A documentary derives its essential effect through its filmic depiction of that purest effecter of emotion, the naked truth; hence, the more this truth is colored by unsatisfactory directorial interpretation and artifice, the more its potency is lost to banality. Mati Diop’s Dahomey is weakened by its imperfect balance between an impartial portrayal of events and an artistic yet artificially distorting expression of Diop’s view on the subject.
The action of Dahomey is France’s restitution of twenty-six royal treasures it had plundered from Dahomey during its colonial rule back to the Beninese and the reactions elicited hereby. It divides itself into two distinct halves, one depicting the transport of the treasures and the other a dialogue between students debating its significance.
It is only in the latter that the film truly excites, with its impartial portrayal of the diverse opinions held by the students regarding the restitution. Diop shows admirable judgement in choosing the speakers that are depicted, for each one is, despite the divergence of views, through rhetorical force and insightful understanding thoroughly persuasive and thought-provoking. The action herein is made invigorating by the restless camerawork finely balancing the focus between the speakers and the listeners. One side considers this restitution a great start, strengthening a national selfhood through this material culture that connects them to their ancestors, while others pertinently question whether the Beninese do or could care about their culture with their personal hardship, and whether this is not merely a demonstration for gaining political favor.
Yet this nuance is cinematographically unexpressed: both covertly by the undue focus on such incredible scenes as people festively celebrating the restitution, or solemnly reading the news thereof, or standing awestruck before the artifacts in the museum, and overtly by the absurd artistic choice of having Treasure #26 occasionally “speak,” which utters throughout but insipid resentment at being stolen, locked, and now returned, or incomprehensible mystical nonsense. Whereby the directorial obscuration and opinion are clearly demonstrated and the film’s documentary trustworthiness jeopardized, the more so as this opinion cannot so easily be said to represent the complex one of the Beninese.
Worse than this partiality is the cinematographic dullness of the entire film excepting the student dialogue; its tedious pace and monotonous static camera documents but the most pointless trivialities in the transport of the treasures when not capturing those that contribute bluntly to its thematic statement. Any artistic effect built by its measured pace is shattered by the discordant contrast of the quickness that follows thence. The rest of the film being but the capture of a conversation, there is very little to commend of visual documentation that helps the film to distinguish itself, and it remains thoroughly commonplace.
One trusts in having through Dahomey an adequate understanding solely of the opinions of Beninese students regarding the restitution of cultural artifacts; but its partiality in documentary filming, both deceptive and ridiculous, as well as its tedious frivolity and scarcity of genuine cinematographic documentation, render Dahomey but an informative mediocrity.
2.5/5 Stars