Papers (Anne Galisky, 2009): USA

Reviewed by Richard Feilden.  Viewed at Gardena Cinema, Gardena

It is appropriate that the screening of Papers that I attended began with a Mexican dance performance, conjuring images of cinema’s vaudeville past.  Appropriate because, although Papers is a film about a modern problem, its roots stretch back deep into the past; indeed, it reaches back to the very principles upon which ‘modern’ America (that is America from the moment that European’s first heaved themselves upon its shores) is founded – a nation of immigrants.  The documentary offers a human perspective on a side of America’s undocumented immigrant issue that gets little press coverage and, while it skips over details and issues which might help it drive home its argument to a less sympathetic audience, makes an effective emotional plea for its cause.

Papers gives a group of students a chance to tell their stories, intercut with statements from a group of educators, politicians, and members of the legal profession, all of whom support their cause.  The students in the film came to America as children, were raised in America, educated in America, and think of themselves as American.  They are as close as you can come to being American, without actually, legally speaking, being American.  When they turn 18 they become illegal immigrants, subject to deportation to countries they often don’t even remember.  They have no way to become citizens of the only country that they have ever called home.  If they manage to evade detection, they cannot legally work or drive as they are without Social Security Numbers, and are prone to exploitation.  If they return to the countries that their parents came from, they leave behind all that they know including, in many cases, the only language they speak, and all of this because their mothers and fathers wanted, perhaps naively, to give them a chance at a better life.  The documentary argues for the passing of the DREAM Act which would give such undocumented youth, through college or military service, a way to gain legal residency, putting them on the path to US citizenship.

The film is disarmingly simple, something which other openly biased documentaries would do well to pay attention to.  Too many issues driven documentaries seem afraid to let their arguments speak for themselves, falling back on artifice and increasing sensationalism (Michael Moore’s revolting ‘interview’ with an obviously ill and confused Charlton Heston being the height of such behavior) in a misguided attempt to swing the audience their way.  Here we have little more than a series of talking head interviews, shot straight on, broken up by occasional title cards and, whether by choice or through budgetary concerns, almost devoid of music.  The camera rarely moves, no one is chased down the street and there isn’t even a raised voice.  This removes the emotional ‘nudges’ designed to keep a passive audience on message, trusting the audience to think for themselves.    It is dangerously simple, yet highly effective.

There are however some problems with the film.  The first is that, in an apparent attempt to bring the audience on side with the students, it explores some of their backgrounds far beyond what is relevant to the issue in question.  While the life of one of the students, a boy rejected at a young age by his father when suspected of being homosexual, would make a fascinating documentary in its own right, it seems here to be a distraction from the drive of the film, coming dangerously close to the sensationalist behavior I dismissed above.

My second major problem is highlighted during the film when one of the talking heads refers to three groups of people: those who are already onside with the DREAM Act; those who, for whatever reason, have immovable views opposing it; and those who are undecided.  The job of Papers is to reach as deeply as possible into the last category and drag as many people as possible into the first.  I understand director Anne Galisky’s decision to not give screen time to those who oppose the DREAM act, with the exception of an opening montage of banner-waving protestors, as the film is intended to give an opportunity to speak to those who, because raising their voices makes them dangerously visible, rarely get that chance.  However, by not addressing at least some of the potential counter arguments (the cost to the tax-payer of enacting the DREAM Act for instance versus the taxes that these students could generate with a lifetime of legal work for instance) to the position that she is espousing, the film does itself a disservice by seeming afraid to rely on anything other than emotional issues.  I’d have preferred to see the lawyers and politicians address some of these issues head on, bringing the facts and figures to the table that were highlighted in the Q&A that followed my screening – not all audiences will be so lucky.

All that aside, the film, by virtue both of the charm of its participants and the importance of its message, is well worth watching.  Screenings are few and far between at the moment, but details can be found at papersthemovie.com