To retaliate against the sanctions the European Union had just imposed on Belarus in response to the fraudulent 2020 elections and human rights abuses, and backed by his Russian ally Vladimir Putin, President Alexander Lukashenko began funding and coordinating the illegal entry of migrants from Africa and the Middle East into the European Union during the summer of 2021. The flow largely crosses the border Belarus shares with Poland. Most of these people are stopped by the Polish border guard and sent back to Belarus, only to be pushed back and forth along the fence, enduring hunger, fatigue, and mistreatment in the process. So far, at least 60 people have died and more than 200 have disappeared in the forest that separates the two countries. Veteran director Agnieszka Holland, celebrated for her political commitment and her cinematic approaches to atrocities such as the Holocaust in titles like “Europa, Europa” (1990) and “In Darkness” (2011) and to the Holodomor in Ukraine in “Mr. Jones” (2019), contemplates this tragedy from multiple angles in a new film now premiering in Spain, “Green Border,” for which she received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival last year.
When did she decide to portray the refugees at the Poland-Belarus border through a film?
Shortly after the public disclosure of Lukashenko’s orchestration. In the midst of the crisis, the government of her country chose to establish a no-go zone to prevent activists, journalists, medical staff, and humanitarian organizations from approaching. They did not want the world to learn what was happening, and that required denying refugees access to assistance. In parallel, a fear-mongering campaign demonized refugees in Poland, accusing them of pedophilia, zoophilia, rape, and terrorism, and fake images were circulated of Arab men with cows. Those two developments convinced her that action was necessary.
Before presenting ‘Green Border’ at Venice, she was repeatedly insulted and defamed by the Polish government led by the ultraconservative Jarosław Kaczyński. The then-Justice Minister labeled the film as “Nazi propaganda.” How does she remember that?
She already anticipated the hostile reception, but did not expect it to be so extreme. She was compared to Goebbels and Hitler, yet also to Putin and Stalin. She faced all kinds of cruel accusations, and when she brought the minister to court, he said he had no intention of honoring the judge’s ruling. The justice minister! Never before had she felt anything like it, and that was during a time when she had spent a period in prison under communism. Unlike then, social media exists now, which meant a flood of death threats that required hiring a couple of bodyguards. The positive side is that the film’s popularity grew; in Poland alone, eight hundred thousand people watched it.
Last October, Kaczyński’s party lost the government to a liberal coalition led by Donald Tusk. What role does she believe her film played in that electoral outcome?
She believes it contributed. The film was released just in time to collide with the government’s plan to weaponize fear of refugees as a political battleground. The movie resonated with many viewers, offering an emotional catharsis. Yet the small note of hope that the election brought has since faded. Tusk has since adopted a stance similar to that of his predecessor, emphasizing secrecy, hate speech, and violence against vulnerable people with little to no real policy solution.
Of course, this is not merely a Polish issue…
Indeed, the European Union shows a level of inefficacy and indifference in the face of the migration crisis, whether we discuss the Poland-Belarus border or the Mediterranean. A climate catastrophe has rendered whole regions uninhabitable, and the drive to topple dictators created turmoil that forced many to flee. It is not surprising to see refugees moving across borders, and the response remains often hostile. History demonstrates that whenever authorities allow, encourage, or order the dehumanization and destruction of a minority, some people will act accordingly.
What is her view on the rise of the far right reflected in the recent European Parliament elections?
It was expected; in the end, it mirrors the national advances seen in places like the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, France, and across Europe. The public fears losing comfort and identity, and populists offer simple, emotionally satisfying answers. These answers are often built on lies, yet people are drawn to them because they feel themselves getting safety, even if it is a false sense of security.
Green Border contains imagery that invites comparisons between refugees from Africa and the Middle East and the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Are these parallels intentional?
Absolutely. When she has directed films about the Holocaust, the aim was not only to honor the victims or remember what happened, but to warn that such barbarism could recur. In that sense, Green Border attempts a similar warning. The European Union is a noble concept that has become ineffective. It was created to shield against the resurgence of fascism and the poisonous emotions that sparked World War II and Nazism, yet it has failed to deliver. Today there is a new virus, and a new dose is needed. What occurred before could happen again now.
What does that mean in practical terms? What does Europe need?
[–>
A more humane and thoughtful migration policy. Yet the filmmaker remains pessimistic. Curbing refugee flows will not solve the problem, and repression and cruelty will continue to rise. Without immediate action, Europe could face violence of an unimaginable scale; borders could be armed, refugees fired upon, and ships in the Mediterranean bombarded. There may be gradual improvement, but significant deterioration is needed first.