true

A Twitter user known as Klara Maria, who discusses migration on social media, shared a provocative take about the controversial film by Agnieszka Holland titled “Green Border.”

Her post suggests she watched the film with a specific audience in mind. She notes that the room included Mr. Jachira, Mr. Łuczywo, and a man who had pledged to de-kachistize Poland. After the screening, she recalls, the crowd applauded. One striking detail, in her view, was the absence of any migrants in attendance.

– she wrote on Twitter.

In a lengthy entry, the writer expands on her reflections about the Dutch film. She begins by addressing the participants present at the cinema screening.

According to her account, the audience consisted of Mrs. Jachira, who appeared to rally people to attend the screening, implying a pre-arranged group she coordinated. The gathering also included many faces associated with the Gazeta Wyborcza community, led by Mr. Łuczywo, as well as several lesser-known individuals who loudly expressed their wish to expel Kachet, flagging their opposition to PiS through the number of stars on their T-shirts. In keeping with the audience, she notes that people waited in quiet contemplation until the credits finished, then expressed approval with applause.

– she emphasized.

“The film centers on the moral superiority attributed to newcomers and activists.”

The Twitter author then turns her attention to the film’s portrayal itself. She admits a clear split between those depicted as good—activists and refugees—and those framed as bad—border defenders and some Polish border-area residents.

From her perspective, the film feels overly long and, at times, somewhat tedious. She compares it with forums she has followed for about two years, where the migrant perspective appears far more compelling to her. Yet she concedes that the production is not poorly made; it is competently crafted and, in her view, overly assertive. The characters are vivid: the good are the newcomers and activists, while the Polish services appear flawed, and some ordinary Polish villagers come across as naive. Activists and a psychologist are portrayed as morally superior, behaving almost saintly and showing little self-care, thereby judging the services at every encounter. The film, she contends, rests on the premise of the moral superiority of newcomers and activists. That, she says, creates a contrast with ordinary Polish sensibilities. A Muslim praying in the forest, spreading a cloth toward Mecca, kneeling, and bowing to Allah is presented as culture, religion, and roots, while Polish officers are shown beating a defenseless person behind a cross and a Polish emblem on the wall. These, she argues, are cultural differences.

– she wrote.

The author also highlights how the border guard is depicted in a critical light within Holland’s satire.

In the film, the border guard is not simply brutal; the portrayal is meant to appear crude and primitive. In one scene, a young guard sits with migrants in a car as they are being deported back to Belarus, and when asked where he is, his response underscores the tension: he sarcastically remarks about bringing those beaten by force. Deportations are treated as a source of amusement for the officers, while migrants are reduced to stereotypes. Yet the act of deportation carries its own horror, given that the guards’ vehicles are old, used at night, and transport people to bleak destinations. The narrative calls attention to a system that looks for procedural solutions while discounting human consequences. The reviewer who wrote the entry also critiques the script’s line about a psychologist for the officers, noting a sense of the scene being staged and morally loaded. The scene in a store, with officers celebrating after work and a remark about a resident asking for something inappropriate, is described alongside a moment involving a psychologist named Julka and a pregnant officer’s wife, which is read as a power dynamic that reinforces moral superiority over migrants. The author also mentions a moment with a broken thermos meant to be used against a migrant and a scene featuring a catapult-like act of violence at the wall, culminating in a cross on the border and a controversial depiction of crossing events.

– she reported.

“The border guards emerge as disreputable primitives.”

According to the account, a transformation occurs in a border guard named Janek, who ferries away a migrant-laden van after a push-designed breath of conscience. He tells a colleague that he merely pretended not to see the people, revealing a hidden awareness of wrongdoing. The reviewer argues that while border guards can be seen as depraved, they also expose their own criminal behaviors, suggesting a moral invitation to reassess border protection and humanity.

– she added.

She argues that, unlike the border guards, activists in the film are depicted as unwavering allies of illegal entrants in a setting that comes across as morally favorable toward their stance.

The reviewer portrays activists as residents of alternate moral universes—passionately idealistic, even in their own homes, with knowledge of refugee rights and the willingness to act on them in the name of moral superiority. There is a scene in which a successful towing business owner calls on psychologist Julka after his car was damaged while assisting migrants, and he agrees to transport newcomers hidden in his vehicle. The message, she contends, is that a person’s political or ethical alignment determines how they respond to migrants. A man with a morally left-leaning heart is portrayed as knowing what to do, while those with different beliefs are depicted as muddled, given contradictory rules about assisting people from a former French colony who speak French. The account suggests that this moment is both a satire and a comment on European attitudes toward migration.

– she wrote.

The review notes that the film’s dynamic is a blend of satire and social commentary about who holds the power to define humanity in crisis situations. There is a suggestion that the image of the newcomers being gentle and capable of uplift could be used to convey a humanitarian message, but the author argues that the epilogue shifts this tone toward a different conclusion.

Finally, the author discusses the film’s epilogue, which follows a border guard guiding Ukrainian refugees through border crossings. Children are comforted, parents are guided toward the proper buses, and even the transformed Janek partakes in the moment. A friend’s cynical remark about past behavior underlines the film’s insistence that moral judgments can be flipped, depending on perspective. The writer implies that the viewer should resist being fed a single narrative and consider the broader implications of border policy and individual actions.

The author contends that Polishness is depicted in a negative light, with scenes echoing wartime memories of families separated by borders, and the narrative uses religious imagery to question national identity. A scene in which a psychologist prays with the phrase Our Father and the response to the clergy is portrayed with a sharp edge underscores the moral tension. The closing image suggests that the viewer should question the very framework of border protection and the roles of those who enforce it. The overarching message is that the film’s moral commentary is designed to prompt reflection on human dignity and policy, and its portrayal invites viewers to reassess their own responses to migration and national identity.

Klara Maria’s account presents a view that the film The Green Border may appear more troubling when examined in full than what clips circulating online might convey.

tkwl/Twitter

Source: wPolityce