Film “No country for nobody” – “Our film raises moral questions”

So far, they have mainly made comedies such as “Karacholand” or coming-of-age films such as “Lukas diving”. Now a political documentation. Why this change?

Maik Lüdemann: Max and I met in 2014 in studying film, and the two projects were our first attempts at walking. At the same time we also made other projects. In 2016, for example, I was on the Mediterranean on the sea rescue ship “Minden” and made a documentary. At that time Max and I lived together and talked a lot about it. In 2022 we sat together and said that we had to make a film for migration because the situation had deteriorated very much since 2016. ‘

Are you satisfied with the film and the format?

ML: Yes. We both discovered our enthusiasm for documentary.

Max Ahrens: We talked a lot about migration. I dealt with it in my studies, so we dealt with the matter even deeper. It is nice that we could apply our knowledge in a project that feels sensible.

So was that with comedies with you?

ML: I would not rule out that we will do something again. But this documentary project is meaningful for us, and the first feedback encourages us to continue. It can be seen fulfilling that our film gives people something.

How did the film project and above all the alliance with the six civil society organizations Sea-Eye, Sea-Watch, United4Rescue, German Doctors, Pro Asyl and the Mennonite Aid Agency to support it?

ML: We approached Gorden Isler in 2022, the chairman of Sea-Eye, after making the decision to implement a film. I knew gorden from my commitment on the “Minden”. We had the idea of ​​getting NGOs to put a civil society statement with the film. First we worked with four non -governmental organizations, later two more were added. It is important to say that there was no right to say. We were financially supported, but nobody talked to us. We presented the idea of ​​beating a large arc from 2015 to the present day and telling many backgrounds to migration. From then on, we were granted and only supported with contacts on request.

MA: It was nice to notice how much trust was shown to us. We were allowed to set this statement behind which all NGOs gather, which differ politically.

You chose a descriptive story in the film And do without a moral outcry. The film traces the increasingly anti -migration atmosphere relatively soberly. Why did you choose this remedy?

MA: We discussed a lot about the tone we strike. On average, it turned out that the picture we draw raises moral questions. We assume that the audience also asks these questions.

ML: The goal from the start was to reach as many people as possible with the film and not just a left bubble. From the point of view, it was important to us not to directly put the moral aspects on the table because it can also put it off; You could have classified the film right away and located in a corner.

You have decided to let right -wing politicians have their say. This is, among others, Martina Schweinsburg, a former CDU district councilor, who works very openly with the AfD and is one of the heads behind the payment card. In the film she sets refugees with goat shepherds. Why did you choose to give space to these voices?

ML: During our work we were surprised by the political development. We had not expected these drastic tightening of asylum policy. When it came to the payment card, we asked ourselves where it actually came from. Then we landed very quickly with Ms. Schweinsburg and said: “We want to speak to her.” We wanted to find out what the pictures of people prevail for people who produce such an instrument.

MA: We wondered how much of this xenophobic mindset is also behind a more moderate rhetoric among the parties in the middle. This distinction between the “we” and the “others” as well as the evaluations may be implicitly, but also available there. It is not about administrative releases, but about systematic exclusion.

In your film speaks Marcel Fratzscher from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) on economic issues of migration. He emphasizes the economic necessity of immigration. Does such a perspective reduce refugees to your workforce?

Ma: Yes. If you primarily and ask this question and as the only one. But we put the question of human rights first in the film. In second place we then find that human -friendly politics does not take anything away from someone, but makes the cake larger that there is to be distributed.

ML: If you want to tackle the many problems in Germany, you have to go in steps. First of all, we find that we don’t let anyone drown. Nobody should die, people should not suffer.

Ma: And then it has to be about not taking the people who are here. First of all, you have to accompany the arrival and ensure that people are cared for without providing conditions. In the next step we have to enable the arriving to be self -effective. This can be the possibility of taking up work, for example.

If you had started to give refugees in an unbureaucratic work, then the migration discourse would certainly be different.

ML: That’s right, yes. We still have a ban on work when people arrive. A person in the film, Iraj who sits in a recording facility in North Rhine-Westphalia, still has no work permit after several years. He is really very bad. People need something to do, need a place where they come into contact with other people, and that often happens at work.

What is the message of your film?

ML: We hope that the debate about migration is more complex and complex. The film critic Wolfgang M. Schmitt once said: “In journalism there is always day one.” When it comes to migration, we start at zero every day. You can trust the audience and the audience. Therefore, we should begin to discuss the relationships more differently. We have to discuss more scientifically. That is often missing. We also want to suggest people to reopen their heart. That sounds a bit cheesy. Ultimately, however, we have to look left and right more. Companies are changing, people are added, people go. That is quite normal.

MA: We hope that you look more sober, realistically at the topic and at the same time let humanity and emotional to yourself.

What triggered the three and a half years of filming?

ML: We are a bit more blunted on the one hand in terms of some topics, and at the same time we have become much more empathetic. It is a duality of both.

MA: When we started this project, we didn’t know what we get involved with. We thought: We know ourselves quite well with the topic, we talked a lot about it, we have our criticism of the media, we have our own idea. We would not have thought about what it was actually with a power to treat this topic so intensely for over three years and to implement it into a film. In any case, we have grown up.

As far as solutions are concerned, the film is rather covered. What does it take to oppose the dehuman discourse in Germany?

MA: We are not migration experts, but we have two important aspects: Economist Isabella Weber has given an important keyword: anti -fascist economic policy. It is necessary to make a policy that improves living standards for everyone, guarantees a livelihood and prevents poverty. That seems to me to be the only solution if you want to keep this democracy alive.

The other aspect is that we need a rethink in the media. Rights to right -wing extremist positions in the migration debate have enormous influence on television. You could also discuss this topic very differently, with much more calm and less foam in front of your mouth. There is a need to find solutions that benefit everyone. Media have to dare to show more, show attitude and take human rights -oriented, universal positions.