Dahomey

Based on critiques, I was not sure whether I should dislocate to the next cinema to watch this film. One compelling reason: around 1960, the then called Dahomey was the focus of developmental aid by a Swiss supermarket cooperative, as depicted in that bi-weekly magazine. So by watching, I hoped to revive this past experience. Professional ratings are also quite good, and the short duration of only 1h+ would make a bad surprise bearable. It is anyway a weakness of contemporary film-makers to try to give 'substance' by making films of 2hours or more.

Contrary to some critiques here, the final scene with the discussions by the students was everything else than boring. The question is: what is the truth behind their assertions 'Only some dozens have been brought back, but there were thousands robbed'? I assume, the majour works have been returned.

Highlighting the narrative of historical artifacts returning to the original country, Mati Diop's documentary about artifacts, history, and culture is a slow, meditative, and poetic documentary that does offer an interesting observation of it's main subject.

Diop's approach is interesting as it felt like a real-life poetry being at displayed. Filled with gorgeous sound designs, music, and interesting imagery choices to present, it's definitely a documentary that sheds a good light on it's way. Interconnected with poetic dialogue, it's slow and meditative approach creates an interesting experience.

It isn't a standard documentary as it's more of an experimental art piece of a movie at times. But it's definitely an interesting experience.

With over 7,000 pieces taken by the colonising French from their homes in the ancient African kingdom of Dahomey (now Benin), there is much celebration amongst the population at the return of 26 artefacts. These range from statues of their legendary Kings Ghezo and Béhanzin to objects of religious significance and items of such an intricate design that their condition will require perpetual care in a new, purpose-built, home near the Presidential Palace. Sadly, we just don't spend enough time with these beautifully crafted sculptures, nor do we really learn very much about the history of them, their historical provenance nor really anything much about the colonial "treaties" that facilitated their move in the first place. It lacks a narration. Not often that bothers me, but at times this whole thing reminded me of one of those films you'd watch for ten minutes if you were visiting a museum before you moved on. It's presented as if it were the introductory edition of a multi-part documentary that was going to explore more and fill in many of the gaps left unexplained in this hour long preview. Too much of it is spent following a group of young people in a forum arguing about the relative merits (or demerits) of this gesture from the French, and though it can be interesting at times to listen to the differing views in this "what's past is prologue" type debate, it wasn't what I wanted to see. I wanted much more about the fascinating mythology that attributed animal features to human beings in the way the Egyptians did two thousand years earlier. What was their significance? How were they to be conserved, preserved, exhibited - and, quite importantly, to whom. None of that was really gone into and I found that all a little disappointing. It may stimulate further reading but as it stands, it's not great.

Saw this at IDFA 2024, the documentary film festival in Amsterdam. It reminded me of a recent visit to Rosenburg Castle in Copenhagen, where lots of ornaments and furniture was displayed, samples out of the collection of former Danish kings. As a not-so-frequent visitor of museums, this was my first confrontation with looted art. (I knew the term in a WW II context, but that is a totally different issue.) And it was by far not my last confrontation, as Denmark was no exception.

I am now perfectly aware that more countries acted similarly in their colonies. In hindsight I should have known better: names like Ivory Coast and Gold Coast are given for a reason to some parts of Africa. Since then, it stayed on my radar, knowing that the inhabitants at the time were not properly paid for those locally made handicraft, nor for mining materials coming out of their soil. Since then, I see contemporary movements to return those artifacts to the original countries, things I was less aware of before.

(Along the same line are parallel movements to offer excuses for past misdeeds around grabbing men and women from African countries, shipping them under harsh circumstances over the ocean, and letting them work under even so harsh conditions without proper pay. It seems a different matter, but it comes forth from a similar abuse of power over former colonies, accompanied by a condescending attitude against other races, and supported by the church, e.g. Pope Nicolaas V writing Dum Diversas in1452.)

It is easy to blindly applaud the return journey of 26 artefacts, going back from Paris to Benin (as the country is called nowadays). This is what we witness in the first half of the documentary. Rather than applauding France's generosity to facilitate this return journey, the 2nd half of this movie shows that it is by far not the last word. Firstly, there is the fact that merely 26 artefacts are just a small fraction of the thousands taken away in past centuries.

Secondly, there is much more to it, like their native languages and cultures that were "stolen" in the past, by actively suppressing all dialects and forcing everyone to speak French, the language of the ruling colonial country France. The current generation in Benin demonstrates this in open discussions on the matters at hand.

All in all, this movie is a welcome contribution to our social perception, at least to mine. It worked for me as an eye opener, broadening the scope of how we utilized our colonies, not only by taking away their natural riches but also by suppressing their local culture.

Not really all as good as people are making it out to be. Might be just me, but this really isn't the sort of film that I have a, sort of, deep interest in and as such I won't be able to be all that objective here. Point being, this is merely just run of the mill, typical, doesn't offer anything new to the table, which is what I was kind of hoping for judging by what others have been saying about Dahomey. Anyway, yeah, just don't really have anything else to say besides that it doesn't change anything about how I see anything. Which is fine but then also not fine at the same time, but oh well, maybe next time.