Film "No Country for No One" | "Our film raises moral questions"

So far, you've mainly made comedies like "Karacholand" or coming-of-age films like "Lukas Tauchen." Now a political documentary. Why this change?

Maik Lüdemann: Max and I met in 2014 while studying film, and those two projects were our first steps. We were also working on other projects in parallel. For example, in 2016, I was in the Mediterranean on the sea rescue ship "Minden" and shot a documentary. At the time, Max and I lived together and talked a lot about it. In 2022, we sat down together and said to each other that we had to make a film about migration because the situation had deteriorated significantly since 2016.

Are you satisfied with the film and the format?

ML: Yes. We both discovered our passion for documentaries.

Max Ahrens : We talked a lot about migration. I studied it during my studies, so we delved deeper into the subject. It's nice that we were able to apply our knowledge to a project that feels meaningful.

So that was it for you with comedies?

ML: I wouldn't rule out doing something like that again. But this documentary project is meaningful to us, and the initial feedback encourages us to continue. It's fulfilling to see that our film is giving people something.

How did the film project come about, and especially the alliance with the six civil society organizations that support it: Sea-Eye, Sea-Watch, United4Rescue, German Doctors, Pro Asyl and the Mennonite Relief Organization?

ML: In 2022, we approached Gorden Isler, the chairman of Sea-Eye, after we had decided to make a film. I knew Gorden from my deployment on the "Minden." We had the idea of ​​bringing in NGOs to make a civil society statement with the film. Initially, we worked with four non-governmental organizations, and later two more joined. It's important to note that there was no say in the content. We received financial support, but no one interfered. We presented the idea of ​​covering a broad arc from 2015 to the present and providing a lot of background information on migration. From then on, they let us do what we wanted and only supported us with contacts upon request.

MA: It was nice to see how much trust was placed in us. We were able to make this statement, which all NGOs, despite their political differences, can all rally behind.

You opted for a descriptive narrative in the film , avoiding a moral outcry. The film depicts the increasingly anti-immigration sentiment in a relatively sober manner. Why did you choose this approach?

MA: We discussed the tone we were going for a lot. During editing, it became clear that the picture we were painting naturally raised moral questions. We assumed the audience would also be asking these questions.

ML: From the beginning, the goal was to reach as many people as possible with the film, not just a left-wing bubble. From that perspective, it was important to us not to immediately lay out the moral aspects, because that could also be off-putting; the film could have been categorized and pigeonholed into a corner.

You decided to include right-wing politicians as well. Among them is Martina Schweinsburg, a former CDU district administrator who collaborates very openly with the AfD and is one of the brains behind the payment card . In the film, she equates refugees with goatherds. Why did you decide to include these voices as well?

ML: During our work, we were surprised by the political developments. We hadn't expected these drastic tightening of asylum policy. When the payment card came up, we wondered where it actually came from. Then we quickly landed on Ms. Schweinsburg and said: "We want to talk to her." We wanted to find out what kind of human image prevails among the people who create such an instrument.

MA: We wondered how much of this xenophobic mentality also lies behind the more moderate rhetoric of the centrist parties. This distinction between "us" and "the others," as well as the derogatory remarks, are perhaps more implicit, but they are also present there. It's not about administrative simplification, but about systematic exclusion.

In your film , Marcel Fratzscher of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) discusses economic issues surrounding migration . He emphasizes the economic necessity of immigration. Does such a perspective reduce refugees to their labor force?

MA: Yes. If you ask that question first and foremost, then definitely. But in the film, we put the human rights question first. Second, we then establish that humane politics doesn't take anything away from anyone, but rather increases the pie that's there to be shared.

ML: If you want to tackle the many problems in Germany, you have to take steps. First and foremost, we're not going to let anyone drown. No one should die, and people shouldn't suffer.

MA: And then it must be about not depriving the people who are here of their dignity. First, we must accompany their arrival and ensure that they are cared for without imposing conditions. The next step is to enable those arriving to be self-sufficient. This could be the opportunity to find work, for example.

If we had started issuing work permits to refugees in a non-bureaucratic manner 15 years ago, the discourse on migration would certainly be different.

ML: That's right, yes. We still have a work ban when people arrive. One person in the film, Iraj, who is in a reception center in North Rhine-Westphalia, still doesn't have a work permit after several years of asylum procedures. He's really in a very bad way. People need something to do, need a place where they can interact with other people, and that often happens at work.

What is the message of your film?

ML: We wish the debate on migration were more multifaceted and complex. The film critic Wolfgang M. Schmitt once said: "In journalism, it's always day one." When it comes to migration, we start from scratch every day. We can trust viewers and the audience a lot more. That's why we should start discussing the connections in a more differentiated way. We need to have more scientifically sound discussions. That's often lacking. We also want to encourage people to open their hearts again. That sounds a bit cheesy. But ultimately, we need to look more to the left and right. Societies change, people come, people leave. That's perfectly normal.

MA: We would like people to look at the topic more soberly and realistically, while at the same time allowing humanity and emotions to come to the fore.

What did the three and a half years of filming do for you?

ML: On the one hand, we've become a bit more numb about certain topics, and at the same time, we've become much more empathetic. It's a duality of both.

MA: When we started this project, we didn't know what we were getting ourselves into. We thought: We know the topic quite well, we've talked about it a lot, we have our criticisms of the media, we have our own ideas. But we never imagined what it would actually do to us to explore this topic so intensively over three years and turn it into a film. In any case, we've grown up.

When it comes to solutions, the film remains rather reserved. What is needed to counter the dehumanizing discourse in Germany?

MA: We're not migration experts, but we have two important points: Economist Isabella Weber mentioned an important keyword: anti-fascist economic policy. It's necessary to implement policies that improve living standards for everyone, guarantee a livelihood, and prevent poverty. That seems to me to be the only solution if we want to keep this democracy alive.

The other aspect is that we need a rethink in the media. Right-wing to far-right positions have enormous influence on television in the migration debate. This topic could be discussed very differently, with much more calm and less foaming at the mouth. There is a need to find solutions that benefit everyone. The media must once again show more courage, take a stand, and adopt human rights-oriented, universalist positions.