The juxtaposition of Neill Blomkamp's cinema-vérité style, coupled with the absurdity of the sci-fi genre, gives incredible merit to the dystopian film District 9. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Although this is Blomkamp's first feature film, it is as accomplished and respected as any other modern science fiction classic. Using the tale of alien refugees as an allegory for South Africa's dark history of apartheid, it explores a theme that other South African filmmakers might be hesitant to bring to the forefront of debate 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 foreign affairs worker at MNU: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is not a protagonist that one would conventionally see in a science fiction film. Wikus' disorganized nature only adds to how the film truly feels like a documentary at times. Instead of having an articulate, confident action star who would appear to know exactly how to behave on camera for the first time, Wikus acts like any norm would in this case. This immediately makes us think that Wikus is a protagonist we will love and identify with. But this precedent doesn't last long, as he makes several morally questionable decisions later that don't sit well with us as an audience. The realism continues once we're shown edgy stock footage of the alien spaceship's first appearance. in the Johannesburg skyline. If the narrative did not involve the absurdity of extraterrestrial existence, then it would be difficult to know whether this film was a documentary or not fiction. This creates an alternate history that is indeed a reality in the world Blomkamp created. This realism is reinforced by the addition of this archival footage and interviews with experts and witnesses surrounding the events. This helps establish with the audience that what we are watching is fact, relative to the narrative in which we are watching it. This gives the film a feeling of authenticity. It is edited to make it appear to be a news article. Some of the archive footage is reminiscent of images from the refugee crisis of recent times – the relevance of the images is not outdated and is still able to have an impact on 2019 audiences. All of this creates a captivating yet frightening world , which, in a way, seems very close to home. The film is divided between a cinema verite posture and a third-person narrative posture. The whole film is not in the documentary style, which can be considered one of its few flaws. If the entire film had been shot through a documentary lens, it might have been more compelling and shocking because 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, while the tone and plot of the film are reversed after Wikus is injured (and his life changes forever), it would be unrealistic for a documentary team 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 camera crew documenting him. His character is unaware of the third-person perspective and is therefore capable of acting authentically. Sharlto.