Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Review: From the Other Side (2002/2012)
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark R. Leeper
Apr 20, 2012, 11:43:01 PM4/20/12
to
FROM THE OTHER SIDE
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: FROM THE OTHER SIDE does not follow the
style of most documentaries. Rather than giving the
viewer a collection of facts, it is more a compilation
of the statements of people involved with the issue of
illegal immigrants coming from Mexico to the United
States. The statements are punctuated with long,
drawn-out several-minute-long takes of subjects like a
street in a border town, hikes across the desert while
being tracked by helicopters, sequences of waiting in
line at border crossings, etc. It is clear the
director Chantal Akerman feels a strong sympathy for
the immigrants and feels for their plight, but in
making her film she made stylistic decisions that may
get in the way of making her statement effectively.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
In FROM THE OTHER SIDE, Belgian documentarian Chantal Akerman gives
us a minimalist view of the issue of Mexican would-be immigrants
crossing the border from Mexico to Arizona. Akerman shows us the
plight of illegal Mexican immigrants by simply letting them speak
for themselves about why they or their family members risk death to
cross over the border. Akerman does this without narration or text
explanations or commentary. There are no screens with facts and
statistics; there is no narrator talking over the visuals. Akerman
chooses what the viewer will see, of course, but shows it without
additional comment. She gives us the arguments from both sides,
the Mexicans who cross over and some Arizonans who are opposed to
the immigration, but it seems clear that Akerman's sympathy is for
the immigrants. Recurring images in these scenes are the road and
walls and fences. These are the staples of the immigrant's life
and would-be immigrant's life.
Akerman goes back and forth between interviews, subtitled where
necessary, and long languid outdoor landscape takes--most several
minutes in length--giving us a feel for the environment and
conditions in Mexico and across the border in Arizona. Akerman
stresses the slow pace of life and the lay of the land. She will
show a street in a Mexican border town with an occasional pickup
truck driving down the street, and just lock down the camera
letting the scene run for several minutes. This approach is an
interesting stylistic decision. It conveys what may be an
emotional truth of the experience of life in a Mexican town, but
one has to ask whether showing these scenes to the viewer at such
length is really the best use of the time the viewer has invested
in the film. And is the viewer's reaction to such a portrait of
the town even the same reaction that a local would feel looking at
the same road?
By giving us these long takes with very little changing Akerman is
going for an emotional impact rather than using the more common
fact- and text-based approach. This lets the viewer come away with
a feeling for the issues and perhaps with some sympathy, but not
knowing enough of the scope and depth of the problem. The focus
moves as a progression. Akerman first looks at families of
immigrants passing over and the topography of their home territory.
Then at some of the people themselves, self-admitted illegal
immigrants reading a statement apparently written to be read in the
film where they tell why they have come and the pain and suffering
they have to endure. The scene shifts to the Mexican Consul to
present the Mexican government's point of view. Finally there is
an interview of a couple with fears of invasions from the other
side of the border.
It would be more effective to have a good an compelling documentary
depicting the plight of both the immigrants from Mexico and the
Americans who oppose them. This film goes for more of a stylistic
effect leaving the political impact secondary. A more effective
approach would have made this much more the film that was needed.
I rate it a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317321/>
What others are saying:
<http://tinyurl.com/void-otherside>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2012 Mark R. Leeper
FROM THE OTHER SIDE
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: FROM THE OTHER SIDE does not follow the
style of most documentaries. Rather than giving the
viewer a collection of facts, it is more a compilation
of the statements of people involved with the issue of
illegal immigrants coming from Mexico to the United
States. The statements are punctuated with long,
drawn-out several-minute-long takes of subjects like a
street in a border town, hikes across the desert while
being tracked by helicopters, sequences of waiting in
line at border crossings, etc. It is clear the
director Chantal Akerman feels a strong sympathy for
the immigrants and feels for their plight, but in
making her film she made stylistic decisions that may
get in the way of making her statement effectively.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
In FROM THE OTHER SIDE, Belgian documentarian Chantal Akerman gives
us a minimalist view of the issue of Mexican would-be immigrants
crossing the border from Mexico to Arizona. Akerman shows us the
plight of illegal Mexican immigrants by simply letting them speak
for themselves about why they or their family members risk death to
cross over the border. Akerman does this without narration or text
explanations or commentary. There are no screens with facts and
statistics; there is no narrator talking over the visuals. Akerman
chooses what the viewer will see, of course, but shows it without
additional comment. She gives us the arguments from both sides,
the Mexicans who cross over and some Arizonans who are opposed to
the immigration, but it seems clear that Akerman's sympathy is for
the immigrants. Recurring images in these scenes are the road and
walls and fences. These are the staples of the immigrant's life
and would-be immigrant's life.
Akerman goes back and forth between interviews, subtitled where
necessary, and long languid outdoor landscape takes--most several
minutes in length--giving us a feel for the environment and
conditions in Mexico and across the border in Arizona. Akerman
stresses the slow pace of life and the lay of the land. She will
show a street in a Mexican border town with an occasional pickup
truck driving down the street, and just lock down the camera
letting the scene run for several minutes. This approach is an
interesting stylistic decision. It conveys what may be an
emotional truth of the experience of life in a Mexican town, but
one has to ask whether showing these scenes to the viewer at such
length is really the best use of the time the viewer has invested
in the film. And is the viewer's reaction to such a portrait of
the town even the same reaction that a local would feel looking at
the same road?
By giving us these long takes with very little changing Akerman is
going for an emotional impact rather than using the more common
fact- and text-based approach. This lets the viewer come away with
a feeling for the issues and perhaps with some sympathy, but not
knowing enough of the scope and depth of the problem. The focus
moves as a progression. Akerman first looks at families of
immigrants passing over and the topography of their home territory.
Then at some of the people themselves, self-admitted illegal
immigrants reading a statement apparently written to be read in the
film where they tell why they have come and the pain and suffering
they have to endure. The scene shifts to the Mexican Consul to
present the Mexican government's point of view. Finally there is
an interview of a couple with fears of invasions from the other
side of the border.
It would be more effective to have a good an compelling documentary
depicting the plight of both the immigrants from Mexico and the
Americans who oppose them. This film goes for more of a stylistic
effect leaving the political impact secondary. A more effective
approach would have made this much more the film that was needed.
I rate it a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317321/>
What others are saying:
<http://tinyurl.com/void-otherside>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2012 Mark R. Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: FROM THE OTHER SIDE does not follow the
style of most documentaries. Rather than giving the
viewer a collection of facts, it is more a compilation
of the statements of people involved with the issue of
illegal immigrants coming from Mexico to the United
States. The statements are punctuated with long,
drawn-out several-minute-long takes of subjects like a
street in a border town, hikes across the desert while
being tracked by helicopters, sequences of waiting in
line at border crossings, etc. It is clear the
director Chantal Akerman feels a strong sympathy for
the immigrants and feels for their plight, but in
making her film she made stylistic decisions that may
get in the way of making her statement effectively.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
In FROM THE OTHER SIDE, Belgian documentarian Chantal Akerman gives
us a minimalist view of the issue of Mexican would-be immigrants
crossing the border from Mexico to Arizona. Akerman shows us the
plight of illegal Mexican immigrants by simply letting them speak
for themselves about why they or their family members risk death to
cross over the border. Akerman does this without narration or text
explanations or commentary. There are no screens with facts and
statistics; there is no narrator talking over the visuals. Akerman
chooses what the viewer will see, of course, but shows it without
additional comment. She gives us the arguments from both sides,
the Mexicans who cross over and some Arizonans who are opposed to
the immigration, but it seems clear that Akerman's sympathy is for
the immigrants. Recurring images in these scenes are the road and
walls and fences. These are the staples of the immigrant's life
and would-be immigrant's life.
Akerman goes back and forth between interviews, subtitled where
necessary, and long languid outdoor landscape takes--most several
minutes in length--giving us a feel for the environment and
conditions in Mexico and across the border in Arizona. Akerman
stresses the slow pace of life and the lay of the land. She will
show a street in a Mexican border town with an occasional pickup
truck driving down the street, and just lock down the camera
letting the scene run for several minutes. This approach is an
interesting stylistic decision. It conveys what may be an
emotional truth of the experience of life in a Mexican town, but
one has to ask whether showing these scenes to the viewer at such
length is really the best use of the time the viewer has invested
in the film. And is the viewer's reaction to such a portrait of
the town even the same reaction that a local would feel looking at
the same road?
By giving us these long takes with very little changing Akerman is
going for an emotional impact rather than using the more common
fact- and text-based approach. This lets the viewer come away with
a feeling for the issues and perhaps with some sympathy, but not
knowing enough of the scope and depth of the problem. The focus
moves as a progression. Akerman first looks at families of
immigrants passing over and the topography of their home territory.
Then at some of the people themselves, self-admitted illegal
immigrants reading a statement apparently written to be read in the
film where they tell why they have come and the pain and suffering
they have to endure. The scene shifts to the Mexican Consul to
present the Mexican government's point of view. Finally there is
an interview of a couple with fears of invasions from the other
side of the border.
It would be more effective to have a good an compelling documentary
depicting the plight of both the immigrants from Mexico and the
Americans who oppose them. This film goes for more of a stylistic
effect leaving the political impact secondary. A more effective
approach would have made this much more the film that was needed.
I rate it a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317321/>
What others are saying:
<http://tinyurl.com/void-otherside>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2012 Mark R. Leeper
FROM THE OTHER SIDE
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: FROM THE OTHER SIDE does not follow the
style of most documentaries. Rather than giving the
viewer a collection of facts, it is more a compilation
of the statements of people involved with the issue of
illegal immigrants coming from Mexico to the United
States. The statements are punctuated with long,
drawn-out several-minute-long takes of subjects like a
street in a border town, hikes across the desert while
being tracked by helicopters, sequences of waiting in
line at border crossings, etc. It is clear the
director Chantal Akerman feels a strong sympathy for
the immigrants and feels for their plight, but in
making her film she made stylistic decisions that may
get in the way of making her statement effectively.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
In FROM THE OTHER SIDE, Belgian documentarian Chantal Akerman gives
us a minimalist view of the issue of Mexican would-be immigrants
crossing the border from Mexico to Arizona. Akerman shows us the
plight of illegal Mexican immigrants by simply letting them speak
for themselves about why they or their family members risk death to
cross over the border. Akerman does this without narration or text
explanations or commentary. There are no screens with facts and
statistics; there is no narrator talking over the visuals. Akerman
chooses what the viewer will see, of course, but shows it without
additional comment. She gives us the arguments from both sides,
the Mexicans who cross over and some Arizonans who are opposed to
the immigration, but it seems clear that Akerman's sympathy is for
the immigrants. Recurring images in these scenes are the road and
walls and fences. These are the staples of the immigrant's life
and would-be immigrant's life.
Akerman goes back and forth between interviews, subtitled where
necessary, and long languid outdoor landscape takes--most several
minutes in length--giving us a feel for the environment and
conditions in Mexico and across the border in Arizona. Akerman
stresses the slow pace of life and the lay of the land. She will
show a street in a Mexican border town with an occasional pickup
truck driving down the street, and just lock down the camera
letting the scene run for several minutes. This approach is an
interesting stylistic decision. It conveys what may be an
emotional truth of the experience of life in a Mexican town, but
one has to ask whether showing these scenes to the viewer at such
length is really the best use of the time the viewer has invested
in the film. And is the viewer's reaction to such a portrait of
the town even the same reaction that a local would feel looking at
the same road?
By giving us these long takes with very little changing Akerman is
going for an emotional impact rather than using the more common
fact- and text-based approach. This lets the viewer come away with
a feeling for the issues and perhaps with some sympathy, but not
knowing enough of the scope and depth of the problem. The focus
moves as a progression. Akerman first looks at families of
immigrants passing over and the topography of their home territory.
Then at some of the people themselves, self-admitted illegal
immigrants reading a statement apparently written to be read in the
film where they tell why they have come and the pain and suffering
they have to endure. The scene shifts to the Mexican Consul to
present the Mexican government's point of view. Finally there is
an interview of a couple with fears of invasions from the other
side of the border.
It would be more effective to have a good an compelling documentary
depicting the plight of both the immigrants from Mexico and the
Americans who oppose them. This film goes for more of a stylistic
effect leaving the political impact secondary. A more effective
approach would have made this much more the film that was needed.
I rate it a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317321/>
What others are saying:
<http://tinyurl.com/void-otherside>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2012 Mark R. Leeper
0 new messages