The Fourth Kind (2009) as a metaphor
Back when this film came out, like a decade ago, everyone seems to have put all their energy into debunking this weakly-supported "hoax" and then patting themselves on the back and denigrating Olatunde Osunsanmi (the director) for being so pretentious. That sort of critique seems to have been a waste of time, and those reviews don't age very well at all. But they are just reviews, and not analyses.
Have I reviewed this film before? Maybe my initial reaction was just the same. This is certainly not the first time I've watched it, but I have been having thoughts.
I dislike documentaries, because although they may have genuine footage of non-actors (which The Fourth Kind did not possess, the acting cast being split into two groups: the recognizable faces of the reenactment, and the relatively unknown actors who played the "original" footage. The two groups often acted the same script, and the film was shown side-by-side, which not only effectively masked any inferior acting in the "original" cast, but eliminates one layer of belief), they all trade on their supposed "reality," on the firmness of the ground they stand on, but documentaries are no better (and probably worse) at producing the kinds of truth that they seem to desire - philosophical truth and insight into human nature. Now, raw footage might be closer, but everybody needs an editor, and just the act of aiming a camera will change anyone's relationship to objective truth, if you believe in such fairytales.
The Fourth Kind is not a documentary, but it turns to many of the tropes of that art form, like grainy, low-quality filmed interviews with faint institutional watermarks and visible time-stamps. These are all gestures at realism, the facade of realism. All facts are easily checked, but moviegoers often don't bother. After all, why should they? It's just art.
I have a personal distaste for criticisms like the one expressed by Erik Sofge of Popular Mechanics which compare this work with found-footage-style films. I dislike these arguments not only because I dislike found-footage films, but because such comparisons dismiss what Osunsanmi actually accomplished (intentionally or not). He made people think about whether he was telling the truth or not. It's not a "I liked it whether it's true or not" thing. Because people don't like being made into dupes, as evinced by the acrimony in so many reviews of this film. The stakes are not entertainment, but identity.
And this attitude is absolutely at the center of alien experiences. In that sense, Osunsanmi perfectly captured the phenomenon without indulging in a critical self-awareness not often expressed by those involved in ufology. These people are unabashed proponents and believers, and so are these characters. This is not the ultimately fictive fiction of the X-Files, nor is it factual, as ufologists would prefer. And in that way, this film will disappoint those who want to believe. It is not that vehicle. In the end, YOU MUST CHOOSE what you believe. Nobody can prove it one way or another. This movie will not make up your mind for you. Not even by being a documentary.
Have I reviewed this film before? Maybe my initial reaction was just the same. This is certainly not the first time I've watched it, but I have been having thoughts.
I dislike documentaries, because although they may have genuine footage of non-actors (which The Fourth Kind did not possess, the acting cast being split into two groups: the recognizable faces of the reenactment, and the relatively unknown actors who played the "original" footage. The two groups often acted the same script, and the film was shown side-by-side, which not only effectively masked any inferior acting in the "original" cast, but eliminates one layer of belief), they all trade on their supposed "reality," on the firmness of the ground they stand on, but documentaries are no better (and probably worse) at producing the kinds of truth that they seem to desire - philosophical truth and insight into human nature. Now, raw footage might be closer, but everybody needs an editor, and just the act of aiming a camera will change anyone's relationship to objective truth, if you believe in such fairytales.
The Fourth Kind is not a documentary, but it turns to many of the tropes of that art form, like grainy, low-quality filmed interviews with faint institutional watermarks and visible time-stamps. These are all gestures at realism, the facade of realism. All facts are easily checked, but moviegoers often don't bother. After all, why should they? It's just art.
I have a personal distaste for criticisms like the one expressed by Erik Sofge of Popular Mechanics which compare this work with found-footage-style films. I dislike these arguments not only because I dislike found-footage films, but because such comparisons dismiss what Osunsanmi actually accomplished (intentionally or not). He made people think about whether he was telling the truth or not. It's not a "I liked it whether it's true or not" thing. Because people don't like being made into dupes, as evinced by the acrimony in so many reviews of this film. The stakes are not entertainment, but identity.
And this attitude is absolutely at the center of alien experiences. In that sense, Osunsanmi perfectly captured the phenomenon without indulging in a critical self-awareness not often expressed by those involved in ufology. These people are unabashed proponents and believers, and so are these characters. This is not the ultimately fictive fiction of the X-Files, nor is it factual, as ufologists would prefer. And in that way, this film will disappoint those who want to believe. It is not that vehicle. In the end, YOU MUST CHOOSE what you believe. Nobody can prove it one way or another. This movie will not make up your mind for you. Not even by being a documentary.
Comments
Post a Comment