Personally, I found it interesting upon how the film Dirty Pretty Things (2002) can actually be related in many ways to La Promesse (1996), yet remain truly different in terms of how it tackles the issue of globalization. Obviously we are able to see the similar ideas and devices, particularly that of immigration. But yet, Dirty Pretty Things tackles that idea in a very different way. Whereas La Promesse could be taken as focusing on the “process” of immigration by quite literally showing said action and referencing said action in the film, Dirty Pretty Things has shifted its focus to the “aftermath” of immigration as the characters deal with this world to which they are attempting to achieve a new life. Thus, this film can perhaps be thought of as examining the aftermath of globalization instead of the process from where La Promesse draws.
Keeping that idea in mind, it is this “aftermath” within Dirty Pretty Things that is particularly interesting. At least from the way I viewed the film, it seemed to portray a rather bleak outlook in a similar way La Promesse might have. The audience is confronted with two particular characters that are struggling in the new world into which they put themselves. It can be reasonably assumed within the first few minutes of the film that these characters are in the lower class, partially because of their immigrant status. In addition, the two characters should be used as an example for the larger population. While, at least during the beginning of the film, this lower class poverty might be viewed as the main idea or “aftermath” of globalization, a new idea emerged soon later, the underground organ trade. While I will admit for a few seconds that I thought Okwe (the doctor) would take on said trade head on, I shook that idea from my mind rather quickly. Instead, I began to assemble this puzzle into another, perhaps more overflowing idea that can be tied in with not only this film, but many others as well. This idea is that of these immigrants are basically and quite literally selling themselves, trying to adapt and fit into this now larger world.
Now, for the moment, this idea and that of globalization seem somewhat separate. It jarred my mind for quite some time, but soon a thought came to me. In reference to yesterday’s idea of globalization as a sort of exchange, I began to assemble a thought that in this film the exchange is, in a blunt way of stating, that those subject to globalization are selling themselves in a way to adapt to a now larger world. They are being subjected to ideas and processes of this world, even if those ideas are something they already knew or something they were trying to escape from in an effort to simply survive. (The example of this would be when Okwe mentions that he didn’t think the organ trade occurred in England). It is this attempt at adaptation and survival that really struck me, reinforcing my idea on how this film might be critical of globalization in a sense that what is has the possibility to do.
If not evident from my wording, I’m still not totally sold on this particular idea and perhaps wish some feedback in terms of what others might think along these same lines of thought. Do you think that this idea of globalization causing such a struggle is correct? Is there anything you might add? Or is there any other way one might take this idea?
The fact about the exchange of oneself, who is an immigrant, is a form of globalization that Daniel makes is a new aspect that does make sense. I agree that globalization is present in Dirty Pretty Things in this form of exchange. The exchange of one's internal organs. However, there is another aspect of globalization in the sense that all of the immigrants in the film just want to "fit in" with the natives of the country and not have to constantly hide and live in fear. The culture and norms of London are pushed upon the immigrants, which is another definition in the term globalization.
Looking online I found a source that talks about globalization as being both a positive and negative aspect. The positive is that it does spread new technologies and beliefs around the globe, however the negative is that tries to eliminate over diversity and prevents local beliefs and cultures from arising (www.globalization101.org). The negative aspects of globalization are seen in the film Dirty Pretty Things by segregating the immigrants and "punishing" them for living their lives in their own culture's ways and customs.
An interesting aspect of the film was how both the beginning and ending of the film end in the same location, which is in the airport. This is an example of how globalization is seen because of all of the diversity that is seen in airports, including the one in the film. Airports also show globalization because they are the places that bring in the different people and begin the integration of these people. In the end of the film, both Okwe and Senay are in the airport leaving behind their painful immigrant lives to go to two different places. Okwe returns home, showing that he has defeated the negative aspects of globalization that were forced upon him. While Senay went off to New York, to another foreign country. This shows that she isn't done dealing with globalization and the painful aspects that it includes and pushes upon her. Life may be better for her, but she doesn't know that for sure. She just hopes that it things will turn around for the better. An important thing to point out is the sound of the airplane taking off once the credits were over. This sound confirms both and hope that Senay has and the relief that Okwe feels. They both get on their separate planes and start new processes of globalization.
I think I agree with Daniel, that there is still that idea of exchange going on in this film. The thing that stuck with me the most was how valuable is security to people and what lengths will they go to obtain security? By security here I mean having papers or a passport to stay in a country or travel to another. People were willing to sell part of their body to obtain the life that they wanted and longed for. They were willing to do something completely life changing and life threatening in hopes of reaching the life that they wanted. Globalization makes it possible for people to go almost anywhere they want, but they must take huge risks and make sacrifices to get there.
One of the things I focused on that recurred in the movie was the idea of keys. In one of the first scenes, we see Senay drop her keys for Okwe so that he can get into his apartment. We also see Okwe getting and giving back keys for the “taxi” that he drives during the day. The hotel is also filled with keys. Keys I think symbolize ownership, something the immigrants in this film had a lot of difficulty with. It was difficult for Okwe to find a place to live because he was undocumented and wouldn’t be allowed to rent or buy property. The organs were also sort of a key, a key to get a passport, which is what everyone wanted, and as a source of money for Juan. Another thing that I thought was interesting was the diversity of the cast. I think that it is important in a film like this to show immigrants from many places and their ideologies. La Promesse did this to an extent, but we really got to interact more with the characters from different places, which I thought was interesting. In La Promesse we don’t get any other translations than French, but all of the characters in Dirty Pretty Things spoke English for the most part (excluding the people that only spoke Somali, but the little girl translated for us). I think that in order to effectively show the effects of globalization we really needed to see the way different people dealt with their immigration status, and how residents treated and interacted with undocumented immigrants.
I'm not 100% sure I completely understand the last point, so forgive me if I misconstrue what I take you saying. LP presents us with characters who largely do not speak the language of their "host" country (French), whereas in DPT most of them do (English). What I'm unclear on is how you assess or evaluate this fact. When you say that "In order to effectively show the effects of globalization we really needed to see the way different people dealt with their immigration status..." do you mean we see this better in DPT BECAUSE they all, more or less, speak English than in LP, where we have to rely on the French (subtitled for us into English)? A few things one might perhaps want to think through: --Does DPT allow its immigrants to speak (pretty fluent) English because it makes a claim that these immigrants, though (still) illegal, have already adjusted to their "host" country (the famous assimilation argument...)--a claim we might aesthetically see as grounded in the film's desire to be "realistic" (though does the film strike us as "realistic"--if so, how; if not, why not? what do we mean when we say X is realistic when talking about a FICTION FILM?) Or does DPT allow its characters to communicate more or less well in English because of the film's production values and the attending need to find a larger audience? I.e., consider the COMMERCIAL difference it makes for a film to use the global lingua franca--English--90%+ of the time versus a film that that not only is not in English but also does not "allow" many of its characters even to communicate in the primary language of the country in which they find themselves (French, as is the case in LP). Is it in fact realistic to suggest that most immigrants are as fluent in English as they are in DPT--"realistic" with regard to the actual world (in London, or elsewhere?).
--As Daniel suggests, the two films we've seen thus far could be differentiated by suggesting LP is about the process of how people end up in a new country whereas DPT is about the aftermath, the effects or consequences of their movement. Perhaps to further fine-tune this claim, it seems LP is about the moment of ARRIVAL and its immediate aftermath whereas DPT is about what happens after immigrants have arrived and lived in the new place for a while (however undetermined the time period may be). Do people acquire linguistic tools (i.e., learn the language of the "host" country) that quickly? Might it make a difference that in DPT it's ENGLISH, a language that is spoken more than any other as a second language by people across the world?
--How does this linguistic issue that is brought up in this post relate to a film's ability to "effectively show the effects of globalization"? Might it not be the case that the fact that the characters are all already on some level--namely the linguistic--well integrated skews in some ways the actual processes of globalization with regard to what people are confronted with?
One final thought while I'm at it. Some of you undoubtedly noted that Sanay was played by Audrey Tautou of AMELIE (2001) fame. AT is a FRENCH actress. Why have a FRENCH actress play a TURKISH woman? (I don't know whether Frears had cast her before AMELIE became such a big hit or whether he cast her when she was still more or less unknown to viewers. Given DPT was released in April 2001 whereas DPT was released in December 2002, it's possible though not super likely that the casting decision was made after the earlier film's release. Still: why not cast a Turkish actress? And why cast a French actress whose ENGLISH language skills are so excellent--as you may know, many French actors and actresses do in fact not speak English very well and, in any case, often with a strong French accent, which we can't detect in AT. What does this matter suggest about DPT and its views about processes of globalization?)
As my roommate would probably say Dirty Pretty Things seemed to kind of a slow burner. However the mounting pressure on Okwe seemed, however, to bring the film to a full boil by the end.
===The Heart=== The finding of the heart, a little disturbing, was a great tool to show us the type of person Sneaky is. We were given a distinct a line in the sand and where Okwe and Sneaky stood respectively. Though with the other concerns of Okwe and the focus on them, it is strange but I almost forgot about the heart. The heart to me shows how people will go so far for a dream and there are the "war" profiteers who will benefit from them. With globalization comes the underbelly of the term.
===La Promesse=== I agree with Daniel that these two films defiantly have their connections. In the exchanges of papers and even life for the hope for freedom or whatever else people are looking for. However I see the connection also being from those who profit from the world becoming smaller, particularly those who do so through illegal means.
Though there are differences. In La Promesse there seemed to be little to know support given to immigrants by the other immigrants. In Dirty Pretty Things a hopeful image was the helpfulness that people showed to each other. On one hand you have those who are up to no good, but then the banding together of those in a similar situation. In Le Promesse the only help came from Igor.
I also have a theory that Roger is not Igor's father at all.
I would like to begin my discussion of this film with a statement by the movie reviewer Roger Ebert. In his review of the film, he touches on what he believes is the "heart of the film," a statement that is relevant to the discussion of globalization: "The heart of the movie, directed by Stephen Frears, is in the lives of these people. How they are always alert to make a little money on the side (as when Okwe and Ivan supply their own cash-only room service sandwiches after the hotel kitchen closes). How they live in constant fear of immigration officials, who want to deport them, even though a modern Western economy could not function without these shadow workers. How there is a network of contact and support in this hidden world, whose residents come from so many places and speak so many languages that they stop keeping score and simply accept each other as citizens of the land of exile" (Ebert, http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-pretty-things-2003)
Ebert brings up a very good point in saying a modern Western society cannot function without immigration officers, and yet this film makes these government officials out to be the "bad guys," as it were, from which the leading characters must always escape. Illegal practices are endorsed with the overshadowing theme of "do what you need to survive." Yet, we are also given a sense that there is a line to these illegal practices, as the organ harvesting is portrayed in a very negative light. The immigration officers are not the only "bad guys" in the film from which the protagonists are trying to escape. The organ harvesters and the sweatshop owner who sexually assaults Senay are also clearly portrayed as evil characters. This raises many moral and ethical questions, and challenges globalization by presenting the moral dilemmas that arise needing to function in an age of globalization, a time in which people leave their own home countries in order to survive only to be met with more problems in the next country, all the while needing to escape the government, no matter where they may flee.
I have never taken a film class, so analyzing filmography is a bit more difficult for me because I am not used to viewing cinema in this way. However, I would like to draw on the facts that, while Dirty Pretty Things and La Promesse both deal with the themes of immigration, the point of view of the camera angles give a different vantage point from which to see each film. In La Promesse, the majority of the scenes are shot from a third person viewpoint, which gives the viewer a sort of detached sense throughout the film, with the exception of the few "peeping Tom" scenes, etc. However, in Dirty Pretty Things, the camera is much more often giving us a first person point of view. This makes us identify with the characters and gets us more emotionally involved with the story. The blood seeping into the toilet from the heart is seen as if we were Okwe, as if it were happening to us. There are other moments in the film that give us a more first-person view that automatically makes us feel more involved. The first person viewpoint is not overt in this film; there are plenty of third person scenes, but it is more prominent than in La Promesse. We are more involved wit the characters in Dirty Pretty Things, which puts us in the shoes of an illegal immigrant and forces us as an audience to look at the ethical dilemmas posed by the film on a more personal level.
The comparison of the two films and how they use point of view shots raises an important point that shines through in your closing statement that we are put in the illegal immigrants' shoes--i.e., that we can identify, or are invited to identify. This seems correct, to me. And yet, is this a "good" thing? In what ways? What do we mean by "identification"? Literally, identification implies that "I" and the "Other" become, if not the same then certainly very close to each other. "Identification" is about erasing difference, is it not? What are the ethical and political implications of being led to believe that the other is more or less just like me, or that I am more or less like the other, that I can walk in their shows as if their shoes were really mine? Does our understanding of the "other" than not become precisely "personal"--i.e., that I understand the other on MY level? And if so, what are the consequences, ethically, politically?
For more on the issue of "cinematic identification" see this interview I conducted with German filmmaker Christian Petzold, the director of YELLA, which we'll watch in week three (and which is discussed in this interview):
In both Dirty Pretty Things and La Promesse, globalization is a contextual force that characterizes the relationships depicted in the films. In our textbook, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Manfred B. Sterger writes (and I’ll paraphrase here) that globalization consists of set of social processes that shift forms of human contact. These processes have a number of effects on human relationships: they create channels of contact between cultures that previously were unable to communicate; they intensify, multiply and aggravate existing relationships; and they expand and stretch communication networks. All of this macro-level activity, leads to intercultural interactions that cohere into some type of relationship, at local (micro) levels. Analysis of the dynamics of the localized relationships in the films reveal that each (film) advance complementary arguments about the effects of globalization.
We can analyze both films in this way, but for the sake of space, I’ll stick with Dirty Pretty Things:
From the beginning, its clear Okwe is the conduit through which we’re supposed to engage with the films major ideas. He’s at the center of the opening frame, a POV shot follows shortly, and in many of the shots that occur in the films opening minutes, we gradually acquaint ourselves with his daily routine. Most importantly, we learn that Okwe is an illegal immigrant, with advanced medical knowledge, working two job, neither of which utilize said advanced medical knowledge. Also important: because of his perilous legal status, he’s open to exploitation by both his employers. This is one of the relational dynamics created as a result of the social processes of globalization: legal v. illegal, which in this film translates into, employer v. employee. The power dynamics of this relationship make it easy for employers to exploit their employees via the looming threat of deportation—through Okwe (and Seny), we witness the violence that this exploitation inevitably takes. Whether it’s through blackmail, rape, sexual assault, or back alley surgery we see the violent side of globalization.
Okwe’s steadfast moral outrage, is supposed to be ours. He’s the only character who articulates the immorality of the world in which he and his fellow immigrants live; he’s also the only character who’s demonstrably capable of challenging or subverting the dynamic. Indeed, he’s the only character with any skills, or advanced education, it seems—he’s the exception to the general rule. His murder and escape are a righteous rebuke to exploitation suffered by many illegal immigrants, but most immigrants are unable to escape their predicament. Most suffer, or eke out an existence. Some get deported, some die. There may be singular instances of triumph, of subversion, of justice, but most illegal immigrants are trapped in their arrangement by globalization’s social processes.
One final thought: My central idea is that the processes of globalization create the relationships we’ve seen in these last two films. Through these relationship dynamics, we see some of the possible effects of globalization play out—i.e. the potential for intercultural connection and love; and intercultural violence and exploitation. I’m wondering how many different types of relationship dynamics we’ll see in the films to come. It will be interesting to see if they are dramatically different then the two we’ve already seen, or varied interpretations of the same thing.
And to take your questions at the end in a slightly different way: could we translate the "binaries" you use and say that he films map out "problems" (violence, exploitation) and "solutions" (love, intercultural understanding/connections)? Perhaps we might want to begin to attend to what "solutions" the films suggest there may be to the "problems," esp if it turns out the problems might remain more or less the same in the films we'll still watch. How do films imagine solutions to problems? Who, according to the films, gets to solve, or should do the solving? If the problems are beyond that of an individual--the exploitation and violence we witness seems larger than that an individual is suffering: it seems systematic, no?--then what, according to the films, can deal with such a SYSTEMATIC problem? Can "love"--individual?--be enough? Can "mutual understanding"--individual?--be enough? Do the films point us to thinking about the NATURE of possible solutions: collective, systemic, or individual?
When directly comparing the two films, Dirty Pretty Things is presented as more polished, almost, noir film with variety of shots. For example we get to see the high angle shots on Okew as to convey vulnerability, low angle on Juan to produce an almost villain like quality with the character and voyeur shots with the use of security camera footage. The unchanging wardrobe worn by the characters, also enables the audience to identify character traits, such as Okwe’s innocence with this perpetually buttoned, almost priest like, collar.
The globalization themes throughout Dirty Pretty Things, include Immigration, organ trafficking and cultural sacrifice, and involve the main characters Okwe and Senay. Although globalization has enabled these characters to “move” more easily, it comes at price, and with Dirty Pretty Things, the price often involves oneself. Senay is repeated sexually assaulted as a form of payment and her illegal status is used against her after her factory supervisor describes “what happens to Western girls,” if she doesn't comply. As Emily pointed out globalization can result in fear for those involved and “prevent local beliefs and cultures from arising.” Multiple characters give part of themselves in the form of unsanctioned organ removal for trafficking in order to be a part of mass transportation globalization. A practice that Nancy Scheper-Hughes points out is particularly dangerous as “social justice hardly figures into these discussions because bioethical standards have been finely calibrated to mesh with the needs and desires of consumer-oriented globalization” (2002, p.1).
The globalization seen throughout the film is primarily focused on Okwe’s plight, with the film beginning and ending with shots of Okwe at the airport. The airport (I don’t believe its stated but correct me if I’m wrong) is never referenced specifically, for example Heathrow, but rather stands to be more of a generic location enabling this story, although set in London, to be location agnostic. The London backdrop, similar to Belgium in La Promesse, is rarely if ever highlighted nor does the film encourage a London connection with the viewer. The globalization themes presented also extend to the secondary and even tertiary characters, as the majority are London-based, but not London-born. Okwe’s journey in a country not his own is the gauge in which we are able to compare Senay’s asylum, and Guo Yi’s legal status, etc. and the consequences of each.
Although Okwe and Senay are seemingly moving in positive directions, this is not always the case. The film begs the question what about the effects of globalization we never see, but undoubtedly exist, such as those in Okwe’s response to the organ collector “we are the people you do not see”
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2002). The Ends of the Body: Commodity Fetishism and the Global Traffic in Organs. SAIS Review,22(1), 61-80. (Found on UNL Library website)
I read somewhere that the airport is actually Stansted airport, which is a hub for low cost carriers, which is an interesting detail given our characters don't have a lot of money etc. (even though of course they got some money from the exchange of Sneaky's organ).
Throughout the film Dirty Pretty Things (2002) I kept thinking how hard the immigrants must have it being illegal. Then I thought that maybe this is the message that the director wants to send out. Just like how Daniel puts it, this film shows the viewer the “aftermath” of when an immigrant arrives to a new country and sees that it is not what they have been promised. In the film, we saw several point of view shots through the eyes of Okwe and Senay. The viewer can empathizes with the immigrants through their point of view. We saw how disturbing Okwe job can be when he pulls the heart out of the lavatory and several times through Senay’s eyes. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see any shots of point of view through Juan the sleazy hotel manager or the manager of the sweatshop. I felt that the film was one sided in that way.
In terms of globalization, I too agree that this film depicts the negative side. Elsa hits it dead on with the notion of security. The lengths that these people would go to get their papers are very drastic. We saw in La Promesse (1996) a bit how Roger went through a big ordeal in covering Amidou’s body, warning the immigrants of the inspector and trying to keep Igor from telling Assita the truth. He had to go through drastic measures as the human smuggler for security and in Dirty Pretty Things, we saw what the immigrants went through in greater detail yet. It’s a non-stop cycle in this negative aspect of globalization. Great eye by Elsa to see the motif in the film with the keys. I totally agree that “ownership” was a “key” factor in this film. Which can easily go along with obtaining a sense of security.
I also agree with Emily’s observation of the airports at the beginning and end of the film. An airport is a perfect mixing pot of diversity. I felt that it really set the tone for the film. When I first heard the loud talking and walking, I immediately thought of a crowded place like a subway stop. I was not too far off from an airport. The integration of various people at the airport is an example of globalization. Although the film stops at the airport, one can get the impression that Okwe and Senay will meet again. This potential interaction keeps an aspect of globalization going.
There were many things I agreed with in these other posts but the two that stood out most significantly to me, were Daniel’s idea of “exchange” being the characters themselves and Elaina bringing up how La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things were shot in completely different views creating a different feel for the entire film.
I too, noticed both of these things while watching Dirty Pretty Things. There is the exchange of culture, religion, values, etc.- that we see while watching various characters interact. For instance, when Okwe makes dinner for him and Senay and he brings up how in Nigeria they have many ways of cooking with Pork and Senay freezes. Senay doesn’t eat pork which is part of her religion, her virginity is also brought up numerous times which is also part of her religion. It seemed having a male live with her was also something that her religion would frown upon judging by how secretive she wanted to keep everything and the different ways her and Okwe would find to hand off the key. Going back to what Daniel was saying however, I think the most significant exchange that occurs is the exchange of the human body itself, or parts of it (kidneys). Juliette, another central character, is a prostitute, so she too, is selling herself/her body. In Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, the author, Manfred B. Sterger touches on how basically ‘globalization’ can mean a lot of things to a lot of people – which he describes in his story about the blind men and the elephant.
In this film we see, for the majority, the negative aspects of globalization – poverty, being away from one’s family, sexual assault, having to sell one’s body, running from the police, and not being able to go to the police if needed. Yet, we don’t know these characters situations before coming to London. Senay mentions she left Turkey because she didn’t want to end up like her mother, and Okwe left Nigeria because he was framed to look like he killed his wife. Despite the struggles they are going through there is still hope for them to make themselves a better future than what was offered back “home.”
As far as how the film I was shot, I also noticed, like Elaina mentioned, that La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things were very different. In La Promesse I often felt like an outsider just someone who was watching from afar, a sequence of events, not really sure of what’s happening. The lack of nondiegetic sound also made it hard to guess what was going to happen next. We never saw a character head on this film, making it hard to even grasp, entirely, what a character looks like. In Dirty Pretty Things, however, I instantly got a different ‘vibe,’ with the nondiegetic sound that was almost constantly present, it was easier to guess what was going to happen next. It truly serves as a signal of what the audience should expect next, whether it’s a happy, sad, or dangerous moment.
I think Dirty Pretty Things was able to reach the audience on a more personal level through the way it was shot and background music. Although this film was easier to understand I don’t think that means it’s necessarily better, it just required less thinking.
One might argue that the fact that it required less thinking, as you put it, could be a problem if the idea is to get the audience to understand or see something about a significant problem, no? That's not necessarily a matter of the film being "good" or "bad" but rather of what a film is capable of doing: does the film get us to think or does it mostly appeal to what we already know and think? Does it offer new ways of thinking or does it rely on cliches? Etc.
In Dirty Pretty Things, there is a scene where Senay is trying to fill up the bath tub but the water stops running because Okwe had turned on the faucet, and she says "Everything is connected to everything else." When one faucet turns on, another goes out. Of course, this can be seen as a metaphor for the characters in the film. Whenever anyone in the movie claims agency, another character loses theirs. When Senay takes agency and tells Okwe he can have keys to her place, the plan is immediately rebuked by the immigration officers. When the same officers come to the hotel in search of Senay, Okwe takes agency to call the Valet, interrupting the Valet's agency to get laid. The price of freedom is always someone else's freedom. Everyone is trying to attain happiness, but as we see, the costs are often high and surprising. Although the film ends with Okwe and Senay expressing their agency and turning the tables against the Sneaky, we must remember that Sneaky is an immigrant too, was possibly once in their position. Even though Sneaky seems more deserving than others to getting his kidney stolen, he is still part of the immigrant sphere. Okwe doing to Sneaky what Sneaky has done to other's does not improve the system they find themselves in in any way. But, this film is not about fighting the system, but how the characters in the bottom can possibly find agency within the system. So, Okwe plays the game, but I view this as a corruption of his character. After Sneaky passes out in the hotel room, Okwe could have just taken the passports Sneaky brought. Guo Yi (pathologist) works with dead bodies all the time and could have managed to find Okwe a kidney to give to the nameless organ collector at the end. Okwe did not have to stoop to the same level as Sneaky. Instead, he does, and he lets of the cogs of the system that he has been fighting against throughout the movie, continue going. In fact, Okwe helps that very system, by feeding it with yet another kidney.
"this film is not about fighting the system, but how the characters in the bottom can possibly find agency within the system." This is an interesting claim, and you flesh it out well in the rest of the paragraph. You appear to contest the allegedly "realist" logic--or in any case the narrative logic that this is what MUST be done--by suggesting that on the narrative's own terms there would have seem to be alternatives. And you suggest that this difference makes a difference for the character of Owke--might we say that it also makes a difference, or should make a difference, for how we should view the film and its position on its central political issue?
Personally, I found it interesting upon how the film Dirty Pretty Things (2002) can actually be related in many ways to La Promesse (1996), yet remain truly different in terms of how it tackles the issue of globalization. Obviously we are able to see the similar ideas and devices, particularly that of immigration. But yet, Dirty Pretty Things tackles that idea in a very different way. Whereas La Promesse could be taken as focusing on the “process” of immigration by quite literally showing said action and referencing said action in the film, Dirty Pretty Things has shifted its focus to the “aftermath” of immigration as the characters deal with this world to which they are attempting to achieve a new life. Thus, this film can perhaps be thought of as examining the aftermath of globalization instead of the process from where La Promesse draws.
ReplyDeleteKeeping that idea in mind, it is this “aftermath” within Dirty Pretty Things that is particularly interesting. At least from the way I viewed the film, it seemed to portray a rather bleak outlook in a similar way La Promesse might have. The audience is confronted with two particular characters that are struggling in the new world into which they put themselves. It can be reasonably assumed within the first few minutes of the film that these characters are in the lower class, partially because of their immigrant status. In addition, the two characters should be used as an example for the larger population. While, at least during the beginning of the film, this lower class poverty might be viewed as the main idea or “aftermath” of globalization, a new idea emerged soon later, the underground organ trade. While I will admit for a few seconds that I thought Okwe (the doctor) would take on said trade head on, I shook that idea from my mind rather quickly. Instead, I began to assemble this puzzle into another, perhaps more overflowing idea that can be tied in with not only this film, but many others as well. This idea is that of these immigrants are basically and quite literally selling themselves, trying to adapt and fit into this now larger world.
Now, for the moment, this idea and that of globalization seem somewhat separate. It jarred my mind for quite some time, but soon a thought came to me. In reference to yesterday’s idea of globalization as a sort of exchange, I began to assemble a thought that in this film the exchange is, in a blunt way of stating, that those subject to globalization are selling themselves in a way to adapt to a now larger world. They are being subjected to ideas and processes of this world, even if those ideas are something they already knew or something they were trying to escape from in an effort to simply survive. (The example of this would be when Okwe mentions that he didn’t think the organ trade occurred in England). It is this attempt at adaptation and survival that really struck me, reinforcing my idea on how this film might be critical of globalization in a sense that what is has the possibility to do.
If not evident from my wording, I’m still not totally sold on this particular idea and perhaps wish some feedback in terms of what others might think along these same lines of thought. Do you think that this idea of globalization causing such a struggle is correct? Is there anything you might add? Or is there any other way one might take this idea?
The fact about the exchange of oneself, who is an immigrant, is a form of globalization that Daniel makes is a new aspect that does make sense. I agree that globalization is present in Dirty Pretty Things in this form of exchange. The exchange of one's internal organs. However, there is another aspect of globalization in the sense that all of the immigrants in the film just want to "fit in" with the natives of the country and not have to constantly hide and live in fear. The culture and norms of London are pushed upon the immigrants, which is another definition in the term globalization.
ReplyDeleteLooking online I found a source that talks about globalization as being both a positive and negative aspect. The positive is that it does spread new technologies and beliefs around the globe, however the negative is that tries to eliminate over diversity and prevents local beliefs and cultures from arising (www.globalization101.org).
The negative aspects of globalization are seen in the film Dirty Pretty Things by segregating the immigrants and "punishing" them for living their lives in their own culture's ways and customs.
An interesting aspect of the film was how both the beginning and ending of the film end in the same location, which is in the airport. This is an example of how globalization is seen because of all of the diversity that is seen in airports, including the one in the film. Airports also show globalization because they are the places that bring in the different people and begin the integration of these people. In the end of the film, both Okwe and Senay are in the airport leaving behind their painful immigrant lives to go to two different places. Okwe returns home, showing that he has defeated the negative aspects of globalization that were forced upon him. While Senay went off to New York, to another foreign country. This shows that she isn't done dealing with globalization and the painful aspects that it includes and pushes upon her. Life may be better for her, but she doesn't know that for sure. She just hopes that it things will turn around for the better. An important thing to point out is the sound of the airplane taking off once the credits were over. This sound confirms both and hope that Senay has and the relief that Okwe feels. They both get on their separate planes and start new processes of globalization.
I think I agree with Daniel, that there is still that idea of exchange going on in this film. The thing that stuck with me the most was how valuable is security to people and what lengths will they go to obtain security? By security here I mean having papers or a passport to stay in a country or travel to another. People were willing to sell part of their body to obtain the life that they wanted and longed for. They were willing to do something completely life changing and life threatening in hopes of reaching the life that they wanted. Globalization makes it possible for people to go almost anywhere they want, but they must take huge risks and make sacrifices to get there.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I focused on that recurred in the movie was the idea of keys. In one of the first scenes, we see Senay drop her keys for Okwe so that he can get into his apartment. We also see Okwe getting and giving back keys for the “taxi” that he drives during the day. The hotel is also filled with keys. Keys I think symbolize ownership, something the immigrants in this film had a lot of difficulty with. It was difficult for Okwe to find a place to live because he was undocumented and wouldn’t be allowed to rent or buy property. The organs were also sort of a key, a key to get a passport, which is what everyone wanted, and as a source of money for Juan.
Another thing that I thought was interesting was the diversity of the cast. I think that it is important in a film like this to show immigrants from many places and their ideologies. La Promesse did this to an extent, but we really got to interact more with the characters from different places, which I thought was interesting. In La Promesse we don’t get any other translations than French, but all of the characters in Dirty Pretty Things spoke English for the most part (excluding the people that only spoke Somali, but the little girl translated for us). I think that in order to effectively show the effects of globalization we really needed to see the way different people dealt with their immigration status, and how residents treated and interacted with undocumented immigrants.
I'm not 100% sure I completely understand the last point, so forgive me if I misconstrue what I take you saying. LP presents us with characters who largely do not speak the language of their "host" country (French), whereas in DPT most of them do (English). What I'm unclear on is how you assess or evaluate this fact. When you say that "In order to effectively show the effects of globalization we really needed to see the way different people dealt with their immigration status..." do you mean we see this better in DPT BECAUSE they all, more or less, speak English than in LP, where we have to rely on the French (subtitled for us into English)? A few things one might perhaps want to think through:
Delete--Does DPT allow its immigrants to speak (pretty fluent) English because it makes a claim that these immigrants, though (still) illegal, have already adjusted to their "host" country (the famous assimilation argument...)--a claim we might aesthetically see as grounded in the film's desire to be "realistic" (though does the film strike us as "realistic"--if so, how; if not, why not? what do we mean when we say X is realistic when talking about a FICTION FILM?) Or does DPT allow its characters to communicate more or less well in English because of the film's production values and the attending need to find a larger audience? I.e., consider the COMMERCIAL difference it makes for a film to use the global lingua franca--English--90%+ of the time versus a film that that not only is not in English but also does not "allow" many of its characters even to communicate in the primary language of the country in which they find themselves (French, as is the case in LP). Is it in fact realistic to suggest that most immigrants are as fluent in English as they are in DPT--"realistic" with regard to the actual world (in London, or elsewhere?).
--As Daniel suggests, the two films we've seen thus far could be differentiated by suggesting LP is about the process of how people end up in a new country whereas DPT is about the aftermath, the effects or consequences of their movement. Perhaps to further fine-tune this claim, it seems LP is about the moment of ARRIVAL and its immediate aftermath whereas DPT is about what happens after immigrants have arrived and lived in the new place for a while (however undetermined the time period may be). Do people acquire linguistic tools (i.e., learn the language of the "host" country) that quickly? Might it make a difference that in DPT it's ENGLISH, a language that is spoken more than any other as a second language by people across the world?
--How does this linguistic issue that is brought up in this post relate to a film's ability to "effectively show the effects of globalization"? Might it not be the case that the fact that the characters are all already on some level--namely the linguistic--well integrated skews in some ways the actual processes of globalization with regard to what people are confronted with?
One final thought while I'm at it. Some of you undoubtedly noted that Sanay was played by Audrey Tautou of AMELIE (2001) fame. AT is a FRENCH actress. Why have a FRENCH actress play a TURKISH woman? (I don't know whether Frears had cast her before AMELIE became such a big hit or whether he cast her when she was still more or less unknown to viewers. Given DPT was released in April 2001 whereas DPT was released in December 2002, it's possible though not super likely that the casting decision was made after the earlier film's release. Still: why not cast a Turkish actress? And why cast a French actress whose ENGLISH language skills are so excellent--as you may know, many French actors and actresses do in fact not speak English very well and, in any case, often with a strong French accent, which we can't detect in AT. What does this matter suggest about DPT and its views about processes of globalization?)
As my roommate would probably say Dirty Pretty Things seemed to kind of a slow burner. However the mounting pressure on Okwe seemed, however, to bring the film to a full boil by the end.
ReplyDelete===The Heart===
The finding of the heart, a little disturbing, was a great tool to show us the type of person Sneaky is. We were given a distinct a line in the sand and where Okwe and Sneaky stood respectively. Though with the other concerns of Okwe and the focus on them, it is strange but I almost forgot about the heart. The heart to me shows how people will go so far for a dream and there are the "war" profiteers who will benefit from them. With globalization comes the underbelly of the term.
===La Promesse===
I agree with Daniel that these two films defiantly have their connections. In the exchanges of papers and even life for the hope for freedom or whatever else people are looking for. However I see the connection also being from those who profit from the world becoming smaller, particularly those who do so through illegal means.
Though there are differences. In La Promesse there seemed to be little to know support given to immigrants by the other immigrants. In Dirty Pretty Things a hopeful image was the helpfulness that people showed to each other. On one hand you have those who are up to no good, but then the banding together of those in a similar situation. In Le Promesse the only help came from Igor.
I also have a theory that Roger is not Igor's father at all.
I would like to begin my discussion of this film with a statement by the movie reviewer Roger Ebert. In his review of the film, he touches on what he believes is the "heart of the film," a statement that is relevant to the discussion of globalization: "The heart of the movie, directed by Stephen Frears, is in the lives of these people. How they are always alert to make a little money on the side (as when Okwe and Ivan supply their own cash-only room service sandwiches after the hotel kitchen closes). How they live in constant fear of immigration officials, who want to deport them, even though a modern Western economy could not function without these shadow workers. How there is a network of contact and support in this hidden world, whose residents come from so many places and speak so many languages that they stop keeping score and simply accept each other as citizens of the land of exile" (Ebert, http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-pretty-things-2003)
ReplyDeleteEbert brings up a very good point in saying a modern Western society cannot function without immigration officers, and yet this film makes these government officials out to be the "bad guys," as it were, from which the leading characters must always escape. Illegal practices are endorsed with the overshadowing theme of "do what you need to survive." Yet, we are also given a sense that there is a line to these illegal practices, as the organ harvesting is portrayed in a very negative light. The immigration officers are not the only "bad guys" in the film from which the protagonists are trying to escape. The organ harvesters and the sweatshop owner who sexually assaults Senay are also clearly portrayed as evil characters. This raises many moral and ethical questions, and challenges globalization by presenting the moral dilemmas that arise needing to function in an age of globalization, a time in which people leave their own home countries in order to survive only to be met with more problems in the next country, all the while needing to escape the government, no matter where they may flee.
I have never taken a film class, so analyzing filmography is a bit more difficult for me because I am not used to viewing cinema in this way. However, I would like to draw on the facts that, while Dirty Pretty Things and La Promesse both deal with the themes of immigration, the point of view of the camera angles give a different vantage point from which to see each film. In La Promesse, the majority of the scenes are shot from a third person viewpoint, which gives the viewer a sort of detached sense throughout the film, with the exception of the few "peeping Tom" scenes, etc. However, in Dirty Pretty Things, the camera is much more often giving us a first person point of view. This makes us identify with the characters and gets us more emotionally involved with the story. The blood seeping into the toilet from the heart is seen as if we were Okwe, as if it were happening to us. There are other moments in the film that give us a more first-person view that automatically makes us feel more involved. The first person viewpoint is not overt in this film; there are plenty of third person scenes, but it is more prominent than in La Promesse. We are more involved wit the characters in Dirty Pretty Things, which puts us in the shoes of an illegal immigrant and forces us as an audience to look at the ethical dilemmas posed by the film on a more personal level.
The comparison of the two films and how they use point of view shots raises an important point that shines through in your closing statement that we are put in the illegal immigrants' shoes--i.e., that we can identify, or are invited to identify. This seems correct, to me. And yet, is this a "good" thing? In what ways? What do we mean by "identification"? Literally, identification implies that "I" and the "Other" become, if not the same then certainly very close to each other. "Identification" is about erasing difference, is it not? What are the ethical and political implications of being led to believe that the other is more or less just like me, or that I am more or less like the other, that I can walk in their shows as if their shoes were really mine? Does our understanding of the "other" than not become precisely "personal"--i.e., that I understand the other on MY level? And if so, what are the consequences, ethically, politically?
DeleteFor more on the issue of "cinematic identification" see this interview I conducted with German filmmaker Christian Petzold, the director of YELLA, which we'll watch in week three (and which is discussed in this interview):
http://www.cineaste.com/articles/an-interview-with-christian-petzold.htm
In both Dirty Pretty Things and La Promesse, globalization is a contextual force that characterizes the relationships depicted in the films. In our textbook, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Manfred B. Sterger writes (and I’ll paraphrase here) that globalization consists of set of social processes that shift forms of human contact. These processes have a number of effects on human relationships: they create channels of contact between cultures that previously were unable to communicate; they intensify, multiply and aggravate existing relationships; and they expand and stretch communication networks. All of this macro-level activity, leads to intercultural interactions that cohere into some type of relationship, at local (micro) levels. Analysis of the dynamics of the localized relationships in the films reveal that each (film) advance complementary arguments about the effects of globalization.
ReplyDeleteWe can analyze both films in this way, but for the sake of space, I’ll stick with Dirty Pretty Things:
From the beginning, its clear Okwe is the conduit through which we’re supposed to engage with the films major ideas. He’s at the center of the opening frame, a POV shot follows shortly, and in many of the shots that occur in the films opening minutes, we gradually acquaint ourselves with his daily routine. Most importantly, we learn that Okwe is an illegal immigrant, with advanced medical knowledge, working two job, neither of which utilize said advanced medical knowledge. Also important: because of his perilous legal status, he’s open to exploitation by both his employers.
This is one of the relational dynamics created as a result of the social processes of globalization: legal v. illegal, which in this film translates into, employer v. employee. The power dynamics of this relationship make it easy for employers to exploit their employees via the looming threat of deportation—through Okwe (and Seny), we witness the violence that this exploitation inevitably takes. Whether it’s through blackmail, rape, sexual assault, or back alley surgery we see the violent side of globalization.
Okwe’s steadfast moral outrage, is supposed to be ours. He’s the only character who articulates the immorality of the world in which he and his fellow immigrants live; he’s also the only character who’s demonstrably capable of challenging or subverting the dynamic. Indeed, he’s the only character with any skills, or advanced education, it seems—he’s the exception to the general rule. His murder and escape are a righteous rebuke to exploitation suffered by many illegal immigrants, but most immigrants are unable to escape their predicament. Most suffer, or eke out an existence. Some get deported, some die. There may be singular instances of triumph, of subversion, of justice, but most illegal immigrants are trapped in their arrangement by globalization’s social processes.
One final thought: My central idea is that the processes of globalization create the relationships we’ve seen in these last two films. Through these relationship dynamics, we see some of the possible effects of globalization play out—i.e. the potential for intercultural connection and love; and intercultural violence and exploitation. I’m wondering how many different types of relationship dynamics we’ll see in the films to come. It will be interesting to see if they are dramatically different then the two we’ve already seen, or varied interpretations of the same thing.
And to take your questions at the end in a slightly different way: could we translate the "binaries" you use and say that he films map out "problems" (violence, exploitation) and "solutions" (love, intercultural understanding/connections)? Perhaps we might want to begin to attend to what "solutions" the films suggest there may be to the "problems," esp if it turns out the problems might remain more or less the same in the films we'll still watch. How do films imagine solutions to problems? Who, according to the films, gets to solve, or should do the solving? If the problems are beyond that of an individual--the exploitation and violence we witness seems larger than that an individual is suffering: it seems systematic, no?--then what, according to the films, can deal with such a SYSTEMATIC problem? Can "love"--individual?--be enough? Can "mutual understanding"--individual?--be enough? Do the films point us to thinking about the NATURE of possible solutions: collective, systemic, or individual?
DeleteWhen directly comparing the two films, Dirty Pretty Things is presented as more polished, almost, noir film with variety of shots. For example we get to see the high angle shots on Okew as to convey vulnerability, low angle on Juan to produce an almost villain like quality with the character and voyeur shots with the use of security camera footage. The unchanging wardrobe worn by the characters, also enables the audience to identify character traits, such as Okwe’s innocence with this perpetually buttoned, almost priest like, collar.
ReplyDeleteThe globalization themes throughout Dirty Pretty Things, include Immigration, organ trafficking and cultural sacrifice, and involve the main characters Okwe and Senay. Although globalization has enabled these characters to “move” more easily, it comes at price, and with Dirty Pretty Things, the price often involves oneself. Senay is repeated sexually assaulted as a form of payment and her illegal status is used against her after her factory supervisor describes “what happens to Western girls,” if she doesn't comply. As Emily pointed out globalization can result in fear for those involved and “prevent local beliefs and cultures from arising.” Multiple characters give part of themselves in the form of unsanctioned organ removal for trafficking in order to be a part of mass transportation globalization. A practice that Nancy Scheper-Hughes points out is particularly dangerous as “social justice hardly figures into these discussions because bioethical standards have been finely calibrated to mesh with the needs and desires of consumer-oriented globalization” (2002, p.1).
The globalization seen throughout the film is primarily focused on Okwe’s plight, with the film beginning and ending with shots of Okwe at the airport. The airport (I don’t believe its stated but correct me if I’m wrong) is never referenced specifically, for example Heathrow, but rather stands to be more of a generic location enabling this story, although set in London, to be location agnostic. The London backdrop, similar to Belgium in La Promesse, is rarely if ever highlighted nor does the film encourage a London connection with the viewer. The globalization themes presented also extend to the secondary and even tertiary characters, as the majority are London-based, but not London-born. Okwe’s journey in a country not his own is the gauge in which we are able to compare Senay’s asylum, and Guo Yi’s legal status, etc. and the consequences of each.
Although Okwe and Senay are seemingly moving in positive directions, this is not always the case. The film begs the question what about the effects of globalization we never see, but undoubtedly exist, such as those in Okwe’s response to the organ collector “we are the people you do not see”
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2002). The Ends of the Body: Commodity Fetishism and the Global Traffic in Organs. SAIS Review,22(1), 61-80. (Found on UNL Library website)
I read somewhere that the airport is actually Stansted airport, which is a hub for low cost carriers, which is an interesting detail given our characters don't have a lot of money etc. (even though of course they got some money from the exchange of Sneaky's organ).
DeleteThroughout the film Dirty Pretty Things (2002) I kept thinking how hard the immigrants must have it being illegal. Then I thought that maybe this is the message that the director wants to send out. Just like how Daniel puts it, this film shows the viewer the “aftermath” of when an immigrant arrives to a new country and sees that it is not what they have been promised. In the film, we saw several point of view shots through the eyes of Okwe and Senay. The viewer can empathizes with the immigrants through their point of view. We saw how disturbing Okwe job can be when he pulls the heart out of the lavatory and several times through Senay’s eyes. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see any shots of point of view through Juan the sleazy hotel manager or the manager of the sweatshop. I felt that the film was one sided in that way.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of globalization, I too agree that this film depicts the negative side. Elsa hits it dead on with the notion of security. The lengths that these people would go to get their papers are very drastic. We saw in La Promesse (1996) a bit how Roger went through a big ordeal in covering Amidou’s body, warning the immigrants of the inspector and trying to keep Igor from telling Assita the truth. He had to go through drastic measures as the human smuggler for security and in Dirty Pretty Things, we saw what the immigrants went through in greater detail yet. It’s a non-stop cycle in this negative aspect of globalization. Great eye by Elsa to see the motif in the film with the keys. I totally agree that “ownership” was a “key” factor in this film. Which can easily go along with obtaining a sense of security.
I also agree with Emily’s observation of the airports at the beginning and end of the film. An airport is a perfect mixing pot of diversity. I felt that it really set the tone for the film. When I first heard the loud talking and walking, I immediately thought of a crowded place like a subway stop. I was not too far off from an airport. The integration of various people at the airport is an example of globalization. Although the film stops at the airport, one can get the impression that Okwe and Senay will meet again. This potential interaction keeps an aspect of globalization going.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere were many things I agreed with in these other posts but the two that stood out most significantly to me, were Daniel’s idea of “exchange” being the characters themselves and Elaina bringing up how La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things were shot in completely different views creating a different feel for the entire film.
ReplyDeleteI too, noticed both of these things while watching Dirty Pretty Things. There is the exchange of culture, religion, values, etc.- that we see while watching various characters interact. For instance, when Okwe makes dinner for him and Senay and he brings up how in Nigeria they have many ways of cooking with Pork and Senay freezes. Senay doesn’t eat pork which is part of her religion, her virginity is also brought up numerous times which is also part of her religion. It seemed having a male live with her was also something that her religion would frown upon judging by how secretive she wanted to keep everything and the different ways her and Okwe would find to hand off the key.
Going back to what Daniel was saying however, I think the most significant exchange that occurs is the exchange of the human body itself, or parts of it (kidneys). Juliette, another central character, is a prostitute, so she too, is selling herself/her body. In Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, the author, Manfred B. Sterger touches on how basically ‘globalization’ can mean a lot of things to a lot of people – which he describes in his story about the blind men and the elephant.
In this film we see, for the majority, the negative aspects of globalization – poverty, being away from one’s family, sexual assault, having to sell one’s body, running from the police, and not being able to go to the police if needed. Yet, we don’t know these characters situations before coming to London. Senay mentions she left Turkey because she didn’t want to end up like her mother, and Okwe left Nigeria because he was framed to look like he killed his wife. Despite the struggles they are going through there is still hope for them to make themselves a better future than what was offered back “home.”
As far as how the film I was shot, I also noticed, like Elaina mentioned, that La Promesse and Dirty Pretty Things were very different. In La Promesse I often felt like an outsider just someone who was watching from afar, a sequence of events, not really sure of what’s happening. The lack of nondiegetic sound also made it hard to guess what was going to happen next. We never saw a character head on this film, making it hard to even grasp, entirely, what a character looks like. In Dirty Pretty Things, however, I instantly got a different ‘vibe,’ with the nondiegetic sound that was almost constantly present, it was easier to guess what was going to happen next. It truly serves as a signal of what the audience should expect next, whether it’s a happy, sad, or dangerous moment.
I think Dirty Pretty Things was able to reach the audience on a more personal level through the way it was shot and background music. Although this film was easier to understand I don’t think that means it’s necessarily better, it just required less thinking.
One might argue that the fact that it required less thinking, as you put it, could be a problem if the idea is to get the audience to understand or see something about a significant problem, no? That's not necessarily a matter of the film being "good" or "bad" but rather of what a film is capable of doing: does the film get us to think or does it mostly appeal to what we already know and think? Does it offer new ways of thinking or does it rely on cliches? Etc.
DeleteIn Dirty Pretty Things, there is a scene where Senay is trying to fill up the bath tub but the water stops running because Okwe had turned on the faucet, and she says "Everything is connected to everything else." When one faucet turns on, another goes out. Of course, this can be seen as a metaphor for the characters in the film. Whenever anyone in the movie claims agency, another character loses theirs. When Senay takes agency and tells Okwe he can have keys to her place, the plan is immediately rebuked by the immigration officers. When the same officers come to the hotel in search of Senay, Okwe takes agency to call the Valet, interrupting the Valet's agency to get laid. The price of freedom is always someone else's freedom. Everyone is trying to attain happiness, but as we see, the costs are often high and surprising.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the film ends with Okwe and Senay expressing their agency and turning the tables against the Sneaky, we must remember that Sneaky is an immigrant too, was possibly once in their position. Even though Sneaky seems more deserving than others to getting his kidney stolen, he is still part of the immigrant sphere. Okwe doing to Sneaky what Sneaky has done to other's does not improve the system they find themselves in in any way. But, this film is not about fighting the system, but how the characters in the bottom can possibly find agency within the system. So, Okwe plays the game, but I view this as a corruption of his character. After Sneaky passes out in the hotel room, Okwe could have just taken the passports Sneaky brought. Guo Yi (pathologist) works with dead bodies all the time and could have managed to find Okwe a kidney to give to the nameless organ collector at the end. Okwe did not have to stoop to the same level as Sneaky. Instead, he does, and he lets of the cogs of the system that he has been fighting against throughout the movie, continue going. In fact, Okwe helps that very system, by feeding it with yet another kidney.
"this film is not about fighting the system, but how the characters in the bottom can possibly find agency within the system." This is an interesting claim, and you flesh it out well in the rest of the paragraph. You appear to contest the allegedly "realist" logic--or in any case the narrative logic that this is what MUST be done--by suggesting that on the narrative's own terms there would have seem to be alternatives. And you suggest that this difference makes a difference for the character of Owke--might we say that it also makes a difference, or should make a difference, for how we should view the film and its position on its central political issue?
Delete