The setting of the movie is an unnamed village in the north of England.
It used to be a miners village but the mines closed in the 1980s so the
village is in decline and houses are being sold for peanuts. The central character is Ballantyne , the owner of "The old oak" , a pub where some
of the locals (generally old) hang out. In the beginning of the movie
some Syrian refugees arrive and get placed in some of the empty houses
and that creates conflict since some of the locals resent this and some
others make friends (eventually) with the new arrivals. From then on
various events happen , some positive some negative.

The final sentence of the previous paragraph is vague and this isn't
mainly to avoid spoilers but because all of the events seem arbitrary.
They could have gone in many different ways and it would make no more or
less sense and it would make the script neither worse nor better.
Nonetheless , there seems to be a central theme and that is the power of solidarity. Solidarity seems to almost create miracles. For example
there is an English girl who early in the movie feels unwell and it
seems to be due to the lack of food at home (we get to see that in the
house where she lives the kitchen cupboards and fridge are almost
empty). Yet later a large communal meal happens at the pub for the
locals and refugees. Where did all this food come from ? Some charitable donations are vaguely mentioned but why weren't these available before
the refugees came ? This brings to mind another scene where a bicycle is donated for one of the Syrian kids and one of the English kids sees the
bicycle arrive and complains that the English kids don't get donations
like that. Ballantyne replies : "They [the refugees] have lost
everything". This may be true but charity doesn't have to be all or
nothing , the refugees got a house and a bicycle and various other
things so the question remains how come the English kids don't get
anything ?

I should clarify here that I don't think the movie is meant to be a feel
good fantasy about the power of solidarity but it is meant to be
anchored in the real world which in my book implies that certain
arguments and counterarguments should be addressed. Perhaps the English
kids do get some form of charity and Ballantyne didn't give a good
answer to the kid. If that is the case then this should have been
covered in some other way during the movie , a way which feels natural
of course. But it doesn't get covered. If English kids get anything
(they do participate in the communal meal) , it is only as a side effect
of the arrival of the refugees. If the point is that the locals had
forgotten the power of solidarity and the arrival of the refugees got
them to rediscover it then there are 2 problems : such a point is not
developed at all to the extent that I'm not sure it is one of the
intended points. Second , it's implausible. The locals certainly know of
the power of solidarity since the miners strikes in the 1980s and the
strikes are mentioned. Perhaps the characters got demoralised because
the strikes did not achieve the intended result but they've had decades
to get their spirits back up and they do hang out together , at the pub.
So it's silly that in more than 30 years it didn't occur to them to
organise various communal activities (like a meal) and they only did it
after the refugees came.

Another point which is mentioned and then simply forgotten is that the
powers that be brought the refugees with no consideration (as far as we
get told , anyway) of the effect on the locals. I don't remember exactly
how the point is phrased in the movie but it was ambiguous enough that
it could be interpreted or developed further in 2 very different ways :

1. We don't want the refugees here.

2. A centralised power should not make decisions which will have a
strong effect on a small village (among other places) without consulting
the locals and this applies just as much to bringing refugees from a
different country , closing mines (assuming consultation did not happen
in the 1980s , I didn't search) or a number of other things.

One could be perfectly welcoming towards the refugees and still believe
in the validity of point 2 and wish to loudly make the point. The script
never seems to be aware of that. One of the back rooms of the pub has
been closed for years since business is low and some of the locals ask Ballantyne to reopen it for a single occasion so that they can have a
meeting and discuss what to do about the refugees or any future refugees
which may come to the village. It's not clear (and likely they are not
clear in their thoughts) to what extent they are leaning towards option
1 or option 2. Ballantyne refuses to open the room for them giving them
bogus excuses but still makes the room available for the communal meal
later on. The locals who made the request feel angry and betrayed (they
are old friends with Ballantyne and have been keeping the pub open for
years since they are some of the few regular patrons) and resort to an
act of petty revenge later on. All this could have been avoided in
various ways. Just because the characters in a movie make some poor
choices and are not thinking clearly enough about some issues , doesn't automatically count as a negative against the script but I feel that
there should have been at least one character who does at least point
out the distinction between 1 and 2 and then have the script explore the reactions of the various characters. The fact that no such character
exists I do count as a negative against the script.

Another similar missed opportunity : one of the locals which seems to be against the refugees wonders in the pub (in the presence of Ballantyne)
whether a mosque will be built in the village eventually. Again ,
someone could have pointed out that building a mosque will at least
bring needed economic activity to the village. The reactions of the
characters to such a point would have helped clarify to them and to us
exactly why they object to the refugees.

A third occasion where a political point is not explored in any depth is
the following : Yara is one of the refugees and one of the two main
characters apart from Ballantyne. She complains how cruel the Syrian
government ("regime") is and that "the world doesn't do anything about
it" or something like that. Actually outside governments did get
involved (some in a forceful manner ; some against the Syrian government
, some supporting it) but I want to talk about the general principles.
Who in the world exactly ? Does she really want foreign governments to
have the ultimate say about how each country runs its internal affairs ,
which government (or regime) should be overthrown and what should be
installed in its place , what means should be used (such means would
certainly include violence which likely would be stronger than the
violence the Syrian government employs) and a number of other related
issues ? Why would the foreign governments have any more right to
enforce their political preferences on a local population than the local governments do even if the local governments happen to be dictatorial ?
Even if the foreign governments are democratically elected , Syrians do
not get to vote in the relevant elections so from their point of view
any violent intervention by foreign governments would also be
dictatorial. And to the extent that the local governments , dictatorial
or not , were not imposed by an outside forceful intervention (and I
don't think that the Syrian one was) , some of the locals must like them
(and some not , as it tends to happen with governments).

It is understandable that Yara feels the way she does because the Syrian government has imprisoned her father and his ultimate fate is one of the dramatic narratives of the movie. Perhaps she simply speaks from emotion
and cannot be expected to think about general principles. Again , my
point is that either the general principles should have been explored in
some way (by some other character for example) or that little speech
about the world not doing anything should have been left out. You could
have the subplot about Yara's father without the speech.

Overall , this seems to be par for the course : the movie addresses all
the political points it raises in a purely emotional superficial manner.
I wanted more than that. And to add to this issue , we get irrelevant
side plots like one involving Ballantyne's dog and some other dogs. This presumably exists to add depth to the character and tell us a bit about
his past. But when other more relevant issues are superficially explored
, I could have done without the dog part.

In a scene near the beginning , one of the old regulars at the pub
complains about the devalued houses and how he can't sell his own to
leave the village. Why does he want to leave the village ? The village
seems well kept , his friends live there and the guy is old so he can't
expect to go out and conquer the world so to speak. This seems to be a
bit of drama just for its own sake (the guy even cries) without giving
any thought as to whether it makes sense.

There is an incident where some of the English teenagers attack a Syrian teenager accusing him that he did something but they don't say what and
we never learn whether he actually did something to annoy them or the accusation was just a pretext for attacking him. In a different scene , Ballantyne's pub is a lot more busy than usual and we are not given an explanation as to why.


Having said all that , I enjoyed the movie even though I was also
frustrated by it. You can avoid the frustration if you approach it in
the right manner. You know the advice they give sometimes for certain
action movies that you must turn your brain off and enjoy the action
scenes ? Something analogous applies here. The best way to view the
movie is as a series of little dramatic vignettes loosely centered
around some common themes. Just don't worry about in depth exploration
of wider political points or whether some of the events make practical
sense. So just turn your brain off and go with the emotion. Approached
like this , the movie is enjoyable and can even be moving.

The music is generally decent. The most interesting part of the music is
in a scene where there is a photographic exhibition of sorts at "The old
oak". Yara is handy with a camera so she has taken a number of photos of
local life and there is an event where they show the photos as slides to
an audience of English locals and Syrian refugees while one of the
refugees plays a solo on his oud.

--
vlaho.ninja/menu

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)