Aristotle believed that narratives mimic reality. Blomkamp had a different idea and created a fictional story, with different life forms our world is unfamiliar with in order to recount the apartheid in South Africa. He used the form of narrative to his advantage by: astatically creating a fictional world with alternate beings, instrumentally depicting a story that he could use to make a point, and constitutively by hopefully transforming how some see their world.
The story is told in a documentary type fashion through the character of Wikus, a white, pro contamination, ordinary character that the audience is suppose to relate to. Wikus is in charge of relocating the aliens to what seems to be a concentration camp and at the beginning of the film this seems reasonable because who would want to live among the trash eating aliens? But as the storyline moves forward it becomes apparent that Blomkamp is using the narrative in order to change our way of thinking. As the character Wikus progresses his way of thinking begins to change and he begins to feel for the aliens, just because they are different they shouldn’t be treated as disposable lives. The differences between the aliens and humans is apparent and over dramatized in order to make the point that if Wikus can overcome these drastic differences of how is it possible for humans to hate other humans merely because of their race?
Often a narrative is made to help society understand a way of thinking but as Blomkamp shows it can also be used to change a way of thinking. I believe that this films narrative does both. In America and many other societies people are becoming more accepting to alternative lifestyles, race, and homosexuality. For this group, the story reinforces the idea of acceptance and helps strengthen this way of thinking. But for others it was made in order to change their way of thinking. For instance, in 1973 the General Assembly of the United Nations submitted a draft on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA) which declared apartheid to be a crime against humanity and went far beyond South African. 76 nations signed on but the United States along with Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand would not sign, believing that a crime against humanity must be elaborated further than apartheid. Its situations like these the Blomkamp is trying to change.
I really like you thought of using narrative not only for understanding, but also for changing, though I would argue the former is a precondition for the latter. Is understanding alone enough sometimes?
ReplyDeleteYes I would have to agree in some instances. Often in order to change thought one must first understand. In certain instances I think understanding helps change thought like with homosexuality. If a person understands homosexuality their views on it will most likely change but this isn't true in all situations. A person could understand homosexuality but was brought up to believe that it is morally wrong. So in a situation like this understanding isn't enough but it is the first step. Another example is say a person understands why someone would want to have an abortion, maybe there young, have no money, etc. But this would not change a persons mind on whether or not they think the option of abortion is acceptable. So in most cases I would say that understanding is usually enough to lead to change but there are instances (a lot of the time instances that deal with set in stone morals or religion) where understanding isn't enough. To some people things are wrong because they are and even with understanding they will not change their mind although it is the first step and can often be enough.
ReplyDelete