I had no expectations of District 9 really - I had not seen any promotional material for the film (did I have my head under a rock? Maybe.) and I had heard mixed accounts - some people loved it, some people didn't. I knew it had something to do with aliens, but that's about it. It's good going into a film with no expectations, I think - everything is a surprise.
The first thing to hit you about the film is its very distinctive style; it's made as a mockumentary, in order to seem more real and more relevant. The word mockumentary has always implied, to me, that the documentary genre and style is being mocked, made fun of, satirised. As it turns out, the word actually means that the film is a mock-up documentary; a fiction film made using the conventions of documentary.
I really enjoyed the style choice - to begin with, it was novel - it got me excited about the film. Then, through the use of mock interviews commenting on the action, it gave a sense of objectivity - it suggested to me that I should view the events of the film somewhat critically. At first all of the shot choices supported the mockumentary style, but as the film continued and the story and its hero became clearer, the style gradually fell away, allowing the audience to become absorbed in the story-telling. As the film reached its conclusion, the style was again emphasised, through interviews and titles, reminding the audience once again of their responsibility to think critically about the film. Awesome! The only times where I think the film fell down a little bit stylistically was the use of some shots that tracked with some gunmen where the camera was obviously attached to the front of the actor. I feel that these kinds of shots give a fantasy, computer game-like quality that did not sit well with the rest of the film.
As for content, and the story was interesting and fast-paced but comprehensible. The unlikely hero was extremely unlikely, and very real in his flawedness. Most of all it's great to see a film tackling huge issues of human rights and prejudice without necessarily foisting any conclusions on the audience. I'm sure Peter Jackson does not regret putting his name to this one.
The first thing to hit you about the film is its very distinctive style; it's made as a mockumentary, in order to seem more real and more relevant. The word mockumentary has always implied, to me, that the documentary genre and style is being mocked, made fun of, satirised. As it turns out, the word actually means that the film is a mock-up documentary; a fiction film made using the conventions of documentary.
I really enjoyed the style choice - to begin with, it was novel - it got me excited about the film. Then, through the use of mock interviews commenting on the action, it gave a sense of objectivity - it suggested to me that I should view the events of the film somewhat critically. At first all of the shot choices supported the mockumentary style, but as the film continued and the story and its hero became clearer, the style gradually fell away, allowing the audience to become absorbed in the story-telling. As the film reached its conclusion, the style was again emphasised, through interviews and titles, reminding the audience once again of their responsibility to think critically about the film. Awesome! The only times where I think the film fell down a little bit stylistically was the use of some shots that tracked with some gunmen where the camera was obviously attached to the front of the actor. I feel that these kinds of shots give a fantasy, computer game-like quality that did not sit well with the rest of the film.
As for content, and the story was interesting and fast-paced but comprehensible. The unlikely hero was extremely unlikely, and very real in his flawedness. Most of all it's great to see a film tackling huge issues of human rights and prejudice without necessarily foisting any conclusions on the audience. I'm sure Peter Jackson does not regret putting his name to this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment