For as long as there have been immigration laws, there have been people trying to find ways around them, to bend the rules a little to speed up the process or circumvent it altogether. Films like Hold Back the Dawn point out the foibles of the system while also highlighting just how easy it can be to exploit loopholes to expedite due process for a system that was considered broken even back then. The situation has only gotten worse over the years since, and this subject has become a hot-button topic in Trump’s America with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. It is therefore frustrating to see that the same arguments and problems with US immigration that we are seeing today were very much prevalent back then, too.
There is no simple answer to this issue, either. If there were, it would have been solved by now, and there wouldn’t be such a divide in this country over the subject. Should a person who manages to get so much as a few feet onto American soil and deliver a baby automatically guarantee that child citizenship in the United States? Birthright Citizenship used to be a guaranteed right, yet even that is being challenged of late. We will see that tactic successfully used to circumvent immigration blocks and force the issue with a non-citizen trying to gain access to America. We will also see several examples of utilizing the bonds of marriage to speed up the process. This is not a new subject, not even back in 1941 when this film was released, but it is nevertheless an important one that is just as relevant now as it ever was. Fortunately, this film doesn’t really take a moral stance on either side of the debate but shows us the good and bad of both.
Our protagonist is Georges Iscovescu (Charles Boyer), a Romanian-born gigolo who has arrived at the Mexico/United States border with the intent to immigrate. But he is soon informed that there is a long waiting period, up to eight years, because the United States must meet a specific quota number for immigration. He is determined to make it happen, though, and takes up residence in the Esperanza Hotel along with other hopeful immigrants. After six months of waiting, he is both broke and unhappy. He soon runs into his former dancing partner, Anita Dixon (Paulette Goddard), who explains that she quickly obtained US citizenship by marrying an American, then, just as quickly, divorced. This convinces Georges that he must do the same.
Shortly afterwards, he meets a visiting schoolteacher, Miss Emmy Brown (Olivia de Havilland), who is visiting Mexico on a day trip with a school bus full of unruly boys. The bus is in disrepair, and he manages to delay her departure over repairs to the vehicle, giving him time to spend with her. He compares her to a lost love and woos her, and eventually, she gives in, marrying him. However, he must wait on his side of the border for several weeks so she returns home without him, taking the boys back home. But shortly afterwards, she returns, throwing a wrench into his plans. He had no intentions of consummating their marriage, thinking he could gain citizenship and then leave the marriage without essentially changing her.
Slowly, as the two spend more time together, he starts to develop feelings for her. This is jeopardized, though, when Anita comes back into the picture, believing that the two of them will get together in New York after he becomes a citizen. Seeing that Emmy could derail that plan, Anita confronts her and tells her all about Georges’s plans to use Emmy to get citizenship. This news, of course, is devastating. Meanwhile, Inspector Hammock (Walter Abel) is out to prove that Georges and Emmy’s marriage is for immigration purposes only and declare it null and void.
An argument can be made that obtaining citizenship by marriage should be abolished. At present, it is still a way to quickly become an American citizen, though it is not instantaneous nor is it a guarantee. It has also been the subject of many films, including Green Card and The Proposal, usually played for laughs. And that is perfectly fine if both parties involved in the on-screen marriage are in on the scheme. But when one member of the marriage is being duped, it becomes less funny and more unpleasant. This happens in the early scenes of Hold Back the Dawn. During the early moments, especially after Georges and Emmy start their relationship, it is a bit off-putting. This takes far too long to resolve itself, too, making much of the first half of this film a bit of a chore to get through.
Two things save it from being a total washout early on. The first is Charles Boyer’s performance. We understand his frustrations and desperate situation. We listen as he is told how long he will have to wait for the bureaucracy to get around to him. We may not like the decisions he is making, but we understand them. The other thing is the bookends to the film. The first scene gives us a promise that the film doesn’t quite make good on, but it teases a story that helps keep us interested in what might be to come. This opening scene is of Georges approaching a filmmaker in Hollywood, desperate for money and willing to sell this man a story. Why he needs the money so desperately and what that story is will come in time, but we have to wait quite a while to get those answers.
Without the immigration story, this is really just another romance story about two people who get married only to fall in love afterwards. There is nothing all that special about this plot, and while Charles Boyer and Olivia have chemistry, it is not so powerful that it could melt the celluloid it is printed on. This is an average love story at best. What elevates it is the subject of US immigration law, a subject that was just as topical then as it currently is. This topic is far more powerful than the love story and overshadows it in nearly every way. Throwing in more than just the plight of Georges and showing us some of the other devious ways people get a foothold in America only adds to this element, even if some of it is played up more for laughs than anything else.
Unless the United States decides to close the borders entirely and do away with immigration altogether, this is always going to be a subject of heated debate. After all, this is a country of immigrants. This country was founded on the backs of immigrants. Little has changed in the form of immigration laws. The same things we see in this film still happen today. That gives a film like this a timeless feel, like something ripped from our current headlines. It’s not a great film, but it is a competent one that gives you some things to discuss afterwards. It doesn’t offer easy solutions, but it does have a bit of a Hollywood ending to it. There are plenty of twists along the way, though, that keep things moving along. Ultimately, though, it survives on its messaging, not its love story.
Academy Award Nominations:
Outstanding Motion Picture: Arthur Hornblow Jr.
Best Actress: Olivia de Havilland
Best Writing (Screenplay): Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder, based on “Memo to a Movie Producer” by Ketti Frings
Best Music (Music Score of a Dramatic Picture): Victor Young
Best Art Direction - Black-and-White: Hans Dreier, Robert Usher, and Samuel M. Comer
Best Cinematography - Black-and-White: Leo Tover
____________________________________________________
Release Date: September 26, 1941
Running Time: 116 Minutes
Not Rated
Starring: Charles Boyer, Olivia de Havilland, and Paulette Goddard
Directed by: Mitchell Leisen
Comments
Post a Comment