Reviews

Chris Temple and Zach Ingrasci had a mission when they decided to set out and make the documentary Salam Neighbor in the midst of a Jordanian refugee camp. As can be gleaned from the closing commentary of the documentary, these two filmmakers were trying to get people to donate money to the refugee cause while also trying to falsify anti-Muslim statements. Some people may say that the filmmakers only interviewed the obviously innocent figures of women and children and did not include enough refugees to create a representative sample of stories that accurately represent refugee life. People may also criticize these filmmakers for going in and trying to depict refugee life while bringing fresh clothes, vaccinations and a departure date with them. All in all, the documentary needs to be looked at within the frame of a video aimed at garnering donations. This is problematic in itself, and Temple and Ingrasci definitely could have done more to learn about cultural norms in Syria before setting up camp among actual refugees. Nevertheless, focusing on a few different refugees who they got to know well gave a depth to the stories the audience was hearing. If the filmmakers had just gone to the camp and tried to interview as many people as possible, the audience would not have been able to see what life in a refugee camp was like beyond the surface. For example, by going in depth to the story of 10-year-old Raouf, Temple and Ingrasci were able to learn of his past trauma and the overall violence that effects one at every turn in Syria. The filmmakers specifically focused on women and children, both because these particular women and children have remarkable stories, such as the women who has been able to build a whole income around her craft work and the young boy and his relationship with school, and because focusing on men who have to do anything to provide for their families or focusing on the "thugs" that were said to roam the camp at night might give weight to the anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiments prevalent around the globe. I believe that Temple and Ingrasci's motives were genuine and while the making of their film does not come without its problems, it is hard to bring the story of refugees to public attention without making some mistakes and garnering this kind of criticism. I appreciated the chance to get a closer look into life inside of the refugee camp and though it may not be 100% representative, it is a good starting point for audience members interested in refugee affairs who are not able to experience the camp themselves.

Philippe Lioret's brilliant film about a 17-year-old Kurdish refugee from Iraq, named Bilal, who is trying to make his way to London to reunite with his girlfriend and also to find a better standard of living and greater security as an undocumented immigrant is refreshingly timely. Bilal has walked across the entirety of Europe and his final stop before making it to London is Calais, France. When Bilal discovers that he cannot cross into London by truck he decides to cross the English Channel by swimming. To do this, Bilal recruits the help of a local swim coach, Simon Calamant, to teach him how to swim. The two soon develop a bond and Calamant provides housing and assistance to Bilal, against French law. Overall, I do not think that the goal of this film was to provide an accurate description of life in the refugee camps, though it would have helped reinforce the desperateness of the refugee situation. I believe that the ultimate goal of this movie was to create a commentary on the way France treats its refugees and that was successfully done. Even the viewer who is not familiar with France's policies regarding refugees can pick up, without a doubt, the hostility with which the French people treat refugees. For example, the grocery store worker denies two refugees entrance to a grocery store and Calamant's neighbors can be seen arguing with him over his decision to help Bilal. It is even illegal for the French to give refugees a ride in a car. The movie was successful in portraying the dichotomy between legal and illegal residents and this was largely due to Calamant's character and the fact that through his actions a lot of the irrationality of France's refugee policies came to light. Even though the story of Calamant's divorce may seem at the surface level to be an unnecessary commercial addition, Calamant's wife was instrumental in getting Calamant to see the error in his ways regarding the treatment of refugees. Especially in the grocery store scene, his ex-wife stands as the antithesis of France's policies and starts to help Calamant realize their absurdity as well. Also, the film does not have a happy ending by design. This helps to illuminate the fact that the refugee situation has not been a positive one and that, for refugees, the road to complete resettlement is a long one. For many refugees, there is no happy ending. Ultimately, Lioret's film is still important almost ten years after its release. That says something about both the storyline of the film and the global refugee situation at hand.

If you're looking for a film that makes you feel as if you're suffering along with the protagonists, you have come to the right place. The frustration I felt while watching this film is a testament to the wonderful job of the filmmakers and actors to make the plight of the characters palpable. In my opinion, what is the point of making a film about the very boundaries of human suffering if you do not make the audience feel as if they are suffering along with the main characters? Here, my feeling of frustration began in the Soviet Gulag, which is decently depicted in this film. The audience gets a real sense of the crowding, lice and power structures that were an ever-present part of every concentration camp. I was personally impressed at the addition of Valka's character and the representation of the role that "career criminals" played in the camps as the most powerful men in every barrack, namely because of their ability to incite fear and thus get what they want. It was also nice to see the point raised that some detainees in the camp still supported communism. It is important to see this depicted in the film since it is historically accurate that even though these people were imprisoned by the government, they were still loyal to communism and what it stood for. Consequently, in terms of the films accuracy, I was very impressed for a film about the gulags, which are a highly underrepresented subject in Hollywood. If I could change anything I would have added more casualties to the gulag than were shown in the film. It almost makes the conditions of the camp and the brutality of the environment not look as harsh without the almost constant death that would have defined actual life in the gulags. The feeling of frustration continued as the group escaped and eventually made their way into the desert on the way to India. I kept feeling as if I wanted the scenes in the desert to end so that I would no longer feel the irritation that rose in me as I just watched them walk over miles and miles of desert. I realized later that this was a choice that the directors of the movie consciously made in an attempt to convey to the audience the real frustration and desperation of the characters. Though there is debate about whether or not this walk to freedom did occur, there is no denying that the walk made you feel the pure despair and hopelessness of the protagonists who would go to such lengths to avoid concentration camps. In this sense, I would recommend this film to anyone who is looking for a film about Soviet Gulags. Not only does it provide a painfully real representation of camp life, it conveys the shear desperation that led several men to take on this type of journey. What does it say about the camps that these men would be willing to walk across a continent to escape?

Come See the Paradise is another typical Hollywood depiction of a rarely mentioned event in America's complicated history. The movie does its job of creating an emotional reaction and one that makes you feel sympathy for the characters and their situation, but in terms of historical content there are some inconsistencies. My biggest question after watching this film is the necessity of including a love story amongst a topic that could constitute its own movie. In my opinion, the notion of holding people in a camp against their will should constitute enough emotion that a romantic interest is not necessary. Sure, the love story adds an aspect of intrigue and brings people to the movie by playing up the romantic storyline, but, in actually, the depicted relationship is wildly inaccurate in a historical sense. An interracial couple such as Lily and Jack would have had immensely more struggles in their daily lives. The fact that they just walked into a wedding as a couple and nobody said anything to them would have been highly, highly unlikely in the 1930's. Likewise, the couple would have had trouble procuring service at a restaurant, getting a hotel room and even going out in public without garnering some quizzical looks. I understand the necessity of including a love story for modern audiences, but to someone watching with the intent to analyze historical content this can be more of a distraction than a delight. I believe that the scenes taking place in the camp could have completely stood on their own without the appearance of Dennis Quaid's character. Conversely, the movie was fairly accurate with other historical details related to the life of the Kawamuras. The recreation of Little Tokyo was filled with impressive props and attention to detail. The reference to the Japanese Citizen's League, Question 26 concerning American loyalty and the No-No boys were a sight for weary eyes at that point in the movie. In the end, nothing can be done about the fact that, overall, this is a Hollywood production and the main goal of the movie is to put people in the audience. In terms of historical accuracies, there was good attention to detail in general, though the love story is an unnecessary aspect of the film. The main redeeming aspect of this film is that it spreads the story of Japanese internment to Hollywood's audiences, but why must this be done through an aspect of love? Isn't the narrative of life before, during and after internment enough to create a film worthy of Hollywood?

What I want to say right away is that As If I Am Not There is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen. The film, for lack of a better way to express how I feel, punched me in the gut. The realism of the film, paired with the brilliant performance by Natasha Petrovic, brought the horrors of the Bosnian War to life in terms of the pain and the terror felt by many women. Also, for the most part, it brought to life a lot of the historical context surrounding the war. As shown in the film, men of all ages from rural villages, except young boys, were rounded up and shot on the spot throughout the more rural parts of Bosnia. The women were brought to concentration camps mainly stationed in warehouses and raped relentlessly. The one historical aspect of the film that I question is the ongoing "relationship" Samira held with the Captain. While we should more accurately label this act as survival sex on Samira's part, how often did these kinds of relationships occur in these camps? I understand that this storyline was most likely needed to be a complicated part of the overall narrative of the film, but would this kind of relationship have readily occurred to a woman who was not from Sarajevo and thus perhaps considered more modern by the Serbian soldiers when compared to her rural village counterparts? I do not believe that these acts of relations with the Captain were common and historically accurate for the majority of women who were placed in these camps, especially in terms of the meals and baths afforded Samira by the Captain. Though overall, Juanita Wilson did an extraordinary job with conveying the feelings of the women with little dialogue and unforgettable emotional messages. It is hard to find much fault in a movie that moves you so deeply and resonates with you for long after the credits finish rolling on the screen.

Life is Beautiful is one of those movies that makes you laugh, makes you cry and makes you feel almost every emotion in between. If the movie's goal was to tug at your heartstrings and make you feel a kind of personal loss, then it did a fantastic job. After watching this film, I felt personally connected to Guido and Dora's love story, their family and their lives, which made it immensely harder to watch them suffer in the concentration camp. If the film's objective was to portray historically accurate content, then it did a less than fantastic job. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved the film, but as a history student who has studied concentration camps in detail I could not help but notice some historical discrepancies that could be a little distracting to the history buff. First off, the publication of the "Manifest of Racial Scientists" appeared in 1938, kicking off the official anti-Semitic movement in Italy. These new anti-Jewish policies were created in the likeness of the Nazi Nuremburg laws, so a Jew to Non-Jew marriage would have never legally occurred at this time in history, as was the marriage between Guido and Dora. In terms of the concentration camp itself, a child of Giosué's age would have rarely, if ever, made it past the "selection" points upon entering the camp. It was common for camp doctors to select the elderly and children for immediate gassing directly off of the train, since they would not be able to complete much work. That fact that Giosué was not selected, especially in a work camp, is an historical oversight. It is also historically incorrect to see concentration camp inmates with tattooed numbers outside of Auschwitz, since the notorious extermination camp was the only known place to tattoo inmates. Lastly, in this film, the heads of the women in the camp were not shaved upon arrival. This was commonly done in all concentration camps to stop the spread of lice. In terms of historical accuracies, the chaos that ensued in all concentration camps as the Allied forces advanced and the war was nearing an end is given more historical attention than most other parts of this film. The burning of books and the fast escape of the camp soldiers well represents the disorder and madness that would have surrounded the soldiers covering their tracks. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie as a cinematic experience and one that feels more emotionally jarring than a documentary that just displays numerical statistics. While some parts of the film may not be the most historically accurate, the feelings of sadness and loss that one feels after watching this film are real and effective and that makes it worth the watch.