Currently Listening to: India Arie ft. Akon – I Am Not My Hair
I was hooked onto the movie the minute I realized that the bus bench I see everytime I commute was an advertisement for a movie… produced by Peter Jackson. That’s all it took. It’s viral marketing at its best. The websites are more innovative and inspired than the ones that were sprung for The Dark Knight (which was amazing). Still, the selling point for every movie is that movie is/will be a critical and commercial hit, simply because it couples a sizable amount of action with great character development.
–spoilers start here and will run throughout the post–
District 9 is, at its most fundamental level, a movie about race (more specifically apartheid), human rights, and the social effects of otherization and dehumanization. It also touches briefly on the issue of PMC’s and philosophies on the War on Terror and torture. It’s also an action movie, filled with inherent plot holes and questions that can only (hopefully) be answered by the sequel. I want to address all of these issues, but I’m going to jump back and forth, and it might seem incoherent and rambling: a warning.
Onto the task at hand. I’m surprised that Racialicious hasn’t touched on the subject, probably because the social criticism is so open and blatant throughout the movie. It’s clearly a movie about Apartheid; it’s set in South Africa.. the name “District 9″ is a play off “District 6“, the living conditions and perhaps the hopelessness of many of the ‘prawns’ reflects that of ‘non-whites’ during the Apartheid era.
It does beg a couple of questions. If the ‘prawns’ are so repressed, why was there never any talk of a violent uprising, when they seem to have the weapons and numbers to do so? To speculate, the actions of the ‘prawns’ seem somewhat irrational and therefore they aren’t conscientious or repressed enough to revolt. For one, they have their catfood, albeit at exorbitant prices, and for the most part, live in an arguably manageable world. It could be that, as hypothesized in the movie, that without leadership the “worker” prawns live in a State of Nature, and therefore do not care about ‘prawn’ well being as a whole but simply individualistic well being. It still doesn’t explain why ‘prawns’ TRADE weapons for food instead of USE weapons for food, unless of course they’re pacifists or, due to some ‘prawn’ caste system, cannot use the weapons.
Still, plot holes only reflect that the movie is an action film, and almost all action films have major plot holes.
Another issue with the film, and this is not a personal criticism but more one from the NYPress’ Armond White, is that it is an inadequate portrayal of Apartheid history. I don’t know enough about the history to say if this is an adequate analysis, but an interesting one nonetheless.
It does bring into question a greater criticism I have with the social message of the film. For one, the movie puts the ‘prawns’, the metaphor for racial minorities, into a state of social limbo. They are lower than humans but higher than animals. At one point during the UMC tests on Wikus, he states that he does not want to fire on a ‘prawn’ and instead will shoot another pig or cow. That puts the ‘prawns’ at a social status above our standard animals, probably because on some level humans understand that they are a rational and intelligent species; how else do you explain the ‘prawn’ technology, which is far superior to that of humans? The problem then is how they justify the vicious treatment of the ‘prawns’, and therfore “racial minorities”. They simply otherize them.
It digs deeper. The leading UMC mercenary, who is killed at the very end by various ‘prawns’ is more the monster than say Christopher Johnson is. Therefore the non-humans are actually more human than the humans themselves, in that there is no registered act of brutality or evil by any of the ‘prawns’. Torture is conducted by the humans. Humans experimented with weapons on ‘prawns’, not the other way around. Humans are the ones that are committing executions. The evolution of Wikus goes from human to ‘prawn’, and his understanding of the world is better. He is the hero, and he becomes more of a hero as he becomes more ‘prawn’. Christopher Johnson is the only character throughout the movie with no lapse in judgment or vices, CJ Jr doesn’t have any as well (but its childhood innocence). Christopher, after seeing the effects of experiments, doesn’t claim to seek revenge for his people, but simply to save them. It’s a role reversal. Those the humans dehumanize are actually the good to the humans’ evil, and the animalistic ‘prawns’ while vicious, simply seek to survive not to commit evil.
What Blomkamp and Jackson could have been doing is just showing how tragic the process of otherization and dehumanization is. Therefore the film is inherently an argument against such a process… and it touches on various hot topics, specifically that of torture, terrorism, crime, and gun control. I hear arguments all the time that “criminals deserve to be punished because they committed some atrocious crime” or that “Jews deserve to die because they killed my family” or that “we can torture all Arabs because the sacrifice of some is worth it for the protection of many”. You see the problem with this mentality within the movie; after Christopher Johnson leaves, many people speculate that he will return and wage war against the humans. Why? Because they know that war is justifiable. Wouldn’t you want revenge if you were in the ‘prawns’ shoes? Instead of attacking the source of crime (and therefore not criminals) or terrorism (and therefore not terrorists), American society does dehumanize and otherize individuals. For the sake of time and length, I don’t want to get to into it, but How To Win a Cosmic War by Reza Aslan addresses the issue more thoroughly and I advise people to at least skim it.
Anyway, I’m going to rant a little and vent. This topic reminded me of criminal justice and gun control in that I recently read an article, shared onto facebook by a conservative out at Berkeley (that narrows it down). I’m really tempted to share his name and the link just to show how stupid his argument is, but I refrain. It basically tries to justify gun control for protection (fair), but the people I were debating with went on to say that the dehumanization of criminals and terrorists is justified because they committed atrocious acts. As if torture and capital punishment aren’t atrocious acts within themselves. I would get into more, but I don’t want to bash people.
Essentially, I think the movie does both a really good and a really poor job in its portrayal of dehumanization and its effects. I say that because, simply, the ‘prawns’ aren’t human, and it might even justify, to some people, why we should dehumanize. This really is a motif that I can see easily fly over people’s heads, despite it being so “in your face.”
One last thing. PMC’s are bad. I could write more about why this is so, but I don’t want to make this any longer. Maybe another time.