February 09, 2010
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The People behind the Politics |
| by Joseph Susanka |
| 11/22/08 |
|
The immigration debate is singularly polarizing in our political climate today. From cries for "compassionately conservative" acceptance of those immigrants doing the jobs "Americans won't do," to Tom Tancredo's insistence that "the pope's immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church," the positions have grown so extreme that there no longer seems room for honest debate. Those uncomfortable with either the "open boarders and amnesty" or "deportation and walls" positions often find themselves without a political home, unable to engage an issue they feel calls for more ethical nuance.
And yet, this is exactly the inflammatory backdrop writer/director Thomas McCarthy chose for his latest offering, The Visitor, a quiet little film about a quiet little man overcome by a quiet, deep suffering. Walter Vale, a professor of economics at an anonymous Connecticut college, is struggling to cope with the passing of his dearly beloved wife. Affected by her death in ways that he seems unable to comprehend, he has allowed a crippling apathy to steal over his waning years. Delivering his lectures in a dull, disengaged monotone, ignoring requests for assistance from his students, he is a man going through the motions.
When Walter is called upon to deliver a presentation at a New York conference, he plans to head to his long-dormant apartment in the city and spend the evenings listening to music and ostensibly working on his new book. But the apartment is nowhere near as dormant as he was expecting; Tarek Khalil, a young Syrian musician, and Zainab, his Senegalese girlfriend, have been squatting there for months. This is too much even for mundane, mild-mannered Walter to take, and his first instinct is to demand they leave immediately; but once he discovers that his insistence will relegate them to a life on the street, he relents.
Walter's unusual gesture of generosity quickly bears fruit, as his unexpected houseguests slowly begin pulling him out of his apathetic shell. Zainab cooks and cleans, the three of them attend the night club where Tarek and his musician friends play, and the young Syrian even begins to teach Walter the djembe (a skin-covered, ethnic drum that is played with the bare hands).
But this new-found energy and hope is brought crashing down when Tarek is accosted in the New York subway and taken into custody. Walter assumes that the entire affair is simply an honest mistake, but he soon discovers that Tarek is an illegal alien who applied for and was denied political asylum several years ago, and is now in very real danger of being extradited. To make matters worse, Zainab (also an illegal) is hysterical with concern, yet unable to visit Tarek for fear of being caught herself. And now Tarek's mother, Mouna (illegal herself), arrives unannounced to investigate her son's sudden radio silence.
Able to travel to and from the detention center uninhibited, the professor becomes Tarek's link to the outside world, bringing him encouragement and love from his family and friends, as well as hope for his release. As the situation grows increasingly frustrating, Walter begins to recognize the transformative power of serving rather than being served, and of striving to live a meaningful life rather than settling for a passive existence. Walter's burgeoning transformation coincides with Mouna's appearance; his growing attachment to her provides some of the film's most unexpectedly charming moments.
McCarthy's extraordinary abilities as a writer and director, displayed so marvelously in his first film (the subtle and charmingly quirky Station Agent), are certainly put to the test here. A story that revolves so essentially about the topic of illegal immigration brings some significant built-in difficulties, and one might well wonder if his quiet storytelling-style would survive such a politically charged topic. Thankfully, those doubts are largely ill-founded here; whereas most directors build their political films around the message (see "Stone, Oliver"), McCarthy is more focused on his characters than on their ideologies. And while there are a number of moments where he veers into pontification -- for instance, using the flag, Ellis Island, or the Statue of Liberty in ways that could be considered either snidely sarcastic or, at the very least, unhelpful -- the majority of the time he stubbornly refuses to deal with the public-policy implications of his story.
Much like his work on The Station Agent, McCarthy is far more interested in the particular people he is creating than in the stereotypes or political principles they may embody. And while he is not above occasional commentary, the majority of the film is evenhanded and fair-minded, if not without bias. Interestingly, McCarthy does not lay the blame for Tarek's problems squarely on the failure of the American immigration system, as one might have expected from standard Hollywood fare. Walter's ardent soapbox moments decrying the unfairness of Tarek's imprisonment are cast against Mouna's revelation of another facet of her son's predicament, casting a more complex light on his situation.
While the film is not without its flaws -- like The Station Agent, its ending is almost brutally abrupt, leaving the audience with the unsatisfying image of Walter pounding away on his djembe in the bowels of the New York subway -- it is its willingness to confront the complexity of its story that really resonates. McCarthy's amazing grasp over the quiet yet complex details of his characters is precisely what makes his work so compelling. It is these same details, far more than the broad strokes of the story, that make the film a fascinating addition to the debate. It serves as the cinematic reminder of the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput, who speaks of the "bitterly concrete" details of this complex issue, and reminds us that "as Catholics, we need to think seriously about the human cost of the continuing immigration debate." And it is McCarthy's stubborn insistence on the accurate portrayal of the story's human aspects that makes it so truly memorable.
Joseph Susanka writes from Lander, Wyoming. Readers have left 6 comments. Our Bishop, Anthony Taylor, just wrote an open borders, pro illegal immigration, pastoral letter. I read it and it is one of the most radical positions Ive seen. He never mentions the position of the Church on illegal immigration as stated in the Catachism (which is states a more restrictive position) and his basic argument is that whoever wants in here, this country has to let them in and take care of them. (THE TAX PAYERS OF THIS COUNTRY). Its whatever the ILLEGALS want, not what this nation wants, or whats good for this nation because according to Taylor, there should be NO "nation." Everyone is free to come and go. How did Arkansas get so lucky?? Written by Dan Curry While I'm largely a Buchananite, I agree with the Left on one thing: the US needs to change its amnesty policy, which is only to grant amnesty to people from nations considered "hostile." If you're a Christian persecuted by, say, Iran, you can apply for amnesty in the US. If you're a Christian persecuted by, say, Saudi Arabia, you can't. When "illegal immigration" became a major issue in the 80s, it was partly due to economic reasons, but largely due to refugees from military dictatorships in Central America that the US supported. This gave the moral imperative to the Left's arguments.  Written by JC Joseph, I thought the trailer for this film was quite charming, but I stayed away from the movie because I wasn't in the mood for another post-Obama political sermon. I will watch it when it makes the tube, but that last image of Walter playing the drum in the subway station does sound very contrived. Written by Deal Hudson Deal: I was very struck by the trailer, as well. Combine that with my interest in McCarthy's previous film, and it was a "must see" for me. Despite the film's obviously political subject matter - the juxtaposition of American symbols with Tarek's imprisonment that I mention is a good example of McCarthy being just a bit too obvious with his own opinion - the preachiness doesn't always take the direction one would expect. And sometimes, when you might most expect it to make an appearance, it is conspicuously absent. I think that with advance warning of the film's few cringe-inducing moments, it can be a highly rewarding experience. I can appreciation your disinclination in another "post-Obama sermon;" I watched it before the election, so that aspect of the film was probably not on my radar quite as much as it would be today. Still, I highly recommend giving it a look if you get the opportunity. (The acting alone would make it worthwhile. Richard Jenkins is absolutely spectacular.) JC and Dan: In many ways, the film deals with the "current situation" in the country, rather than with any decisions about the future policies we should or should not pursue. It's a "what do we do with these folks that are already here" film, rather than a "how should we treat folks in general" one, consistent with McCarthy's focus on the individuals rather than the principles. Which is not to say that we should ignore the principles. Or even that the individuals are more important than our policies. Archbishop Chaput, even while speaking of the "continuing cost of the immigration debate," also calls for greater clarity and implementation of the policies themselves. And while one might disagree with McCarthy on a number of points, the fact that it is vitally important to keep the "people" in mind seems valuable no matter what your position might be. Written by Joseph Susanka Quote(5) What do we do with these folks that are already here illegally? November 24th, 2008 | 7:16pm "Our Bishop, Anthony Taylor," Dan Curry (#1) reported, "just wrote an open borders, pro illegal immigration, pastoral letter. ... He never mentions the position of the Church..." A bishop sidesteps the explicit teachings of the Church while using a pontifical letter to push a personal political agenda? Sigh. So how does that make this bishop different from the rest of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops apparatchiki? ![[smiley=sad]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_sad.gif) If what Dan Curry is correct, that "according to (Bishop) Taylor, there should be NO 'nation.' Everyone is free to come and go," then I'd like to hear that bishop reconcile his laissez faire attitude in the migration sphere with, say, non-Catholics taking* communion? The position Dan Curry attributes to the bishop may appeal to the soft-of-head-and-heart folks. Worse than its impracticality is the backlash against immigrants and migrants that such a policy is likely to inspire. In my experience, the large majority of Americans agree with the title of JC's comment, "Illegal immigrants? No. Refugees? Si!" (JC does, though, greatly exaggerate the number of Salvadoran political refugees genuinely seeking asylum in the USA during the 1980s.) Those of us with warm hearts who think with cool heads know that a welfare state is incompatible with a democratic republic based on the humane principles of respect for individuals because they are endowed with unalienable rights. I do believe there is a way past the covet-thy-neighbor's-goods approach of the welfare statists and the supposed cold-heartedness of those who value our American republic's respect for people's individual rights. Let's strive to amend immigration laws to require that refugees have sponsors who post a bond, say $50,000, that is forfeit if the person sponsored becomes a government welfare case or is deported for conviction of a crime. US Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was recently caught saying that she believed there was some kind of similar, existing requirement for legal immigrants. She was in error. People of good will should amend US immigration law to require most immigrants to post such a bond. Churches, other charities, and individuals could sponsor as many refugees as they can raise the money to post bonds. By requiring the soft-hearted to put some of their own skin in the game, I expect that they'll be more careful about the bona fides of the "refugees" they choose to aid. I also expect that churches sponsoring refugees openly and legally will be able to marshal greater assistance for their charges than they can with 1980s-style "sanctuary theater" and quasi-clandestine refugee aid schemes. * Yes, I know the difference between 'taking' and 'receiving.' Written by Micha Elyi I finally was able to watch The Visitor this week. I found it not preachy at all, and not at all about the big problem of illegal immigrants. It is about a friendship between two men that develops slowly. Before he meets Tarek, Walter has no interest in the political aspects of immigration and asylum, he's not an activist, he has never bothered to form an opinion. He does not pursue the responsibility that friendship gives him, but he accepts it day to day as he grows fond of Tarek and Zainab. This is subsidiarity, I think. One person (Walter) takes responsibility for one need (Tarek). The "system" cannot help Tarek because the laws, right or wrong, are written with no particular person in mind. I loved this movie. It moves slowly and draws you in. The character of Walter is so well-written and well-acted. Thanks for writing about it. Written by Betsy Acciani |
|
 |
