Benutzerrezensionen

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.

The documentary, elevated by poetic undertones, narrates the journey of historical artifacts returning from France to Benin. It highlights the debates among the Beninese about the significance of this event, showcasing a broad spectrum of perspectives. Particularly captivating is the technique of narrating from the artifact's point of view, adding depth and complexity to the audience's understanding. From a technical standpoint, the project is exceptionally well-crafted, impressing with its image quality, thoughtful pacing, and mesmerizing sound.

As a viewer from Europe, I felt a slight lack of explanation about what modern Benin is like beyond its capital, which would have helped form an opinion on the discussions presented by the Beninese in the film. However, it's clear that the filmmaker did not set out to provide a comprehensive overview of the country's current state.

Even though this is a short film it seemed to me to contain a lot of filler. It gained some interest about halfway through with in the public forum segments. With such an interesting subject matter, I felt myself wanting to learn more about the artifacts, the process that got them back to Benin, how and why they were stolen. I found myself annoyed with so many lengthy shots of security cameras, hallways, airports, and moving equipment.

Listening to Beninese talk about the significance of gaining these pieces back and all of the relics still in France was the meatiest part of this film and the most engaging for me. Often, I feel that a unsubstantial film could be edited for improvement. In this case, I feel that a lot of substance could have been added.

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.

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.

A vital reflection on colonialism and the loss of identity of nations plundered throughout history, and the plundering nature of countries that rose from the suffering of others.

Dahomey raises important questions about cultural assimilation and the wounds of colonialism that remain open in many cultures exploited by European powers that shield themselves from responsibility in a society that does not care much about the impact of the exploitation of first world countries on the rest of the world.

Despite the short duration, the dense theme makes the experience a little longer than it seems, but this discomfort is necessary.

The film captures very well how artifacts from our culture tell our story.

"Dahomey" is a film that transcends the documentary format, becoming an intimate and collective journey of healing and self-discovery. Under Mati Diop's sensitive yet powerful direction, it finds poetry in a subject steeped in historical pain: the restitution of 26 royal treasures from the Kingdom of Dahomey, looted during French colonialism. More than just a story about the return of artifacts, the film unfolds as a lyrical portrait of a culture that was deprived of its own reflection for centuries.

The narrative use of "26," the artifact that serves as the story's guide, is one of Diop's masterstrokes. Giving a statue its own voice-imbued with a subjective and almost spiritual perspective-turns the narrative into something profoundly human and, paradoxically, otherworldly. The statue's low, wise voice leads us through its journey of displacement, capture, and eventual reconnection. When we see the world through "26's" eyes-like in the scene where light fades as it's packed into a box-we feel the symbolic weight of being stripped of one's roots and confined to a foreign space.

Diop's cinematography is another standout feature. She skillfully balances the grandeur of Benin's landscapes with intimate shots of hands touching, holding, and carrying the artifacts. Every movement captures not just the object itself but the emotional and spiritual bond between the people of Benin and their cultural heritage. This visual duality creates a rhythm that feels almost meditative, giving the audience time to reflect on the depth of loss these artifacts represent-and the powerful act of their return.

Yet "Dahomey" doesn't stop at celebrating restitution as a triumphant event. The film honestly and thoughtfully explores the conversations sparked within the community as the artifacts are brought back. The joy of their return is intertwined with deeper questions: What exactly was lost? Can the void left by centuries of cultural colonialism ever be filled? While some voices express optimism about reclaiming these objects, others question the impact on a history that has been fractured and reshaped by foreign hands. Diop wisely observes these discussions without passing judgment, allowing the viewer to absorb the layers of meaning embedded in every exchange.

At just 68 minutes, the film might leave some viewers feeling like there's more to uncover. The conversations are so rich that a deeper dive would have been welcome. Still, this brevity is part of "Dahomey's" impact: it leaves you wanting to continue the dialogue, both internally and with others. The film doesn't offer easy answers or definitive solutions. Instead, it invites ongoing reflection on the intersection of history, identity, and justice.

"Dahomey" is a brilliant example of how cinema can serve as a tool for resistance and reconstruction. Diop doesn't just document a historic moment-she transforms it into a sensory and intellectual experience that reverberates far beyond the screen. The pain of colonialism is palpable, but so is the hope for a more just future, where stolen stories can be reclaimed and retold by those to whom they truly belong. This is a film that demands attention, reflection, and, above all, action. A work of art that reminds us the fight for historical justice is both a collective and deeply personal act.

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.

For me this is not a good movie. Just because a movie addresses an important topic doesn't automatically make it a good film. On the contrary, it can sometimes end up being overrated to the point where its flaws are completely ignored. People often confuse the importance of a message with the quality of its delivery, but these two things are not the same. A film that fails in storytelling, character development, or pacing is still a bad film, no matter how significant the subject matter might be. This is why overrated movies can be such a frustrating experience - they fail to live up to their hype.

I chose this film because I wanted to learn something about Benin and the history of plundered artifacts being returned by France. I still don't know anything about Benin or the history of the artifacts.

Though it is a short film it drags along so slowly it seems much, much longer. Shot after shot is held far longer than my attention span. The story, if you could call it that, is so disjointed, it ends up being more irritating than informative.

Some reviews mention the poetic style and that certainly was the outstanding feature. But the poem was long and boring. The audience at the Palm Springs Film Festival where it screened seemed to agree as we quietly trudged out absent the usual festival applause. .

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.

But online reviews can be hilarious. . .

So a certain muppet in the user reviews said the movie is "overhyped" because a movie that lacks character development can never be a good movie. That's very derp.

So, I was scratching my head for a solid eight minutes, trying to figure out how he focused on character development in this pertikular docu about France repatriating artifacts from Dahomey. And I think I unpacked it. See what you think of my figuring. . . Thank you.

I reckon said usder-reviewer thought "Dahomey" us the a story about a homie, as in "The Homey" and so fully expected to see a movie about some homey's life journey. Or some exciting chapters in such a life and to be fair, that would be a story that demands character development from the git go. Frustrated expectations naturally led to a raw deal sorta disappointment.

Find out that "Dahomey" is actually a nation and all of that simply did not make up for the short fall, hence the windy, irrelevant remarks/review.

Then I was thinking, "Alrighty, had it be me who had no clue about the nation "Dahomey" and had watched the movie all bummed out and crest fallen, what would I do, besides writing an embarrassing review?

And the answer that came to me was ironic. I would watch the movie again. But I can imagine how that sounds like punishment in certain ears. My mom used to say, when she was still above ground, "The day you stop learning is the day you quit living."

A good documentary will have me thinking deeply about the way I see the world once it's all said and done for days, even weeks. Diop's Dahomey doesn't really strike that chord. The emptiness of the corridors inside the Musée du quai Branly in Paris is an effective visualization of the void that only these 26 royal treasures can satisfy. But, the static shots were exhausting to look at after its overuse through the halfway point. Diop's execution of voiceover for the treasures came out flat, poetic, and empty, and doesn't add anything interesting to provoke such dialogue to begin with. The political, social, and cultural speculations made by the Beninese students and teachers were Diop's most compelling segments which deserved more screen presence. Instead, the film carries an obsessive gaze over these artifacts that aren't more interesting than the topics that arise from them.

Maybe it was because the expectations were too high that I didn't like it that much. The clearest dialogue partner of this film is definitely Resnais and Marc's "Statues Also Die". This film focuses on the process of the return of Benin cultural relics to the country. The idea is roughly "from one museum to another museum" and "endorsement" narrative from the perspective of cultural relics. The director's perspective is not unsophisticated. Most of the time he avoids news documentary-style angles (but there are still some) and instead shoots spatial details and aspects of the ceremony. This can be compared with the May Day parade documentary "Parade" in which Makaviev completely avoided the parade. The director also wanted to provide some new discussion angles through university seminars (but in fact, we can also explore issues such as French and even historical concepts).

The visuallly talented french-senegalese director Mati Diop tries to do a documentary on Benin, history, art, cultural.heritage and colonialism. Right off the start there is a contradiction: an outsider doing a film about people in Benin wanting their own voice. Perhaps this explains the lack of inspiration and the disjointed presentation.

There are three parts: -30 minutes of every dull detail of a statue being packed, put in a crate, and sent to airports, as narrated by the confused 'voice' of the statue and/or the entity it represents.

-A very quick montage of celebration followed by 25 plaibly shot minutes of a an animated debate among... some group of people... in Benin about their receiving the statues and its impact on cultural heritage and identity.

-A few minutes of random night time shots of urban Benin, similar to the visuals of "Atlantics".

The end.