Monday, March 30, 2009

Critiquing the Critics of the Immigration Movie Crossing Over

Critiquing the Critics of the Immigration Movie Crossing Over

Crossing Over received an incredibly low 13% approval from the internet movie-rating site Rotten Tomatoes, and another dismal 38% from Metacritic – both sites post an aggregate of mainstream media movie critics’ reviews. This truly baffled me at first, since I thought the movie captured many of the nuanced problems of immigration, and was generally was quite sympathetic toward its array of characters.

Upon reading the low-scoring critics complain about the movie, it almost seems as though one of them set the stage, wrote the initial report, and all the others just read his example and followed suit. Their complaints are surprisingly similar, ranging from a crammed plot to badly developed characters. One of the biggest criticisms by these relentless judges was that Wayne Kramer, the director of the movie, lacked focus, or more precisely, he lacked a definite position. Which in their view means a clear, uncompromised, pro-immigration stance.

Kramer, in his own holistic way, does indeed try to include every story and angle into his film. A Muslim teen-age girl, who participates in Islamic and possibly Jihadist internet forums, appears alongside a self-proclaimed atheist Jew who works illegally in a Jewish school. A wealthy Iranian family is presented on equal footing as a Mexican single mother. Working class Koreans and an aspiring Australian actress from an obviously middle-class background harbor the same desire of becoming Americans. But Kramer, in keeping with his artistic integrity, allows us a peep into the dark side: the immigrant-smuggling “coyote” with death on his hands, the Muslim teenager who sympathizes with the 9/11 killers, the Korean gang that robs and murders store owners, the Muslim Iranians honor killing their too-Americanized sister, the Mexican who counterfeits green cards in his print shop, and the list goes on.

Yet, Kramer clearly believes that America is a nation for everyone. He reveals this passionately and even poetically through Hamid, the naturalized American-Iranian Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officer. Hamid displays his version of American identity to a young Korean (Justin), whom he confronts during a bloody convenience store robbery as Justin holds the storeowner hostage with a gun at her head. In tearful bursts of accented English, Justin tells Hamid that he and his family will be part of the naturalization ceremony the next day. To convince Justin to drop his gun and to go to the ceremony unscathed, Hamid describes his own acceptance of American citizenship as the "most spiritual moment of my life." He says to Justin, “Look around tomorrow at the faces, and understand the sublime promise of the moment.”

Hamid’s passionate eulogy on becoming an American ignites the critics’ harshest ridicule. Dana Stevens from Slate.com describes this scene as “the movie's glorious nadir, the moment when its leaden self-seriousness transmutes into comedy gold.” Stephanie Zacharek wrote at Salon.com that s he “blanched when I heard those words -- they're overwrought, and some people around me in the screening room tittered.” Blanching and tittering, glorious nadir; those are the reactions to an immigrant poeticizing and celebrating the feeling he had upon receiving his American citizenship.

Perhaps this is what earned Crossing Over an 87% disapproval rating from the movie critics at Rotten Tomatoes. How can anyone describe America, and being an American, in such glowing terms? Especially an America that sends a poor, illegal Mexican single mother back to Mexico without her young son? And one that refuses to sympathize with a teen-aged Muslim girl and deports her to an alien Bangladesh? Still, in the eyes of these seemingly equal opportunity immigration advocates/film critics, the deportation of the Muslim potential Jihadist is far worse than that of the white Australian aspiring actress who grants sexual favors to an immigration bureaucrat in “a bizarre sexual quid-pro-quo deal” to get her green card. Even Kramer has no sympathy for this Australian girl, portraying her as a callous opportunist, whereas her Muslim and Mexican counterparts receive ample empathy. Whites, after all, don’t need the kind of saving that Third World immigrants coming from broken governments and fundamental religions require.

Immigration advocates and defenders will never be content until there is unequivocal support for immigrants, and specifically the Third World kind. No need to show the cheating coyotes and the counterfeit card printers. Muslims killing their sisters should never be talked about; it is their culture after all. And it is best to sweep the rising problem of Asian gangs under the carpet. There are so many success stories to document, why go for the bad apples?

The citizenship judge at the ceremony that Justin finally attends describes America as a welcoming country. America is for the taking, not for the giving (discriminately, if at all). Anyone who suggests otherwise will incur the wrath, or hopefully just the ridicule, of these immigration advocates/film critics. Kramer tried to keep to his artistic integrity by providing us with as much truth as possible, despite his clear sympathy for immigration and immigrants. This earned him a contemptuous 13%. But that’s better than an outright zero.