One of the drawbacks of creating a shoestring-budget film with nonprofessional actors, post-synchronized dialogue, and a relatively plotless narrative is that it could end up looking like a shoestring-budget film with nonprofessional actors, post-synchronized dialogue, and a relatively plotless narrative.
Such is the case of The Exiles, although "looking like" is probably the wrong way to criticize it, because the film's "look" isn't a problem. The cinematography is quite fine and one of the reasons to watch the movie is to see what Bunker Hill, Los Angeles looked like in 1958 (when the filming was actually done). Another reason is to gain some understanding of the lives of Native Americans (or at least a particular group of Native Americans in their twenties) living in that area at that time. Indeed, filmmaker Kent McKenzie based his film on interviews with his Native American actors/subjects, and the movie seems true to life (although I can't say that for certain since I wasn't there at the time). The Exiles shows considerable sympathy for the plight of women living in this environment (who are generally portrayed in a more positive light than the male characters), and it features a pervasive sense of sadness about how both the male and female characters seem stuck in a life with limited options. The film doesn't preach a particular social viewpoint, but I do think it has considerable value as a work of social history, and it seems as much a documentary as a narrative film.
However, most of the talking in the film consists of voice-over narration and post-synchronized dialogue, and I don't think the acting would seem professional even if McKenzie had the resources to make a film with more state-of-the-art sound. The downside of using nonprofessional actors who sound like "real people" is that sometimes they don't speak with the clarity or emotional force of professional actors. This isn't always a problem -- some of the Italian neorealists were able to get compelling performances out of nonprofessional actors, for example -- but this film seems at times like an amateur production. This is unfortunate because this is a worthwhile film, despite its flaws, and it might have been hailed as a landmark independent film back in 1961 if somebody had been willing to distribute it for a theatrical release. Nonetheless, the film did get a limited theatrical release many years later, it was named to the National Film Registry in 2009, and it's currently available on Netflix, so at least it hasn't been forgotten. Despite my criticisms, I recommend seeing it because the film does accomplish its primary goal of providing insight into the lives of people who had been overlooked by Hollywood and mainstream society.