vanillabean349

I sincerely have mixed feelings about this documentary. On one hand, I appreciate the effort that these film makers have put in to revealing what life is like in a refugee camp, and telling the stories of the people who live there. However, I still have some major issues with the way in which they have gone about this project. At the beginning of the film, I was very interested in the idea that Zach and Chris would be experiencing life in Za'atari just as others in the camp do. I was disappointed when they began to explain that they would have a camera crew and a translator with them instead. From this point forward, it seemed like they were merely experiencing 'Za'atari lite', the refugee camp without the hardship and danger that goes along with it. In this way, some of the procedures they went through to register officially as residents in the camp became almost trivial. While Zach and Chris had all of their documents and IDs, often times people who have been forced to flee the fighting in Syria and elsewhere may not have these documents to present. They also received a tent, mattresses, food and other supplies from the UNHCR like any other refugees, but the crew also had other supplies packed for the trip which allowed them to be more comfortable than others in the camp. Even still, they were not allowed to stay in the camp at night due to the danger of being robbed or harmed. What about the people who don't have the choice to leave? Rather than experiencing the bitter cold of a desert at night, the crew was able to sleep in an office building in a nearby city. I can accept that it would be much more difficult to produce such a high quality documentary if they were to truly embrace the lifestyle that many in these camps have to lead, but I believe that they could have done more, like learning Arabic to interact with people in the camp in a more authentic way instead of using a translator, or learning more about cultural intricacies and manners before plunging themselves into the unfamiliar environment. Criticism of their 'American tourist' behavior is warranted. Despite my many reservations, I still believe that this film deserves some credit. After watching the documentary, I cannot deny that I was touched by its humanization of people within the camp and efforts to familiarize the viewer with the support efforts that these camps have been working toward. The people they chose to portray helped this image of innocence and relatability, (which is somewhat problematic in itself), but it allowed for the viewer to empathize. A documentary like this one can draw out support for organizations like the UNHCR and others, and it did just that. However, in its pursuit to tell the truth, it told half.

In many ways, this film does a very good job of portraying what life is like for refugees. The unsettling scenes where Bilal and several other men must keep plastic bags tightly over their heads to prevent authorities from detecting their presence are realities for some people who have been forced to flee their home countries to seek refuge elsewhere. Likewise, the film depicts what life is like in refugee camps like the "Jungle" in Calais to a reasonable degree of accuracy, including the barbed wire fence, meager infrastructure and sanitation, and police brutality that was not uncommon.

In addition to this, the harshness of French policy and the discriminatory sentiments seen in the film are also true to life. Many refugees often hope to reach Britain where they may have more opportunities to rebuild their lives, but must take the journey across Europe, often ending up in northern France. However, often times, these refugees are not able to make the journey across the Channel, and become stuck in cities like Calais. The French government has attempted to prevent the formation of camps like the Jungle through harsh policies and attitudes toward refugees. This type of alienation and discrimination is seen throughout the film as well.

Despite the praise that this film deserves for its accuracy, the story it tells is relatively far-fetched. In a city like Calais where tensions between refugees and citizens would be highest, it is unlikely that someone like Simon Calamat would be the savior that he is in the film. This story is an exceptional case. Also, I was somewhat disappointed as a viewer how the Lioret takes the time to illustrate the hardships that Bilal and others in the camp have faced then shifts the focus to Simon's cliché relationship with his ex-wife. I was drawn in by Bilal's story, and it was somewhat frustrating to see the film revert to classic cinematic themes. However, I still thoroughly enjoyed this film, and appreciate its humanizing message.

This film was truly an experience to watch. The events of this film are based on the story recounted by Slavomir Rawicz, a polish army lieutenant who managed to escape from a Siberian gulag during the second world war and walked to freedom in India. Peter Weir uses this story and some imagination to produce the sometimes fantasy-like plot for the film. In the opening scenes, Janusz, the protagonist, is being interrogated on charges of spying for the Allied powers, but refuses to sign a confession even after his wife is forced to falsely testify against him. This sort of corruption was not unusual in the USSR during this time, further developing the exposition for the film. The film also does a great job of depicting the experiences of prisoners in these gulags. Upon their arrival, the commandant of the camp explains the true viciousness and harshness of the natural environment in these camps, and that this ought to be feared more so than the guards, officers or work. This is an accurate picture of the gulags, especially in Siberia, where bitter-cold temperatures, sudden storms and other harsh conditions took the lives of both prisoners and guards at only marginally different (but still alarming) rates. Work in these camps was often tough labor like the logging shown in the film, and was possibly even more dangerous than the film depicted. Trees would often fall on people, accidents often occurred that resulted in serious injuries, and there are recorded incidences of people who chose to harm themselves to get a reprieve from this dangerous environment. In addition to the work and conditions, the types of prisoners in the gulags depicted in the movie were also accurate to a great extent. Gulag populations were far from homogeneous, and often held career criminals, political prisoners, and many common people who were charged falsely with some crime, as well as people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The career criminals often took control of the prisoner population, and were able to manipulate others in the camp to get what they wanted. Often times, the guards even supported this behavior. Similarly, there were people of all walks of life, all levels of health, and all manners of allegiance to the soviet order. While many of the main characters were in open opposition to the Soviet system, people like Valka - who still praised Stalin even after escaping the camp - did exist. Overall this film paints a relatively accurate picture of gulag life, and the types of conditions seen within the camps. The characters are at times overplayed, and the story itself becomes slightly monotonous after a period of time, but I would recommend this film to anyone interested in a story of true human will.