Journal Entry
District 9: What she said
Over at Racialicious an alternate POV on District 9, which focuses on the big question I had about the movie:
The gang boss could have tried to take Wikus hostage, and use him and his scaly arm as a weapon, same as the white government tried to do. By trying to eat his arm “to gain his powers” the gang boss was risking everything. If eating the arm didn’t work, Gang-Guy would lose Wikus’ arm entirely, so his hunger for human flesh actually risked the only interface he had to enable the alien weapons. Drugging Wikus unconscious then just puppeteering his lobster hand onto the triggers of various alien flamethrowers would be a much cleverer- not to mention more palatable- plan. Not only does the intended cannibalism paint the black man as bloodthirsty and disgusting, but it’s also a needless risk that could sabotage the character’s goals. (Actually, logic suggests that both the gang boss and the government probably would have taken a few aliens hostage and forced them to shoot the guns long ago anyway, but that’s another story).
And the idea that the prostitutes had been servicing the aliens actually created a huge plot hole. All of South Africa knew that prostitutes had long been having sex with the aliens; so they would also know that Wikus couldn’t have begun an alien transformation from alien sexual contact, since the sexual transmission of alien DNA had already been in place for 20 years of interspecies prostitution. (I get it that the point was just to alarm the citizens so they would help the government in its hunt for Wikus, but still, things could at least make sense).
So why the racist parts? Why can’t the Nigerians just be people with logical motives like money and weapons? Why do they have to go out of their way to be ooga-booga savages?
In an email to a friend via Facebook I was trying to summarize the above and wrote:
“I’m of two minds about the movie. 1) I’m happy to see SF at least trying something in this direction, and for 30 million, which could mean more movies get made 2) Major stumble on the Nigerians. I think the director was trying to show an apartheid world and thus all humans were misanthropically shown, but he kept forgetting to focus on white/black human interactions b/c he was hammering the alien/human interaction as being the stand in metaphor.”
Because he couldn’t look further than that, the Nigerian thing was not framed, or didn’t make much sense. In fact, the movie would have actually been a cookie (here director, have a cookie, good job) where it not for the ooga booga Nigerians.
It’s not a case of there not being witch doctors in Nigeria, or gangs that believe weird shit (see The Lord’s Army), but it really jumps out as not well thought out here, and as such, veered into places it shouldn’t have gone.
Which is why I left of two minds. The alien/human buddy cop thing, where the asshole human comes to realize that the aliens were not all bad.
This is why I preach taking aliens and making them the stand in for “˜black people’ as being a trip up, because often I see writers then ignore the dynamics of inter-human cultural building in their worldbuilding. D9 is a classic example. The alien/human thing sort of works, on a very minor level.
And then there’s the last thing. If we’re invited to view the aliens as being minorities, they’re minorities that:
Eat rubberPiss outside of their homesDig through garbageRip people’s limbs offAren’t that bright for the most partDerail trains for funAre very strong and athletic
Because that’s what we see most of the aliens do. EXCEPT for the father and his kid. Out of all these aliens they’re the only ones that aren’t total savages. Which is often, in flawed depictions, how some white people view minorities: “well, as a lot they’re X, but this one guy/family is okay, they’re exceptional.” Which is essentially how we’re invited to view Christopher and his son.
When I watched D9, I was hoping for the commentaries by experts at the beginning to reveal stuff later in the movie that explain the aliens, which could help move them beyond a simple “˜they’re minorities’ explanation (they’re a hive mind, they have a strong caste system, etc) to show how human culture and alien culture clash and why, but it transitioned into a solid action movie, which was entertaining, but the answers, which could have been a mature examination into whys and wherefores aren’t there. The truth is, Alien Nation did more to examine the culture clash elements and subtleties of this stuff.
You should at least be able to trump Alien Nation, you know?
On the other hand, it’s a movie that attempted to do something different than most blockbusters, and was interesting. And despite the fuckup, I actually have to sit in this dual arena where I see the interesting, but wish it could have done better.
As far as the reviewers claiming its a stunning look at race relations and apartheid, well, I have to wonder what that says about them more than the movie. It’s a solid action movie set notionally in that background, but it never gets around to exploring the implications of its worldbuilding, or doing much more worldbuilding than you found in the original 10 minute Jo’Berg clip I saw on the internet way back when.
Which is the long form of “I liked it, but I have questions.”
Filed under the topic Journal on August 18th 2009 at 12:58 pm. You can subscribe to the RSS feed for this entry to keep track of comments. You can also use to trackback.
Comment policy: this is Tobias' blog and space. Like a guest in his house, accord other guests and your host respect and polite discourse while feeling free to engage in debate or comment. Failure to do so results in comment ban or deletion.
25 Responses so far
Pingbacks
- Pingback on Aug 20th, 2009 at 8:07 am
- Pingback on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
- Pingback on Sep 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Your host:
Tobias is a Caribbean-born SF/F novelist who lives in Ohio.
Contact me:
tobias@tobiasbuckell.com
AIM: tobiasbuckell
Coming Soon
# Arctic Rising – Tor Books (Feb. 2012)
# The Rydr Express – The New Hero II (TBD, 2012)
# A Tinker of Warhoon – Under the Moons of Mars: New Adventures on Barsoom (February, 2012)
# Jungle Walkers – Armored (2012)
In Progress:
-untitled for Fireside Magazine (outlining)
-novelette Seafarer for TBA (~92%)
# The Trove (~40% complete)
# The Apocalypse Ocean (~31%)
more at my bibliography
Free Fiction
Novels
Read the first 1/3 free of:
-Crystal Rain: First 1/3 [RTF]
-Ragamuffin-First 1/3 [RTF]
-Sly Mongoose-First 1/3 [RTF]
Short Stories
Toy Planes
The Fish Merchant [pdf]
Her
The Shackles of Freedom (with Mike Resnick)
Necahual
Four Eyes
Aerophilia
Shoah Sry (with Ilsa J. Bick [pdf]
Audio
1. Adam Rakunas on Aug 18th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
What you said. It seemed sloppy as hell in a movie that had apartheid as one of its core ideas to have the Nigerians be such cheap stereotypes (also, I still don’t understand what the hell they were doing in D9 in the first place? What, MNU is powerful enough to control the media, but they can’t effectively police D9?).
2. Chad Collier on Aug 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I think part of it is due to the film’s occasionally muddy POV. It’s never 100% clear what’s being shown to us through the imagined documentarian’s eye and what’s happening in ‘real time.’
Our initial view of the Nigerians is through the documentary lens, with all the bias that might contain. When we go to real time later on, it doesn’t seem too different, though. I think the intent was for it to be more of a Colonel Kurtz situation and less of ‘omg Nigerians,’ but by that point they’re just a plot/action enabler more than anything else.
A purely mockumentary-style approach would’ve driven me nuts, so I’m glad it’s mixed up some, but I think they lost part of the overall voice in the process. I’m hoping the strong box office showing means we get a sequel, and maybe they can tidy things up a bit.
3. JGS on Aug 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Thanks for the link to Racialicious, good post and some very thought-provoking comments (along w/ the usual trollism, natch).
The “Nigerian” thing kind of threw me too (though I enjoyed the movie overall). The witchdoctor, the cannibalism, etc. Some comments on the Racialicious site say this is actually an instance of South African prejudice against Nigerians specifically, rather then more generalized “anti-black” stereotyping – which doesn’t excuse it of course, just another data point to consider.
I had a different take on the perception of the aliens as “total savages” though. I saw that (and maybe I’m giving the film-maker too much credit here) as commentary on how we tend to view the ‘other’ as savages, and the view behavior we don’t understand as barbaric without making any effort at comprehension or empathy. Christopher and his son aren’t ‘exceptional’, they are simply the first aliens we’ve seen on a deeper level.
(Someone mentioned on Racialicious how we always see D9 through the ‘documentary’ lens, while we see Christopher through the ‘natural’ lens – reinforcing the idea that the ‘objective’ reality we’re seeing is in fact grossly distorted by our own cultural biases.)
You could also draw parallels between the aliens’ ‘savage’ behavior and their conditions (poverty, violence, lack of self-respect being a kind of horrific positive-feedback loop).
Just my perspective.
4. Anton P. Nym on Aug 18th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Just my opinion, and therefor suspect as I’m teetering on the brink of narcolepsy or something today, but I got the impression that the Nigerian gun-runners were into witch-doctory stuff for a narrative reason; to bring MNU’s biological research into sharp relief. Anybody taking a run at the Nigerians in the film has to face that the megacorporate approach has fundamentally the same “consume of them to absorb their power” premise. If you find the one noxious, you’re forced to find them both so.
That there were documented cases in Tanzania and Burundi (none that I know of in Nigeria) of groups hunting albinos for their body parts makes “D9″‘s take possible, though not necessarily plausible and certainly not comfortable. I do find myself wishing that they’d taken a different approach.
— Steve
5. Chris Gerrib on Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Well, I guess I see the Nigerians as just another bunch of dumb criminals. I mean, I could see a US street gang operating under similar “logic.” In this case, I merely assumed that a Nigerian street gang in South Africa was as normal as a Hispanic street gang in LA.
From another perspective, a smart street gang leader would have to know that he couldn’t hold off a government operation for any great length of time. One tank or a couple of helicopter gunships. or even the battalion reaction force, and his goose is cooked.
6. Rainbow Jamall on Aug 19th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I think the director was sick of the PC attitude in Hollywood today that portrays all blacks as saints. The rising crime and destruction in American urban areas and Africa are ignored by the mainstream media and Hollywood. I’m sure there are hundreds of black warlords in Africa that act just like this or worse.
7. Tobias Buckell on Aug 19th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“All blacks as saints.”
You’re smoking crack, and you totally missed the point.
Oh yeah, ur racism is showin’.
8. Chuck on Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
It’s a movie, for goodness’ sake. If you want character development, world building and thoughtful plot … go read a damn book. It’s 90 minutes (more or less) of cartoon action brought to big screen and designed to sell overpriced popcorn and soda. Kills me that people think movies are meaningful these days. Some are fun, interesting, even somewhat intriguing, but they’re almost ALL only marketing vehicles. Take ‘em for what they are and enjoy or don’t. Your choice. And don’t get me started on TV these days. I’ll check it out on Hulu or iTunes when it’s cheap. Otherwise, I’ll spend the money on decent books and ‘net access. Far more entertaining and educational (if you’ve got a decent BS filter, ’tis).
9. Tobias Buckell on Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Well, I could delete this comment #6, but I think it stands as an example of why D9 needed better framing. Not b/c Nigerian gangsters who would practice cannibalism don’t exist, but because without the right framing for using it, what it does is encourage thinking like that demonstrated in comment #6. It’s why we need more diversity and more thought put into writing.
It’s also why films like this need to think through things just one more step, or else they inadvertently get people like #6 thinking the movie reinforces some very ill mindscapes.
Which was exactly why D9 bugged me. #6 kind of makes my point for me and makes me glad I wrote this post.
10. Sean Craven on Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I have to say. I saw the movie yesterday and while I really enjoyed it, I found myself uncomfortable with the ‘whites are nerds, blacks are badasses’ or ‘whites are victims, blacks are victimizers’ not-so-subtext.
I think there’s no point in demonizing the movie makers (although LOTR really brought out the racism in the ‘evil empire’ trope). But there was a distinct shift in tone when the Nigerians came on the screen that produced some serious registration on my racial paranoia monitor.
For me, this is a genuine creative issue. Things like bushmeat and cannibalism are unquestionably dramatic. And they overlap. There are situations where pygmies are regarded as bushmeat. But is it appropriate for white people to comment on the situation?
But if white people don’t express their opinion, then white people will never hear those perspectives. There is no way to feel good about making a statement and no way to feel good about not making a statement.
Fuck, fuck, fuck. Isn’t there some way we can just, you know…
get along?
Nah.
11. Tobias Buckell on Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“It’s a movie, for goodness’ sake. If you want character development, world building and thoughtful plot “¦ go read a damn book.”
TB: Or watch Alien Nation, which does all of what I asked for. Or Gran Torino frames it’s bad gansgtas without resorting to ooga booga.
“It’s 90 minutes (more or less) of cartoon action brought to big screen and designed to sell overpriced popcorn and soda. Kills me that people think movies are meaningful these days. Some are fun, interesting, even somewhat intriguing, but they’re almost ALL only marketing vehicles. Take “˜em for what they are and enjoy or don’t. Your choice. ”
TB: The “it’s only entertainment” defense is a very weak contribution. By this argument showing happy slaves “is just entertainment” and was okay back in the day. There are plenty of movies that don’t fail, this could have been one of them. There are movies that are troubling, or nuanced, in their depiction. This wasn’t one of them.
Trust me, I’m Mr. Popcorn movie, I don’t ask for a lot, so if I’m noticing it… well.
12. Tobias Buckell on Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“For me, this is a genuine creative issue. Things like bushmeat and cannibalism are unquestionably dramatic. And they overlap. There are situations where pygmies are regarded as bushmeat. But is it appropriate for white people to comment on the situation?”
Yes, yes it is perfectly okay to comment!
But again, if you have a story where this is the only time you see a certain group, doing this one action, people tend to associate this. The trick is a) ground yourself in research so that you’re not saying things out of ignorance b) do good characterization (why is this done, why do people believe this is something that should be done) c) provide diversity in your work so that it’s clear there’s no ‘statement’ being made that this is the only aspect of a people that exists.
For example, the movie Gran Torino by Clint Eastwood, isn’t a perfect movie, and some might disagree, but is arguably a (more that normal/than you would expect) nuanced look at Hmong, because it doesn’t just show Hmong gangsters, but Hmong strong women, young educated non-gangster men, old traditional Hmong, and so on. It’s basically a movie that follows the ‘what these people need is a honky christ’ routine (like Last King of Scotland et al), which is fairly frequent in Hollywood, but it really takes the time to make characters of all the characters and does its research. As a result, I found myself not nearly as full of qualms, but willing to give a ‘neutral’ vote and enjoyed it. I was very nervous about watching it, b/c I was expecting a lot of fail.
Good storytelling and characterization and research and depiction of a full range is the end run around a lot of these issues.
13. Laurie Mann on Aug 19th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Um, the evil upper management/white South African male bad guys have been the same stereotype over and over again for about 30 years…
The Nigerian thing didn’t bug me until the bit on cannibalism. The very first use of the Nigerians seemed kind of a satire on the famous Nigerian spam from the Internet.
I liked this movie quite a bit. Not a perfect movie, and the shoot-em-up stuff for about 20 minutes late in the movie got silly. But it’s definitely worthwhile.
14. Guy Stewart on Aug 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Saw D9 last night with my son and best friend and afterward spend about a half an hour talking about what we’d seen. Also, I lived in Nigeria for about 5 months right after the 1983 December “white glove” coup d’etat. The depictions of the Nigerian mafioso were spot on — BUT — there was no counter image of a sympathetic Nigerian working for “good” in a bad situation.
Our final conclusion was that this is a movie that could be used as a launching point for numerous discussions — touching on much of what has been said above as well as historical Nazi concentration camp experiments; is this actually about “apartheid”? (“Separate development”…the Google Definition page has wildly variable definitions…) or is it about Japanese internment in the US? Anyone thinking of writing a “discussion guide”?
15. Tobias Buckell on Aug 20th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Guy, yes, exactly, that is particularly what I’m trying to get across with my comment about ‘framing.’ It’s the problem when you only allow a couple characters who represent a whole race show up, for watchers they ‘stand in’ for the whole race/group.
It becomes a problem because then these groups are only represented by a certain image over and over again, begging people to make the assumption that group x = y, b/c they’ve seen it over and over again.
16. Todd on Aug 20th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
If all filmmakers had to worry about what ignorant posters like #6 were going to get out of their movies, I don’t think we would have thought provoking films like District 9.
17. Steve Burnap on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Finally saw this today…it seems like the easiest way for them to have dealt with your criticism would have been to have simply referred to them as “gangsters” rather than “Nigerian gangsters”. If you took them as black South Africans, they certainly would have been balanced by other characters. (Ok, maybe dropped the witchdoctor crap…one would expect real gangsters to have more obvious interest in pragmatic ways of getting the guns working.)
I do wonder if this comes out of particular South African attitudes given that the director is from South Africa.
Unrelated: there was one throwaway line in the snippet of the interview with the entomologist where he says something about them being “just drones” and makes some comment about “maybe the leaders all died”. This might be something supposed to highlight human attitudes, but also might be a little hint of the backstory you are looking for that explains Christopher Johnson.
18. kino on Aug 25th, 2009 at 2:22 am
I held off reading your post until today when I saw the movie and I have to say I agree with Anton P. Nym (or steve?) up @4. The Nigerians seemed to to be directly contrasted by the MNU executives and scientists. I don’t have a South African Perspective so I wouldn’t immediately agree that it needed to be framed differently. Making that argument would cause me to argue that not all movies need to be framed in a manner that is indicative of modern American racial debate.
Honestly it’s not as if any one group looked worse than the others. Nigerians were superstitious gangsters. MNU had the superstitions of corporate greed and profit and science without morals. The mercenaries looked like murderers without conscience.
I think the main problem though was that the aliens as a group didn’t seem to be very clearly depicted. Are they a hive mind with most individuals having low intelligence? Are they a clear representation of the apartheid in South Africa and how certain groups were thought of? Are they a symbol of blind stereotyping? Are they supposed to be all of these things?
The mercenaries are portrayed in the end as being in love with the destruction and killing as the aliens were in the beginning.
I think that there is just so much in this movie that it’s saying that there aren’t really as many differences as there are similarities.
As an aside one thing that was interesting was the fast food restaurant with metal bars across the counter and the manager having a shotgun.
19. Shiyuan on Aug 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I read the Racialicious article about District 9′s racism, but I didn’t connect with any of the arguments. I’m not someone that thinks, oh, critical thinking gets in the way of watching movies, why can’t people just enjoy a movie without getting all upset. I love getting upset. And I like lobbying accusations of racism as much as the next liberal blogger, but I didn’t see it in this movie. If anything, I thought the movie had a pro-rights, pro-tolerance perspective.
My response to the Racialicious article:
http://torrentmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/district-9-not-racist/
20. Wyman Cooke on Aug 29th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I haven’t seen District 9. I have seen INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. I would be happy to talk about that here if and when the subject comes up.
21. Nigerian-American on Sep 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“Not b/c Nigerian gangsters who would practice cannibalism don’t exist”
Dear Tobias,
As a Nigerian-American (who has lived in Nigeria), I just want to make a comment.
For me as a Nigerian, an equally great problem is there is such a vaccum of knowledge regarding Nigeria/Africa that many won’t help but let media garbage fill in the blanks.
You obviously are very sensitive to the race issue but your above remark suggests how embedded false assumptions and stereotypes about Nigeria/Africa are – to address your presumption, NO!, Nigerian gangsters who would practice cannibalism don’t exist!! Like, it is not even a safe assumption to make.
To clarify my point – it is no safer an assumption to make about Nigeria than it is the U.S. Are there people who “practice cannibalism” in the U.S.? Quite probably. But other than say a Jeffrey Dahmer, it is not in our public awareness. Imagine a movie having Americans and portraying them all as cannibals? Wouldn’t make sense. Neither does this.
To the extent this is going on in Tanzania, I bet it is equally on the fringes and a handful of folks. In fact, the Tanzanian has cracked down on these perpetrators. To a lesser extent, I believe mental illness plays a role. Bottom line is, it is as anamalous to Tanzanian society as it is to ours and should be viewed as such.
22. Tobias Buckell on Sep 21st, 2009 at 8:58 am
“You obviously are very sensitive to the race issue but your above remark suggests how embedded false assumptions and stereotypes about Nigeria/Africa are – to address your presumption, NO!, Nigerian gangsters who would practice cannibalism don’t exist!! Like, it is not even a safe assumption to make.”
I’m not asserting I buy the presumption in that line, you’re misreading me, and we both agree, but I can see how you misread what I was saying in the test.