On District 9, and human nature

[missroserose]

Honestly? I think District 9 is going to be like Children of Men, for me. Which is to say, almost everyone I know will enjoy it from "moderately" to "a hell of a lot", the critics will sing its praises, and I'll be left going "Did I see the same movie?"

I get the point they were making, and I certainly appreciate the darker aspects of human nature they were trying to bring to light, but the complete lack of subtlety did nothing to win me over. Combine that with the facts that the lone pair of sympathetic characters get maybe a combined 25 minutes of screentime, most of the cinematography was in that awful nausea-inducing pseudo-documentary shakycam, and (as seems to be the norm for films Peter Jackson's had a hand in) there were probably more than half an hour's worth of CGI-laden action sequences that could have been dropped completely without hurting the story one bit, and I kind of wanted my two hours back. I mean, sure, the fight scenes were choreographed well - at least I could tell what was going on at any given moment, which doesn't quite seem to be the norm for shootouts in the movies any more - but I don't go to the movies to see explosions and effects, I go to see storytelling. And the story they told frankly didn't impress me.

I think what it comes down to is, I just don't like stories that are solely about how awful people can be to each other (or aliens, although since the aliens in most stories of this nature are stand-ins for some group of people I'm counting them in the same category). I already know what happens when a minority group becomes unpopular with the majority; I already know what's going to happen when one person has something of value in an environment where most people have nothing, I already know how things will play out when everyone involved is at the lowest common denominator of trust*. These things are not interesting to me, because they're predictable - people who are scared enough will always act a certain way, and others will react to them in a same way, and it's a vicious cycle that just creates more shit for everyone. I know all of that, you don't have to write your story specifically to cram that message down my throat.

What's interesting in a story isn't when people act shitty to each other. What's interesting in a story is when people overcome that instinct - because, no matter how desperate the situation, no matter how scared the people, there's always that opportunity to overcome the think-of-only-yourself urge and make the choice to be a decent human being. Think of the ferry scene in The Dark Knight, for example; that one little moment is quite possibly the biggest triumph in the whole story, and it doesn't even belong to a 'good guy'. That is what makes people (and stories about people) interesting - not when they behave according to their predictable reptilian brain, but when their higher instincts kick in and they do something no one expects, something that is not only protective of themselves but also promotes the survival of everyone involved*, something that inspires the rest of us to be better like them. But in stories like District 9, where almost every character is functioning at the absolute lowest level of interaction*, I just can't see the point.

*There are actually terms for these concepts in game theory, which I'm good at understanding instinctively but suck at explaining because math isn't my strong suit. It's interesting stuff, though, and quite applicable in the realms of psychology and economics.

Comments

[tygenco-x.livejournal.com]

Fair warning, not entirely awake or cognitive.

Really, honestly, I haven't seen much done by Jackson since the LotR movies, and those were far from Blair-witch-esque filming style. So long as the whole damn film isn't like Cloverfield, I'll be inclined to see it more than once.
Yes the story might be predictable but society on the whole needs those reminders every now and then. For the most part, humans need reminders about how awful or creepy they can become in various situations, and it's done usually with the hope that such things can be prevented.

After seeing the photos from Detroit, the ones with the food delivery guy being escorted by armed guards and the place looking like a warzone (say, a lot like the sand-pit across the pond..) I really think that society on the whole needs a bit of a boot to the head on how stupid and horrid people can become over being greedy and completely terrified of the unknown as well as not being the superior being in the universe (which humans are not, but I'm in a minority with that feeling)

And now I'm going to go find some glucose, because I prefer being fully awake and cognitive by this hour. Apologies now if I have trodden upon any nerves or whatnot.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

No, you haven't trodden on any nerves - I'm well aware that my opinions on this matter are (apparently, judging from critical and popular reaction to movies like these, even from people whom I normally agree with) in the minority. And if that kind of thing does it for you, go for it - far be it from me to tell anyone they can't enjoy different things than I do. :) I was just trying to articulate why it was that *I* always feel a bit left in the dark myself when it comes to stories like these.

[alexmegami]

I think I enjoyed it marginally more than you. I had similar problems (although mine was not so much the shakycam but that they kept switching from 'real' footage to 'not-real' footage, which annoyed me... if your first 20 minutes are a documentary, STAY WITH THAT.)

Also, I kind of felt like... okay, the aliens are obviously a stand-in for Oppressed Group X, in this case black South Africans most obviously. I found it seriously problematic that 99% of the aliens were, as Patrick described them, "worker ants" (presumably... we only hear them described that way by the Nice Human Folks, and clearly they are frigging brilliant, but... argh), so they're functionally idiots. Except for the One Shining Hope of Alienity.

So 1) 99% of your black-people stand-ins are violent idiots
2) except for the one Good One
3) who will be the credit savior of his race
[[4), which has nothing to do with the above problem but is a separate eye-rolly thing: Whose name is Chris and will be returning in three days years to heal the sick and save his people.]]

...yeah.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Yeah, one of the things Brian was saying was that he felt like the trailer was incredibly misleading, because in the trailer (and lots of the other promotional materials) there were aliens being questioned in dark rooms (obviously reminiscent of Gitmo et al) about their weapons capabilities and intentions. Which is to say, they were holding conversations, and came across as intelligent, sentient creatures. And (as you point out) 99% of the aliens seen in the movie appear to be incapable of even that much. I realize that in a slum nobody's at their best, but it would've helped play on my sympathies for the aliens a lot more if we had seen more than one example of an alien character who was more than the humans said they were. As it was, I was just like "Pssh, no wonder they all don't like you, you're acting like trash so they treat you like trash." Which ties back into the whole lowest-common-denominator thing I was mentioning earlier.

I hadn't even noticed that particular eye-rolly-thing, but it's definitely pretty eye-rolly. There are even other parallels, if you want to go looking - the only time Jesus got truly angry (in the stories) was when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and the only time we see Christopher pick up a weapon is when he's assaulting the MNU building. The rest of the time he's almost annoyingly passive and nonviolent...

[gracewanderer.livejournal.com]

Glad you posted this, I was thinking about seeing it but will spend my film dollars elsewhere instead.

Then again maybe I should see it so I can calibrate the scale in my head which tells me the extent to which I agree with you on movies.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

If you think you'd like it, far be it from me to tell you not to see it. That's why, when I give something a negative review, I try to go to the effort to explain what it is that sat wrong with me, so that people can judge for themselves whether they think it's something they'd like. (Well, that and because I tend to be obsessively analytical when it comes to emotional reactions.) I know my tastes aren't universal.

All that said, if you are in the mood for a somewhat tense and well-done (if slightly ponderously paced) sci-fi drama rather than an action-oriented alien shoot-em-up, I just saw Moon and was rather impressed by it. I think you'd appreciate that one, but then, my scale as to how much we agree on movies isn't quite calibrated either. :)

[gracewanderer.livejournal.com]

I had friends want to go see it but we haven't gone yet. It wasn't at the top of my list anyway. I'm sure I'll see it sometime at Ft. Huachuca though - you know how muscle bound, testosterone-addled soldiers can be.

Incidentally, I was wondering re: pictures of attractive men - is this considered "muscle bound"?

http://games2009.crossfit.com/SoCalDavidMillarStepup_th.jpg

Because whether girls think that's sexy or not, it's what I'm shooting for :p

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing it's more of a subjective kind of thing. I personally wouldn't consider that muscle bound, or at least unattractively so - "muscle bound" to me brings up images of grotesquely overpumped dudes. You know, the "steroids and eight hours a day at the gym" type, not the "takes care of their physique" type.