Month: November 2013

I feel like I should start this particular post by saying that I love English. Yes, I’m one of those kids. I enjoy reading, analyzing some cryptic messages supposedly-left-behind by an author, and writing essays.

Perhaps that is the reason why I cannot stand improper grammar. Sure, I get that some words are hard to spell, and maybe I can understand that certain confusion might arise from utilizing commas to correct run-on sentences, but is it really that hard to differentiate between a possessive noun and a contraction?

I don’t think so.

As I have mentioned above, I do not believe that one or two mistakes make anyone a moron. As a student whose first language is definitely not English, I can admit to having made a heap of heinous errors when writing. But, I don’t think this is an excuse for repeating easily-corrigible oversights.

Which leads me to the main idea of this post:

If anyone continues to butcher the English language repeatedly, without any attempt at improving, then I feel entitled and inclined to silently (or maybe not so silently) judge them. I will gloat, make assumptions on their intelligence (or lack thereof), and smirk in contempt.

Such a statement is particularly true if the offending grammar-murder is a native English speaker.

I understand that in ASTU, we have been told to rid ourselves from such misconceptions. Language shouldn’t be used to rank people, or make assumptions on their level of education. We should not think that writing “grammer” means your IQ is probably on the single-digit scale. Legitimacy should stem from an argument, not from the way the argument is presented.

Yet, it is so hard for me to change my (as the internet crudely refers to them) “Grammar Nazi” ways.

Ironically, I am quite sure there will be mistakes on this post. But I want them to be pointed out, so I can work on improving. Unlike the masses of infidels who still refute Grammar and English as their saviors in this communication-challenged world, I can only hope to learn from my mistypes in order to one day join the enlightened few who make no mistakes when writing.

While the first half of the film District 9 was slow (but engaging), slightly grotesque (I still shudder at the image of Wikus’ falling nails), and highly thought provoking (the director crammed in so much symbolism that it sometimes felt slightly overpowering), the second part of the movie transformed into a chaotic mass of too many special effects and not enough plot development.

It felt as if Blomkamp realized, halfway through shooting, that he had a lot of leftover money and decided to splurge on unnecessary explosions.

Sadly, although it did have the entertaining effect he had probably hoped for, the director sacrificed further development on the political agenda of District 9 in order to turn this movie into a blockbuster.

Instead of focusing on the problem first presented in his plotline (xenophobia, mistreatment of extraterrestrials, and the many injustices suffered by the Prawns at the hands of humans), Blomkamp awkwardly transitioned into overtly used clichés that turned District 9 into a rather predictable and disappointing movie. Alienation of…well….aliens, was overshadowed by MNU’s (unsurprising) villainy and their attempts to control weapons. The to-be-powerful statements about injustice were easy to forget when contrasted with the large amount of gunshots, fire, and the promise of a sequel. The meaningful metamorphosis that Wikus’ character underwent was not sufficiently explored, en lieu of adding violent contrivances that left the above-mentioned, provoked thoughts raging for some sort of closure.

This does not mean that District 9 was a bad movie, however. It simply means that Blompkamp was willing to sacrifice some of the movie’s power to make a statement for the sake of commerciality. Perhaps, this meant that it would be more accessible and a wider range of audiences would be exposed to his ideas on alienation, or maybe it simply meant that he would get more money. (I’m voting on the latter).

But, in the end, the only questions that need be taken into account when considering whether or not to watch District 9 are:

Was the movie boring? No. Disappointing, slightly, but that does not mean it was not enthralling.

Was the movie effective in conveying its ideas? Partly. As has been previously explained, it would have been much more successful had it been a) less pretentious or b) more focused.

Is it worth watching? Definitely. (Because, really, who would want to miss a movie that portrays giant, prawn-like creature named Chrisopher?)