NationStates Jolt Archive

The film depicts poor Europeans struggling to be allowed into a rich Africa in the 2030s. Its stated aim is to raise the issues of tolerance and humanity in matters of immigration.

Video report here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/culture.html).

If this comes out here, it may be worth seeing.

Definitely sounds worth seeing.

And on an unrelated note, I've always wanted to visit Côte d'Ivoire.

Félix Houphouët-Boigny FTW!

Seems a little far-fetched. It took a couple centuries for the West to become the dominant powers. Why would it turn around in less than 30 years?

But it would probably make some valid points. Reveal some issues, which should be non-issues but aren't.

My colleague (a Somalian woman at the refugee centre) was looking at this today, I think. If it's shown in England, I'll definitely go to see it.

Seems a little far-fetched. It took a couple centuries for the West to become the dominant powers. Why would it turn around in less than 30 years?

I don't think it's trying to be realistic in that sense. The idea is to present a certain setting as a "mirror" to reality.


But it would probably make some valid points.

Hopefully it'll cause some thinking and debate, yes.

I don't think it's trying to be realistic in that sense. The idea is to present a certain setting as a "mirror" to reality.

I understand that. I'm one of those persons who criticize why everything is so unbelievable in movies. Like when Doctor Octavius pulls the wall down on Peter Parker in Spiderman 2? Peter would be dead. But is he? No! In fact, he bursts from the pile of rubble unharmed! Things like that bother me, and this is just another example of that. Doesn't invalidate the points in anyway.

Like when Doctor Octavius pulls the wall down on Peter Parker in Spiderman 2? Peter would be dead. But is he? No! In fact, he bursts from the pile of rubble unharmed!

Spidey strength!

I understand that. I'm one of those persons who criticize why everything is so unbelievable in movies. Like when Doctor Octavius pulls the wall down on Peter Parker in Spiderman 2? Peter would be dead. But is he? No! In fact, he bursts from the pile of rubble unharmed! Things like that bother me, and this is just another example of that. Doesn't invalidate the points in anyway.
And the thing with webbing coming out of his hands didn't bother you at all?

And the thing with webbing coming out of his hands didn't bother you at all?

Well, that was explained with the super-fast insertion of spider DNA which somehow integrated itself into the body. I don't quite understand how that would prevent him from being squished by a wall of bricks, though.

Muscle strength =/= Protection of organs and bones

Muscle strength =/= Protection of organs and bones

Spidey strength =/= Muscle strength

Spidey strength =/= Muscle strength

Now explain why, and maybe I'll buy it. And if it makes sense, it should have been included in the movie.

Now explain why, and maybe I'll buy it. And if it makes sense, it should have been included in the movie.

Spider-Man can survive trauma that would kill other people. In addition, his spider-sense would allow him to react and catch the rubble before it hit him, although the force would likely knock him down. He is one of the strongest non-mutants in the Marvel Universe.

Now explain why, and maybe I'll buy it.
Because Parker's entire body changed, from the DNA up. His muscles are denser, his bones are stronger, blood vessels less easily ruptured and so forth.

And if it makes sense, it should have been included in the movie.
Yeah, don't you just hate the way that films don't explain the minutiae of every single event in massive detail? I find it really detracts from the flow of the film when I don't have everything examined by the characters.
I mean, yeah, films would take about ten hours to watch through, and the dialogue would be horribly stilted and unrealistic, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay so that I didn't have to research the film's backstory on the internet for five minutes or read a Spiderman comic.

Spider-Man can survive trauma that would kill other people. In addition, his spider-sense would allow him to react and catch the rubble before it hit him, although the force would likely knock him down. He is one of the strongest non-mutants in the Marvel Universe.

Oh, I would say he's mutated. His DNA has been scrambled with a spider's!

That makes some sense I guess.

Oh, I would say he's mutated. His DNA has been scrambled with a spider's!

Mutants are born, not made.

Oh, I would say he's mutated. His DNA has been scrambled with a spider's!

Nah, he was born a human, so that's how he's classed. The X-Men crossovers tend to go into the detail you crave so much; look out for them at your local book or comic retailer!

Because Parker's entire body changed, from the DNA up. His muscles are denser, his bones are stronger, blood vessels less easily ruptured and so forth.

Makes sense

Yeah, don't you just hate the way that films don't explain the minutiae of every single event in massive detail? I find it really detracts from the flow of the film when I don't have everything examined by the characters.
I mean, yeah, films would take about ten hours to watch through, and the dialogue would be horribly stilted and unrealistic, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay so that I didn't have to research the film's backstory on the internet for five minutes or read a Spiderman comic.

You over-exaggerate. All they would need is one short scene where he's testing his strength and maybe writing in a journal or something recording all the changes, speaking aloud as he's writing. Not very long, and not very hard.

Nah, he was born a human, so that's how he's classed. The X-Men crossovers tend to go into the detail you crave so much; look out for them at your local book or comic retailer!

Okay, then. I don't much care for comic books (except for the Bone ones, I love those) so I thank you for the explanations.

Guys, please don't hijack.

Mutants are born, not made.

Right. Spidey's a mutate.

Guys, please don't hijack.

My apologies.

Now explain why, and maybe I'll buy it. And if it makes sense, it should have been included in the movie.

He is made of magic.

Here's the film's website (in French):
http://africa.paradis.free.fr/interface01.html

Mutants are born, not made.

Untrue, see fruit fly experiments

Untrue, see fruit fly experiments

Can we stay on topic, please? Start your own thread about mutants if you want. This is about the film Africa Paradis and the issues it raises.

This sounds like it will oversimplify as opposed to add anything constructive to the debate. What its doing is saying essentially

"How would YOU like it if you were the poor ones and had to come to US!"

The issue is far more complex and all this film is doing is looking at the concerns of the immigrants. The states themselves have concerns too, and what is needed is a balance. States cannot just be massive guest houses for those who are in worse situations but at the same time they cannot be selfish ethnocentric fortresses who shut out anyone whose "not from round these parts".

This sounds like it will oversimplify as opposed to add anything constructive to the debate. What its doing is saying essentially

"How would YOU like it if you were the poor ones and had to come to US!"

The issue is far more complex and all this film is doing is looking at the concerns of the immigrants. The states themselves have concerns too, and what is needed is a balance. States cannot just be massive guest houses for those who are in worse situations but at the same time they cannot be selfish ethnocentric fortresses who shut out anyone whose "not from round these parts".

Then it seems as if it IS creating debate. :)

I haven't seen it myself yet, so I don't know exactly how it tackles these issues. Having said that, though, simply inviting people to see the problem from the immigrant's perspective is indeed adding something constructive.

Then it seems as if it IS creating debate. :)

I haven't seen it myself yet, so I don't know exactly how it tackles these issues. Having said that, though, simply inviting people to see the problem from the immigrant's perspective is indeed adding something constructive.

It only takes one perspective. So yes it does give something to that perspective, but that is not constructive debate as it does not consider the alternative perspective. Emotionally focusing upon one side of the debate means that you are blinded to the other side as emotion is not rational.

Well, that was explained with the super-fast insertion of spider DNA which somehow integrated itself into the body. I don't quite understand how that would prevent him from being squished by a wall of bricks, though.

Muscle strength =/= Protection of organs and bones

should'nt it come out of his ass then? the webbing that is

It only takes one perspective. So yes it does give something to that perspective, but that is not constructive debate as it does not consider the alternative perspective. Emotionally focusing upon one side of the debate means that you are blinded to the other side as emotion is not rational.

A fair point, but then more often than not this issue is seen only from the perspective of the host country's needs and ability to take in immigrants, not from the immigrants' perspective. So it is adding something fresh and useful, a new way of looking at the issue.


should'nt it come out of his ass then? the webbing that is

For goodness' sake, STAY ON TOPIC! Start your own thread about spidermen and mutants if you really want to discuss that.

The film depicts poor Europeans struggling to be allowed into a rich Africa in the 2030s. Its stated aim is to raise the issues of tolerance and humanity in matters of immigration.

Video report here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/culture.html).

If this comes out here, it may be worth seeing.

in Cote D'ivoire of in europe?

considering 26% of the country are not classified as 'Ivorians' even though many might be second generation immigrants.
The Northern ivorians who make up 60% (i believe) of the population are not treated as full members of the society.
A previous presidential candidate, Ouavara (sp?) was disqualified from running for elections because one of his parents was not born in the country, and that he was muslim....
And all this ethnic tension lead to a civil war and i believe the country is still split in 2 because they can't resolve their differences.

Let's hope france does'nt learn too many lessons from Cote D'Ivoire!

For goodness' sake, STAY ON TOPIC! Start your own thread about spidermen and mutants if you really want to discuss that.

:( sorry about that. I posted before i saw you asking people to get back on topic.

anyway i made up for it by posting a few points above

in Cote D'ivoire of in europe?


Huh?


The Northern ivorians who make up 60% (i believe) of the population are not treated as full members of the society.

Due to the country essentially being cut in half. Which, I hope, will be resolved long before the 2030s.

Again, the point of the film isn't absolute realism, I don't think. The concept of art as a mirror to (an aspect of) reality is a very old one, and doesn't necessite complete realism.


:( sorry about that. I posted before i saw you asking people to get back on topic.

anyway i made up for it by posting a few points above

That's ok.

in Cote D'ivoire of in europe?

considering 26% of the country are not classified as 'Ivorians' even though many might be second generation immigrants.
The Northern ivorians who make up 60% (i believe) of the population are not treated as full members of the society.
A previous presidential candidate, Ouavara (sp?) was disqualified from running for elections because one of his parents was not born in the country, and that he was muslim....
And all this ethnic tension lead to a civil war and i believe the country is still split in 2 because they can't resolve their differences.

Let's hope france does'nt learn too many lessons from Cote D'Ivoire!

Maybe I am just ignorant, but this sounds very much like the direction France is heading in.

Huh?



Due to the country essentially being cut in half. Which, I hope, will be resolved long before the 2030s.

Again, the point of the film isn't absolute realism, I don't think. The concept of art as a mirror to (an aspect of) reality is a very old one, and doesn't necessite complete realism.

That's ok.

I just see this sort of film as quite hipocritical considering the state of the nation. Using the argument "oh what if the issue was reversed" actually applies to the country NOW.
Fair enough the immigrants that have are the same colour, so it might not be as catchy as having a black man try to become a citizen in a black country since most europeans would not be able to see the differences between someone from the Cote D'Ivoire and say Burkina Fasso.

Maybe I am just ignorant, but this sounds very much like the direction France is heading in.

I'd be curious to know what you've been hearing about France... "Second generation immigrants" are citizens in France, and the country is not split in two. (Do you know what the situation in Côte d'Ivoire is?)


I just see this sort of film as quite hipocritical considering the state of the nation. Using the argument "oh what if the issue was reversed" actually applies to the country NOW.


Good point. It'd be interesting to know whether that point is being raised in Côte d'Ivoire itself.

Maybe I am just ignorant, but this sounds very much like the direction France is heading in.

in theory a french person is someone with french citisenship, regardless or race or religion.

One of the potential candidates in the next french election is Nicolas Sarkozy who's father is/was hungarian. He won't be barred from become the next president because of that.

in theory a french person is someone with french citisenship, regardless or race or religion.


In fact most of us (at least here in and around Paris) are immigrants, children of immigrants or grandchildren of immigrants. I can think of few people I know whose grandparents were all French-born.

Definitely sounds worth seeing.

And on an unrelated note, I've always wanted to visit Côte d'Ivoire.

Félix Houphouët-Boigny FTW!

Félix Houphouët-Boigny?

He's nuts. He spent a shitload of money moving the capital from Abidjan to his hometown, Yamassoukro. Even Saddam didn't do that. Besides, he's dead.

Félix Houphouët-Boigny?

He's nuts. He spent a shitload of money moving the capital from Abidjan to his hometown, Yamassoukro. Even Saddam didn't do that. Besides, he's dead.

He also doubled the literacy rate, gave Cote d'Ivoire one of the highest economic growth rates in Africa, never executed a single person, pursued a staunchly pro-Western (but pragmatic and peaceful) foreign policy, tremendously developed the country (especially by Third World standards), and provided good roads and infrastructure, etc. Can't say that about many other sub-Saharan African leaders.

If this comes out here, it may be worth seeing.

It says on the site that the release in France will be on the 28th of February.

I just watched the trailer, and it seems interesting. I'll watch it if any theaters in Angers (where I'm temporarily moving next month) or Nantes have it.