District 9: The Rare Artistic & Box Office Success
District 9 doesn’t have anything going for it… except for the important things.
by Richard Clark
17 August 2009
723 views
11 Comments
District 9 was a surprise to all of us. There was no major marketing blitz, at least when compared to this summer’s other major blockbusters. All we knew of it was that Lord of the Rings director, Peter Jackson had something to do with it and that it had an incredible trailer and a fantastic website. One thing in particular caught my attention: it looked unusually smart compared to most summer movie fodder.
Even more separated the film from typical summer fare: a cast that was unrecognizable, a relatively small budget, and virtually unknown director. How will a movie that defies all preconceived notions of what will sell to summer audiences fare in the box office? Pretty darn well, it seems.
In fact, District 9 reminds me a lot of last year’s The Dark Knight. Though it doesn’t quite have the mass appeal of being a Batman movie, it is an intense and thoughtful action movie that is dense enough to warrant several viewings. Just as Dark Knight did, we can expect this little film that could to do fairly well in the next few weeks as word spreads.
These films certainly aren’t attractive because they flatter us. The fascinating thing about this film is that it berates us as a human race. Like Dark Knight, it points out consistently the various ways we as humans fail one another. Typical alien movies, such as Independence Day told us we were better than them, not just because we had the firepower, but because we had the will, the pure hearts, and a united spirit. District 9 makes it obvious just how flawed the human condition is.
Whether they’re evil out of willful ignorance, a desire for power, greed, or unabashed curiosity, every single human being on District 9’s earth is nonetheless evil. There are no villains because every person in the film is the villain. Even when our hero, Wikus begins to have a change of heart, he still carries out relatively despicable acts for the sake of his own comfort and happiness.
But if every human being is the villain, who are we supposed to root for? The aliens. Why? Because they are powerless. Helpless and out of their element, we are meant to sympathized with the meek and lowly. This is an honorable twist on the action movie formula.
So how did the movie succeed in spite of itself? By giving us a picture of ourselves that doesn’t ring false. Wikus learns various lessons throughout the film, but like us he often fails to live them consistently. He never arrives; he merely grows and backslides, matures and falls away. He succeeds because he happened to do the right thing at the right time, but he just as easily could have done the wrong thing, given different circumstances. We can all relate to this.
The film is far from perfect. What begins as a fascinatingly shot documentary-style satire ultimately collapses into a relatively cliche action movie battle in the last 20 minutes, bombarding the viewer with overly graphic violence that often serves to take the viewer out of the movie. The director seems to revel in various people exploding or being decapitated. Ultimately though, District 9 is a brilliantly conceived sci-fi adventure that provides a great balance of popcorn entertainment and food for thought.
4 votes.
Loading ...
And so we’re just supposed to tolerate the excessive cursing and take it as popcorn entertainment and food for thought? I had to walk out this movie. (here’s a review I did of it- http://alman.tumblr.com/post/163825701/district9
I don’t think Rich ever took excessive obscenities and called them popcorn entertainment and food for thought. He did use that phrase to refer to a film which evidently contained such obscenities, but that’s an entirely different thing.
When one describes a thing, one usually isn’t describing every part of a thing. For instance, if I see a puppy and describe it as cute, it would be unfair for you to respond by saying, “And so we’re just supposed to tolerate intestines and poop and take it as cute,” even though it’s true that the puppy I described as cute also contains about a pound or two of intestines and poop. You wouldn’t do that because that would be beneath you.
For the same reason, we don’t take one’s praise of particular aspects of a film (aspects that Rich pretty clearly defines in his article) to mean praise of every aspect of said film. We don’t do that because that would be beneath us.
When I praise Citizen Kane, I’m not praising arrogance, vanity, and adultery. When I praise Casablanca, I’m not praising gun runners, gamblers, alcoholics, and adulteresses. When I praise Spirited Away, I’m not praising Japanese gods. When I praise the Word of God, I’m not simultaneously praising the rape of siblings, the wholesale slaughter of cattle and sheep, and the betrayal of the Son of God.
It’s clear that your threshold for tolerating the kind of foul language that rules the roost in many unchurched circles was breached by this film. I would never say that you should overlook your own threshold. One should always be cognizant of what one can and can’t deal with. (I know people who would have walked out after two eff words and would be astounded at your own personal level of fortitude.) The thing is: you cannot make that judgment for people you don’t even know. Just because your faith caused you to be disturbed by what you heard doesn’t mean that others are or should be equally disturbed.
So keep in mind that when someone praises a film like District 9, it’s not likely they’re praising it for the reasons you fled it and it’s not necessary that they feel the same level of disgust that you feel/felt.
Oh! And I saw Ponyo instead, so I think I’m the clear winner here anyway ^_^
I see your point Dane and I should have worded myself better. It seems however that when you do praise one of those films you listed as examples, you should give what you praise about the film so as not to cause confusion in what you do praise about a certain film. I don’t think it’s fair to say that when you “praise” something, someone is to assume without clarification that you don’t actually praise all of it but only certain parts.
I was not trying to commit a whole to part fallacy (although it appears I did). And I do not suppose everyone should have the same level of disgust for the film as I do, because I do not think I am God.
Rich, I would love to hear you and Ben discuss this movie some more in the next podcast.
Alman, we’ll certainly consider discussing it in the next podcast. In the meantime, the following article may address some of your concerns: http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/capcs-assumptions-a-matter-of-conscience/
Hey Alman, though he could have been more explicit, I think Rich does specify what things he thought were praiseworthy about the film. Particularly, he says, “District 9 makes it obvious just how flawed the human condition is. There are no villains because every person in the film is the villain.”
As well: “Because the aliens are powerless, we are meant to sympathized with the meek and lowly. This is an honorable twist on the action movie formula.”
And: “the movie succeeds in spite of itself by giving us a picture of ourselves that doesn’t ring false.”
Then after touching on some criticisms, Rich points out three things he thought were valuable about the film: District 9 is 1) a brilliantly conceived sci-fi adventure that provides a great balance of 2) popcorn entertainment and 3) food for thought. So apart from the negatives that both you and he pointed out, Rich praised District 9 for being a well-put-together sci-fi adventure (something that, as always, is pretty rare). He also praised its entertainment value (something especially rare these days when it comes to sci-fi adventure). And finally, he praised the thoughtfulness with which the film approaches the issue of quote-unquote human decency.
I think you’re right that he could have fleshed these things out better, but they are present.
Nooooo, </i>!!! Why are you so cruel to me?
[...] Shared District 9: The Rare Artistic & Box Office Success | Christ and Pop Culture [...]
I have a problem with meaningless profanity. By that I mean when the F-bomb is inserted into the middle of every multi-syllable word “because it’s funny”.
It doesn’t bother me at all when Private Ryan gets shot and shouts an expletive.
Regarding District 9…It was a breath of fresh air for me. Will Smith is who we’d want to be. Wikus is who we are.
I thought Wikus’ “character see-saw” was very well done.
Question: How does one decide between the possibility that obscenity in a particular film is meaningless and the possibility that one might not understand the obscenity’s meaning? And how can one know if the only purpose for a particular instance of obscenity is “because it’s funny”?
I am referring to dialog such as: “Un-[insert expletive]-believable!!!!”
I think we all get the drift. But don’t you know people who would find that more humorous than a simple, “Unbelievable!” (assuming the use of “unbelievable” by itself might be funny)?
Regardless, meaningless was probably the wrong word to use. What about ‘unnecessary’? Perhaps I just feel that if the absence of profanity will cause a situation not to be funny, the scene/lines need more work.
At the same time, I can appreciate a need for authenticity. I recently saw “Gran Torino” and felt that the language in the movie was probably an accurate description of how the people in the movie would talk.
Leave your response!
Welcome to Christ and Pop Culture
Some of Our Favorite Articles
Recent Comments
Get New Posts via Email
Become our friend!
Writers
Subscribe
Archive
Posts Like This
Most Loved
Most Commented
Most Viewed