This movie made me feel very uncomfortable, mainly because it blurs the boundaries between documentary and feature film. Had it been a genuine feature film based on a true story, it could have been a great movie. However, the introductory comments turned it into a documentary style movie and keeps you wondering how can the film team let this happen, why do they not interfere? The crew acts on some kind of deistic principle, we create but do no longer interfere after creation. Of course, the story is very moving and there are great shots and Jamal is a wonderful character. That is probably where my problem lies - how am I relate to this movie and its characters? I was wondering if spectators could gain something from this blurring of boundaries, but I have not been able to think of anything yet. The disintegration of reality? But where does this lead me? The disintegration of the reality of refugees? And the blurring would force spectators to look for orientation as much as Jamal does on his tour across a landscape that is at once very real and very surreal? I don't know if that is the intended effect, but maybe I search too far. As Winterbottom reveals in the additional footage and comments, the film crew intended to shoot some kind of road movie (paraphrase). However, I wonder if it is legitimate to use the tragic story of a refugee boy to achieve this goal. Is the initial concern about the fate of refugees just a pretension and a great backdrop to turn a road movie? I am sure the crew's motivation was honest, but it also seems that the tragedy of human refugees presented an ideal backdrop to shoot a exciting road movie. And, in my view, the two do not go together well and the product does not, ultimately, take me to a higher or just different level of understanding. Comments welcome.
Review of In This World
