14 Replies to “Fortress Europe & the Borders of Europe”
What strikes me most about Carr’s discussion on border politics in Europe is the deplorable conditions of detention centers within EU countries that do not want to be receiving immigration. With the accounts of police harassment, extortion, and overcrowding, it seems like a lack of oversight on the part of the EU that they would mandate in the Dublin Agreement that countries would need to be responsible for the well-beings of these immigrants once they have entered the country without providing a standard or method for which they would be held accountable. As such, it is both sad but unsurprising to me that these countries, such as Hungary but even Spain, would devote less than necessary resources towards these living centers and instead invest more funds into border control. Moreover, I was surprised that there is no legal time limit for which immigrants can be held within these immigrant receiving centers, and again, I suppose that the lack of specificity may have been an intentional prerequisite for these border countries to vote for the Dublin Agreement as they probably knew the capacity for which they would be able to provide funds to manage the influx of immigrants. To that end, are countries within the EU allowed to make deals with each other that would allow immigrants to move directly from one to the other? This would alleviate the crisis on the part of the EU border countries that are the least equipped to deal with the crisis towards countries who are more politically and economically welcoming.
What also was of confusion to me throughout this book was why certain countries not in the EU would assist their bordering EU neighbors in the prevention of immigration into the EU. On a local level, I could see bribes providing a strong incentive, and for countries like Ukraine, I could see why they might agree to the EU’s European Neighborhood Policy in the hopes that they may eventually get to join the EU. However, I don’t understand why countries that will almost certainly never become part of the EU, such as Morocco, would agree to invest a huge amount of police force in blocking immigrants from Melilla. To me, this seems like a waste of Moroccan resources as they not only have to pay for the police protection but they also then have to deal with the remaining immigrants who would likely have difficulty finding employment in their already struggling economy. I feel as if in this role, Morocco is still playing a very colonial role on behalf of Spain, where it takes on far more of the economic burden of handling the migration crisis than Spain itself within its enclave. What incentives exist for Morocco in these circumstances to prevent immigrants from trying to enter the EU?
While “Fortress Europe” provides an overview about the tense relationship between French and British police when dealing with migration in Calais, I believe that “Welcome” addresses Professor Harry’s question regarding the role of the viewer and empathy when discussing migrants. In “Welcome,” there certainly is a strong sense of empathy towards Bilal which is created through the subtle but bleak expressions of Simon, and the general depressing ambience of the so-called “Jungle”. The viewer experiences themselves witnessing this migration crisis first-hand as the story, while it is about Bilal’s journey, is more about Simon’s emotional response to Bilal’s difficulties as well. However, when dealing with the intersection of policy, it seems that individual empathy alone isn’t enough to figure out a sustainable solution to migration. I think “Welcome” poses an ethical dilemma, in the sense that it asks the viewers whether it is better to be a Marion, who helps migrants within the confines of the law, or someone who works to defy perhaps an unjust law, but a law nevertheless, such as Simon. I don’t have an answer to this question, but I strongly believe that actions need to be considered in the context of the political ramifications as individuals don’t have the capacity/resources to solve problems on their own for the majority of issues that exist on such a large scale. On a different note, I also believe that the problems within “Fortress Europe” between the relationship between French and British police is bound to become more difficult to address if/when Brexit occurs. How would this physical border manifest between these areas more than what infrastructure currently exists, and is it any more likely to dissuade any potential migrants who are seeking to go to UK than the current circumstances?
“Fortress Europe” by Matthew Carr is an unsettling wake-up call for European nations when it comes to immigration policy.
With the rise of far-right parties in Europe, society has been encouraged to fear immigrants. These parties paint the picture of an immigrant invasion where “aliens” are entering European countries to commit crimes, take jobs, and even change European culture and traditions. As a result, an increasing portion of the European population view immigrants as the evil group infiltrating the peaceful life of good people.
However, this is far from reality. Immigrants are the true victims of this situation, which is effectively illustrated by Matthew Carr through numerous events and history of European policy regarding immigration. I believe Carr’s introduction is particularly captivating, informing, and chilling. Carr describes the tension at the border of two Spanish exclaves surrounded by Morocco, which many Moroccans view as gateways to a better life. Furthermore, these borders consist of “only” massive two-tiered wire fences. Unarmed migrants have therefore on multiple occasions tried to storm these fences under fire from Spanish and Moroccan forces, resulting in several deaths on the migrant side of the incident.
As enraging as this situation is, I can’t help but feel incredibly sad for the position that the migrants find themselves in. They are willing to risk their lives for the opportunity to live a supposedly better life in Europe, and if they are lucky enough to reach a European country, they are likely to encounter a tough and unforgiving way of life at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Yet, many Europeans are adamant in calling themselves the victims of the situation. Why do European citizens victimize themselves when it comes to immigration, despite the knowledge of the hardship immigrants face? And what gives Spanish and Moroccan forces the right to use tear gas, fire rubber bullets, or even shoot with real ammunition at unarmed immigrants? These are some stunning questions that Europe should reflect on in the near future.
I accidentally watched Welcome weeks ago, and this was one of the movies we have watched this semester that stuck with me. In my opinion, the film does an incredible job of allowing the viewer to experience the immigrant journey from several angles that reinforce the struggle of the immigrant instead of looking down upon it. Welcome shows us the perspective of the immigrant trying to illegally cross a border, the immigrant who has successfully made a life for themselves in a European nation, and those who try to help immigrants. This film, unlike many others, puts us in the shoes of Bilal throughout every obstacle he has to tackle to try to get to Britain, creating not just a sense of empathy for him, but also a sense of empathy for Simon, Marion, and those trying to help immigrants.
Phiippe Lioret turns Carr’s words into images in his film. Carr speaks in his book about the dramatic attempts to cross over to the United Kingdom, explaining the drastic measures people will go to have a chance at crossing the border; “In 2002 two Lithuanians tried to cross the Channel in a child’s inflatable boat, using their hands as paddles” (112). These immigrants are willing to lose their lives to find a way to cross the border, and frankly they are so blinded the slight possibility of making it across the border that they do not consider the feasibility of their methods. Carr’s description of this blind faith of immigrants is effective in that it also creates an emotional reaction of empathy towards immigrants, but having watched the film first I was able to create an image in my head of the the journey these immigrants went through in order to finally have the courage do attempt to try to cross the Channel in a small inflatable boat, with no paddles. Bilal spends months on foot to first reach Calais from Iraq, and then spends another chunk of time learning to swim to be able to cross the border, so I can only begin to imagine the struggles the two Lithuanians went through to get the the point of crossing the Channel.
But what I found most intriguing about the film was the film-making strategies that Philippe Lioret used in order to create a narrative supporting such a hot topic such an immigration. Lioret was smart in including aspects such as family, love, and death that are so innately human that we cannot help but connect with the characters in the film that are immigrants or in support of immigrants. Bilal is trying to get to London in pursuit of his love, who is soon to be married off by her father to a rich man. Simon and Marion are soon to get a divorce. The view also gets the sense of a lack of family because Bilal has no family there to support him, while Simon is in the process of losing his wife and has no kids to turn to. Bilal becomes practically a son to Simon, and the viewer cannot help but want the classic happy ending in terms of love and family. But we are confronted with death and the realities of a usual ending of the journey of immigrants.
How walls are justified is a fascinating concept. Fortress Europe by Matthew Carr explores the physical boundaries of walls and some of the ways politicians and people justify their existence. Carr opens his novel discussing Ronald Regan’s famous declaration for Russian leader Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Regan believed the Berlin Wall should come down because it restricted the free travel of people from one less economically affluent place (USSR) to another (Western Europe). During the time, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a Cold War over economic ideology and way of life. Regan was trying to prove that the American capitalist ideology was far superior because it provided people a better life. Regan was emphasizing that people yearned to cross the Berlin Wall, so they could experience the fruits of European capitalism. This was 1987. The Berlin Wall officially fell in 1989. In 2019, walls have returned keeping people out of Western Europe. This time, however, they are being built by the very western countries so eager to allow the free travel of people to experience the fruits of western European capitalism.
In 2019 walls and other similar physical borders are seen in many different communities. Carr references walls built in different areas to physically trap certain communities such as the walls built before the 2016 Olympics to barricade off bad neighborhoods in Rio from the world’s view. Carr notes that all of these walls and boundaries share a common purpose: preventing the free travel of people.
Preventing the free travel of people within the same community with a physical boundary is perhaps most notably exemplified by the Belfast Wall—also known as the “peace wall” or “peace lines.” The wall in Belfast divides the Protestant Loyalist British community and the Catholic Separatist Irish community. This physical and intimidating boundary is so high it would be nearly impossible to throw anything more than a tennis ball over it. The wall opens during the day to allow travel but shuts closed every night at 730pm with no possible movement between the two sides. This wall is easily justified. After years of violence and unrelenting conflict between the two sides a wall has helped establish peace. The wall has also, however, prevented the two sides from every truly mixing and forming meaningful relationships about 21 years after the Good Friday peace agreement was signed. Very few protest the Belfast Wall. Almost all agree it is necessary and important to Belfast, the UK and Ireland. The Belfast Wall promotes peace and order. So, is this why the Belfast wall is so uncontroversial despite it dividing groups and preventing free travel? Don’t all walls promote peace and order?
A second example of a wall restricting people and secluding a group in 2019 is simply gated communities. Seen throughout Europe, America and the world, millions of people choose to live within a community that is blocked off by a fence, barricade, or actual wall. People enjoy the security and comfort of living in a community that is safe and one in which they know all neighbors. Few would contest that there is anything inherently wrong with living in a gated community. These walls promote peace and order. Few would see these walls as controversial.
It is thus important to understand the full complexities of walls. It is difficult to criticize some walls when equally justifying others. As Carr states, walls prevent the free travel of people. All walls do this. From a gated community in South Florida to barbed wire in Ceuta the physical boundary of a wall or a fence restricts the movement of people. Thus, the broad question I will pose is are any walls justified and morally okay and if so why? A counter question I will pose is are walls ever not justified and if so why? Based on Carr’s overarching statement and some evidence provided it seems very difficult to differentiate between justified and unjustified walls without being very hypocritical and contradictory.
A question we keep returning two with these films is how to portray the immigrant if you are supportive of their success overall but are not one of them? Lioret seem to use realism and potentially makes statements about the way positive change must come about. In Welcome, Balil is portrayed in such a way that there are almost no factors in his favor throughout his entire journey, starting before the timeline of the film begins and carrying through even if he had been successful at crossing the channel. His portrayal as a character pre-destined for defeat is a feeling instilled in the viewer from his general circumstances. These include namely, his lack of connection to both his own family and his girlfriend’s family, his relatively poor track record with being caught crossing borders, and the likely hood that his girlfriend will be getting married regardless of whether he makes it to England. On top of this, as viewers we are unsure if the aid Balil receives from Simon is chiefly motivated by Simon’s own selfish desire to rekindle lost connections which have clearly been deteriorating. Finally, we add to this the main premise of the film which is to perform an almost impossible feat of endurance. All of this goes to say that the odds are clearly not in Balil’s favor. The social, financial, and physical isolation, which in essence condemn Balil to failure, result from a multitude of factors, both from Europe’s treatment of immigrants as well as cultural uniqueness and the situation of his homeland which resulted in his girlfriend’s immigration in the first place. This culmination of these complex roots is likely true for many immigrants in what Carr describes in his book as the “cultural borderland”. In other words, Lioret doesn’t attempt to portray the immigrants’ situation as being any rosier or happier than what immigrants likely experience in reality (excluding the extensive help offered by Simon which is an anomaly? More to discuss along this thread…). Therefore, one response to the question of how to direct such a film lies in Lioret’s realism approach – immigrants face a great many challenges that in some or many cases cannot be overcome, no matter how much individuals attempt to help one another. Does this mean Lioret believes change should come from the top down, or specifically that individuals cannot make an impact, whereas larger institutional change is what is necessary?
If so, this would contrast with Carr’s claims put forth in Fortress Europe, that there is hope in individual actions, both by migrants and populations already living in the EU, and they can help to establish a better migration framework. In the end, though Simon and his wife both spend time and energy toward migrant aid, nothing substantial comes of it. The only success story is that of a Balil’s friend who steals a gold medal to pay his way across. I see this as a loud statement that the current system is flawed if theft and mistrust are what is necessary to fulfill the migrant’s goals.
The film welcome showed a very interesting side of the immigration measures put into place by the governments of Europe. Very prominent is the motivation to make Europe as inhospitable to the immigrants as possible, to dissuade further immigration. This is also discussed as a tactic in the book “Fortress Europe”. In the movie it also shows how it is a criminal offense in France to even help immigrants as a personal decision, because it is viewed as encouraging more immigrants to come. The restriction of rights, not only for the immigrants, but for the citizens of France themselves is shocking. They no longer have the right to shelter or even support someone in their own homes, which seems like a clear violation of their rights, not to mention the complete lack or empathy for the immigrants coming to find a better life. This policy as well as the policy of push-back and not allowing immigrants to reach borders seems like a contradiction of the Geneva convention, but due to the fact that almost the entire European Union is in agreement surrounding these policies, and the countries the immigrants are coming from are typically unstable there seems to be no possible form of changing the behavior of these nations. The work of NGO’s and other service groups are the only real assistance immigrants receive, but as we see in the film, there is only so much they can do against a government and a large segment of the population who wants to remove and block the refugees. There seems like no clear way to enforce the Geneva convention and improve the situation of migrants, because there seems to be no real political benefit to any European country for enforcing these on a different European country and bringing them before a UN tribunal. The Dublin agreement and the Schengen Treaty in combination with the fact that no nation seems to want any refugees or migrants, means Europe is far to interconnected for any country to fight for migrants right to enter another country, when they can then so easily migrate to them.
In the film Welcome, Bilal stayed true to who he was until his death, which was juxtaposed against Simon, who underwent a huge character change. Bilal began the film as a character who had a single goal in mind, however naïve or ignorant, but remained determined to accomplish it no matter what. Simon continually tried to change Bilal. He tried to persuade him against swimming the channel, he wanted to change him from “the runner” to the swimmer,” and most interestingly, he taught Bilal how to breath while swimming and referenced breathing several times during his lessons. Prior to this, Bilal talked about how he was never able to hold his breath with the bag over his head, and how this brought him great shame and disappointment because it prevented him from reaching England. We even see him practicing this in Simon’s apartment. Instead of teaching him how to hold his breath, Simon wanted Bilal to breathe better.
But Simon’s efforts to change Bilal were unsuccessful. Bilal tried to cross the channel twice. His tombstone had “the runner” engraved on it. Lastly, it was implied that Bilal died because he refused to stop holding his breath, and ended up drowning in the channel. This is contrasted with Simon who changed dramatically by the end of the film. He went from being a bystander while his wife helped refugees to housing two of them. He began the film distraught over his imminent divorce, but only in the end did he profess his love for his ex-wife and beg her to stay with him.
I believe that by doing this, Lioret criticizes the European bystanders over their lack of support for refugees. Bilal stays true to himself because that is all he can do. He is portrayed as driven and passionate, and while he has no realistic goals of how he would even be able to support himself and Mina if he could get to London, he is someone who the audience respects for his perseverance. Simon, the European bystander, is frustrating to watch because he is so meek and hesitant to be involved with refugees or win his wife back throughout most of the film. While Bilal continued to fight for what he wanted, I wanted Simon to fight for something, anything. Instead, Simon is portrayed as the typical European; too comfortable to take a risk or get involved. This brings about questions of what we owe to refugees, if anything. How can we show sympathy without ourselves breaking the law? Is the best we can do what Simon’s wife does, like volunteering at a soup kitchen? Surely that isn’t enough, but are there any other options?
Two things stuck out to me in the movie: the lack of a happy ending and the use of the title throughout the movie.
First, the movie was pretty positive, especially compared to the movies we have watched previously in class, so why was the ending not a happy one? Bilal could have made it across the channel in time to marry Mina, but instead the film-makers decided his character would be caught 800 meters off the shore of Britain and sent back to France in a bodybag. Why did this happen? Personally, I think it is to add a sense of reality to the storyline. We keep asking ourselves how to make a responsible movie about immigration, I think filmmakers need to at least tell a story of truth, which is something that this movie does pretty well, but it could be a bit better. Most stories of immigration, especially undocumented immigration, do not have happy endings, so why should this one be any different? I do not like that the ending was not a happy one, I was cheering for Bilal and hoping he would be able to evade the coast guard, but I understand the need for a happy ending in order to tell a fairly realistic story of the journey of an immigrant.
Second, the title of the movie is “Welcome.” The word welcome is said only a handful of times in dialogue and displayed across the screen only once. In the movie, “welcome” is said first by Simon when inviting the Bilal and Zoran into his apartment; after that it is only said a couple more times. It is, however, displayed across the screen in an unmissable way after the altercation with the neighbor. The doormat to the unfriendly, and possibly racist/xenophobic, neighbor says “welcome” in big, bold letters. Unless I am mistaken, this is the first time viewers get a visual of the movies title because the title is missing from the opening credits. If I am mistaken, this is the first time in the movie where the title is displayed prominently on the screen. Either way, I found it very ironic that the prominent depiction of the title is after Simon gets into a verbal altercation with the neighbor who does not want Bilal, or any other immigrant, to stay in the building. He was not a very welcoming character, but maybe this is a commentary on citizens of immigrant receiving nations. From a social aspect, citizens of nations like France are not the nicest toward immigrants, or at least that is the discourse I hear through popular/mainstream media.
Welcome sheds light on the diversity of European countries’ responses to the immigration crisis. While, as has been made very clear, the general consensus amongst these countries is anti-immigrant out of fear of “outsiders” taking jobs, changing culture, and causing harm, European countries’ brutality toward these immigrants varies in rather nuanced ways.
Especially after much of content I have seen about immigration throughout Europe, both in this course and in my Italian Cinema class during my study abroad program in Rome, I understood the governmental response to overpopulation of immigrants as positively brutal. While the immigrants traveling through France in Welcome are by no means treated well, the film highlights the areas of difference in France’s handling of the crisis compared to many other countries throughout Europe, including Italy and Greece.
In Fortress Europe, the Matthew Carr illustrates the detainment centers for immigrants in Fylakio disturbingly. First, he describes them as overcrowded and unhygienic, allowing almost no form of exercise for the detainees. While indeed, the detainment center to which Firat is sent after he is discovered by the coastguard is unpleasant, with rooms crowded with cots, it appears much more cleanly than the centers described in Fylakio. While those immigrants in Fylakio are hardly able to move, Firat is able to walk around his room and is given organized soup-kitchen meals.
Further, Carr says of the Fylakio refugee detainment centers that “hitting and slapping by guards appears to be the norm, in part because of the lack of any other means of communication (89). In a documentary film (whose name slipped my mind) of refugees at a detainment center that I watched for my Italian Cinema course, there was brutal footage of guards physically abusing their detainees—perhaps harder than they would if they had the ability to verbally abuse them too. However, in both detainment centers described in Fortress Europe and this other documentary, none of the refugees were able to speak any bits of common language with the guards. After seeing/reading about this aggression in detainment centers and then seeing Firat in his detainment center in Welcome, I came to understand how much of an impact common language can have for these immigrants. Firat was certainly manhandled during his arrest, but the film did not place emphasis on the physical aggression between the guards and Firat in the same way that these other two pieces did, likely due to the language connection. While Firat was able to communicate with these men rather clearly, explain himself, and follow their orders in the detainee camps, the other refugees pictured in Fortress Europe and the documentary seem much more foreign to these guard. To the guards, these people are complete outsiders. Since the concept of “foreign” scares governments and guards so much, the more foreign these immigrants seem to those in power, the more aggressive those in power feel they need to be.
The limited witch-hunting by the government officials in Welcome seems more nonchalant than the strategy that Italian government officials take in regards to African immigrants in the film Terraferma, which I also watched in Rome. In this film, a Sicilian family allows an African immigrant family to hide in their home until the family is able to escape elsewhere. The Italian family’s fear of being caught by the police is palpable, given that one of them must always be guarding the door and each time there is a knock, the family’s eye are filled with intense fear. In Welcome on the other hand, while indeed Simon must keep the fact that he is helping Firat hide from the authorities, it is clear that his fear of the authorities harming him for helping Firat is nearly nothing compared to the Sicilian family in Terraferma. For example, when Simon’s neighbors find out that Firat is staying in their building and express their anger, Simon does not attempt to hide Firat or express any fear. Rather, he confidently shoves them off and brings Firat right back into his apartment in front of them. Had Simon been as afraid of the government’s response to him helping Firat, his course of action in this moment would have been starkly different.
Finally, the language used to describe immigrants in Welcome further emphasizes France’s less aggressive approach to immigrants than some other countries we have studied. I could tell that there was a slight translation issue in the subtitles of the film when I realized that many times when a character was talking about an immigrant in French, the subtitle translated the word to “clandestine,” which is likely a too-literal translation. However, I’m glad the subtitle mistake was made, so that I could begin to explore why the French might use the word “clandestine,” since I’ve never heard such term used in America when discussing immigration. According to one source I found, “clandestine” is an alternative to the “conventional but crude legal/illegal dichotomy.” Here, it becomes clear that a less aggressive approach to immigrants is ingrained in French language, as a common term the French use to refer to immigrants doesn’t place emphasis on their legal status, which is often used to villainize immigrants.
I would be interested to learn more about the factors that impact how each country treats their influx of illegal immigrants, which I hypothesize would be most strongly correlated to how much money a certain country has as well as how “foreign” the immigrants seem to those in their new country. It seems that “fitting in” is the impossible standard that these countries hold these immigrants to—a standard that majority of immigrants cannot meet, simply by the way that they look or the language they have been taught.
Welcome was quite the interesting film. To me, it represented an almost flawless attempt at putting the viewers in the shoes of an immigrant. When discussing in class what mode is best to learn about what life is really like for an immigrant, I previously said a documentary. However, this film drastically changed my opinion.
Welcome gave an amazing representation of the countless obstacles that many immigrants face in search for a better life. Welcome’s intense scenes and emotional actors pave the way for the ultimate form of empathy to form between the audience and immigrants as a whole. I couldn’t help myself but finding it admirable that one man could be so driven by hope for a better life, that he would go so far as risking death (which obviously did not pay off) just to see the girl he loved. Moreover, the connection between Simon and Bilal further helps establish a connection, as it shows that despite cultural and racial differences, friendship and respect for fellow men prevails.
With the focus on borders, I was somewhat shocked by his girlfriend’s father. To me, I would expect that despite his belief that Bilal was not suited to marry his daughter, he would sympathize with Bilal enough to help him cross the border. I figured that from one immigrant to another, they would respect the fact that they both sought out to live better lives.
This brings up the question of how immigrants interact with one another. Why would one immigrant not help another? Do immigrants stick together? Would the father help the cousin (whom he wanted his daughter to marry) cross the border? Is there guilt from not helping a fellow immigrant?
It is fascinating how various organizations and groups of people are portrayed in the film ‘Welcome.’ Most obviously the government and police are the villains are sorta like the bad guys of the film. Clearly, the audience is meant to root for Bilal, a Kurdish boy in love with a girl in England. While the government and even just regular people are trying to stop him. Ironically, in one scene, Simon looks over at his neighbor’s doormat, which says “welcome.” Given the neighbor is clearly not very welcoming to the migrants in town. Only Simon and the volunteer organizations seem to want to help the migrants. There appear to be people taking advantage of the migrants called “handlers” in the film. The odds are just so stacked against these destitute migrants. They have so little to begin with that they are willing to risk their lives to get to England. I am curious what the backstory on the other migrants is. We know Bilal is going to England for his love, but what about the other migrants? Why isn’t France good enough? I don’t know enough to answer this question, but clearly there is something driving them to not stay in France.
When I was in Glasgow last semester, our Duke group had a conversation with one of the asylum judges. Something I do remember from that talk was the judge saying 10%. If there is at least a 10% chance the asylum seeker is telling the truth, the judge will grant them the right to stay. I believe something like half of all asylum seekers eventually win the right to stay. I am not as familiar with the likelihood of winning asylum in France, but perhaps the rate is lower, which could be the case by nature of France receiving many more asylum applications to begin with unlike the UK, which is separated by the Channel.
One of the scenes from Welcome that stuck out at me most was the exchange between Simon and Marion after they leave the market. After Marion rebukes Simon for not saying anything to the store staff, Simon asks her, “so what do you do?” To which she replies, “get angry”. This exchange highlights the futility of Marion’s emotional reaction. Getting angry won’t do a thing to solve anything pertaining to the European migrant crisis, and I think this idea plays a significant role in Welcome.
Instead of being a film that seeks to push a pro-immigration message by focusing on the plight of migrants, generating empathy on behalf of the viewer for its migrant characters (it does do this as it would be irresponsible to make a migrant film and not show scenes about the struggles migrants endure, however this is not the focus of the film in my opinion), Welcome seems to be more of a film that seeks to push a pro-immigration message by attacking the police and French state.
Although Bilal is the one who ends up being the focus of the tragic event in the film, Simon seems to be the protagonist. Bilal’s character doesn’t change much throughout the film and is a on the flatter side – other than the brief insight into the suffering he endured at the hands of Turkish police and his love for Mina, we don’t really know much about him. It didn’t feel like Lioret honed in on making the viewer feel as empathetic towards Bilal as he could have. On the other hand, Simon’s character develops significantly and we gain a lot of insight into his life. Having Simon, a French citizen who as the protagonist and character the viewer identifies more with (given that we know more about him emotionally and as a person than any other character in the film) gives the viewer insight into problems of the police and French state that Lioret is trying to bring to light.
The police and French state are portrayed incredibly negatively in this film. Beyond needlessly beating and tormenting migrants, their desire to prevent anyone from providing any form of assistance, humanitarian or not, to the migrants stands out and is a common theme in the film. Simon’s conversations with the French detective highlight the absurdity, cruelty and unjustness of France’s laws, highlights we would not have seen if Bilal was the protagonist in the film. The police teargassing the soup kitchen line and arresting a volunteer worker increase the viewer’s anger towards the French state’s policies.
After doing some research I found that one of Lioret’s primary intentions with Welcome was to criticize a French statute that made it a criminal offense to provide any form of assistance to migrants. After the film was released, French Immigration Minister Eric Besson incorrectly claimed that no one had ever been charged under that statute despite there being an ample amount of cases to the contrary. He actually debated Lioret about the issue on a French TV show, after which a a proposition to reverse this statute was introduced in French parliament. Although it ended up not being passed, the fact that such a strong, nearly successful push for policy change occurred a result of a film is pretty remarkable, especially for a film that does not primarily utilize pathos to get its message across. In my opinion such a impact would not have been made by a film that primarily appealed to viewer’s emotions instead of primarily attacking the state and its policy.
Just like Simon tacitly illustrated in his exchange with Marion in the film, anger by itself rarely if ever does anything to change significant societal problems. By shifting the viewer’s focus from being empathetic towards migrant to showing specific flaws in French immigration policy, Lioret created a film that got the ball rolling on meaningful change in the context of alleviating the struggles that migrants go through.
In attempting to answer the question on how to responsibly tell the story of an immigrant in film, I want to focus on one aspect of the movie: Bilal’s primary motivation in getting to England, which is to reunite with his girlfriend. My thoughts toward Lioret’s choice in selecting this motive remains mixed—it is possible that the romantic motive is merely showcased for the sake of popular filmmaking, to make the heavy subject that the film tackles palatable for the everyday moviegoer. Nevertheless, I find that the director’s choice for Bilal’s motivation simultaneously undermines the immigrant’s story while somehow, at the same time, correctly situating the immigrant in the midst of the power dynamics at play on the part of the EU and European nations.
For me, one of the most memorable moments of the film occurred at the beginning, as the Bilal and the other characters, trying to pass through immigration in a truck, put plastic bags over their heads to avoid breathing and giving away their presence. The danger of such a moment, coupled with descriptions from Carr’s Fortress Europe about how “at least two thousand people have died in the Sahara Desert trying to reach Europe” or have “suffocated in truck containers, fallen from trains and buses, or frozen to death in wheel of carriages of passenger planes” highlight the disturbing realities that result in the strict militarization and enforcement of European borders. I find myself reminded of a line from a poem that I heard a few years back, which reads, “No one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” With the repeated risks of death in attempts to rush the borders of Ceuta and Melilla that we read about in Fortress Europe Bilal’s motivation for swimming across the English channel to reach England seems almost irresponsibly trivial; it feels like a romanticization of the immigrant story that undercuts the motives of why so many migrants without a legitimate case for political asylum try to reach Europe in the first place.
Yet, while this motive falls short in the literal sense when portraying the immigrant, in a symbolic sense, it provides a juxtaposition of the power dynamic between the immigrant and the EU nations that try so hard to defend their borders against them. Bilal’s motivation, coupled with his age of seventeen years, offers an innocence that stands in stark contrast to the actions of the EU’s immigration control, which, from the movie, echoes the sentiments Carr wrote of being an “extraordinarily elaborate and complex system” that is “simultaneously ruthless, repressive, devious, chaotic, and dysfunctional.” Suddenly, here, Bilal’s motive seems highly appropriate.
Choosing between the literal or the symbolic, between zooming in or omitting certain important details in pursuit of showcasing larger connection, is difficult to balance. Perhaps, there is no possible “responsible” way of showcasing the immigrant’s story without omitting some crucial elements. I think that as an audience, once we acknowledge the difficulty—or perhaps even the impossibility—of this, then we begin to share the burden of seeking our own ways to build a more complete, responsible image of the immigrant. Then, we can start consuming cultural products like Fortress Europe and Welcome in conjunction with one another, to fill in the gaps as we did this week.
What strikes me most about Carr’s discussion on border politics in Europe is the deplorable conditions of detention centers within EU countries that do not want to be receiving immigration. With the accounts of police harassment, extortion, and overcrowding, it seems like a lack of oversight on the part of the EU that they would mandate in the Dublin Agreement that countries would need to be responsible for the well-beings of these immigrants once they have entered the country without providing a standard or method for which they would be held accountable. As such, it is both sad but unsurprising to me that these countries, such as Hungary but even Spain, would devote less than necessary resources towards these living centers and instead invest more funds into border control. Moreover, I was surprised that there is no legal time limit for which immigrants can be held within these immigrant receiving centers, and again, I suppose that the lack of specificity may have been an intentional prerequisite for these border countries to vote for the Dublin Agreement as they probably knew the capacity for which they would be able to provide funds to manage the influx of immigrants. To that end, are countries within the EU allowed to make deals with each other that would allow immigrants to move directly from one to the other? This would alleviate the crisis on the part of the EU border countries that are the least equipped to deal with the crisis towards countries who are more politically and economically welcoming.
What also was of confusion to me throughout this book was why certain countries not in the EU would assist their bordering EU neighbors in the prevention of immigration into the EU. On a local level, I could see bribes providing a strong incentive, and for countries like Ukraine, I could see why they might agree to the EU’s European Neighborhood Policy in the hopes that they may eventually get to join the EU. However, I don’t understand why countries that will almost certainly never become part of the EU, such as Morocco, would agree to invest a huge amount of police force in blocking immigrants from Melilla. To me, this seems like a waste of Moroccan resources as they not only have to pay for the police protection but they also then have to deal with the remaining immigrants who would likely have difficulty finding employment in their already struggling economy. I feel as if in this role, Morocco is still playing a very colonial role on behalf of Spain, where it takes on far more of the economic burden of handling the migration crisis than Spain itself within its enclave. What incentives exist for Morocco in these circumstances to prevent immigrants from trying to enter the EU?
While “Fortress Europe” provides an overview about the tense relationship between French and British police when dealing with migration in Calais, I believe that “Welcome” addresses Professor Harry’s question regarding the role of the viewer and empathy when discussing migrants. In “Welcome,” there certainly is a strong sense of empathy towards Bilal which is created through the subtle but bleak expressions of Simon, and the general depressing ambience of the so-called “Jungle”. The viewer experiences themselves witnessing this migration crisis first-hand as the story, while it is about Bilal’s journey, is more about Simon’s emotional response to Bilal’s difficulties as well. However, when dealing with the intersection of policy, it seems that individual empathy alone isn’t enough to figure out a sustainable solution to migration. I think “Welcome” poses an ethical dilemma, in the sense that it asks the viewers whether it is better to be a Marion, who helps migrants within the confines of the law, or someone who works to defy perhaps an unjust law, but a law nevertheless, such as Simon. I don’t have an answer to this question, but I strongly believe that actions need to be considered in the context of the political ramifications as individuals don’t have the capacity/resources to solve problems on their own for the majority of issues that exist on such a large scale. On a different note, I also believe that the problems within “Fortress Europe” between the relationship between French and British police is bound to become more difficult to address if/when Brexit occurs. How would this physical border manifest between these areas more than what infrastructure currently exists, and is it any more likely to dissuade any potential migrants who are seeking to go to UK than the current circumstances?
“Fortress Europe” by Matthew Carr is an unsettling wake-up call for European nations when it comes to immigration policy.
With the rise of far-right parties in Europe, society has been encouraged to fear immigrants. These parties paint the picture of an immigrant invasion where “aliens” are entering European countries to commit crimes, take jobs, and even change European culture and traditions. As a result, an increasing portion of the European population view immigrants as the evil group infiltrating the peaceful life of good people.
However, this is far from reality. Immigrants are the true victims of this situation, which is effectively illustrated by Matthew Carr through numerous events and history of European policy regarding immigration. I believe Carr’s introduction is particularly captivating, informing, and chilling. Carr describes the tension at the border of two Spanish exclaves surrounded by Morocco, which many Moroccans view as gateways to a better life. Furthermore, these borders consist of “only” massive two-tiered wire fences. Unarmed migrants have therefore on multiple occasions tried to storm these fences under fire from Spanish and Moroccan forces, resulting in several deaths on the migrant side of the incident.
As enraging as this situation is, I can’t help but feel incredibly sad for the position that the migrants find themselves in. They are willing to risk their lives for the opportunity to live a supposedly better life in Europe, and if they are lucky enough to reach a European country, they are likely to encounter a tough and unforgiving way of life at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Yet, many Europeans are adamant in calling themselves the victims of the situation. Why do European citizens victimize themselves when it comes to immigration, despite the knowledge of the hardship immigrants face? And what gives Spanish and Moroccan forces the right to use tear gas, fire rubber bullets, or even shoot with real ammunition at unarmed immigrants? These are some stunning questions that Europe should reflect on in the near future.
I accidentally watched Welcome weeks ago, and this was one of the movies we have watched this semester that stuck with me. In my opinion, the film does an incredible job of allowing the viewer to experience the immigrant journey from several angles that reinforce the struggle of the immigrant instead of looking down upon it. Welcome shows us the perspective of the immigrant trying to illegally cross a border, the immigrant who has successfully made a life for themselves in a European nation, and those who try to help immigrants. This film, unlike many others, puts us in the shoes of Bilal throughout every obstacle he has to tackle to try to get to Britain, creating not just a sense of empathy for him, but also a sense of empathy for Simon, Marion, and those trying to help immigrants.
Phiippe Lioret turns Carr’s words into images in his film. Carr speaks in his book about the dramatic attempts to cross over to the United Kingdom, explaining the drastic measures people will go to have a chance at crossing the border; “In 2002 two Lithuanians tried to cross the Channel in a child’s inflatable boat, using their hands as paddles” (112). These immigrants are willing to lose their lives to find a way to cross the border, and frankly they are so blinded the slight possibility of making it across the border that they do not consider the feasibility of their methods. Carr’s description of this blind faith of immigrants is effective in that it also creates an emotional reaction of empathy towards immigrants, but having watched the film first I was able to create an image in my head of the the journey these immigrants went through in order to finally have the courage do attempt to try to cross the Channel in a small inflatable boat, with no paddles. Bilal spends months on foot to first reach Calais from Iraq, and then spends another chunk of time learning to swim to be able to cross the border, so I can only begin to imagine the struggles the two Lithuanians went through to get the the point of crossing the Channel.
But what I found most intriguing about the film was the film-making strategies that Philippe Lioret used in order to create a narrative supporting such a hot topic such an immigration. Lioret was smart in including aspects such as family, love, and death that are so innately human that we cannot help but connect with the characters in the film that are immigrants or in support of immigrants. Bilal is trying to get to London in pursuit of his love, who is soon to be married off by her father to a rich man. Simon and Marion are soon to get a divorce. The view also gets the sense of a lack of family because Bilal has no family there to support him, while Simon is in the process of losing his wife and has no kids to turn to. Bilal becomes practically a son to Simon, and the viewer cannot help but want the classic happy ending in terms of love and family. But we are confronted with death and the realities of a usual ending of the journey of immigrants.
How walls are justified is a fascinating concept. Fortress Europe by Matthew Carr explores the physical boundaries of walls and some of the ways politicians and people justify their existence. Carr opens his novel discussing Ronald Regan’s famous declaration for Russian leader Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Regan believed the Berlin Wall should come down because it restricted the free travel of people from one less economically affluent place (USSR) to another (Western Europe). During the time, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a Cold War over economic ideology and way of life. Regan was trying to prove that the American capitalist ideology was far superior because it provided people a better life. Regan was emphasizing that people yearned to cross the Berlin Wall, so they could experience the fruits of European capitalism. This was 1987. The Berlin Wall officially fell in 1989. In 2019, walls have returned keeping people out of Western Europe. This time, however, they are being built by the very western countries so eager to allow the free travel of people to experience the fruits of western European capitalism.
In 2019 walls and other similar physical borders are seen in many different communities. Carr references walls built in different areas to physically trap certain communities such as the walls built before the 2016 Olympics to barricade off bad neighborhoods in Rio from the world’s view. Carr notes that all of these walls and boundaries share a common purpose: preventing the free travel of people.
Preventing the free travel of people within the same community with a physical boundary is perhaps most notably exemplified by the Belfast Wall—also known as the “peace wall” or “peace lines.” The wall in Belfast divides the Protestant Loyalist British community and the Catholic Separatist Irish community. This physical and intimidating boundary is so high it would be nearly impossible to throw anything more than a tennis ball over it. The wall opens during the day to allow travel but shuts closed every night at 730pm with no possible movement between the two sides. This wall is easily justified. After years of violence and unrelenting conflict between the two sides a wall has helped establish peace. The wall has also, however, prevented the two sides from every truly mixing and forming meaningful relationships about 21 years after the Good Friday peace agreement was signed. Very few protest the Belfast Wall. Almost all agree it is necessary and important to Belfast, the UK and Ireland. The Belfast Wall promotes peace and order. So, is this why the Belfast wall is so uncontroversial despite it dividing groups and preventing free travel? Don’t all walls promote peace and order?
A second example of a wall restricting people and secluding a group in 2019 is simply gated communities. Seen throughout Europe, America and the world, millions of people choose to live within a community that is blocked off by a fence, barricade, or actual wall. People enjoy the security and comfort of living in a community that is safe and one in which they know all neighbors. Few would contest that there is anything inherently wrong with living in a gated community. These walls promote peace and order. Few would see these walls as controversial.
It is thus important to understand the full complexities of walls. It is difficult to criticize some walls when equally justifying others. As Carr states, walls prevent the free travel of people. All walls do this. From a gated community in South Florida to barbed wire in Ceuta the physical boundary of a wall or a fence restricts the movement of people. Thus, the broad question I will pose is are any walls justified and morally okay and if so why? A counter question I will pose is are walls ever not justified and if so why? Based on Carr’s overarching statement and some evidence provided it seems very difficult to differentiate between justified and unjustified walls without being very hypocritical and contradictory.
A question we keep returning two with these films is how to portray the immigrant if you are supportive of their success overall but are not one of them? Lioret seem to use realism and potentially makes statements about the way positive change must come about. In Welcome, Balil is portrayed in such a way that there are almost no factors in his favor throughout his entire journey, starting before the timeline of the film begins and carrying through even if he had been successful at crossing the channel. His portrayal as a character pre-destined for defeat is a feeling instilled in the viewer from his general circumstances. These include namely, his lack of connection to both his own family and his girlfriend’s family, his relatively poor track record with being caught crossing borders, and the likely hood that his girlfriend will be getting married regardless of whether he makes it to England. On top of this, as viewers we are unsure if the aid Balil receives from Simon is chiefly motivated by Simon’s own selfish desire to rekindle lost connections which have clearly been deteriorating. Finally, we add to this the main premise of the film which is to perform an almost impossible feat of endurance. All of this goes to say that the odds are clearly not in Balil’s favor. The social, financial, and physical isolation, which in essence condemn Balil to failure, result from a multitude of factors, both from Europe’s treatment of immigrants as well as cultural uniqueness and the situation of his homeland which resulted in his girlfriend’s immigration in the first place. This culmination of these complex roots is likely true for many immigrants in what Carr describes in his book as the “cultural borderland”. In other words, Lioret doesn’t attempt to portray the immigrants’ situation as being any rosier or happier than what immigrants likely experience in reality (excluding the extensive help offered by Simon which is an anomaly? More to discuss along this thread…). Therefore, one response to the question of how to direct such a film lies in Lioret’s realism approach – immigrants face a great many challenges that in some or many cases cannot be overcome, no matter how much individuals attempt to help one another. Does this mean Lioret believes change should come from the top down, or specifically that individuals cannot make an impact, whereas larger institutional change is what is necessary?
If so, this would contrast with Carr’s claims put forth in Fortress Europe, that there is hope in individual actions, both by migrants and populations already living in the EU, and they can help to establish a better migration framework. In the end, though Simon and his wife both spend time and energy toward migrant aid, nothing substantial comes of it. The only success story is that of a Balil’s friend who steals a gold medal to pay his way across. I see this as a loud statement that the current system is flawed if theft and mistrust are what is necessary to fulfill the migrant’s goals.
The film welcome showed a very interesting side of the immigration measures put into place by the governments of Europe. Very prominent is the motivation to make Europe as inhospitable to the immigrants as possible, to dissuade further immigration. This is also discussed as a tactic in the book “Fortress Europe”. In the movie it also shows how it is a criminal offense in France to even help immigrants as a personal decision, because it is viewed as encouraging more immigrants to come. The restriction of rights, not only for the immigrants, but for the citizens of France themselves is shocking. They no longer have the right to shelter or even support someone in their own homes, which seems like a clear violation of their rights, not to mention the complete lack or empathy for the immigrants coming to find a better life. This policy as well as the policy of push-back and not allowing immigrants to reach borders seems like a contradiction of the Geneva convention, but due to the fact that almost the entire European Union is in agreement surrounding these policies, and the countries the immigrants are coming from are typically unstable there seems to be no possible form of changing the behavior of these nations. The work of NGO’s and other service groups are the only real assistance immigrants receive, but as we see in the film, there is only so much they can do against a government and a large segment of the population who wants to remove and block the refugees. There seems like no clear way to enforce the Geneva convention and improve the situation of migrants, because there seems to be no real political benefit to any European country for enforcing these on a different European country and bringing them before a UN tribunal. The Dublin agreement and the Schengen Treaty in combination with the fact that no nation seems to want any refugees or migrants, means Europe is far to interconnected for any country to fight for migrants right to enter another country, when they can then so easily migrate to them.
In the film Welcome, Bilal stayed true to who he was until his death, which was juxtaposed against Simon, who underwent a huge character change. Bilal began the film as a character who had a single goal in mind, however naïve or ignorant, but remained determined to accomplish it no matter what. Simon continually tried to change Bilal. He tried to persuade him against swimming the channel, he wanted to change him from “the runner” to the swimmer,” and most interestingly, he taught Bilal how to breath while swimming and referenced breathing several times during his lessons. Prior to this, Bilal talked about how he was never able to hold his breath with the bag over his head, and how this brought him great shame and disappointment because it prevented him from reaching England. We even see him practicing this in Simon’s apartment. Instead of teaching him how to hold his breath, Simon wanted Bilal to breathe better.
But Simon’s efforts to change Bilal were unsuccessful. Bilal tried to cross the channel twice. His tombstone had “the runner” engraved on it. Lastly, it was implied that Bilal died because he refused to stop holding his breath, and ended up drowning in the channel. This is contrasted with Simon who changed dramatically by the end of the film. He went from being a bystander while his wife helped refugees to housing two of them. He began the film distraught over his imminent divorce, but only in the end did he profess his love for his ex-wife and beg her to stay with him.
I believe that by doing this, Lioret criticizes the European bystanders over their lack of support for refugees. Bilal stays true to himself because that is all he can do. He is portrayed as driven and passionate, and while he has no realistic goals of how he would even be able to support himself and Mina if he could get to London, he is someone who the audience respects for his perseverance. Simon, the European bystander, is frustrating to watch because he is so meek and hesitant to be involved with refugees or win his wife back throughout most of the film. While Bilal continued to fight for what he wanted, I wanted Simon to fight for something, anything. Instead, Simon is portrayed as the typical European; too comfortable to take a risk or get involved. This brings about questions of what we owe to refugees, if anything. How can we show sympathy without ourselves breaking the law? Is the best we can do what Simon’s wife does, like volunteering at a soup kitchen? Surely that isn’t enough, but are there any other options?
Two things stuck out to me in the movie: the lack of a happy ending and the use of the title throughout the movie.
First, the movie was pretty positive, especially compared to the movies we have watched previously in class, so why was the ending not a happy one? Bilal could have made it across the channel in time to marry Mina, but instead the film-makers decided his character would be caught 800 meters off the shore of Britain and sent back to France in a bodybag. Why did this happen? Personally, I think it is to add a sense of reality to the storyline. We keep asking ourselves how to make a responsible movie about immigration, I think filmmakers need to at least tell a story of truth, which is something that this movie does pretty well, but it could be a bit better. Most stories of immigration, especially undocumented immigration, do not have happy endings, so why should this one be any different? I do not like that the ending was not a happy one, I was cheering for Bilal and hoping he would be able to evade the coast guard, but I understand the need for a happy ending in order to tell a fairly realistic story of the journey of an immigrant.
Second, the title of the movie is “Welcome.” The word welcome is said only a handful of times in dialogue and displayed across the screen only once. In the movie, “welcome” is said first by Simon when inviting the Bilal and Zoran into his apartment; after that it is only said a couple more times. It is, however, displayed across the screen in an unmissable way after the altercation with the neighbor. The doormat to the unfriendly, and possibly racist/xenophobic, neighbor says “welcome” in big, bold letters. Unless I am mistaken, this is the first time viewers get a visual of the movies title because the title is missing from the opening credits. If I am mistaken, this is the first time in the movie where the title is displayed prominently on the screen. Either way, I found it very ironic that the prominent depiction of the title is after Simon gets into a verbal altercation with the neighbor who does not want Bilal, or any other immigrant, to stay in the building. He was not a very welcoming character, but maybe this is a commentary on citizens of immigrant receiving nations. From a social aspect, citizens of nations like France are not the nicest toward immigrants, or at least that is the discourse I hear through popular/mainstream media.
Welcome sheds light on the diversity of European countries’ responses to the immigration crisis. While, as has been made very clear, the general consensus amongst these countries is anti-immigrant out of fear of “outsiders” taking jobs, changing culture, and causing harm, European countries’ brutality toward these immigrants varies in rather nuanced ways.
Especially after much of content I have seen about immigration throughout Europe, both in this course and in my Italian Cinema class during my study abroad program in Rome, I understood the governmental response to overpopulation of immigrants as positively brutal. While the immigrants traveling through France in Welcome are by no means treated well, the film highlights the areas of difference in France’s handling of the crisis compared to many other countries throughout Europe, including Italy and Greece.
In Fortress Europe, the Matthew Carr illustrates the detainment centers for immigrants in Fylakio disturbingly. First, he describes them as overcrowded and unhygienic, allowing almost no form of exercise for the detainees. While indeed, the detainment center to which Firat is sent after he is discovered by the coastguard is unpleasant, with rooms crowded with cots, it appears much more cleanly than the centers described in Fylakio. While those immigrants in Fylakio are hardly able to move, Firat is able to walk around his room and is given organized soup-kitchen meals.
Further, Carr says of the Fylakio refugee detainment centers that “hitting and slapping by guards appears to be the norm, in part because of the lack of any other means of communication (89). In a documentary film (whose name slipped my mind) of refugees at a detainment center that I watched for my Italian Cinema course, there was brutal footage of guards physically abusing their detainees—perhaps harder than they would if they had the ability to verbally abuse them too. However, in both detainment centers described in Fortress Europe and this other documentary, none of the refugees were able to speak any bits of common language with the guards. After seeing/reading about this aggression in detainment centers and then seeing Firat in his detainment center in Welcome, I came to understand how much of an impact common language can have for these immigrants. Firat was certainly manhandled during his arrest, but the film did not place emphasis on the physical aggression between the guards and Firat in the same way that these other two pieces did, likely due to the language connection. While Firat was able to communicate with these men rather clearly, explain himself, and follow their orders in the detainee camps, the other refugees pictured in Fortress Europe and the documentary seem much more foreign to these guard. To the guards, these people are complete outsiders. Since the concept of “foreign” scares governments and guards so much, the more foreign these immigrants seem to those in power, the more aggressive those in power feel they need to be.
The limited witch-hunting by the government officials in Welcome seems more nonchalant than the strategy that Italian government officials take in regards to African immigrants in the film Terraferma, which I also watched in Rome. In this film, a Sicilian family allows an African immigrant family to hide in their home until the family is able to escape elsewhere. The Italian family’s fear of being caught by the police is palpable, given that one of them must always be guarding the door and each time there is a knock, the family’s eye are filled with intense fear. In Welcome on the other hand, while indeed Simon must keep the fact that he is helping Firat hide from the authorities, it is clear that his fear of the authorities harming him for helping Firat is nearly nothing compared to the Sicilian family in Terraferma. For example, when Simon’s neighbors find out that Firat is staying in their building and express their anger, Simon does not attempt to hide Firat or express any fear. Rather, he confidently shoves them off and brings Firat right back into his apartment in front of them. Had Simon been as afraid of the government’s response to him helping Firat, his course of action in this moment would have been starkly different.
Finally, the language used to describe immigrants in Welcome further emphasizes France’s less aggressive approach to immigrants than some other countries we have studied. I could tell that there was a slight translation issue in the subtitles of the film when I realized that many times when a character was talking about an immigrant in French, the subtitle translated the word to “clandestine,” which is likely a too-literal translation. However, I’m glad the subtitle mistake was made, so that I could begin to explore why the French might use the word “clandestine,” since I’ve never heard such term used in America when discussing immigration. According to one source I found, “clandestine” is an alternative to the “conventional but crude legal/illegal dichotomy.” Here, it becomes clear that a less aggressive approach to immigrants is ingrained in French language, as a common term the French use to refer to immigrants doesn’t place emphasis on their legal status, which is often used to villainize immigrants.
I would be interested to learn more about the factors that impact how each country treats their influx of illegal immigrants, which I hypothesize would be most strongly correlated to how much money a certain country has as well as how “foreign” the immigrants seem to those in their new country. It seems that “fitting in” is the impossible standard that these countries hold these immigrants to—a standard that majority of immigrants cannot meet, simply by the way that they look or the language they have been taught.
Welcome was quite the interesting film. To me, it represented an almost flawless attempt at putting the viewers in the shoes of an immigrant. When discussing in class what mode is best to learn about what life is really like for an immigrant, I previously said a documentary. However, this film drastically changed my opinion.
Welcome gave an amazing representation of the countless obstacles that many immigrants face in search for a better life. Welcome’s intense scenes and emotional actors pave the way for the ultimate form of empathy to form between the audience and immigrants as a whole. I couldn’t help myself but finding it admirable that one man could be so driven by hope for a better life, that he would go so far as risking death (which obviously did not pay off) just to see the girl he loved. Moreover, the connection between Simon and Bilal further helps establish a connection, as it shows that despite cultural and racial differences, friendship and respect for fellow men prevails.
With the focus on borders, I was somewhat shocked by his girlfriend’s father. To me, I would expect that despite his belief that Bilal was not suited to marry his daughter, he would sympathize with Bilal enough to help him cross the border. I figured that from one immigrant to another, they would respect the fact that they both sought out to live better lives.
This brings up the question of how immigrants interact with one another. Why would one immigrant not help another? Do immigrants stick together? Would the father help the cousin (whom he wanted his daughter to marry) cross the border? Is there guilt from not helping a fellow immigrant?
It is fascinating how various organizations and groups of people are portrayed in the film ‘Welcome.’ Most obviously the government and police are the villains are sorta like the bad guys of the film. Clearly, the audience is meant to root for Bilal, a Kurdish boy in love with a girl in England. While the government and even just regular people are trying to stop him. Ironically, in one scene, Simon looks over at his neighbor’s doormat, which says “welcome.” Given the neighbor is clearly not very welcoming to the migrants in town. Only Simon and the volunteer organizations seem to want to help the migrants. There appear to be people taking advantage of the migrants called “handlers” in the film. The odds are just so stacked against these destitute migrants. They have so little to begin with that they are willing to risk their lives to get to England. I am curious what the backstory on the other migrants is. We know Bilal is going to England for his love, but what about the other migrants? Why isn’t France good enough? I don’t know enough to answer this question, but clearly there is something driving them to not stay in France.
When I was in Glasgow last semester, our Duke group had a conversation with one of the asylum judges. Something I do remember from that talk was the judge saying 10%. If there is at least a 10% chance the asylum seeker is telling the truth, the judge will grant them the right to stay. I believe something like half of all asylum seekers eventually win the right to stay. I am not as familiar with the likelihood of winning asylum in France, but perhaps the rate is lower, which could be the case by nature of France receiving many more asylum applications to begin with unlike the UK, which is separated by the Channel.
One of the scenes from Welcome that stuck out at me most was the exchange between Simon and Marion after they leave the market. After Marion rebukes Simon for not saying anything to the store staff, Simon asks her, “so what do you do?” To which she replies, “get angry”. This exchange highlights the futility of Marion’s emotional reaction. Getting angry won’t do a thing to solve anything pertaining to the European migrant crisis, and I think this idea plays a significant role in Welcome.
Instead of being a film that seeks to push a pro-immigration message by focusing on the plight of migrants, generating empathy on behalf of the viewer for its migrant characters (it does do this as it would be irresponsible to make a migrant film and not show scenes about the struggles migrants endure, however this is not the focus of the film in my opinion), Welcome seems to be more of a film that seeks to push a pro-immigration message by attacking the police and French state.
Although Bilal is the one who ends up being the focus of the tragic event in the film, Simon seems to be the protagonist. Bilal’s character doesn’t change much throughout the film and is a on the flatter side – other than the brief insight into the suffering he endured at the hands of Turkish police and his love for Mina, we don’t really know much about him. It didn’t feel like Lioret honed in on making the viewer feel as empathetic towards Bilal as he could have. On the other hand, Simon’s character develops significantly and we gain a lot of insight into his life. Having Simon, a French citizen who as the protagonist and character the viewer identifies more with (given that we know more about him emotionally and as a person than any other character in the film) gives the viewer insight into problems of the police and French state that Lioret is trying to bring to light.
The police and French state are portrayed incredibly negatively in this film. Beyond needlessly beating and tormenting migrants, their desire to prevent anyone from providing any form of assistance, humanitarian or not, to the migrants stands out and is a common theme in the film. Simon’s conversations with the French detective highlight the absurdity, cruelty and unjustness of France’s laws, highlights we would not have seen if Bilal was the protagonist in the film. The police teargassing the soup kitchen line and arresting a volunteer worker increase the viewer’s anger towards the French state’s policies.
After doing some research I found that one of Lioret’s primary intentions with Welcome was to criticize a French statute that made it a criminal offense to provide any form of assistance to migrants. After the film was released, French Immigration Minister Eric Besson incorrectly claimed that no one had ever been charged under that statute despite there being an ample amount of cases to the contrary. He actually debated Lioret about the issue on a French TV show, after which a a proposition to reverse this statute was introduced in French parliament. Although it ended up not being passed, the fact that such a strong, nearly successful push for policy change occurred a result of a film is pretty remarkable, especially for a film that does not primarily utilize pathos to get its message across. In my opinion such a impact would not have been made by a film that primarily appealed to viewer’s emotions instead of primarily attacking the state and its policy.
Just like Simon tacitly illustrated in his exchange with Marion in the film, anger by itself rarely if ever does anything to change significant societal problems. By shifting the viewer’s focus from being empathetic towards migrant to showing specific flaws in French immigration policy, Lioret created a film that got the ball rolling on meaningful change in the context of alleviating the struggles that migrants go through.
In attempting to answer the question on how to responsibly tell the story of an immigrant in film, I want to focus on one aspect of the movie: Bilal’s primary motivation in getting to England, which is to reunite with his girlfriend. My thoughts toward Lioret’s choice in selecting this motive remains mixed—it is possible that the romantic motive is merely showcased for the sake of popular filmmaking, to make the heavy subject that the film tackles palatable for the everyday moviegoer. Nevertheless, I find that the director’s choice for Bilal’s motivation simultaneously undermines the immigrant’s story while somehow, at the same time, correctly situating the immigrant in the midst of the power dynamics at play on the part of the EU and European nations.
For me, one of the most memorable moments of the film occurred at the beginning, as the Bilal and the other characters, trying to pass through immigration in a truck, put plastic bags over their heads to avoid breathing and giving away their presence. The danger of such a moment, coupled with descriptions from Carr’s Fortress Europe about how “at least two thousand people have died in the Sahara Desert trying to reach Europe” or have “suffocated in truck containers, fallen from trains and buses, or frozen to death in wheel of carriages of passenger planes” highlight the disturbing realities that result in the strict militarization and enforcement of European borders. I find myself reminded of a line from a poem that I heard a few years back, which reads, “No one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” With the repeated risks of death in attempts to rush the borders of Ceuta and Melilla that we read about in Fortress Europe Bilal’s motivation for swimming across the English channel to reach England seems almost irresponsibly trivial; it feels like a romanticization of the immigrant story that undercuts the motives of why so many migrants without a legitimate case for political asylum try to reach Europe in the first place.
Yet, while this motive falls short in the literal sense when portraying the immigrant, in a symbolic sense, it provides a juxtaposition of the power dynamic between the immigrant and the EU nations that try so hard to defend their borders against them. Bilal’s motivation, coupled with his age of seventeen years, offers an innocence that stands in stark contrast to the actions of the EU’s immigration control, which, from the movie, echoes the sentiments Carr wrote of being an “extraordinarily elaborate and complex system” that is “simultaneously ruthless, repressive, devious, chaotic, and dysfunctional.” Suddenly, here, Bilal’s motive seems highly appropriate.
Choosing between the literal or the symbolic, between zooming in or omitting certain important details in pursuit of showcasing larger connection, is difficult to balance. Perhaps, there is no possible “responsible” way of showcasing the immigrant’s story without omitting some crucial elements. I think that as an audience, once we acknowledge the difficulty—or perhaps even the impossibility—of this, then we begin to share the burden of seeking our own ways to build a more complete, responsible image of the immigrant. Then, we can start consuming cultural products like Fortress Europe and Welcome in conjunction with one another, to fill in the gaps as we did this week.