I lived in Durban for two years…. I was a “European” under the Apartheid regime.
I don’t know about DISTRICT 9, haven’t seen it, but I do suspect that people who don’t know South Africa firsthand are going to see a “different” movie.
There is that whole thing which I’ll call “the banality of evil”.
When a society is evil or has wrong ideas, it doesn’t feel dramatic or important when you’re living in it…. It just feels normal.
I’m sure many of us—- who never knew nazi germany—- feel that living under the regime must’ve been terribly emotional and exciting, all the time. Our movies tell us as much. When in fact, truth be known, the masses knew little of what was going on, and for most Gentiles, life was probably banal, predictable, uneventful. Or at least felt that way.
I lived under Apartheid for two years…. yet never heard a single voice— white, black or otherwise—— criticize it or demonstrate against it. Evil is often banal, rarely exciting.
It is only through hindsight that we can fully take stock of the moral record of any nation.
Am I making any sense at all?
I have not seen DISTRICT 9 yet, but it seems to me that Ana’s original post addressed the nature of the (individual and collective) film spectator . Does living in a society give you “insider knowledge” that gives you a better perspective on the issues and events depicted (even in a fictional film) OR does being an insider warp your view of those same issues.
David seems to suggest the latter above — that most South African audience members were inured to apartheid and hence maybe didn’t make a big deal of its latter-day representation in DISTRICT 9.
Another issue Ana raises is why this particular film was so popular. Would it have been as effective if it had taken place in Australia or Sri Lanka, which have different histories from So. Africa, OR does it have some “universal” qualities (i.e., “action”) that would have ensured popularity anywhere?
Thanks for your comments, both of you. I was initially thrown by David’s response because i couldn’t quite work out why it felt so out of kilter with what I’d been thinking about with regard to District 9 (even while i agreed broadly with the points he was making about evil regimes). Frank’s comments helped me to get the connection (and misconnection).
Yes, my point was that as an audience South Africans will instantly recognise the apartheid allegory and pick up the myriad visual markers of the operations of the apartheid regime as well as understand the undertones of many of the social interactions in far more nuanced and socially contextualised ways than those who are not familiar with our (post)apartheid society. And does it mean that for non-South Africans the film just works on broader ‘universal’ themes of intolerance and oppression? And if so, does this difference constitute a markedly different reading of the film or not?
David, while the apartheid state depended for its ‘success’ on the naturalisation – and therefore invisibility – of the workings of its warped and oppressive regime, since its political demise in 1994, apartheid ideologies and their consequences have been laid bare for all to see and the evil has no chance of being banal any longer, to use your phrase. We are all ultra conscious of it, what it was and what it did – although some are less aware of its long-term effects than others. Ok… don’t get me started on this… So there’s little chance that the apartheid-ness of District 9 will seem banal to most South Africans. Although I entirely agree that this ‘insider knowledge’ plays an ambiguous role in the film’s reading. We are far more implicated in the story than the casual ‘outsider’ – and where do we position ourselves? With whom do we identify? And to what extent do these processes ‘warp’ our viewing? Not to mention the need to look at how the film is constructed to position the viewer in particular ways, etc…
Hmm, all very interesting – imagine the conversation we could have had had you both actually seen the film! Is it less widespread or popular than has been suggested?
I have to say, I hope this is not any kind of aparthetid allegory, because the fact that “black Africans” have been allegorically transformed into “hideous alien bug-things who invaded Earth for no reason” would be among the most offensive things I have ever heard in my life. That is my uninformed, non-South African opinion.
sorry, double post
I’ve not yet seen “District 9”, but I do know some people do not regard films from their own country as being “realistic” about their homeland.
However, I think some people do not understand that certain films are parodies of their local cultures, or are somehow exagerrated for artisitic or thematic impact.
I know some people believe East German films were not true representations of East Germany because they were shaped so much by the East German government propaganda machine. I would say the fact they WERE shaped by the government propaganda machine makes them all the more reflective of East German life during the Berlin Wall period, since the government was so dominant in everyday life. Also, if you listen closely, you can sometimes “read between the lines” and catch snippets of subversive sentiment in these films. That’s hardly “unrepresentative” of East German reality. A number of East German films had a rebellious voice struggling to be heard and these films, rather than being simply illusions for entertainment, now take on a new, historically fascinating value when viewed decades later.
Ana :)
I am intrigued by the widespread box office success of District 9, a low budget scifi film set in Johannesburg, South Africa – just a few kilometres down the road from where I live. We all know that the reading of a film is shaped by the context of the viewers. As an ‘insider’ to the sociopolitical SA setting, I am aware of the extent to which the film draws on our recent history – sometimes in ways that are unlikely to be picked up by even reasonably well informed ‘outsiders’. Does it matter? The fact that it’s been so well received suggests that it probably doesn’t. And, in fact, why has it been so popular? Is it just it’s action-film appeal or is there more to it than that? I’m all ears…