Does District 9 deserve the hype? 9 responses to 9 criticisms of District 9

Rating: 9/10 (21 August 2009)

I heard a few anti-hype warnings that District 9 was "not all that great," but after seeing it I think that the hype about this film is deserved. I read every negative comment posted on IMDb about the film (as of Aug 22), and did not agree with many of them. Most gave no reason for disliking the film and focused instead of creative ways of saying how much they hated it. Here are my responses to nine specific criticisms I did find, some of which were repeated many times (especially #s 1, 2, and 3):
CRITICISM #1: Too long!
RESPONSE: It's true, some scenes could have been cut, and I don't think this criticism is incorrect. But I was never bored. Something is almost always moving District 9's plot forward. It compares favourably to many other films in this regard. It doesn't have interminable exposition like the Matrix sequels, or interminable space shots like 2001, or interminable hobbit-gazing like Return of the King. There is a long action sequence that starts to eat away at the film's intelligence, but I also think it's a minor concern.
CRITICISM #2: Too much gore!
RESPONSE: I thought the gore was an appropriate extension of a more integral element of the story: the grossness of the slum. Everything in this film is dirty and disgusting, and for good reason!
CRITICISM #3: Too much swearing!
RESPONSE: Yes, Wickus definitely did swear a lot, but objecting to it is prudish and naive. As any soldier or veteran knows, the F-word is used like punctuation in violent situations.
CRITICISM #4: The film hits you over the head a bit with simplistic moralizing. The apartheid analogy is too blatant. At a couple points, one of the interviewed experts tells us exactly how we're supposed to be interpreting the action, and it's heavy-handed.
RESPONSE: I agree that there are couple moments of expositional bludgeoning, but I can only think of a couple. The rest of the film is pure allegory, and I see no reason why it needs to be subtle. Just because the analogy to apartheid is clear doesn't make it illegitimate. Lots of great films about racism have been blatant with their moral message! District 9 is no more morally simplistic than any other cautionary tale about racism. Blomkamp tells the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction story of apartheid in an original way — not simplistic at all.
CRITICISM #5: Too many implausible that's-so-fake moments, especially the amazing command that racist humans seem to have of the prawns' clicky, glottal-stoppy alien language. No universal translators here, and yet they have no trouble talking to each other at all!
RESPONSE: The language barrier is a nearly impossible SF problem to solve. Realistically depicting a language barrier with aliens is so tedious that it will destroy any story. Blomkamp chose his compromise, and it's no worse than a lot of others, and maybe better: the aliens have been there for 20 years, after all. Maybe some communication is plausible. While a racist is not normally interested in learning the language of an oppressed minority group, these are alien visitors: the human interest in learning would have been high, even for racists.
CRITICISM #6: It makes no sense that the prawns fail to use their superior physical strength and powerful weapons to overthrow their oppressors.
RESPONSE: Of course it makes sense! Again, it is the critics who are being simplistic and naive, not the film. It's a matter of clear historical record that poverty and hunger can pacify almost any population, preventing organized resistance, and that oppressed minorities are surprisingly passive and underestimate their own strength. Not only is it realistic, it's actually one of the major moral points of the film — a point overlooked by the same people protesting that the film is too "morally simplistic" for them. Furthermore, the story makes it clear up front that most of them are "workers" who aren't too bright and take no initiative. Thus it is to be expected that prawn violence is erratic and impulsive and not an effective resistance.
CRITICISM #7: The cat food thing "trivializes" the prawns and the moral message.
RESPONSE: Get over yourself! It was a bit of comic relief. Who knows what aliens will want to eat?
CRITICISM #8: There are several SF clichés in the film.
RESPONSE: Yes, there are, but the measure of an SF film is not whether or not it has clichés but how many and how much it depends on them: District 9 only has a few. Yes, a big hovering mothership has been done in many (many, many) other first-contact movies. And you can hardly go to an SF film anymore without seeing the ol' infected-with-alien- DNA thing. However, after decades of highly productive SF storytelling — 700+ films since 1970! — anyone who thinks that SF is only good if it's completely original is pretty much doomed to be disappointed. There's just no such critter any more. The problem with most bad SF films is that they are mostly or entirely driven by their clichés. District 9 contains a few, but it is not limited to them, and a great deal of originality mitigates their impact.
CRITICISM #9: I hate hand-held camera work! It makes me dizzy and sick! Why do directors do that?
RESPONSE: Because it's effective and interesting and it doesn't bother most people. If you're one of the unlucky ones, just don't watch it on the small screen, and don't blame the film!
CONCLUSION: District 9 offers a much that we bemoan the lack of in science fiction: an original setting, an original premise, intricately conceived aliens, no-name actors, quality FX that are there to serve the story, lots of uncomfortably gritty realism, and action that makes sense for the situation. District 9 is undoubtedly the best SF film in several years, and one of the most unusual and interesting ever made.