Without long chase scenes, fancy weapons and bodies blowing up, it would not keep the interest of the average sci-fi buff. A film has to be entertaining to get an audience. It’s ten times better than most of the crap they’ve released this summer.

This review seems a bit unfair... the whites in the film definitely didn't come off looking like angels and were the most vicious. I came out siding with the creatures that weren't from Earth.

<i>This review seems a bit unfair… the whites in the film definitely didn’t come off looking like angels and were the most vicious. I came out siding with the creatures that weren’t from Earth.</i>


True. But the film's deciption of black Africans were worse. Especially its deciption of Nigerians. I wonder if this film will be banned in Nigeria.

I support rigorous even harsh criticism of film and art but I dont in anyway get the sense from Sergio there view of a good sci fi flick might be from this review. Sergio's criticism of the films race politics seem sharp and legitimate though it would seem that the "main enemy" in the film are represented by white racist bureaucrats who at least once or twice fall into over the top caricatures as well.

Its striking to see D9's race politics compared to noted right wing film maker Michael Bay's sambots in the transformers. I also dont see District 9 as being "Equal parts Cloverfield and War of the Worlds," at all though the film has some similarities with Alien Nation. And by the way has Sergio seen an advance screening of Inglorious Basterds cause it's not out yet.

Normally, I may actually agree with a review of this sort, but it strikes me as totally the flip-side of liberal multi-culturalism. What would have been the proper depiction of African criminal warlords? Is there even one, or should they be out of question for any attempt of depiction?

Quite seriously, its not as if this analogy hasn't any current modern equivalents - has anyone heard of the stories Bambuti (Pygmy) people of the Congo and their tale of how they've been raped and even cannibalized by one or another warring faction based on the idea they would gain magical powers?

Finally saw the film last night and have to agree with a majority of the review. Although i will say that the style of the film had to be so to get across to its intended audience.

As for its portrayal of blacks, the most offense part has to be the witchdoctor business. Shinethepath mentions that there are cannibalistic warlords, but how common are they? Just making the warlords warlords would have been enough.

I would point out though that the lead charters black assistant is the only human character that does any good (he uncovers a government testing program on the prawns).

Even more noticeable to me was the portrayal of females in the film. The only female characters were a timid wife and a witchdoctor. Neither character playing a large role in the film. The only other female is a prostitute.

So much for trying to make a statement on the need for equality.

Whoa, talk about oversensitive on the black-white issue.

Black with a capital "B"? You are weird...

You think they should change the movie to be more politically correct?

Maybe Asians should be offended that they weren't even in it, let alone given speaking roles?
Perhaps disabled people should be offended because the only one portrayed in the movie was a criminal cannibal?
Maybe white people should be offended that every white person in the film was an a*hole or otherwise unpleasant?

Or maybe we should forget about all that stuff, because "fixing" it would have made the movie unbelievable/ridiculous/just plain bad...

It was in Africa. There are no white slums in Africa, let alone in South Africa. There are no white warlords in Africa. And what colour are African witch doctors? You guessed it....

It's not the film makers being naughty, they're just being realistic.

Get over it, and stop thinking about people's skin colour.

Dude, are you from Africa or have you ever been there? No? Then shut the fuck up. The way people were portrayed in the movie is how it is in South Africa. The majority of black people in South Africa is unfortunately poor and live in these conditions. So stop raving about race and enjoy the movie for what its is

I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen this discussion degenerate to the level of the last two comments.

Hobo, you haven't seen a white warlord in africa? try AFRICOM.

You haven't seen a white 'witch doctor' in africa? try all the white missionaries over there right now.

Stop thinking about people's skin color? It's your apparent inability to think critically at all that leads you to such arrogantly expressed ignorance.

Brother or sister, try freeing your head - choose your own method, but please proceed with some urgency.

The race card is being over-played here. First off, this film is set in a black township and if you have any experience of South Africa, you will understand that by and large, Nigerians control the lion's share of criminal activity in South Africa. This sadly, is fact. Adopting a PC approach to everything will unfortunately not change the facts. There are also some very decent Nigerians living in South Africa. The director has chosen to use a Nigerian as one of the villains (to supplement the white villains). If films that draw on the facts are going to be dictated to by the PC brigade, just because somebody does not like the facts, what a sad and sorry state we will be in.

The issue with the witch-doctor and cannibalism is very real, not just in Africa but in "civilized" places like England, where "Muti" killings (killings to obtain the body parts of children to use in magic practices) have made headline news. Just see the "Thames Torso" case as an example, amongst others. Surprise, surprise, the common factor in muti killings are African witch-doctors operating in secret in 1st world countries. It's not nice, but sadly, it does happen and sadly, body parts are eaten as part of these rituals.

Does this make anybody think that because they are also black, Will Smith or Barak Obama or Morgan Freeman approve of these practices, thus tarring all black people as savage? No, that is completely ludicrous. The fact that Africans are involved is inconsequential. It just does happen.

One film about an African setting does not set out to portray all blacks as murdering psychopaths, just as Schindlers List does not label all whites as mass murderers.

get off your ebony tower and watch the movie....properly, this film is entirely based on discrimination and how everyones capable of xenophobia. skin colour isnt the issue its people fearing what is different...tell me, how could they make a film on discrimination without a sniff of 'DISCRIMINATION'!! Perception in South Africa is invariably coloured by race, and perceptions of crime are no different, this isnt a propergander movie its a sci/fi fusion of what is actually happening. People can bitch and whine about what a movie shows and happily live in a fantasy world of butterflys and compromise but face facts, every 26 seconds someone is raped by a black man or men in south africa, now im not saying all black men are rapists but if you have a problem with how a ethnic group is categorized or represented take it it up with the national demographics and statistics 'NOT' with the film which actually, if anything, highlights the issues that surround us

Its pretty painful to see a conversation about under-the-surface (or not so under the surface) racism in a popular film become a lever to further present racist imagery to readers of this site (or anyone who googles "district 9.") This set of comments (see the rape reference above) exactly illustrates the danger that movies like this present - they become a platform for some nasty stuff to surface and gain even more traction. Forgive the long rant - but more has to be said about this movie and this comment.

I was appalled by District 9 (yes - even as I was entertained by its form and could appreciate aspects of the film. This, to me, only makes the impact of the film, well, worse). The racist imagery against African people is unmistakable and intolerable. However, I think most people outside South Africa missed some of the worst racist constructs in the film simply because they haven't been exposed to the cultural forms that racist imagery takes on in its circulation in South Africa. Most of us don't know the specific history that appears to have influenced the plot of the film and makes this imagery even more disturbing.

First, lets look at the analogy the filmmaker is posing to the audience by titling the film "District 9." Note, numbered districts are not the norm these days in South Africa, and a "9" is an upside down "6." Given this, it is hard to watch a South African film about forced relocation titled "District 9" and not assume that the filmmaker is making a comment about an area of Cape Town known as District 6, perhaps the most famous symbol of Apartheid's policy of forced relocation in South Africa's history. To people who know the history, the similarities between what happened in District 6 to real people and what happened to "prawns" in District 9 are unmistakable.

District 6 in Cape Town was a vibrant community of workers, artisans, merchants, artists from all backgrounds, many of whom were descended from slaves brought from Malaysia by the Dutch East India Company during the colonial administration. When in 1950 the Apartheid regime declared regions of Cape Town "whites only" by the Group Areas Act, District 6 became the only area near the central city in which people of all shades of "brown" or "black" could live. The district was known for its lively jazz, spicy food, and deeply connected sense of community, but also for interracial mixing, gambling, poverty and, given its proximity to the docks, prostitution. Interracial mixing was an affront to the policies of Apartheid (which, euphemistically, means "separate development"), and so the regime deemed it a slum unfit for habitation and in 1966 declared it "whites only." Like in District 9, the administration circulated documents demanding people "voluntarily" move; and, when that didn't work, like in District 9, the regime began violent forced removals in 1968, ultimately moving 60,000 residents to racially segregated areas in the sandy Cape Flats far from town.

Clearly the filmmaker was making a statement, using the history of District 6 to illustrate a point. The question is, what was the point? Shots of footage all too similar to the anti-immigrant violence that erupted in South Africa last year clearly indicate the film is making a statement against the xenophobic violence. Yet then there were the characterizations of immigrant Nigerians as violent druglords who eat people's arms. Hmm. While a commentary on culture, the film itself is also a cultural artifact and has cultural impact. What culture is it communicating?

Unfortunately, in many ways it seems to be conveying a culture of apartheid. This is frightening, particularly in its more subtle manifestations. Consider one example from the film that resonates with Apartheid culture. Apartheid, like is current defacto non-legislated version of racial segregation, involved not just instilling laws to bolster its power, but also instilling cultural values. Proponents argued that the cultures of African people were different from white culture, and because of these differences Black people and White people needed to "develop" "separately." One of the examples of "differences" used to distance people from each other and one that still circulate in conversation in South Africa is that of food. When driving in townships is not uncommon to hear white visitors, even social workers or teachers, comment to other whites about the smell of cooking food, or the "offal" shops in the poor townships that sell the internal organs of animals. "Disgusting. Can you believe they eat that?" "How sad." etc. It winds up being a twisted mix of what sounds like pity at what is seen as the desperation of poverty, but also more deeply represents a revulsion for the cultures of African peoples. These two feelings become intertwined - liberal pity and defensive, conservative racism - to form a potent combo designed to differentiate the "self" from the "other." This is certainly not unique to South Africa, and is probably a common feature of apartheid everywhere, as it certainly is here in the US. I'm sure we've all heard it: those expressions of concern for "poor" people that often wind up sounding more like denigration than anything else.

Given the pervasiveness of racialized discourses of food in South Africa, I guess one should not be surprised to see food play a major role in district 9, which, after all, is a commentary against prejudice, yes? But what a confused argument. Lets consider food in the film. Were we supposed to feel terrible that people ate "cat food" in district 9? Or were we supposed to be horrified by the anti-"prawn" statements of whites who commented that it "drove them crazy" like "catnip?" Not sure, but the viewer may assume that maybe those statements were right, because we, the audience, actually saw "prawns" running around, snatching it up, fighting over it. Clearly they were high... so, were they crazy? Animal like? Hungry? Primitive? Ugly? Scary? Were we supposed to be disgusted by their lining up to purchase hanging entrails and fly ridden hunks of raw meat for supper? If so, were the "prawns" themselves disgusting, or was poverty disgusting? Or, did poverty actually make them really disgusting? If so, it really wasn't their fault. But still, ick. They are ripping people to shreds, fighting, generally behaving badly...etc. Of course, one could argue, not all of them were gross. A few of them were revolutionary. (Well, actually not revolutionary, they wanted to leave and go home. But still, they were smart, even the kid.) Some of the oppressed "prawns" were building spaceships and all... despite that most of them acted like animals, ripping people to shreds, grunting, hunting in packs.. etc etc.

So, what is the audience supposed to think and feel about the "prawns" overall? Disgusting, or super smart? Or, was it just that some prawns were smart and could become global leaders, but most are really animals (even if it is not their fault)?

Hmm.. that hits a little too close to tea party talk in the US, and certainly too close to Apartheid views of District 6 in the 1960s.

Equally confusing was the not-so-sublte commentary on hybridity. One major claim for shutting district 6 down was that interracial mixing was going on - thereby causing a polluting of the white bloodline. Apartheid declared that any white person caught breeding with a so-called "colored" person would himself be declared "colored." It was important for apartheid that whites not have alliances across color lines. The main character of District 9 is accused of having sex with aliens, and therefore causing his own intensifying hybridity. Must be a commentary on mixing, yes? Issues of "what side are you on," etc are all in there. But, then there is the flaw. The charachters hybridity was temporary. Like under apartheid, ultimately he became one of "them," in form and action. He became a prawn... by being infected with the juices of one. Hmmm again.

Anyway, back to the point.

Lucky ends the last comment with the unfortunate statement:

<q cite="People can bitch and whine about what a movie shows and happily live in a fantasy world of butterflys and compromise but face facts, every 26 seconds someone is raped by a black man or men in south africa, now im not saying all black men are rapists but if you have a problem with how a ethnic group is categorized or represented take it it up with the national demographics and statistics ‘NOT’ with the film which actually, if anything, highlights the issues that surround us">

Like the film, the comment comes from the othering gaze of "us" at "them." The comment essentially says, "Look, I'm not saying they are all rapists.. but just look at the stats" (which, btw, are broken down racially). The comment is stated as if to imply, "just look at the stats - which happen to show a lot of em are rapists. " And, its presented with all the innocence of, "Hey, I'm just saying..." ). The comment does not question the categories and frameworks in play when stats are presented that "every 26 seconds someone is raped by a black man" in South Africa. This is the same problem with the film, which does not question the images used when deciding to present degraded life of the "prawns" - ie, "I'm not saying that all of them are violent, eat cat food, are dirty and grunting, but just look at the images I'm presenting you with..." "Hey, I'm just saying..." Like the film, the comment about race and rape itself purveys a culture that reinforces nasty stereotypes. No joke, women in South Africa suffer a shockingly high rate of rape. Every 26 seconds a woman is raped by a man. The struggle against rape has nothing to do with race, so why state it in the stats? (After all, South Africa is overwhelmingly a Black country. Would we need to say when talking about Sweden, "Every x seconds a woman is raped by a White man"? ) Why put that in? And why does the first full blown feature film to come out of the 'new' South Africa need to include all the same old racist images that have plague that society for decades?

sorry - this was the unfortunate statement mentioned above that should have been quoted:

"People can bitch and whine about what a movie shows and happily live in a fantasy world of butterflys and compromise but face facts, every 26 seconds someone is raped by a black man or men in south africa, now im not saying all black men are rapists but if you have a problem with how a ethnic group is categorized or represented take it it up with the national demographics and statistics ‘NOT’ with the film which actually, if anything, highlights the issues that surround us"

I disagree with the movie's racial problems that you see. I think what you are doing is seeing what you want to see rather than the actual message/metaphor teh Nigerians represent. Of course, I'm not saying that you see racism because you are a racist, that would be stupid, what I mean is, you see racism because you werelooking for it. The shock value of black people doing something culturally regarded as inferior like belief in voodoo magic through cannibalism triggers a "WRONG" switch in you, but if you look at the context of Johannesburg and the context of the movie, you'll see that while otehr black characters don't get as much screen time as the Nigerians do, their inclusion isn't less important.

I have written a post on why I think the portrayal of the Nigerians isn't racist but a way of representing another form of segregation, rooted more on 'us' and 'them' regardless of race, 'us' being people who try not to mess with other people too much and 'them' being criminals, homeless people, and people with different cultures/with inhuman morals. Also, a take on why Zimbabwean immigrants in Joburg aren't mentioned or depicted at all.

The post is here: http://beardo.livejournal.com/25579.html

I apologize for all my typos, I hit send before rereading my comment, and English is my second language.