous moral failures, and in fact is held up as praiseworthy for making his Hard Protagonist Moral Choices, and given the standard Hollywood Redemption Ending.

District 9 is simply blind to its own faults. And in a movie that puts so much effort into its presentation ... that's extremely hard to forgive.

Letter grade: This is tough. Technical presentation is excellent; story is an utter failure. I'm not sure it's really possible to average those two together and give a meaningful result in the middle. Nevertheless, let's call it C+, and acknowledge that that can vary widely in either direction based on how much the issues in my review troubled you.

Edited to add: Several people are saying that based on my review they aren't going to watch the movie. Thank you for reading and giving my opinions weight. I would also urge you to skim through the comments thread, where several others have objected to my characterization of the movie; I've wavered back and forth over whether I was too harsh with it, and some other plausible narratives around the protagonists' actions have been proposed. If you're on the fence, read the whole thing.

Edit x2: ... And when you do, start here. In comments is a strong argument that the privilege issue is in fact intentional, and thus that it's a lot smarter movie than I give it credit for.

Current Location: ~/brainstorm
Current Music: Jim's Big Ego, "Angry White Guy"
Tags: ,

(58 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 11:53 am (UTC)

An alternate viewpoint

mmsword gives a different take on it, and also points out that for a film about racism it's also awfully blind to its own gender faults: Here.

I would say that's simply further evidence that the film is blind to its own insensitivities, rather than trying to make a meta-critique.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 12:50 pm (UTC)
I'm glad you did this.

I'm bracing for it to fall on deaf ears, because critiquing the thematic content of a popcorn movie -- even one that pretends to be more -- doesn't seem to be a terribly popular activity.

I'm still really glad you did this.
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 05:58 pm (UTC)
> even one that pretends to be more

Especially one that pretends to be more. Movies whose subtexts contradict their texts are problematic.

And thanks. ♥
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 01:01 pm (UTC)
Regarding the 'hypocrasy' of prawn:

I use queer, tranny, fag, etc. It's a concerted effort to take the word back and remove it's power as an insult by bigots.
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 02:35 pm (UTC)
One of those things that I'll never understand. People basically choose to be offended by something. Of course, I'm an insensitive clod, so what do I know.
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 02:33 pm (UTC)
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the basic premise that in my mind Whitey is never sympathetic as a human being. He doesn't save a damn thing until he already fucks it up for everyone else. I don't consider him a heroic protagonist in the least, and thus do not excuse his behaviour. Nor do I find him forgiven for it; I find the other, actually sympathetic protagonist doing what he can in situations Whitey has repeatedly messed up for him, moving toward his goals, and then ditching Whitey for a period of years (at least) while Whitey quite literally transforms into something possibly sympathetic.

Maybe it's a blindly wishful reading. Either way, the movie has brought up this and many other similar dialogues online and off. I consider the ability of the media to spur such dialogue and bring up far more questions than it answers to be its its value as a film above and beyond a summer blockbuster.
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 09:17 pm (UTC)
> I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the basic premise that in my mind Whitey is never sympathetic as a human being.

Thanks for speaking up. I can also see that being a fair reading of Wikus' assholery. Are we being told by the movie not to like him? If so, that would go a long way toward nullifying my point.

I can see signs that support that reading. Wikus attacking Chris, and then later running away instead of saving his life. (And the other examples I cite.)

But what brings me up short is seeing the moral framework the movie surrounds him with: the real evil are the corporation and the gangs, who are doing really bad stuff like killing for their ends. By pitting these directly against Wikus and making Chris a bystander, it seems like the film wants us to be on Wikus' side. Also see Wikus' conversations with his wife and his quest to restore their relationship; whereas Chris' friend(?)/partner(?) simply dies in a horrible way and Chris is left with just vengeance (which he doesn't actually take, unless he really does come back with an army after the movie's end).

I am also glad that the film is bringing up these questions. What troubles me is that, having seen the film, I am left feeling like after it raises the question, it tries to point me to a not-good answer. I made my post in the spirit of sharing that, and it's good to hear other perspectives.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 03:20 pm (UTC)
I find the Geico cavemen a fascinating narrative, and those commercials make me hate Geico for being insensitive assholes. So as advertisements, on the one hand, they work; on the other...
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 03:16 pm (UTC)
Thank you. I was waffling on seeing this movie, and you've helped me decide. :)

Also... writing. Oh yeah that. c.c *cough*
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 03:20 pm (UTC)
Good on you for writing this, Bax. I was suspicious of D-9 from day one just because of the "aliens are a metaphor for black people!" premise. I was suspicious in the usual way I am about movies: you could make a really good movie from that premise, but the movie that we will get here in real life probably will not be good, and might in fact be horrible. So then I heard early negative reports, and subsequently rolled my eyes a lot at people saying that it's a beautifully insightful and significant movie. It may well be. I'm still not going to see it.
(Deleted comment)
Date:August 19th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
I have to admit, I don't know where to start. There's a lot here that isn't just opinion, but factually wrong. Watch the film again sometime if you care to. Many of these criticisms are explained in the dialog.

As for all the stuff about racism, statements, sensitivity - gah. Look, maybe you should back up - and a lot of people here as well - and make sure you're not having a knee-jerk sensitivity reaction and /wanting/ the story to offend you on behalf of minorities everywhere.

btw: just in case anyone was't aware, the movie wasn't written or directed by a rich man from hollywood. Dude grew up during Aparteid.(oh snap?) I suppose it's merely that I know someone from South Africa. From Jo'burg even. The reality, as usual, doesn't quite match what you see on CNN.
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 04:57 pm (UTC)
I have to admit, I don't know where to start.

You could start with your name, or online handle. That would give a lot more credence to your opinions than any anonymous comment will.

Dude grew up during Aparteid.(oh snap?)

Which side?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 05:14 pm (UTC)
>When I watched Watchmen, I spent 90% of my review ranting about how they removed the source material's moral ambiguities, ... I've harshed on Star Wars ... and demolished 300.

So, after reviewing our theater-going history for the last year or so... has there been ANY movie that we paid money for that you actually enjoyed?
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 06:34 pm (UTC)
I hate to jump in on a family issue. :) But in the bit you ellipsed out of there... didn't he actually say he enjoyed at least one of the films you're asking about?
Date:August 19th, 2009 07:18 pm (UTC)
Haven't seen it, so unqualified to respond. BUT! Have seen numerous adverts on the Toronto Transit system - all that I've seen have been the anti-alien signage.

Perhaps the 'No Humans Allowed' signage in the movie poster takes on a different read when it's surrounded by the context of a 'real world' surplus of 'No Non-Humans Allowed'.

If that was the intent, of course, it fails unless you're immersed in the advertising enough to play up the 'surrounded safe-space' aspect. Which may be unintentional - given your other concerns, I'd guess it'd almost have to be an accident.
[User Picture]
Date:August 19th, 2009 09:08 pm (UTC)
Thanks muchly for the review, I'll definitely not be seeing this one.
[User Picture]
Date:August 20th, 2009 01:45 pm (UTC)
I think there's worth in going back through comments here and elsewhere and getting other readings of the story. That said, I think the fundamental message is very negative regarding humanity at present, and thus not the sort of thing you'd like anyway.
[User Picture]
Date:August 21st, 2009 03:40 am (UTC)
As someone that lived and worked in and around Jo'burg for many years (I lived in SA for 27...) I can attest that there is also a lot of propaganda that has gone on. While it is true that the blacks there had to carry passes, and tended to be discriminated against, this was also very much a territorial thing... and also the racism tended to be mostly black on black as well as Afrikaaner on black. I left in '95 and know first hand that towards then end of the '80s things had shown a marked improvement.
Date:August 21st, 2009 02:58 pm (UTC)
This is a very fine rant about filmmaking and socially responsible sensibilities, or something but unfortunately, you appear to have gone in after hearing the words "South Africa" primed and ready to read any and everything as a blatant allegory for Aparteid.

Here's a reality check:

The aliens are not supposed to be black people.

The black people in the movie are racists towards the aliens. Not just the whities.

"Whitey-prime" who you are so fond of, is not supposed to be an admirable, stereotypical hollywood white guy hero. And he's not, though from the looks of things you had *cough* racial blinders on. The guy is an ignorant jerkwad for ninety percent of the movie.

The "aparteid" theme is extremely minor, even if Americans believe the only important thing in South Africa is aparteid. Evidently, they do. Also, the director was the first one to say this; not me.

The allegory, such as it is, is one of minor, but very dark, irony. The aliens represent anyone who is the low man on humanity's totem pole. It's ironic because this instance of it is happening in South Africa, of all places. It's also ironic because they're space people with advanced technology, who mankind still rationalizes as inferior beings given any excuse.

The cartoonish Nigerians are actually scarily realistic. Ask someone who was not a rich person living in a gated community in South Africa. You do not fuck with Nigerians in SA.

That the movie has a lot of action and moments of sick humor is no great sin. Real life is not divided into neat categories such as "dignified and intellectual" and "brainless and loud". It's only America that is divided into these polemic extremes. Most of the world is a very messy place. District 9 gets this very right.

This film is not trying to be haughty and intellectual. People here are reading that in because they think some topics are the grist of haughty intellectuals.

Dissenting opinion #2 logged and registered. P.s. you are not being trolled. Theres just a lot of people rolling their eyes at paranoid PC takes on the movie. Its a pubic post. That gets around on the internet.
[User Picture]
Date:August 23rd, 2009 09:08 pm (UTC)
I'll have to leave my dissent with this as well. While I won't be as articulate as some in this thread, I felt that D9 is a damned good movie and a damned good social commentary.

First, you need to look at the aliens. Initially, yes, it's a omg first contact ginormous spaceship, the world is watching, etc. But the movie's flashbacks do a good job in showing that some sort of social breakdown existed, and that these aliens quickly lost the initial 'advanced race' designation .. and that what was left wasn't exactly the same beings that created the ship. Which means that a second stereotype, that of 'less intelligent beings that need our help', formed. The typical sympathy case, of course. And as usual, the rest of the world quickly forgot about this case, letting a paramilitary / professional military organization, run the relief efforts, basically just throwing money at the problem, the way we do for all sorts of other causes.

Christopher (AS), as it were, may be a remnant of the leadership caste (if the aliens were caste-based), and as such wired differently (and less aggression driven) than the human characters. But that's speculation. If it's an alien, you can't count on it having the same reactions to situations that humans do, after all. But perhaps even though the aliens have guns, they also have a slew of other (non-relevant to humans) technology that they also turned in, but that were deemed less valuable by the humans.

Anyways, I do think that it's a good flick, well worth watching, despite minor flaws.
[User Picture]
Date:August 28th, 2009 07:41 pm (UTC)
Coming back to this a bit later, I thought it was interesting to read a Nigerian academic's response to the movie. I will take their word over "scarily realistic Nigerians" Anonymous above as to the movie's portrayal of Nigerians.
Tomorrowlands Powered by LiveJournal.com