San Francisco, 12:13 PM
Mon Dec 21
19 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
I got less of an apartheid takeaway from District 9, even though it's shot in South Africa, than I did a "weapons dealers are the scum of the earth" message. I can understand some kind of quarantine required for the aliens, and so didn't jump to the apartheid analogy. But all the really horrible things done in this movie were done in the name of money for arms dealing. Sadly I found this narrative totally believable.
The social structure of the aliens was something I got early on. This was handled very well! Some of the aliens are so coarse in their behavior and limited in their comprehension of English, while Christopher was very knowledgeable about the eviction notice legalese, for example. I also appreciated the care that was taken in making the "skin" tone of the different aliens vary from one to the other. Some of them were rust-colored while others were bluish.
If you couldn't tell, I adored this movie. I really hope Christopher comes back for Wikis in a sequel! (while exacting revenge for the aliens used for vivisection).
Nice interview, Charlie. When Blomkamp spoke at my work recently he mentioned that, outside of South Africa, people thought as you did that "The aliens in the film are standing in for South Africans during Apartheid." However he, and audiences in South Africa, saw them as standing in for the current Zimbabwian refugee situation. He also spoke about how he didn't expect a lot of the humor to translate well; specifically, the character if Van De Merwe being a stereotype of a particular type of Jo-burg bureaucrat. I suppose it's a sign of good art that the humor came across and the politics is capable of supporting multiple interpretations.
@riotnrrd: Which is why, I hope one of 'Hollywood''s responses, to the blistering commercial success of 'District 9', will be to give people like South Africa's Neill Blomkamp and South Korea's Bong Joon-ho (2006's The Host) the chance to take the reins of a traditionally So-Cal, 'tentpole', film-franchise juggernaut like 'Terminator' and do their iterations of it, in their own native countries .... (instead of picking yet another Hollywood simpleton, to dumb it down still further).
PS BTW where is your work @riotnrrd ? In Vancouver? Are you working on Blomkamp's 2011 'Untitled Project'?
I think the final design was absolute perfection. Some of those other pics I see are too hominid in facial features (like around the eyes).
It's hard to think outside our anthropomorphic box, and they succeeded. Yeah, they are bipedal, but who's to say that from a bioengineering standpoint, it isn't the best overall design for gravity based exolution?
@Daveinva: Same with "lateralism". If a lifeform goes through embryogenesis, it's a heck of a lot more efficient to replicate design patterns. Obviously, Humans aren't 100% bilateral. Our organs are willy nilly. But, it is "cheap" from a production standpoint to mirror objects like arms etc. It also introduces balance which makes running a heck of a lot easier.
'Disgusting'.....Well Neil you failed. And all the better for it. Ive never had more love and absolute heartbreak for such a CGI creature. My wife watched it and was upset by the banter between christopher and Wikis when he was trying to help them. I was so on the edge of my seat. Not just because of a great script..but because the aliens he had on screen had real character. Something you dont see often enough in films these days.
The only disgusting animals were the Mercenaries. When he shot that one alien through the head I really wanted to hurt the bastard!
So awesome though toward the end where the lead mercenary tried to shoot down the escaping shuttle with Christopher and Jr. on board, and Wikis, strapped into the robotic armor, reaches up and plucks the rocket from its path!
@CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard): I think he succeeded in making them appear disgusting. And I think that the fact that we were able to identify with them so well, and feel that love and heartbreak for them, despite their disgusting appearance is a further triumph of the scripting, acting, and direction.
@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.: I kind of agree. But I personally never saw them as disgusting to look at. When I think disgusting, I think 'The Thing' or the Alien Mother producing all those sticky horrid eggs!!!
The things they did were a bit disgusting like eating cat food and the way they lived. But I think that was a by-product of how they were treated rather than there actual apperance.
Why couldnt we give them each a normal house or some regular food. Granted it was like catnip to them, im sure we could have found a nicer alternative!!
"Neill actually encouraged us to make the aliens gross and unpleasant. He was very keen that the aliens should look revolting when they were eating"
Haha, yes! I very much approve.
@Dr.Quatermass: On the surface, yeah, I understand what you mean, I don't think it's entirely fair to reduce it to revolting = vagina. In this instance, yes, the example given is very vaginal, but the structure and function of the mouth makes it more likely to appear vaginal than phallic (with an obvious nod to Giger's work), so that may simply be utilitarian rather than sexist/gynophobic. I think most people have a visceral (and often unpleasant) reaction to genital-like structures in unexpected places. For a somewhat silly example, see the Scammer Aliens in Futurama: Bender's Big Score, with their dangly "sprungers." Also, the prominent placement and exposure of things that strongly resemble what our culture considers private carries its own impact.
@karpar: While I understand the rationale behind it, my observation only goes as far as the initial reaction. What I mean is...
"Boss wants us to make the creatures revolting."
"Easy. Make the mouth a vagina."
There are millions of revolting things in this world, but it says something that the first thing that comes to mind is something as innocuous as a vagina.
For a movie that hides behind the ever increasing guise of "social commentary" you would think they would make that connection. And maybe they did. Maybe that is why it stayed on the drawing board.
Know this, I am no way arguing or disputing your point. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree. I guess I am just lamenting the truth behind a statement like " most people have a visceral (and often unpleasant) reaction to genital-like structures in unexpected places". Personally, I would drop those last three words.
@Perhaps Not: My point exactly. The phallus is used a lot in science fiction too. And not just for positive reinforcement. When Hollywood wants us to hate/loathe something, it tends to give it a female aura. By making something female, the vast majority of the science fiction community recoils in shock. I don't know why, conditioning, archetypes, I am in no position to say. Actually, scratch that. Hollywood uses the womb to denote comfort all the time. I guess it is just the vagina that receives all the hatred. But when Hollywood wants us to fear something, it paints it male. Geiger's alien is just a giant penis and the one spot you could compare to a vagina (the mouth) contains another smaller penis. And the thing absolutely terrorizes people. I can't say for sure but I think it has something to do with the innate invasive nature of the penis.
I am only commenting on the use of genitalia though. The way Hollywood ascribes gender in a non-sexual way is an entirely different matter that I will gracefully decline to talk about right now.
Keep in mind this is all just Monday flavored conjecture though. Hence the long posts.
P.S. - I love vaginas. Don't hate them...one...bit. ;)
@Crowbot: Am I to assume that by saying "well they are..." that you're calling vaginas revolting? Whether you're male or female, I find that thinking disturbing. Are penises revolting as well? Sorry, but vaginas are an integral part of the female body. Whether you regularly have sex with women or you are a woman, I think you should have respect for the female genitalia, for without it you'd be missing out on a lot pleasure. They may not be the most beautiful things in the world, but they serve a very important purpose. In my opinion, to call them revolting is to disrespect the female body. I'm actually hoping that you're around 12 years of age; otherwise it's scary to think that you've yet to achieve the maturity of a grown-up.
@boobaloob: I'm more that twice that age and then some and you're getting a little crazy (and personal) about this.
I'll leave you with this since I can't say what I really think in any great detail on this site (and you probably wouldn't take it very well).
@Dr.Quatermass: I dig, I dig. You're right that genitals are often the go-to visual key to revulsion, and you're right about omitting "in unexpected places" from my comment. It's unfortunate that societally we have such conflicted impulses regarding our fiddly bits. Me, I'm a fan of 'em.
@Crowbot: Whatever. Calling vaginas repulsive is this short of mysogyny in my opinion. But don't worry, just call a woman crazy when you don't agree with her. Because all women are crazy bitches, right?
Also, thanks for responding to the issue at hand. Great work!
@Mike Caprio: It's a vagina because 99 percent of concept artists working in the business are guys who were trained to create creatures within a very specific group of parameters. They are very skilled in illustrating and designing characters that generally fall within a scope of style that audiences respond to, whether it's for games, films or television. I'm a female illustrator who teaches creature design and I certainly don't disabue my students of the idea of using genitalia as a design concept. I don't necessarily think it's 'ladies parts are scarier and grodier', though. Generally, creature work I see that's phallic just ends up looking sillier because the shape of the phallus is harder to integrate in a smooth, stylized manner into a creature's physiology.
@Occula: Damn cool response. So maybe you can answer a question of mine. You say you allow your students to experiment with genitalia (oh context, you make things so fun) but is it something that you yourself teach? Meaning: is there a section in your lesson plan where you go out of your way to discuss the use of genitalia symbolism in creature design?
@boobaloob: Why should my opinion really matter all that much to you? You like 'em? Fine. I'm just convinced there had to be a better design out there.
@Dr.Quatermass: Before I reply Dr., I want you to knwo that I eat poop. Buckets of it.: Intriguing question! Yeesh, I never thought about doing that exactly. But maybe I should. I mean, I discuss symbolism, sure, but I'm always afraid of dumping too much on my students...they are a bunch of overworked Z-Brush trogs and too much academia in my lectures tends to make them fall asleep.
@Occula: I imagine it is a tricky subject to teach. On one hand, you are offering up your students a fairly watertight archetype scheme and on the other hand you are running the risk of exacerbating the gender issue, even if only by a little bit. I don't know, I was just curious if it was standard practice or not, which you did answer for me. You also gave me a good laugh too. I am no artist but a girl I ran with for a while is. Some nights I would just sort of tool around with her software, and ZBrush was one of the programs. I spent a good week just trying to create this god-awful Troll. I failed and that was that. A few months after we stopped seeing each other she called me up to tell me that my "Troll" which I had named ZBrush Troglodyte, had become her class' mascot for what not to do.
PS, that wasn't very nice of her. If she wants an example for her class of what not to do, she should just show 'em a picture of the monster from 'Cloverfield.' Snap!
@Dr.Quatermass Sc.D: Purveyor of Truth, Disseminator of Lies: Well, I still say harrumph. As a teacher I believe there is no bad artwork so long as the student is trying. But bad artwork from well-paid professionals working on multimilliondollar blockbusters? Inexcusable and worthy of derision!
I really do think that the art mechanical puppetry is under-appreciated these days. If you can make the puppet's movement fluid and lifelike, in 9 out of 10 cases I will find the look of the puppet to be less jarring than that of CG. The exception being something like Avatar where the characters need to be capable of performing complex facial expressions and mouth movement for speech.
I wish we saw more Alien Queens and less Cloverfield monsters in modern film these days.
@DraconisXC: I recently rewatched classics like Alien and Aliens, Jurassic Park, Independence Day. Those movies still look fantastic by today's standards and HAD to use the bare minimum in CG/special effects (the first three moreso than ID4, but my point is still made by the laboratory scene) due to budgetary constraints and the fact that tech hadn't 'evolved' to the point that it's at today.
Also: The wolves in Day After Tomorrow? Gag me.
I will say that D9's aliens looked fantastic given that they were purely CGI, though.
@Jim Cline: like in everything - it's the difference between something done well and something done badly...
the wolves in Day After Tomorrow were badly animated based on direction to (and this is almost an exact quote) "make them more cat-like"
@Ebylon: Yeah the last moments of the T. Rex in Jurassic Park hold up fantastically. Those guys really broke the mold on that one.
I thought this film was frigging amazing even though I felt the creatures weren't anything groundbreaking in terms of design. But it almost didn't matter, because the tone was so excellent and the storytelling so compelling.
The first thing that came to mind was the Vogons' ships from from Hitchhiker's Guide; "It looked like it was not so much designed as congealed" (apologies to Doug Adams)
I like the original idea he had that after 20 years, the ship would have graffiti and advertisements plastered across the ship's surface. I love combining everyday mundanity with the fantastic and out-of-this-world. But I think the gray, drab look suited it to create that looming and imposing feature in the sky. If they make a sequel, it'll be a sad movie without it.
Hopefully the DVD/Blue Ray special editions will have all this art work and more. Also the District 9 short which ive seen on youtube. Its just awesome. Here it is for anyone whos never seen it.
The great thing about the movie is it leaves quite a lot to personal interpretation, much a like a good novel.
Though it does seem that Neill here is still trying to figure out the whole plot so let's assist!...
- Christopher had been working on the fuel pod for 20 years (fact) so he is already a different classification of alien, much like ants or bees, worker, soldier etc. He must be 'Tech' and most likely the pilot of the ship who broke away from the mother ship at the very beginning - so he already was/is sentient and there was no transformation going on there
- I'm not too sure how long it takes for the 'prawns' to reach maturity but Chris's kid is smart, now is this because of education or he has the Johnson genes? Or are all the newborn prawns 'smart' and the drones were actually 'created'?
- Wikus's transformation was pretty quick and if an alien race needed 'workers/slaves' to do whatever it is they need done then it would make sense to invade a planet and convert the species into 'bugs'. I mean why all the weapons on the ship?
Something sinister about these prawns gentlemen, don't be fooled by their sad expressions......!
I don't know if I would call them plot holes, but there was very definitely something lacking in this film that didn't enable me to fully engage with it. Perhaps it is the product of too much nit picking, but I think you'll find a lot of the people complaining about it are basing their criticism on lingering questions they had that they felt should have been addressed in the film. For example the nature of the aliens. Were they in fact unintelligent hive like workers who couldn't organize themselves? If you take that for granted, then many of the problems people seem to have with the film go away.
But then why was Christopher Johnson so smart? Some could say it took him twenty years to evolve into the leader role in his species etc. etc. But none of that was explained or even hinted at. I could very easily fill in the cracks for myself and make it into an awesome movie. Some people don't want to do that.
All in all I was entertained and it was most certainly original. Plus, the guns and the mecha armor and all of the other effects will instantly push the pure sci fi pleasure centers in your brain.
@lukeoneil47:
One of the interviewees explained that most of the aliens seemed to be worker bees and that the intelligent ones had all been killed off. No one knows why and I'm glad they dont explain every damn detail. I don't like being spoonfed.
@Multibocks: Right, but that was the opinion of an "expert" on tv. Not necessarily spoken as gospel within the world of the film anymore than we would lend automatic credence to a talking head IRL.
Anyway, it didn't bother me as much as it seems to for others. But if they did explicitly establish that it would have answered many of people's questions. Whether or not that is to the film's detriment is certainly open for debate/a matter of taste.
Very entertaining, fun and thoughtful film - even with the violence. One thought tho' - any one old enough here to remember an super low budget cheapy from the 70s called "Laser Blast"? Add elements of "Enemy Mine" and "Id4" and you have D9.
12/08/09
The social structure of the aliens was something I got early on. This was handled very well! Some of the aliens are so coarse in their behavior and limited in their comprehension of English, while Christopher was very knowledgeable about the eviction notice legalese, for example. I also appreciated the care that was taken in making the "skin" tone of the different aliens vary from one to the other. Some of them were rust-colored while others were bluish.
If you couldn't tell, I adored this movie. I really hope Christopher comes back for Wikis in a sequel! (while exacting revenge for the aliens used for vivisection).
12/07/09
12/08/09
PS BTW where is your work @riotnrrd ? In Vancouver? Are you working on Blomkamp's 2011 'Untitled Project'?
12/08/09
12/07/09
It's hard to think outside our anthropomorphic box, and they succeeded. Yeah, they are bipedal, but who's to say that from a bioengineering standpoint, it isn't the best overall design for gravity based exolution?
12/07/09
In the pantheon of possible exobiological evolutionary adaptions common with humanity, bipedalism is one of the least-far-fetched.
12/08/09
12/07/09
The only disgusting animals were the Mercenaries. When he shot that one alien through the head I really wanted to hurt the bastard!
12/08/09
So awesome though toward the end where the lead mercenary tried to shoot down the escaping shuttle with Christopher and Jr. on board, and Wikis, strapped into the robotic armor, reaches up and plucks the rocket from its path!
12/08/09
District 9 was just a masterwork all around.
12/08/09
The things they did were a bit disgusting like eating cat food and the way they lived. But I think that was a by-product of how they were treated rather than there actual apperance.
Why couldnt we give them each a normal house or some regular food. Granted it was like catnip to them, im sure we could have found a nicer alternative!!
12/07/09
Haha, yes! I very much approve.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Fancy words for someone who thinks the word "revolting" translates to "vagina."
I imagine Freud would have a field day with the concept art for this flick.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
"Boss wants us to make the creatures revolting."
"Easy. Make the mouth a vagina."
There are millions of revolting things in this world, but it says something that the first thing that comes to mind is something as innocuous as a vagina.
For a movie that hides behind the ever increasing guise of "social commentary" you would think they would make that connection. And maybe they did. Maybe that is why it stayed on the drawing board.
Know this, I am no way arguing or disputing your point. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree. I guess I am just lamenting the truth behind a statement like " most people have a visceral (and often unpleasant) reaction to genital-like structures in unexpected places". Personally, I would drop those last three words.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
I am only commenting on the use of genitalia though. The way Hollywood ascribes gender in a non-sexual way is an entirely different matter that I will gracefully decline to talk about right now.
Keep in mind this is all just Monday flavored conjecture though. Hence the long posts.
P.S. - I love vaginas. Don't hate them...one...bit. ;)
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/08/09
I'll leave you with this since I can't say what I really think in any great detail on this site (and you probably wouldn't take it very well).
12/08/09
12/08/09
Also, thanks for responding to the issue at hand. Great work!
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
I think that @Mike Caprio's
"Why is it always a vagina?"
Is just the most fantastic 'on-the-point-of-dying, after being-shot(sic)' running-joke catchphrase, for a future science fiction film ....
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Made me laugh.
12/10/09
PS, that wasn't very nice of her. If she wants an example for her class of what not to do, she should just show 'em a picture of the monster from 'Cloverfield.' Snap!
12/10/09
She was a terse girl, I'll say that much but in her defense, my troll was absolutely atrocious. And not in a good way.
12/11/09
12/07/09
I wish we saw more Alien Queens and less Cloverfield monsters in modern film these days.
12/07/09
Also: The wolves in Day After Tomorrow? Gag me.
I will say that D9's aliens looked fantastic given that they were purely CGI, though.
12/07/09
the wolves in Day After Tomorrow were badly animated based on direction to (and this is almost an exact quote) "make them more cat-like"
12/08/09
I thought this film was frigging amazing even though I felt the creatures weren't anything groundbreaking in terms of design. But it almost didn't matter, because the tone was so excellent and the storytelling so compelling.
12/07/09
12/07/09
Did you see me escaping? I was all... Whoopwhoopwhoopwhoopwhoop!
12/07/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
08/23/09
Though it does seem that Neill here is still trying to figure out the whole plot so let's assist!...
- Christopher had been working on the fuel pod for 20 years (fact) so he is already a different classification of alien, much like ants or bees, worker, soldier etc. He must be 'Tech' and most likely the pilot of the ship who broke away from the mother ship at the very beginning - so he already was/is sentient and there was no transformation going on there
- I'm not too sure how long it takes for the 'prawns' to reach maturity but Chris's kid is smart, now is this because of education or he has the Johnson genes? Or are all the newborn prawns 'smart' and the drones were actually 'created'?
- Wikus's transformation was pretty quick and if an alien race needed 'workers/slaves' to do whatever it is they need done then it would make sense to invade a planet and convert the species into 'bugs'. I mean why all the weapons on the ship?
Something sinister about these prawns gentlemen, don't be fooled by their sad expressions......!
08/19/09
But then why was Christopher Johnson so smart? Some could say it took him twenty years to evolve into the leader role in his species etc. etc. But none of that was explained or even hinted at. I could very easily fill in the cracks for myself and make it into an awesome movie. Some people don't want to do that.
All in all I was entertained and it was most certainly original. Plus, the guns and the mecha armor and all of the other effects will instantly push the pure sci fi pleasure centers in your brain.
08/19/09
One of the interviewees explained that most of the aliens seemed to be worker bees and that the intelligent ones had all been killed off. No one knows why and I'm glad they dont explain every damn detail. I don't like being spoonfed.
08/19/09
Anyway, it didn't bother me as much as it seems to for others. But if they did explicitly establish that it would have answered many of people's questions. Whether or not that is to the film's detriment is certainly open for debate/a matter of taste.
08/19/09
MNU was actively preventing people from learning about the aliens. They didn't even have proper names, for pete's sake.
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/19/09