4/10
Complicit in the White Savior Narrative
20 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The film Salam, Neighbor is an attempt at humanizing the Syrian refugee specifically refugees at Za'atari refugee camp. The film, however, failed to engage in a discussion of the nuances and contradictions present in refugee camps and ultimately displayed the way in which idealized Westerns often create issues in conflict areas. In the beginning, the documentary explores why the filmmakers, Chris Temple and Zach Ingrasci, desired to make the film and the obstacles that emerged during the filming process. While having the filmmakers be part of the narrative is not problematic, this particular documentary perspective prevented an in depth discussion about the actual causes of the Syrian Conflict from being featured in the film. The beginning of the film, therefore, did not provide viewers with enough information about the people within the camp. Throughout the documentary, the filmmakers spent a significant amount of time discussing their own personal narratives and thus did not provide enough information on the true focus of the documentary-the Syrian refugees. The filmmakers also chose to focus on the ideal refugees such as children which promotes the problematic notion that only certain populations of refugees are worth saving. In the beginning of the film, Temple and Ingrasci are told that it is unsafe for them to reside within the camp, but the issue of safety is never again addressed in the film. Based on the precautions the filmmakers were forced to take, there is significant amount of risk resulting from living inside a refugee camp. Thus, some members of the camp population must not be as welcoming to outsiders as the refugees featured in the film were. The filmmakers chose not to address these concerns about the refugee population and instead promoted the idealized image of a refugee. The film, overall, contributes to the white savior narrative with the two filmmakers attempting to significantly change the lives of the refugees without considering the adverse impacts of their actions. Specifically, at one point in the documentary the two filmmakers cajole a young Syrian refugee into returning to school. Upon attending the refugee camp school, the young child has a breakdown, because he is forced to relive the traumatic event of seeing his school in Syrian being bombed. The filmmaker's inability to see the consequence of their actions before sending a child back to school demonstrates the lack of thought put into the project. The filmmakers put a young child in a mentality compromised situation in order to make themselves feel better about their actions. While the intention of the film, humanizing the Syrian refugee population, was admirable, the lack of forethought displayed in the documentary caused the film to be overall unsuccessful and disappointing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed