‘Undercover: Exposing the Far Right' Director on the Future of Political Doc Programming: ‘Selection of Films at Some Festivals Is Becoming Weaker'
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
CNBC
4 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why a new UK internet safety law is causing an outcry on both sides of the Atlantic
It was well intentioned but a U.K. law mandating age verification on adult sites and a number of other platforms has sparked a backlash from both internet users in the country, and U.S. politicians and tech giants. Last month, new provisions in the Online Safety Act requiring large online platforms to implement age checks to prevent children from accessing pornographic and appropriate material came into force. The measures have led PornHub, RedTube and other porn sites to force U.K. visitors to sign up and verify their age to gain access to their services. Broadly, the Online Safety Act is a law that imposes a duty of care on social media firms and other user-generated content sites to ensure they take responsibility for harmful content uploaded and spread on their platforms. In particular, the legislation aims to prevent children from being exposed to pornographic content and material that promotes suicide, self-harm, eating disorders or abusive and hateful behaviour. The regulation has been years in the making and faced numerous delays in its development — not least due to concerns that it may infringe internet users' right to privacy and result in censorship. The latest measures have been imposed with the aim of ensuring children aren't able to view harmful and inappropriate content. However, they have led to complaints from internet users due to the requirement of having to share personal information such as their ID, credit card details and selfies — in some cases for platforms that don't even qualify as porn sites. Spotify, Reddit, X and a number of other platforms have introduced their own respective age verification systems to stop users under the age of 18 from consuming explicit content. These moves have subsequently led to providers of virtual private networks (VPNs) to report that their services, which allow users to mask their location, are surging in the U.K. Meanwhile, on Monday, Wikipedia was dealt a legal blow in the U.K. as a High Court judge ruled the platform should be treated as a "category one" service, which would subject to certain user verification requirements. The Online Safety Act requires category one platforms to offer users the ability to verify their identity and access tools that reduce their exposure to content from non-verified users. Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia, has said previously that it could limit visitor numbers from the U.K. in order to exempt it from category one status. A number of U.S. politicians have blasted the new rules in recent days. Last week, Vice President JD Vance — who has previously criticized the U.K.'s internet safety rules — again raised concerns with the law, fearing it could unfairly restrict American tech companies. "I just don't want other countries to follow us down what I think was a very dark path under the Biden administration," Vance told reporters during a trip to the country last week. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who also visited the U.K. recently, said in a statement after his return that sweeping online safety laws in Europe are having "a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies." There has been speculation over whether the U.S. may press Britain to relax the regulations during trade talks — however, U.K. officials say the issue is not open to debate. Other countries are already adopting their own respective internet age verification laws. Australia and Ireland have both passed similar age verification measures, while Denmark, Greece, Spain, France and Italy have started testing a common age verification app to protect users online. In the U.S., Louisiana passed a law in 2022 requiring age verification on websites where at least a third of the content is of an adult nature, while several other states are seeking to pass similar legislation.
Atlantic
35 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘The Death Penalty Has No Place in This Country'
Witness In the July issue, Elizabeth Bruenig documented sin and redemption in America's death chambers. I am deeply grateful to Elizabeth Bruenig for her unflinching reporting on the death penalty, and for telling the stories of the men she's met on death row. I have always thought that the death penalty was morally reprehensible and incompatible with American democratic principles. But thanks to people like Bruenig and Bryan Stevenson, whose memoir, Just Mercy, I read as an incoming college freshman, my understanding of the death penalty has shifted from the theoretical to the deeply personal. Their witness has confirmed my belief that the death penalty has no place in this country. On September 24, 2024, the state of Missouri executed Marcellus Williams, despite evidence of his innocence. My family, alongside other concerned Americans, petitioned state and local officials on his behalf during the period leading up to his execution. His death haunts me still. Cynthia Wynn Brighton, Mich. Robert Bowers, who murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, was tried in federal court. There was no question about his guilt, and his attorneys were eager to trade a guilty plea for a life sentence. Instead, prosecutors insisted on pursuing the death penalty, dragging survivors, victims' families, and the city through a long trial and taking us back through the whole horrible day. Bowers has since been sentenced to die—which will likely mean more appeals, forcing survivors to relive the day again and again. A life sentence, in this case, may have prevented much grief. Jean Martin McKeesport, Pa. Elizabeth Bruenig and I have something in common—we have both witnessed executions in America. I watched a man named Alton Waye die in the electric chair at the Virginia State Penitentiary in 1989. I did so as an employee of the American Correctional Association, an organization that accredits prisons, where I worked at the time. Waye had been convicted of the rape and murder of 61-year-old Lavergne Marshall in 1977. Marshall had been bitten, beaten, and stabbed 42 times before being dumped nude in her bathtub and doused with bleach. Waye confessed to the crime. At the execution, I stood with the warden, the prison chaplain, and others directly next to the electric chair. After Waye had been strapped in, the warden asked for his last words. Waye responded, 'I would like to express that what is about to occur here is a murder,' without a word of remorse for his victim. I wondered if someone had coached him to say that. When the electrical current was administered, Waye quickly lost consciousness. Now, 36 years later, I continue to support capital punishment as an option for aggravated first-degree murder. I've noticed in the intervening years that many condemned inmates are seen as victims, while the real victims are forgotten. I give Bruenig credit for including details of the crimes of the men she watched die, as well as for admitting to 'overidentification' with them. Most death-penalty opponents choose not to. Death-row inmates are human beings, no more or less than the rest of us. On this, Bruenig and I agree. But I respectfully disagree with her on the notion of the 'dignity of human life' applying to all. I was relieved that Waye didn't appear to suffer in his final moments. But I also thought of Marshall and the suffering she had endured, alone, as Waye took her dignity through rape and murder. There are instances when executions should not be dismissed as vengeance, but seen as justice. I was disappointed that 'Witness' does not focus on one of the principal reasons the death penalty ought to be abolished: the possibility that an innocent person might be executed. My brother's case is an example. When he was 20, Subramanyam was arrested for a murder and later convicted on circumstantial evidence. At his initial trial, prosecutors attempted to 'death qualify' the jury, to ensure that they would be open to sentencing him to death. If they had succeeded, he may well have been killed. Instead, he has spent more than four decades incarcerated, trying to prove his innocence. In 2021, the district attorney's office fully opened Subu's case file. Within the more than 3,000 pages of documents, Subu's lawyers say they found materials that had never been turned over to the defense, including some potentially exculpatory evidence. He now awaits a new opportunity to challenge his conviction. Over the past 42 years, my brother has helped hundreds of inmates earn their GED. He started a literacy council and helped with the prison 'Runathon' to benefit the local community. He does yoga daily, keeps abreast of the outside world, and calls his family. He has finished three degrees by correspondence and was, to my knowledge, the first Pennsylvania inmate to earn a graduate degree while incarcerated. But he has had to miss all of our family events and even the last rites of our beloved parents. Subu is a calm, kind, concerned, and brilliant human. He lives in an 8-by-10 cell and somehow stays hopeful. Elizabeth Bruenig replies: The death penalty is a complicated subject that tends to stir strong emotions. I'm grateful that so many readers spent time with this story and reached out to express their thoughts. There are a number of legitimate reasons to oppose the death penalty: concerns about the risk of executing innocent people, objections related to race and racial prejudice, a principled respect for human life. I am convinced on every count. But I welcome dialogue with people who disagree—if the death penalty in the United States is going to end, we will need many more voters willing to elect the prosecutors, judges, and lawmakers who oppose the practice, and so people who are against capital punishment must be prepared to patiently make their case. I hope that this story has provided readers with tools for arguing against the death penalty in their own communities, and that we may one day achieve a more just world. Behind the Cover For this month's cover story, 'This Is What the End of the Liberal World Order Looks Like,' the Atlantic staff writer Anne Applebaum reported on the civil war in Sudan, accompanied by the photographer Lynsey Addario. America's withdrawal from the world has left a vacuum, Applebaum argues, and greed, nihilism, and violence have filled it. For our cover image, we selected a photograph taken by Addario in El Geneina, a city in western Sudan where thousands of civilians have been killed. Two siblings, Adam Abdullah, 11, and Hawa, 7, sit in a window; Hawa lost her leg in an air strike three months earlier. — Bifen Xu, Senior Photo Editor ' The Clones Are Here ' (July) stated that Panayiotis Zavos was a physician. In fact, Zavos has a doctorate in reproductive physiology.
Epoch Times
35 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
‘Guess Again': Matching Wits With a Killer
Charlie Donlea is an accomplished American thriller and mystery novelist whose books often feature missing persons, cold cases, and the emotional impact of violence. His latest novel, 'Guess Again,' follows in the same vein; the novel aims for a gritty and taut psychological thriller about a teenage volleyball player who vanished without a trace 10 years ago. The story weaves together multiple timelines and interconnected characters in a web of mystery, obsession, and long-buried secrets. Does Donlea deliver? Yes, but the ride isn't smooth. The story's neighborhoods are on the tacky side, and the destination is questionable. A Cold Wisconsin Silence Set primarily in Wisconsin, an infamous cold case has haunted a fictional lakeside community called Cherryview for the last decade. In 2015, 17-year-old Callie Jones had a lot going for her: She was pretty, a star athlete, accepted into college, and had a bright future ahead. Then poof—nothing. A thorough and dedicated investigation comes up empty.
