‘Undercover: Exposing the Far Right' Director on the Future of Political Doc Programming: ‘Selection of Films at Some Festivals Is Becoming Weaker'
In Havana Marking's documentary 'Undercover: Exposing the Far Right,' investigators from the organization Hope Not Hate use hidden cameras and fieldwork to track down and expose members of violent far-right extremist groups in the U.K. and the U.S.
One of those members is American Holocaust denier Mark Weber who is secretly recorded in the film telling a crowd of white men that, 'The question every American should ask himself is can whites and Blacks live in America in the same society on the basis of equality and mutual respect? Liberals would say, 'Well, of course, or we should.' Conservatives say, 'Well, it's a good idea, but it's going to take time until we reach that.' The answer is no. It's not going to happen. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both grappled with this question, and each of them concluded that it's not going to happen and the only answer is to remove Blacks from North America.'
More from Variety
Janus Metz on 'Rescue' and Saving Migrants in the Mediterranean With Partner Sine Plambech and Doctors Without Borders (EXCLUSIVE)
Chicago's Doc10 Lineup Includes Sundance Hits 'The Perfect Neighbor' and 'Predators' (EXCLUSIVE)
Sundance Documentary 'Predators,' an Exposé of 'To Catch a Predator,' Sells to MTV Documentary Films
The film centers on Patrik Hermansson, a senior researcher who infiltrated the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and journalist Harry Shukman, who infiltrated far-right movements beginning in 2023 under Hermansson's guidance. Marking was given access to all of the footage Hermansson and Shukman collected over the course of two years. Marking is the first filmmaker in Hope Not Hate's 20-year history that was granted behind-the-scenes access to the org.
'It took a long time to gain the wider team's confidence,' Marking told Variety. 'I had to prove myself ultimately, and that took many months. The key thing was that they trusted me not to compromise their safety and the success of the mission. I took security seriously and understood the dangers involved.'
Last October, the BFI London Film Festival pulled the film from its lineup at the last minute over safety concerns.
'I think the film is exceptional and easily one of the best documentaries I have seen this year,' festival director Kristy Matheson told the Observer newspaper. 'However, festival workers have the right to feel safe and that their mental health and well being is respected in their workplace.'
The doc went on to premiere on the U.K. network Channel 4 and Danish television station DR. The film also screened at IDFA in November 2024 and is currently screening at Copenhagen's CPH:DOX in the Education section – UNG:DOX. While Marking doesn't think that anyone who is committed to the far right would watch her film, she believes that 'there are swathes of people in the middle who are being manipulated by this stuff, especially online, who could watch this documentary and realize how easy it is to be misled.'
Variety spoke to Marking in Copenhagen about the three years she spent making 'Undercover: Exposing the Far Right' and U.S. distributors' interest in the film.
Hope Not Hate gave you unprecedented access to their dangerous, undercover operations. How did that happen?
Marking: Originally, I was talking to HNH about a historical story, a straightforward past tense interview film. But every time I talked to (HNH founder and CEO) Nick Lowles, something extraordinary had just happened. He was being followed. His family was being harassed. The office was being hounded with hoax calls. It was a frightening time, and it suddenly seemed mad to be talking about something that took place 20 years ago: we agreed we had to start filming now. It was only six months later that Nick let me know they were also conducting an undercover investigation.
Did you ever feel in danger while making the film?
We knew right from the start this was a dangerous film to make. We follow three different storylines and there were differing levels of risk for each aspect. There were moments that we knew were risky in and of themselves: filming at extreme far-right rallies with no police presence, for example. Then, highlighting the illegal and obnoxious work of (far-right British agitator) Tommy Robinson has its own risks: he has form for harassing journalists he doesn't agree with and setting his legions of online fans against them. And then there were the legal dangers: one of our stories traces a million-dollar funding network back to Silicon Valley. Above all, though, the danger was that we might blow the cover of the HNH journalists or locations of their offices, etc. We had a huge number of protocols in place to ensure secrecy, using encryption, code words, and prioritizing meeting in person over using messaging apps. I also changed my appearance: not to be in disguise, just to blend in and 'disappear' on shoots.
The far-right in Europe and the U.S. don't try to hide their racism/intolerance/antisemitism – i.e., Britain's anti-immigrant rioters, Charlottesville's Unite the Right, Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attackers. Why did you think it was necessary to make a film about how the far right operates behind closed doors?
Well, some of the far right are open about what they believe, but many aren't, and almost no one wants to admit how they are funded, or how they manipulate the narrative. We have layers here about what is said openly. Some might say they are anti-asylum-seekers in public, but refuse to admit they are racist, or they might say they hate Islam, but would never admit to anti-semitism, for example. When you go undercover, you see the true extent of the extremism, and importantly, the associations. Funding will often come from 'respectable' sources who would not openly want to be connected to those more vocal.
How did you feel about the London Film Festival's decision to pull your film?
We were shocked, confused, and devastated! It was beyond cowardly and has set a dangerous precedent. It was sad that they couldn't see why it was so politically important not to pull the film: for us, yes, but also for political films in general. We asked repeatedly for alternative ways to screen the film in the festival setting: different locations or different platforms, but they wouldn't entertain it. They selected the film in early June, so they had over four months to put a safety protocol in place before the festival in October.
Do you think that by pulling the film, the festival gave even more power to the far right?
Fear is its own form of censorship, and literally the only people to benefit from that decision were the far right. Anyone familiar with the work of American historian Timothy Snyder will recognize the concept of 'obeying in advance.' This was a perfect example.
Recently, Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner attempted to shut down the city's nonprofit art house cinema O Cinema following screenings of the Oscar-winning documentary 'No Other Land' because he thought it was anti-semitic. Meiner didn't get his way, but do you feel like we are heading in a direction where politicians and film festivals will censor political films?
Yes, for sure. It's already happened to us, and we can see that the selection of films at some festivals is becoming weaker. There are different reasons, and there may be some genuine fears, but there should always be ways to create safe spaces – even if it's virtual – to show political films. We believe in the right to watch films without the fear of intimidation and hope to ensure the resilience of the cinema industry for the long run.
What territories are you trying to sell to, and is there any hope that an American distributor will touch the film?
The film is selling very well to broadcasters in Europe and having a fantastic festival run. So far, we have had no bite whatsoever from the U.S. We can't believe the change in government hasn't had an effect on that.
'Undercover: Exposing the Far Right' is a Marking Films Inc/Tigerlily production, directed and produced by Havana Marking and Natasha Dack.
Best of Variety
The Best Celebrity Memoirs to Read This Year: From Chelsea Handler to Anthony Hopkins
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
Oscars 2026: First Blind Predictions Including Timothée Chalamet, Emma Stone, 'Wicked: For Good' and More
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
7 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's China Envoy Seeks to Calm US Firms as Trade Ties Fray
US Ambassador David Perdue sought to reassure American businesses in China that the countries will maintain their commercial ties, as tensions flare between the world's largest economies over export controls. The envoy told US business groups on Thursday the Trump administration is looking for ways to cooperate with China and supports their presence in the country, according to people familiar with the matter. The exchanges took place as a dispute over China's grip on critical materials threatens to derail tariff talks that the US said has stalled.


San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Taking Harvey Milk's name off Navy ship won't silence what he stands for
Regarding 'Trump reportedly to strip Harvey Milk name off naval vessel' (Politics, June 3): The order to remove Harvey Milk's name from a Navy ship is a stunning and shameful act of political erasure. Milk, a Navy veteran who served during the Korean War, was assassinated after becoming one of America's most courageous and pioneering LGBTQ+ civil rights leaders. To claim that his name no longer reflects 'the Navy's values' or the 'warrior ethos' is not just revisionist — it's malicious. The timing is no accident. On the first days of Pride month, this move speaks volumes about the stories the Trump administration seeks to silence. This decision is not about standards. It's about politics and an insult to every LGBTQ+ American who has served this country with honor. I am the beneficiary of Milk's groundbreaking efforts to have LGBTQ+ people treated with respect, dignity and the opportunity to love who we choose. The name Harvey Milk endures — in the hearts of those who carry his legacy forward and in every Pride flag raised this month. Jonathan Finck, San Francisco Stand with veterans On Friday, the anniversary of D-Day, I'll be in Washington, D.C., marching alongside thousands of other veterans and families at the Unite for Veterans rally. We're not showing up to make noise. We're showing up because we believe in something worth defending: the promise this country made to those who served. I served in Afghanistan as an Army infantry officer. I've spent my civilian career working to improve systems for veterans, at a Bay Area tech company and at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I can tell you this: Undermining veteran care doesn't reduce waste, it reduces access, stability and dignity for those who earned it. The Department of Veterans Affairs is under threat. The systems veterans rely on for health care, housing and mental health are being hollowed out. At the same time, disinformation is spreading about how these systems work and who they serve. This isn't about one party or one president. It's about priorities. We've never hesitated to invest in national defense and caring for veterans is part of that commitment. So I'm standing up. And I'm asking others to do the same. Demand that this country keep its word to those who wore the uniform. George Chewning, San Francisco Train not so smart Regarding 'Enthusiasm 'sky high' as Sonoma-Marin rail service expands northward' (Bay Area, May 31): The story about SMART train reaching Windsor reads like a promo piece. A deeper look shows that the boom in ridership occurred after SMART started giving free rides to kids and seniors. And even with that incentive, it has yet to reach the 5,000 riders a day to which it aspires. SMART has been a huge boondoggle. It's a single-track rail line that runs through flood-prone fields, utilizing diesel engines, with no flexibility in case of earthquake or fire (unlike unsexy buses). The policy seems to be to build so much infrastructure that citizens will feel they must send good money after bad, but they're not consistently biting. Jean Arnold, Mendocino Learn more languages The more languages you know fluently, the better you understand your native language. I helped write courses of study for many languages. My granddaughters attended Spanish immersion classes and are now bilingual, opting to study additional languages. While I agree that English literacy should be better, students are immersed in English all day long though social media is eroding their grammar and punctuation. This is a separate battle that won't be improved by outlawing immersion classes. To improve communication and alternate ways of organizing reality, I say we should offer more immersion classes.


New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
GOP senators push to cement core Musk-inspired DOGE savings at Treasury
A group of Republican lawmakers is pushing to cement some of the core reforms enacted at the Treasury by President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who helms the Senate DOGE Caucus, and Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) are introducing legislation backed by over a dozen other lawmakers to codify requirements for the Treasury Department to ensure all payments include proper descriptions in its system. Their new bill, titled the Delivering On Government Efficiency (DOGE) in Spending Act, hardcodes the reform into law in a bid to dramatically slash improper payments. Last fiscal year, there were at least $162 billion in improper payments, with 84% of that being overpayments, according to the US Government Accountability Office. 'Requiring government to answer basic questions before spending tax dollars will save billions over the next decade,' Ernst said in a statement to The Post. 3 The Senate bill would make recent Trump administration changes at the Treasury Department permanent. Getty Images for 137 Ventures/Founders Fund/Jacob Helberg 3 Elon Musk departed his role as a special government employee last week. REUTERS 'Enacting safeguards to spending has been one of the Trump administration's and DOGE's greatest triumphs, and I am determined to codify it and make it permanent.' Ernst is introducing the bill in the Senate with Sens. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Ted Budd (R-NC), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Katie Britt (R-Ala.) Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) Bean is introducing the measure in the House of Representatives. 'For too long, improper and fraudulent payments have drained resources and undermined trust in government spending,' Bean said in a statement. 'The American people deserve responsible stewardship of their tax dollars, and this bill delivers exactly that.' 'This legislation takes the first critical step toward codifying DOGE efforts into law — bringing real oversight and integrity to the way taxpayer dollars are managed.' The new bill comes amid a growing push among Republicans to codify the DOGE cuts into law. On Tuesday, the White House formally requested that Congress claw back $9.4 billion in a rescissions package targeting foreign aid, PBS, NPR and other programs. Right now, it is unclear if the senators will be able to tuck the measure into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that's currently making its way through the Senate, due to the upper chamber's arcane rules. The measure was inspired by some of the early actions DOGE took at the Treasury Department that had been championed by tech mogul Elon Musk. Should the bill become law, the Treasury Department would be required to have a description of a payment, cross-check it with government databases, make sure it's linked to an approved budget account and ensure payments are updated on Overall, the measure is intended to ensure that the Treasury's Do Not Pay (DNP) system gets accurate and up-to-date information. 3 The new bill comes amid Elon Musk's public criticism of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Getty Images Additionally, the DNP system would gain access to the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) data and Social Security information. Under the proposal, the DNP system would also obtain limited access to tax information such as filing status, taxpayer identification information (TIN), reports of TIN thefts, filing year data, bank account information and whether tax returns weren't filed. Lawmakers behind the bill are hoping it will help prevent 'stove piping,' in which fraudsters can trick different programs while keeping the same dubious information because the feds' databases are too siloed. 'The federal government must be held accountable for every tax dollar spent,' Lee said in a statement. 'The DOGE In Spending Act will codify part of Trump's fiscal plan by ensuring payments are properly reported and tracked.' 'With America $36 trillion in debt, we cannot afford a system with no accountability over where billions in taxpayer dollars are going,' Lummis added. 'We are buried in red ink.' 'The American people sent a clear message by electing President Trump. They're fed up with the wasteful spending and bloated bureaucracy,' Grassley said. The Treasury Department is responsible for about 95% of federal payments. The Trump administration had fought court battles for the DOGE to get access to the sensitive Treasury payment system for those outlays. President Trump later signed an executive order in March ordering reforms to the Treasury to combat potential fraud. The DOGE in Spending Act essentially puts the verification and consolidation reforms in Sections 4 and 5 of his executive order into law.