By Suntosh Pillay
James Cameron was named 2009′s best director for his movie Avatar at the recent Golden Globe Awards. The other nominations that had already opened on local screens were Inglourious Basterds and Invictus. Though each of these movies had a distinct cinematic style and belonged to different genres, a common, important thread ran through them: the way people handle being discriminated against.
Avatar was a visually stunning science-fiction feat that took the viewer to a complex and marvellous planet whose underground resources were the target of invasive and greedy human beings. It was about power and destruction, human insensitivity, and disrespect for the spiritual.
Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, about Nazi-killing Americans who went to Germany to kill Adolf Hitler and his cronies, was a masterpiece from a masterful director. The dialogue, build-up of tension, and violently orgasmic climaxes made the viewer’s patience pay off.
Clint Eastwood’s Invictus, an instant blockbuster, looked at the role of rugby in South Africa’s post-apartheid racial reconciliation. While overstated for the purpose of a Hollywood script, it provided an interesting angle and debating point. If schools start having “set-movies” as they do “set-books”, Invictus would top my must-see list.
But was Hollywood inadvertently giving out a message to the world through last year’s best productions? The common themes I see running through each of these films is the handling of “the other” and the effects of xenophobia and discrimination.
Overcoming racism was most explicit in Invictus. As a dramatised historical interpretation, the movie portrayed the 1995 Rugby World Cup as Nelson Mandela’s rallying point to reach out to whites who formed the majority of rugby-watching people in South Africa at the time. That this movie was made only about 15 years after the event, with both leading figures still alive — Madiba and Francois Pienaar — perhaps indicates that the film-making climate was ripe for a movie about unity and reconciliation. Does the Barack Obama election campaign have anything to do with it? Maybe. Certainly Obama has caused a psychological shift in the American and global emotional outlook. Are we yearning for the feel-good?
Tarantino, too, plays on the feel-good, but it’s a very different sort of feel-good, a very morbid kind, where watching heartless Jewish haters have their scalps ripped off leaves you feeling satisfied. Merciless genocide is the backdrop. The Basterds fight fire with fire, a resolution was impossible, and the boundaries between “good guys” and “bad guys” were blurred. Would you accept a role in a plot to kill a savage dictator? How would you justify it to yourself?
Avatar, the most mainstream of the three, falls in the middle of the two in the obviousness of its xenophobic storyline. It’s superficially about Man versus Alien, then turns this on its head when we come to realise that the humans are, in fact, the alien creatures on a planet they cannot (or will not) fully understand. It’s a sad movie. It makes humanity feel ashamed of itself. This movie will resonate across the world. Most countries were at some point in its history guilty of crimes against another, simply because the “others” were different, were not understood fully, or were in the way of some megalomaniac aspiration of power-hungry “leaders”.
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which awards the Golden Globes, has obviously found merit in such themes. But have audiences noticed them? How do we make sense of these movies in an age where the social construction of “the dangerous foreign other” is seen clearly when South Africans burn immigrants, America regularly declares war on perceived enemies, Uganda wants to sentence homosexual people to death and racist rhetoric laces the language of immature public figures.
And now District 9, directed by Neill Blomkamp, is being nominated for best picture at the upcoming Oscars. Wait, what’s that? Another movie about xenophobia? Let’s hope it wins, only because local is lekker. But are these themes coincidental or are they being raised consciously and earnestly so that movie-goers around the world leave the theatres with more than just the aftertaste of popcorn?
Suntosh Pillay is a clinical psychologist who writes independently on social issues.
good point Suntosh. four big films – all about “the other” but made so differently. Tarantino gave us a fantasy, Avatar touched a nerve, District 9 sickened us and Invictus…I haven’t seen that one yet
how audiences digest these recurring themes is a valid question..and individually how do they change ideas/impact us as compared to the diverse collection which approach diversity/xenophobia so differently..
Perhaps global “haves” culture is coming of age? The exitement of being able to have a realtime debate with people across the world has worn off and the more we talk, the more we realise that no matter where you are you are just human like me?
On the other hand, an increase in population, global economic recession, droughts and political instability have decreased the quality of life and security for the have-nots with the predictable outcome of feelings of insecurity and violence against “those who are not like us and is stealing from us”.
This perhaps so totally horrifying the “haves”, who do not really understand that “survival” is not a TV game show but an ugly reality for the have-nots, that they are bound to make movies to probe “this problem of xenophobia”.
I accept that these films are useful in so far as they tell us stories about ‘othering’ and can therefore serve some kind of educational role. However, there is also the worry that these films are falling into their own othering trap. ‘Avatar’ makes extensive use of the ‘happy native’ stereotype that was oh so popular during colonialism. Even worse, ‘District 9′ represents Nigerians in a seriously discriminatory light (I am ignoring the weird lack of women in ‘District 9′ for now.) I haven’t seen ‘Inglourious Basterds’ or ‘Invictus’, so I can’t comment on them as examples. On the whole, I am sceptical of the idea that these films are doing any good, not because society is missing the point, but because there are dangerous messages hidden under a very thin veneer of political correctness…
Hi Suntosh
It is true that these pieces do promote an entertainingly warm idea of reconciliation, as well as undoing ideas of previous ‘others’. I worry, though, that it is done at the cost of creating new ones (nigerians as thugs in District 9) or reminding us of the ones we have yet to get over (such as the innocent, magical natives in Avatar)
The sad thing is that most of us will not get the message and will spend our only time on earth disregarding others and the earth itself and will end up sad lonely old people before we die.
Interesting perspective you”ve put on those movies Suntosh,but at the risk of sounding cliched,i just want to agree with some of the comments above,the xenophobic angle to these new movies has not been entirely positive ,i have not seen about two of those movies but I personally think District 9 should not even be a nominee,Blomkamp totally missed the plot of the movie midway in a desperate attempt to cast a negative Nigerian stereotype,leaving a bad taste in the viewers mouth at the end of the movie notwithstanding the initial inspiration and idea behind the whole movie.Movies are a lot more interesting when there are lessons to be learn t or stories to be told rather than being forced to digest some director”s warped point of view after paying to watch the movie..Xenophobia and “othering” of others unfortunately is a part of human nature,from the crusades to the Nazi”s to present day South Africa its a stark reality.
@Katherine Furman – I thought the reference to Nigerians a rather funny touch. Not a day goes by that I do not find at least one email from Nigeria promising me a vast amount of money if only I send the writer $155 for postage. Let’s be honest, Nigerians, on the whole, aren’t different from South Africans but being without leadership for quite a while now does seem to allow the naughty ones the leeway that they ARE taking to prey on the innocent with scams. If you did not see the funny side to the Nigerian reference in D9, you are not living in South Africa at the moment. It is as endemic as Somali neighbourhood shops, or Zimbabwean waiters.
@Richard – Innocent natives in Avatar? Do I take that to mean that if you are not a greedy capitalist that uses bribery, extortion and corruption to make as much money as you can, you are an innocent? I thought the movie displayed the innocence of the invaders to understand the Na’vi extremely well. Innocence to a complex system they simply had no knowledge to cope with long-term. Very similar to colonial innocence to African ways. A lesson the British Empire and all the other empires before learned to the their horror. Never underestimate the natives or think you understand them.
I find this article interesting for the following reasons:
1. That there is a ‘Concerted’ effort via movies to further a certain agenda
2. It then beggs the questions as to who is pushing the agenda and why
3. But most frighteningly, that movies are actually being used on unsuspecting people to send ‘subliminal’ messages – sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories.
We are talking here about sending a good message, but i shudder to think of what other agendas could be served in the future should this ‘experiment’ be found to be effective.
And it doesn’t only end at the cinemas!!
A clever Observation Suntosh.. yet I must say that this must have implications for the people who watch these movies.. does it influence our behaviour? Make us more aware of what we should or shouldn’t do?