The juxtaposition of Neill Blomkamp's cinéma-vérité style, paired with the absurdity of the sci-fi genre, gives incredible merit to the dystopian film District 9. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Despite being Blomkamp's first feature film, it is as accomplished and respected as any modern science fiction classic. Using the alien refugee narrative as an allegory for South Africa's dark history of apartheid, he explores a theme that other South African filmmakers may be reluctant to bring back to the forefront of discussion in contemporary society. The film expands on the original plot of Blomkamp's short film Alive in Joburg (2006). It begins with the introduction of Wikus Van De Merwe, a clumsy and uncoordinated alien affairs worker at MNU: The Department of Alien Affairs. He's not a protagonist you'd conventionally see in a science fiction film. The disorganized nature of Wikus only adds to the fact that the film actually feels like a documentary at points. Instead of having an eloquent and confident action star, who would seem to know exactly how to act in front of a camera for the first time, Wikus behaves as any norm would in this case. This immediately makes us think that Wikus is a protagonist we will like and identify with. But this precedent doesn't last long, as he later makes several morally questionable decisions, which don't sit well with us as an audience. The realism continues as we are shown choppy archive footage from when the alien spaceship first appeared. in the Johannesburg skyline. If the narrative didn't involve the absurdity of alien existence, then it would be difficult to know whether this film was a documentary and not fiction. It creates an alternate history that is actually a reality in the world Blomkamp created. This realism is aided by the addition of archival footage and interviews with experts and witnesses surrounding the events. This helps establish to the audience that what we are watching is fact, in relation to the narrative in which we are watching it. It gives the film a sense of authenticity. It's edited to look like news. Some archive footage is reminiscent of footage from the refugee crisis of recent times: the relevance of the footage is not outdated and is still able to have an impact on audiences in 2019. All this creates a captivating but terrible world, which in a certain sense it feels very close to home. The film is divided between a cinéma-vérité and a third-person narrative position. The entire film lacks the documentary style, which can be seen as one of its few flaws. If the entire film had been shot through the lens of a documentary, perhaps it would have been more compelling and shocking, as you would have watched the entire film as if it were a non-fictional narrative. It lacked its authenticity once it returned to the standard third-person point of view. However, as the film's tone and plot are reversed after Wikus is injured (and his life changes forever), it would be unrealistic for a documentary crew to be able to continue capturing his story. The third-person perspective also allows us to see Wikus as he really is, without an intrusive film crew documenting him. His character is unaware of the third-person perspective, so he is able to act authentically. Sharlto Copley plays Wikus superbly, portraying a complex character who constantly challenges the audience's perception of him throughout the narrative. The film features beautiful cinematography, showing the.