Reviews

Salam Neighbor depicts the experiences that Chris Temple and Zach Ingrasci had in Syrian refugee camp in Za'atari, Jordan. Overall, it is a powerful film that made not only the filmmakers but also the audience think a lot about topics that they might not have been aware of. In my opinion, the main purpose of this film was to reveal the refugees' lives in the camp and raise awareness and help in some way. In terms of these goals, I believe the film is very successful. Temple and Ingrasci show the hardships that the refugees have to go through, infusing emotional scenes adequately. Combination of their personal account and interviews help the viewers get both the insiders' and outsiders' perspective. They also manage to show how the refugees are trying to build their own lives as much as possible by capturing the development of market economy, education system in the camp, and community support. I appreciate how they did not portray the refugees as the "powerless victims." Moreover, by focusing on women's agency and strength to manage through the hardships and lead a family, the film helps the audience to break the stereotype about Islam. Additionally, in that aspect, it also delivers what the refugees wanted to say to the world: Muslims are humans just like everyone else. I feel like current world needs this a lot, so I am glad that the filmmakers helped the refugees deliver this message to the world. Some aspect of the camp is not mentioned, such as the thug life, but I believe that it is an inevitable limitation that they at least try to bring up verbally.

I do understand that this film may be subjected to numerous criticisms for choosing to cover a serious topic in a possibly controversial way. The main possible criticism I think this movie might receive is that it might be viewed as inserting too much "American" viewpoint. However, to generalize, I would like to say that this film views Syrian refugee situation from non-Syrian standpoint. I believe that their reactions were the most typical reaction of outsiders when they first visit or see what is going on inside the tents. I appreciated the fact that they were honest about those expressions, and tried hard to learn and communicate in the best way they know. They often touch on deep wound without even realizing, as they never experienced anything like this before, but I think it would be hypocritical of us to criticize that when we ourselves would probably react the same way. Despite all their possible mistakes, I do not believe that the feeling that the filmmakers show through the film is false. The tears, sighs, anger, and smiles were genuine and I could sense that through the screen. Keeping in mind that the primary target of this film is people from developed countries hoping to send help to the refugees, I believe this film is very effective, as it delivers the message directly and fosters empathy from the audience.

The reason why we watch movies is not only to see what the content is, but also to see how the content is delivered. Content-wise, the movie portrays the refugee policies and situations in France well, as we see a clash between activists and the government, refugees' desire to go to England, and formation of a "camp" in the shore. However, I think the area in which this movie shines the most is how it describes the content. Welcome captures the atmosphere of "The Jungle" of refugees poignantly. When I think back at the movie, I see every scene in grey. From the beginning to the end, I got the feeling that the whole movie is just grey, meaning that it has this strong gloomy and depressing mood, which portrays the situations of refugees. Additionally, Philippe Lioret creates a connection between the life of Bilal and plastic bag throughout the movie. We see how Bilal is claustrophobic, as he has a bad experience with putting a plastic bag over his head, but in the end, he is delivered back to Calais in a plastic bag. This creates a sense that no matter how hard he tries to escape, he ended back up in a plastic bag. This accentuates claustrophobic life that Bilal has, as well as the general experience of refugees. The feeling of being confined and incarcerated, not having anywhere else to go freely, also parallels with being inside a camp, exemplifying that camp is a both real and metaphorical concept. In regards to the ending, I was personally taken aback by the sad ending, as somehow I thought it would end with Bilal arriving at England and reuniting with his girlfriend. Nonetheless, I appreciate that it did not end that way. If it was a happy ending, then this movie would not have been representative of thousands of suffering refugees. Therefore, in general, I believe this movie did a good job in delivering the overall atmosphere of the refugee situations in Calais.

To be completely honest, this is not one of my favorite genres of movies. People are bound to die, scenes tend to get repetitive, and some parts are usually very gruesome. However, I found myself liking this movie more and more as I think about it deeper. The movie The Way Back tries its best to be as historically accurate as possible and incorporates fascinating graphics and visuals to add on to the possibly boring story.

It is hard to separate the historical analysis when viewing movies like this, as The Way Back touches on the Russian Gulag camps. Surprisingly, this movie did a relatively good job in depicting the Gulag. Although the description may not be extensive enough, it shows the lethality of the landscape and the climate, as shown in people falling and dying in the snowstorm. By showing the prisoners working in mines and in forests, it illustrates the heavy manual labor that the prisoners were subjected to. Moreover, it portrays how the prisoners were divided, with professional criminals dominating others. It also accurately represents the presence of people supporting Communism even within the camps, as shown with the character Valka, and the presence of Americans in the Soviet Union who moved to escape the Depression. Personally, I found the exchanges of goods very interesting, because this is the first camp-related movie that I saw that shows what people did exactly to survive in detail.

Outside of the historical perspective, I think the movie also did a good job in depicting the journey from the camp to India. Although it is slightly longer than it needs to be, we have to acknowledge that it is hard to make a movie out of people walking for months. The themes can be very repetitive as well - traveling in hunger, coldness, heat, and lack of water. However, it did not feel as repetitive as I expected it to be. Every time the scenes seem too long or start to get boring, something happens. For example, one of the travelmates die, find a well in the desert, discover something new about a character, or find helpful people. These elements are scattered throughout effectively to not lose the audience's focus. Additionally, the make-ups and graphics are on point, which adds the realistic and thrilling feeling to the story.

One thing that could have been better is the ending. I got a sense that it ended too abruptly after the characters reached Tibet. I understand that if the movie continued on, it would get extremely repetitive and long, but I think it could have at least showed the audience what their lives were like after the journey, giving a better closure. Nonetheless, it was definitely an interesting movie.

It is always difficult to find and acknowledge fault in one's own history. In that sense, Come See the Paradise was a surprisingly historically well-portrayed film, considering that it is a movie made in the US about Japanese internment camp. The movie did justice to the historical tragedy that Japanese Americans had to go through, but also made it acceptable for a larger American audience. It touches on several historical facts, such as the formation of Japanese Citizen League, the loyalty question in the questionnaire, and different experiences of Japanese Americans and the parents who are aliens. A compromise was necessary in order to produce this movie, which I believe was cleverly done.

Nonetheless, excluding the historical side, if we just evaluate the movie as another Hollywood film, I have to say it is generally terrible movie. The acting is very awkward and the lines made me cringe from time to time. Especially the scene in the Chinese restaurant where Jack and Lily first have lunch together was too cheesy that it was far from being romantic. Moreover, some parts of the plot seems irrelevant to the general storyline. For example, the fact that Jack was involved in the labor union business seems to have no connection with the rest of the story. The movie is slightly messy before the characters get interned in the camp, which happens relatively later in the film than I expected. I personally enjoy films that are coherent throughout, but this film was not one of them.

Even after the screen turned black, I could not get some brutal images out of my head. Throughout the whole time, I was cringing every second to the extent that my body actually hurt in the end. It was painful not because it was a terrible movie, but because it was so powerful in many different ways. The actress was absolutely flawless in conveying the emotion and maintaining the tension throughout, and the director did a wonderful job putting it together through unique editing technique that involved segmented scenes, shots focusing on facial expressions, and few dialogues. Moreover, this movie intentionally leaves some of the controversial issues regarding concentration camps ambiguous, providing a room for the audience to contemplate on them and form their own opinions.

One of the major moral controversies arising regarding the concentration camps is the matter of survival sex. The main character, Samira, is sexually violated in the concentration camp by Serbian soldiers. After experiencing and observing repeated incidents, she decides to not succumb to this cycle. She goes to meet the captain and engages in a sexual relationship with him in order to survive through the camp. There are two perspectives in viewing her action: using sex for survival or regaining her identity as a woman. If one views her action as an example of survival sex, it becomes morally questionable. If she was a perfect victim previously, she now chooses not to be one, thus using her sexuality for survival. The movie conveys both sides through the fellow victims talking behind her. Some support her actions, but others criticize her. By showing both sides, the movie deliberately chooses not to make a decision, allowing the audience to continue on with the conversation.

The most emotionally poignant scene personally is the later part of the movie when she realizes that she is pregnant. This part actualizes the concept that the camp never leaves the victims. Imagine having to raise the perpetrator's baby. The complex emotions she must have felt are well delivered through her facial expressions, flashbacks, and her conflicting actions. The peak is when Samira bursts into tears, which contrasts to the straight face she has kept throughout the entire camp experience. Choosing that as the last scene of the play was also a smart choice, as it had a powerful impact on the audience.