Movie/TV recommendations

[Scrobbs]

Ah! That's prolly why I inferred they were a workers caste...because they said so

[Chris]

Yes, but was no-one else uncomfortable with the implication that everyone would be better off if they just went home? That seems to have a rather risky analogue.

The film was good, but I kind of felt like the allegorical setting and the action film ending were a little at odds with one another.

Of course that's an uncomfortable implication, but that's what makes it interesting. Were this situation to actually play out in reality, is there any possible way to claim that it WOULDN'T have been better if the aliens were able to just leave? The aliens certainly WANTED to leave and the humans wanted them to as well.

Obviously there isn't a direct one-to-one parallel between this situation and human apartheid. The initial causes of the situation in the film are not the same as the initial causes for most real-world analogues, and even as an allegory, the fact that the two groups are of completely different species does make the whole thing much less applicable (and in some cases really made the whole thing silly to me, as in the case of interspecies prostitution or whatever, I mean give me a goddamn break).

But, generally speaking, I found the theme of "I wish they'd just leave" to be one of the most potent aspects of the film.

I do agree that the action movie ending had a cheapening effect overall. It was filled with a surprising number of incredibly stock action movie shots, when the movie up until that point really had done little of that. It seemed ridiculous.

[JonCole]

Just as a side-note, I think that anyone seeking some more conversation about District 9 should check out the Filmspotting episode for it, one of their best for sure:

http://www.filmspotting.net/2009/08/fs-269-district-9-top-5-john-hughes.html

[James]

Of course that's an uncomfortable implication, but that's what makes it interesting. Were this situation to actually play out in reality, is there any possible way to claim that it WOULDN'T have been better if the aliens were able to just leave? The aliens certainly WANTED to leave and the humans wanted them to as well.

Oh, totally. As I said, as the film presents it, everyone would be better off if the aliens went home. This is not in itself problematic, but I guess I have difficulty separating the elements intended to apply to humanity from those that don't, or possibly I just don't like it because it seems messy and detrimental to the clarity of either idea. If you're going to make a film about such a politically-charged subject, people are going to expect you to have something to say about it, and I'd be very wary of sending out the wrong message. Then again, if you go too far down that road you get tedious preachy bullshit that serves better as a pamphlet than a work of drama. Which is why it's probably good that I'm not making films.

I'm pretty certain that some racial separatists claim that segregation would be better for all parties, and elements of this film could conceivably be taken to be compatible with that way of thinking. On the other hand, the aliens do not appear to have arrived deliberately, so I guess the analogy doesn't fully stand. It was just an impression that struck me as I watched the film.

Obviously there isn't a direct one-to-one parallel between this situation and human apartheid. The initial causes of the situation in the film are not the same as the initial causes for most real-world analogues, and even as an allegory, the fact that the two groups are of completely different species does make the whole thing much less applicable (and in some cases really made the whole thing silly to me, as in the case of interspecies prostitution or whatever, I mean give me a goddamn break).

Yeah, I think I expect too much of analogies.

I do agree that the action movie ending had a cheapening effect overall. It was filled with a surprising number of incredibly stock action movie shots, when the movie up until that point really had done little of that. It seemed ridiculous.

With those sorts of things I often wonder whether the people behind the film had a panic about keeping things exciting, and threw in some explosions and guts (or nudity and sex or whatever) to keep people's base desires satisfied, or if it was more a matter of personal gratification, or if the writer really had two different concepts in mind and just crammed them both in there for efficiency's sake. Or perhaps it was a conscious effort to maintain some sort of connection with the canned Halo project. The specifics might not be identical, but if people can at least associate the guy who was going to do the Halo movie that they expected to be awesome with this new movie that has aliens and shooting in it, they'll probably secure a good portion of extra ticket sales.

Still, it bothers me when characters who are supposedly having some sort of personal revelation of morality or something go around shooting people at best indirectly responsible for their problems willy-nilly. The fact that all these guys, who are effectively UN soldiers guarding what they've been told to guard, are gleefully exploded was quite off-putting to me. Judging by some of his earlier films, I suspect that effect might have been something to do with Peter Jackson's involvement. Anyway, it's generally very risky to consider that the countless fatalities in films (or games) theoretically contain just as much humanity as the lead character or characters. Anyway, I'm rambling.

[Scrobbs]

I disagree about the UN soldiers part. They were supposed to appear to be UN soldiers, perhaps act in their capacity, but MNU was an arms company and they are effectively a private army. I didn't have a massive problem with it.

[DanJW]

Pages of thumbs spoiler tags are always a good sign for a film.

"I give this film

???

out of

???

" - IGN.com

[ysbreker]

Damn you all for getting to see District 9 way before me It´s not out until October 8 here:(:(

[Ben X]

I guess that's why they call it sleepytown...

[ThunderPeel2001]

Ok, so I like an illusion and all that, it's like trying to solve a puzzle. For those of you outside of the UK, a magician here called Derren Brown "predicted" our national lottery, live on TV last week.

Here the video of him supposedly doing it (it went out live and you could switch between channels to see the numbers come out).

4_2h4UH1qaM

So, the first thing is: Why didn't he reveal the numbers beforehand. I don't believe for a second that it's because of any law (although I know they're weirdly strict about it)... so it's obviously part of the illusion, right?

Well in his follow up episode he promised he would reveal precisely how he did it... but he gave the audience two solutions to pick from: A whole big long story about "crowd thinking" and automatic writing (you can see first explanation in full here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4xuLJY_74 )

OR (skip to 4 mins in)...

UhTLh2S0S6g#t=4m00s

Now what's interesting to think about is this: If he DID do something illegal, which admittedly would seem rather bullish for a performer with a healthy career, he'd have to do a few things. So let's think about it: We've got an inside man who's going to put some weighted balls in the lottery machine. If we get caught, we'd be in some serious trouble.

So firstly, we couldn't literally reveal the numbers before the lottery -- the people who own the lottery would probably have strong grounds for a legal investigation if we did. We couldn't make any money off our prediction for precisely the same reason. (Remember: People who are TOO lucky in Vegas get criminally investigated, and guess what: they're always cheating. Nobody is consistently lucky.)

We'd have to come up with a "plausible" reason that could have explained it using non-illegal methods, and by not showing the numbers we of course leave the door open to simple trickery.

Now Brown's non-illegal explanation goes like this: The crowd predicts 1 number, then 3 and finally 4. You'll notice, however, that the final numbers are calculated by some guy who had "difficulty" doing the automatic writing: He was a stooge. But why? To give the impression that the crowd method was in fact "progressing".

It's just a cover for him really fixing the lottery!

Of course... THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS ME TO THINK!

He gives a whimsical answer for the romantics and a "hard" answer for the cynics... when the most likely explanation is simply this:

-rHPh5Xanss

Quite a showman to turn what was most definitely basic computer specialfx into a national discussion that even our top newspapers have written about. That's magic

[Scrobbs]

I think that's just it. He's an entertainer. An accomplished one at that.

[Nachimir]

http://botherer.org/2009/09/12/far-too-many-words-on-derren-brown-the-lottery/ <--- Interesting argument that Derren Brown, with that "explanation" special, is basically now perpetuating the kind of magical thinking he purports to debunk, so can sod right off.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Oh I totally agree. He's a magician first and foremost... but in order to get people to believe in what you're doing you've got to be very clever these days. 100 years ago telling people it was spirits or magic was enough, but people are too cynical for all that now, so it requires a higher level of showmanship.

What better than a magician who doesn't believe in magic, and a mind-reader who doesn't believe in ESP. Very good

[DanJW]

It's all in the patter.

Someone once told me that the National Lottery Live isn't actually live - the balls have been chosen by a much more secure machine a few minutes before. If this were true then Derren Brown would just need an agreement or an insider to tell him the result before the Lottery TV show aired.

Don't forget that magic is slight of hand; making people look one way while doing the trick somewhere else. The "three possible explanations" are a wonderful example of this, as they immediately stop people from trying to think up a fourth or fifth etc.

[Thrik]

Anyone who thinks Derren Brown really predicted the lottery is a twat and deserves to be taken in by the magic he purports to debunk.

How many times does the guy need to clarify that everything he does is a trick? The only difference here is that a key ingredient of this trick actually working is to completely fool the audience into believing it isn't a trick — which seems to have worked very well for some reason going off how many people seem to have fallen for it.

[Roderick]

I don't see it as hypocritical that he's a skeptic yet also a professional 'mentalist' kind of magician. It's quite clear when he's 'performing' and when he's truly advocating an opinion on the way of the world.

About District 9:

The biggest grievance I have with the movie is a basic storytelling one. Somewhere halfway the movie the lead character pulls such a dick move (hitting the alien with a shovel for selfish reasons to get cured, thereby blowing the whole race's chance to escape) that it became impossible for me to feel sympathy for him anymore. For me and the others watching, it lasted until the very very end of the movie before we kind of rooted for him again. After the betrayal, we all thought 'okay, just go and die now, you selfish bastard'. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the intention of the movie to make viewers hate the lead character, so it's a huge mistake in terms of storytelling. Especially since the lead character is basically the only emotionally accomplished or mildly interesting character in the movie (the alien I couldn't really relate to, even if I sympathized with his plight). Blowing him up really fucked up the movie for us. That and the incessant overuse of 'fuck off' as the character's dialogue. It's about the only reply that he has to everything that's happening. So despite me finding him an interesting character (starting out as a weird-ass softie, a racial apologist), he quickly becomes unlikeable. To me, that was far more appalling than the sudden action plotline or the 'negroes be scary' theme.

[DanJW]

I enjoyed District 9. Not a masterpiece but quite refreshing. Some of the things you guys have cited as problems, I see as avoidance of cliché, eg

the protagonist being a dick, the aliens being dumb and disgusting (rather than obviously sympathetic) etc

In fact that kind of captures something about the film - it never plays up to your hollywood-trained sympathies.

James, I think the killing was addressed in the film:

Christopher: I thought you said not kill anyone?

Wickus: He was shooting me!

On the alien society:

Although the humans mention that the Prawn are probably a worker caste, the aliens themselves never clarify this point as far as I was aware. Christopher's greater intelligence and knowledge might be a result of age or simple education or some more alien concept. The introduction of the black liquid had me thinking it was some kind of Royal Jelly, that turns a worker into a queen (and Wickus would end up the queen). But I guess not.

[James]

James, I think the killing was addressed in the film:

Christopher: I thought you said not kill anyone?

Wickus: He was shooting me!

That's kind of movie logic, though. I don't know how they expected to break into a well-guarded facility using explosions and not get shot at. It's almost as bad as the Matrix's "shoot anyone who might be an agent; anyone might become an agent; shoot anyone" crap. I guess the organization are portrayed as pretty shitty, but I find it difficult when a film making an attempt at seriousness allows its heroes to kill more people than most humans ever have.

[DanJW]

Hah, yeah that Matrix bit always bothered me too. I think they did that so as to avoid having to write anything for the blue-pills.

Wickus was pretty desperate though. Perhaps he was hoping that the MNU forces would be smart enough not to fight against alien weaponry. Anyway, he is a bit of a dick when you get down to it.

Other than that, it's an action movie; people gots ta get shot.

[James]

I find it difficult when a film making an attempt at seriousness allows its heroes to kill more people than most humans ever have.

I would like to point out that this is also a problem with almost all computer games.

[DanJW]

I was thinking about that while watching that Film Noir documentary. In film noir, every act of violence, every killing, is loaded with meaning and drama. Our current screen entertainment has suffered a massive creep in the number of shootings needed to be significant.

[ThunderPeel2001]

There was definitely a moment in film history when violence became cinematic in and of itself. (I'm guessing it was Peckinpah.)

Rodi:

I agree with Dan JW that it's a Hollywood cliche that the hero should always be likeable. It's something that Kubrick hated, for example, which is why a lot of his films deliberately make zero effort to have the character ingratiate themselves with the audience. I don't think there's anything wrong with showing the "hero" as flawed and human. I think most people, given their own imminent demise, might become a little selfish if they think there was something they could do to stop it.

Saying all of that, I didn't like the shovel bit either. I think it would have worked better if they'd given him more of a reason to do it: Like Christopher literally saying "you're not coming, bye!".

I loved the main character's use of Afrikaans "fok"/"fokken"... No idea why, but I did

I think the biggest problem the sequel is going to have is this: The aliens want to leave. They have the technology to do so. The humans want them to leave (or at least, most of them do). So it's more of a case of, "bye then! come back and visit (under breath) not any time soon!". So there's no conflict anymore.

[Roderick]

I do agree that lead characters don't necessarily have to be super sympathetic. In fact, that's exactly what I liked about Kane & Lynch. But with the shovel seem, it seems so likely that it was a mistake, that they never meant for the audience to start hating him, which was what happened. I don't know, you just can't do that if the whole movie revolves around you rooting for the main guy.

Also, I think the plot in District 9 wasn't very properly wrapped up, but that's the fault of the movie. I think I'd hate seeing a sequel just to wrap it up. Really, is District 9 the sort of movie that needs a sequel? The answer is no, no, no.

[brkl]

I don't agree with you there, Rodi. I don't see how it could've been a mistake. It made me feel uncomfortable, but I always thought that was specifically what they were aiming for.

[James]

I am totally OK with breaking Hollywood convention and not having a sympathetic lead, but it very much seems to me that at the end of D9 you're meant to be rooting for Wickus, and I kind of was, because the other guys were sort of dicks as well, but it wasn't that long ago he was being an utterly selfish prick. I guess I can't guarantee I wouldn't act in a similarly deplorable manner in the same situation, and perhaps we're meant to accept him despite his flaws, but it seemed somewhat off. I suppose he redeems himself by kind of sacrificing himself at the end, though. I think it's particularly problematic, though, because it was such an act of betrayal. If a character stabs another in the back so selfishly, it makes you question any apparently benevolent motives they might have. Which, again, may be realistic, but it seems a bit at odds with all the heroism stuff.

I shouldn't overstate my opposition. I enjoyed the film. There were just things that bothered me about it.

[Scrobbs]

I liked that it wasn't wrapped up and further, I don't think it needs a sequel either.