Dahomey

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.

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.

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.

The better part of the film is more concerned with being art (in which it succeeds) than with explaining and showing the art in question. Twenty-six works were returned to Benin, but we only see five in the film. The public debate in the second half of the film contributed a lot to understanding the environment into which the looted works were returned.

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.