Mike receives an unwelcome lecture from THE VISITOR

By Michael J Edwards / July 1, 2011

God help us all, I have another gripe. THE VISITOR is a film about immigration and the monolithic, uncaring US system which deals with it. Uptight professor Walter Vale (Richard Jenkins) is in a rut, he recycles old lecture notes for his students, can't get inspired to write any new work and is generally quiet and miserable. After a colleague falls ill he is forced to travel from his home in suburban Connecticut to New York City to deliver a paper at a conference, but when he arrives at his city flat (left empty for years during his inertia) he finds it inhabited by an immigrant couple. Terek is from Palestine and Zainab from Libya, and they form the focal point of the moral edge of the movie as it winds its predictable journey through prejudice, friendship and government intrusion. The American critics have heaped praise upon this movie for its subtlety, nuance and careful crafting and they're right, the acting is tremendous. Richard Jenkins should be singed out for particular praise for his portrayal of the introverted and depressed professor which proffers a slow-burning charm that draws us into the character without any need for showy scenes or obvious expressive moments. Hiam Abbass also makes a welcome appearance as Terek's mother Mouna and the way in which her sensitive performance style gels with that of Jenkins works wonders in their scenes. The film also deserves praise for not relying on the standard array of big moments to bludgeon home a political message as films like LIONS FOR LAMBS or STOP-LOSS have recently. Instead it simply trudges its weary way through the proceedings in the hope that the audience will be absorbed into the inexorable progress that intrinsically highlights the intransigence of the system they face. So what's wrong with it? It just boils down to a bland liberal intelligentsia rant at their own inability to change anything. Is it really news to anyone that the system is pretty unlikely to change it's decision based on the plea of an old college professor? Is it really a surprise that an educated man would tolerate rather than ostracize and attack someone in trouble? No. And I don't want anyone accusing me of naivety or idealism, I understand that there really is tension and ignorance and that there is a myriad of problems in the American immigration system and how it treats people. I also acknowledge that this is not just acceptable but worthy subject matter for a film. What gets me is that in trying to raise awareness of the plight thousands of people face, and to genuinely (I think the attempt is genuine) create a character study of interaction between two opposite ends of the American social spectrum, the film lapses into lazy character stereotypes and doesn't offer any real meat in the relationship. Walter's inert professor is a tired indictment of the hollowness of suburban life we've seen a million times, Terek is the cheery Arab who is carefree, has no idea of time and likes music and fun whilst Zainab is warm hearted but sports a cold exterior and a pessimistic outlook. Within this summaries we see so little development that the superb performance do more than change this from spending a couple of hours watching a rock to a couple of hours watching a weird-shaped shiny rock. This laziness is the clearest indication in the entire film that it's all about how tough it is to be an inert middle-class guy rather than investigating the intricacy of multiculturalism or mounting a real attack on the American immigration system. To summarise then, this is a gentle and well-acted movie. It has received plenty of praise across the board, a lot of which is justified. It just doesn't do what it sets out to, and falls desperately short of providing an in-depth character study; instead it reduces itself to a lengthy and uninteresting diatribe on liberal frustration which is at best dull and at worst a concise illustration of the kind of liberal intelligentsia output that fails to achieve any change.