McCarthy is a man with charisma. Like many American actors, he has a smooth, creamy voice, and a pleasant demeanour that makes you feel warm inside. Presenting his film, he joked, smiled, came off very well indeed. And it seemed to me that never would affable Tom compare himself to an activist like Michael Moore, but discussing this picture afterwards, my friends and I inevitably came to relate the two film-makers because of the way that they both treat their political pickles. I don't want to claim that they are the same, but, as will become clear, their films do have certain little things in common.

Cordial McCarthy would probably be puzzled by my introduction. He didn't mean this to be a political film. He told us that it was born from the relationship between his two main characters -- a suburbian and stagnating university professor and a lively and lovely young Syrian immigrant. Only when he came to research the story and discovered the detention centres where immigrants that are to be deported are held, was this film born. Out of indignation, McCarthy decided to make a film about the upsetting and turbulent way that immigrants can be torn away from their new lives and sent back to their own country for no apparent reason.

Let us begin with what Tom wanted us to -- the characters. Our Caucasian hero is called Walter Vale. He is a miserable, middle-class, middle-aged professor of globalisation and economics in developing countries at the University of Connecticut. His family has dissolved -- his son is in London, his wife -- deceased. He reluctantly travels to New York to present a paper which he has "co-authored" (read: hasn't written). Upon arriving at his New York apartment, he discovers that in his 25-year absence, other tenants have settled into the place. Enter Tarek -- the charming young Syrian, and his Senegalese girlfriend Zainab. Out of the kindness of his heart, or perhaps out of white-middle-class guilt, he allows them to stay at the apartment until they have found new accommodation. They, of course, start to make friends, and so ensue many jokes about the awkwardness of white guys in comparison to the fresh friendliness of swarthy foreigners. (vis. such cultural clichés such as "White guys can't dance", etc.) Tarek starts to teach Walter to play the djembe (that's an African drum), and we see a charming cross-culture friendship start to flourish. That is, until Tarek is wrongly apprehended by some plain-clothes policemen, who are very rude indeed, and we discover that he and Zainab are illegally living in the country.

Here Tarek and Zainab become more than just charming foreigners -- they are the real-life embodiment of Walter's dusty academic studies. When Walter initially tells them what he does for a living, "economics of developing countries", Tarek jovially replies, "Hey, that's us! Syria, Senegal!" In the rest of the film, Walter, who had been descending into pointlessness and half-life, now realises that there is some energy in life -- there are lively people, groovy drum music.. He finds fresh air in the new cultures that he is discovering. They rejuvenate him, and in return he provides all the assistance he can to incarcerated Tarek and his forlorn family, even taking his mother on a date to see a Broadway show, followed by a lovely dinner. How nice.

It's clear that there are two motivations behind Walter's new-found philanthropy -- obviously he sees that they are in trouble and wants to help. But in addition to this, it is obvious that he gets personal gains from it all -- not only his moral impulse is fulfilled, but he is having fun!

We could condemn him for the tainted nature of his motives, but I think there is no need. Walter was uncharitable in the beginning, verging on miserly, and so it would be unconvincing if he had suddenly turned into a beautiful charity worker. Scrooge, too, was driven to change by fear of loneliness..

So, why is this political, then? We have here some very nice characters. The scenes between Walter and Tarek are all intimate and sparkling -- there is delightful humour in them, and it is clear that this relationship was the starting point for the film. However, these scenes also endear the characters to us and inspire empathy for immigrants, who, to some, can seem scary and intimidating. Now we can say, "Oh, poor them, they are so nice, why are we being so cruel to them?" Walter becomes deeply involved in it all, and experiences some very heartfelt indignation - "You can't just take people away like this!! Do you hear me? I mean do you hear me!!???", he yells at the security guards at the immigration prison. The film may be about the people, but the people become almost mere examples of the malfunctions of policy. And they are all so well suited to their task: Walter is a fuddy duddy, but impressionable. He is awkward, but he does have a sense of humour, and so we can relate to him. He becomes the rose-tinted glass through which we see all of this. And his 'visitors' -- they are so approachable and clean and lovely -- they are the friendly face of immigration. We are told that Zainab is a good Muslim, there are the occasional references to their own culture -- Tarek and his mother call their loved ones "habibti"... But there are not many others -- all in all, they seem fairly well integrated into American culture.

All in all, the film is very controlled. It is the work of a professional -- someone who knows what he's doing. The personal scenes are all very effective -- entertaining, well written, well shot, well acted. They are enjoyable. And the political aspect also is very well constructed. The characters are sympathetic, the events unfold in a very systematic, albeit slightly predictable, way. And here are the similarities with Moore. Michael Moore is a master of his trade. He knows exactly how to evoke certain feelings in American (and other) audiences -- every shot of his films directs our thoughts in a certain way. McCarthy too -- his film tells us exactly what to think about it all. It inspires this disgust at the unpleasant behaviour of American police and immigration officers -- all of whom are portrayed as boorish and simple. "I follow the rules, I have no other information, sir." And so it just seems too correct. There is no complexity -- neither in the characters, nor in the storyline, nor in the thought patterns that we are supposed to have. And the problem is that exactly - "supposed to". It would have been better if we had seen the other side. But then, that would have set off all the mines in this political field. And that's too difficult for entertainment.

The film is well made. McCarthy deserves praise for his sensitivity in portraying good banter. It is enjoyable in a light kind of way -- but dealing with such a problematic issue as immigration (it is relevant in almost every country in the world at the moment), he should not have tried to avoid a real debate. As a result, the film comes off as slightly flat. It makes you laugh. But it certainly doesn't make you think.