The cinema tour of our documentary A GERMAN PARTY, which ran from 2023 to early 2025, was an intense and formative time for me. The film had a small, loyal fan base right from the start - but after the successful festival launch (Berlinale 2022, Nyon, etc.), theatrical exploitation was initially difficult. The coronavirus crisis affected the cinema business, the AfD seemed to lose influence at times and Russia's war in Ukraine pushed other topics aside. Many cinemas hesitated to include the film in their program - out of fear of the unedifying subject matter, of possible disruptions by radical AfD supporters or out of concern that the observational concept could be interpreted as a lack of attitude.

In the arthouse sector in particular, A GERMAN PARTY was initially discussed primarily in terms of whether it was legitimate not to portray the AfD exclusively as an extreme right-wing cadre group. In other words, whether it was okay to show the whole disturbing spectrum that actually made up the then chaotic organization: the dangerous and extreme as well as the banal, the trashy, the lunatic, the tragic, the legitimate, the contradictory, the human - or simply the tasteless. All of this was there, but not all of it was equally important, or was it?

My look into the grey areas and contradictions of everyday party life was interpreted by film critics either as a political provocation, a negligent trivialization of evil or as exemplary documentary storytelling. Opinions differed widely, and I, as the main person responsible, was caught in the middle - in the grip of all those known and unknown dilemmas in dealing with right-wing populism. At some point, I felt this pressure almost physically - and fled for three weeks into seclusion with good friends in another city.

And yet - or perhaps precisely because of this - word of the film gradually began to spread. The unexpected support by the 3sat channel to broadcast A GERMAN PARTY in prime time at 8:15 pm also contributed to this - with considerable ratings. The nationwide documentary film festival LETsDOK also programmed us three years in a row in various cities; in Saarbrücken, we even set an audience record. Gradually, more and more educational institutions, local cinemas and civil society groups came forward to show and discuss the film.

I would particularly like to highlight the commitment of Jörg Witte from SchulKinoWochen Niedersachsen and Sebastian Ramnitz from the Contra Rassismus association. They courageously led the way when others were still hesitant - and opened up access to workers, schoolchildren and people from neighborhoods who are rarely seen in documentary cinema. It quickly became clear that the film's differentiated approach did not lead to the dangers of the AfD being underestimated - on the contrary, the topic moved closer to people emotionally and intellectually. Concerns about possible disruption by party supporters proved to be unfounded. Almost all discussions were lively, intense and civilized. Only once did a local AfD group organize a protest stand in front of the cinema against the allegedly “tendentious denigration film” - presumably without having seen it.

After the almost two-hour movie experience, most of the audience stayed for at least another hour for discussion, often much longer. Finally, what I had always wished for happened: the discussions shifted away from the movie to the actual topic. The focus was on the question: What does this party mean to me personally? What new questions does it raise? Vision Kino soon recommended us to schools across Germany - thanks in particular to Leopold Grün and Peter Schütz.

This was followed in early 2024 by Correctiv's research into the “remigration” plans at the Potsdam “secret meeting”. Civil society initiatives against the shift to the right were formed everywhere - and many also developed the need to think more deeply about the AfD. At this moment, our film was confronted with what TV editors had feared when we first proposed the project: It was in danger of becoming outdated - due to the party's ever new flights of fancy and the final victory of the far right „Flügel“, the wing lead by Björn Höcke. The divided AfD on screen now almost seemed like a relic from a time less radicalized. It became more bearable that the film described a dangerous phenomenon without pointing a finger.

This was followed by a surprisingly long and varied second tour: a German party was shown weekly in various Industrial Union (IG-BCE) conference centers for several months before the European elections.  We have performed at the “Culture and Political Awareness” foundation in Butzbach as well as in a food sharing café in Stuttgart, at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt and in multiplex cinemas in small and large cities. I was a guest at grammar schools in Thuringia, at vocational schools in Lower Saxony, in cultural barns, at international conferences, at SPD-Juso evenings, on panels with extremism researchers, political scientists, parliamentarians - and of course with team colleagues like Sebastian Winkels, the editor. Sometimes 300 people came, sometimes 150, sometimes only five - but it almost always resulted in a conversation.

My method was simple: without pretending to do anything, I asked the viewers about their personal feelings and thoughts while watching. If a scene was too easily interpreted as evidence of right-wing extremism, I pointed out alternative points of view - to allow for difference and reflection, to encourage people to take a closer look and examine their own arguments. Only then did the occasional AfD sympathizer or people with an understanding for certain positions dare to come out of hiding. They were easy to moderate - and so far never dominated.

I remember several school presentations in which teachers were amazed to see how many pupils had subscribed to TikTok accounts like Maximilian Krah's - and at the same time were relieved that the vast majority of young people were able to name what they found wrong and reprehensible about what was shown. The feared removal of taboos failed to materialize because, as it turned out, the taboo had never been that effective anyway. Instead, many young people were happy to see something that educators considered harmful - and to be allowed to form their own opinion about it. Teachers told me afterwards how amazed they were that their students had managed to concentrate for two hours without looking at their cell phones every few minutes.

An amazing scene took place in the well-known youth club “CD-Kaserne” in Celle. After the screening, a controversial debate broke out among the 120 people aged between 16 and 22 all by itself, without any moderation. It was only after twenty minutes that Sebastian Ramnitz reminded the audience that the filmmaker was also present and suggested that they ask me a question.

I also remember an event with the Industrial Union where something like a small One German Party fan club had formed. One audience member reported that he had now seen the movie for the third time. Due to the coronavirus coverage, he had actually lost confidence in public broadcasting. That's why he was initially skeptical about our state-sponsored documentary - “probably just supervised thinking again”, he suspected. It was only after the first viewing that he understood that the film actually trusted him to form his own opinion. He then watched it again alone at home - and for the third time that evening at the union. Only then did he speak up in the discussion. His conclusion: “They're rubbish.”

Another member said that a German party had given her hope that there might still be people among AfD voters who could be talked to. She had been campaigning against the right for years and was impressed that the film “did not despise” the protagonists, but rather gave them their dignity - something that many right-wingers denied others.

A third viewer reported that he was so captivated by the film that he felt as if he was watching it himself - with a mixture of fascination and repulsion. He was gripped by a subtle horror that increased more and more as the film progressed, the beginning of the film had initially irritated him because nothing  of what was shown seemed very particular.

I think there is an element of empowerment behind the positive feedback that an observational documentary can generate. Precisely as A GERMAN PARTY did not provide a ready-made interpretation, it demanded that the audience make an effort to understand and interpret - and trusted people to do so. This meant “work”, but was often described as “liberating”. A certain degree of excessive demands resulted in a productive, knowledge-promoting restlessness. For sensitive people or those who felt they were being targeted by right-wing enemy images, being directly placed in the party's communication space was an imposition and was often “difficult to bear” - yet they also expressed their appreciation for this form of presentation.

Those responsible at institutions sometimes remarked after events that my presence had contributed significantly to the success of the film - a double-edged compliment that indirectly expressed that it was a work that should not be watched “unsupervised”. What if someone thought the “wrong” thing while watching it? I consider such mistrust of the audience to be not only a tactical boomerang - considering what I have learned so far about the psychology of potential AfD voters - but also unfounded. Of course, my co-moderators or invited experts and I were able to answer questions and encourage a willingness to discuss. But relevant debates also arose quietly and in private conversations - in cafés and living rooms, long after the credits had rolled. Again and again I received letters like: “Me and my girlfriend talked and argued about it after the movie until dawn.”

The list of questions discussed in the movie talks is long. What role do fears of decline play, what role experiences of devaluation, of authoritarian German traditions, of gaps in political representation, globalization, the relationship between East and West and the media change? The trade unions also discussed specific reasons for the high proportion of AfD voters among industrial workers (keywords: climate change man-made or not) and how to deal with populist-oriented members. In schools we talked about the appeal of radical right-wing subcultures and online communities, about (toxic) masculinity and, of course, migration and racism.

As part of an academic working group on “Filming the Enemy?”, initiated by cultural anthropologist Christine Moderbacher, I had the opportunity to reflect on the documentary film theory aspects of my work. Together we published a roundtable discussion in the magazine Montage AV and presented our ideas on a panel at the Visible Evidence Conference in Udine, Italy.

Of course, there we had hard political debates. In a cultural center with a left-wing, anti-fascist tradition, for example, a third of the audience - mostly older people - were outraged by the film's supposed leniency. They lacked investigative explanations of the networks and the money flows in the background. Another third - the younger ones - disagreed: You often enough only see “propaganda for the right cause”. A small group even left the hall and slammed the door. The organizer was nevertheless satisfied - and so was I. The topic is complex and our responsibility is great - controversy is inevitable.

A similarly charged but different situation arose in a Berlin district center - a few weeks before the last federal election. 150 people came: Members of the church community, coronavirus sceptics, AfD voters, supporters of the SPD and Greens, many young people with a history of migration. The atmosphere was tense, it got emotional, but it remained an exchange. One young person talked about personal experiences of discrimination and how frightened he was by the rise of the far right. Extremism researcher Hendrik Hansen sat next to me on the podium. We talked about the sometimes subtle but important differences between “right-wing”, “right-wing populist” and “right-wing extremist”. We also had to take a few knocks: one person accused us of working for the Verfassungsschutz (Domestic intelligence service), another got angry when we expressed skepticism about a party ban.

The evening only ended because the organizer had to go home. Many people signed up for spontaneous contact lists - they wanted to keep talking. A few days later, one of them wrote Prof. Hansen an email: Whether he could have 30 minutes of his time. He wanted to listen quietly and understand why he should not vote for the AfD. Hansen agreed.

For quite a while, the tour with A GERMAN PARTY was my main occupation. It took me to well over a hundred events - in front of thousands of people who discussed the key challenges facing our democracy. Often beyond the movie theater.

I would like to thank everyone who made this possible and accompanied me on this journey.

Simon Brückner, May 2025

The cinema tour of our documentary A GERMAN PARTY, which ran from 2023 to early 2025, was an intense and formative time for me. The film had a small, loyal fan base right from the start - but after the successful festival launch (Berlinale 2022, Nyon, etc.), theatrical exploitation was initially difficult. The coronavirus crisis affected the cinema business, the AfD seemed to lose influence at times and Russia's war in Ukraine pushed other topics aside. Many cinemas hesitated to include the film in their program - out of fear of the unedifying subject matter, of possible disruptions by radical AfD supporters or out of concern that the observational concept could be interpreted as a lack of attitude.

In the arthouse sector in particular, A GERMAN PARTY was initially discussed primarily in terms of whether it was legitimate not to portray the AfD exclusively as an extreme right-wing cadre group. In other words, whether it was okay to show the whole disturbing spectrum that actually made up the then chaotic organization: the dangerous and extreme as well as the banal, the trashy, the lunatic, the tragic, the legitimate, the contradictory, the human - or simply the tasteless. All of this was there, but not all of it was equally important, or was it?

My look into the grey areas and contradictions of everyday party life was interpreted by film critics either as a political provocation, a negligent trivialization of evil or as exemplary documentary storytelling. Opinions differed widely, and I, as the main person responsible, was caught in the middle - in the grip of all those known and unknown dilemmas in dealing with right-wing populism. At some point, I felt this pressure almost physically - and fled for three weeks into seclusion with good friends in another city.

And yet - or perhaps precisely because of this - word of the film gradually began to spread. The unexpected support by the 3sat channel to broadcast A GERMAN PARTY in prime time at 8:15 pm also contributed to this - with considerable ratings. The nationwide documentary film festival LETsDOK also programmed us three years in a row in various cities; in Saarbrücken, we even set an audience record. Gradually, more and more educational institutions, local cinemas and civil society groups came forward to show and discuss the film.

I would particularly like to highlight the commitment of Jörg Witte from SchulKinoWochen Niedersachsen and Sebastian Ramnitz from the Contra Rassismus association. They courageously led the way when others were still hesitant - and opened up access to workers, schoolchildren and people from neighborhoods who are rarely seen in documentary cinema. It quickly became clear that the film's differentiated approach did not lead to the dangers of the AfD being underestimated - on the contrary, the topic moved closer to people emotionally and intellectually. Concerns about possible disruption by party supporters proved to be unfounded. Almost all discussions were lively, intense and civilized. Only once did a local AfD group organize a protest stand in front of the cinema against the allegedly “tendentious denigration film” - presumably without having seen it.

After the almost two-hour movie experience, most of the audience stayed for at least another hour for discussion, often much longer. Finally, what I had always wished for happened: the discussions shifted away from the movie to the actual topic. The focus was on the question: What does this party mean to me personally? What new questions does it raise? Vision Kino soon recommended us to schools across Germany - thanks in particular to Leopold Grün and Peter Schütz.

This was followed in early 2024 by Correctiv's research into the “remigration” plans at the Potsdam “secret meeting”. Civil society initiatives against the shift to the right were formed everywhere - and many also developed the need to think more deeply about the AfD. At this moment, our film was confronted with what TV editors had feared when we first proposed the project: It was in danger of becoming outdated - due to the party's ever new flights of fancy and the final victory of the far right „Flügel“, the wing lead by Björn Höcke. The divided AfD on screen now almost seemed like a relic from a time less radicalized. It became more bearable that the film described a dangerous phenomenon without pointing a finger.

This was followed by a surprisingly long and varied second tour: a German party was shown weekly in various Industrial Union (IG-BCE) conference centers for several months before the European elections.  We have performed at the “Culture and Political Awareness” foundation in Butzbach as well as in a food sharing café in Stuttgart, at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt and in multiplex cinemas in small and large cities. I was a guest at grammar schools in Thuringia, at vocational schools in Lower Saxony, in cultural barns, at international conferences, at SPD-Juso evenings, on panels with extremism researchers, political scientists, parliamentarians - and of course with team colleagues like Sebastian Winkels, the editor. Sometimes 300 people came, sometimes 150, sometimes only five - but it almost always resulted in a conversation.

My method was simple: without pretending to do anything, I asked the viewers about their personal feelings and thoughts while watching. If a scene was too easily interpreted as evidence of right-wing extremism, I pointed out alternative points of view - to allow for difference and reflection, to encourage people to take a closer look and examine their own arguments. Only then did the occasional AfD sympathizer or people with an understanding for certain positions dare to come out of hiding. They were easy to moderate - and so far never dominated.

I remember several school presentations in which teachers were amazed to see how many pupils had subscribed to TikTok accounts like Maximilian Krah's - and at the same time were relieved that the vast majority of young people were able to name what they found wrong and reprehensible about what was shown. The feared removal of taboos failed to materialize because, as it turned out, the taboo had never been that effective anyway. Instead, many young people were happy to see something that educators considered harmful - and to be allowed to form their own opinion about it. Teachers told me afterwards how amazed they were that their students had managed to concentrate for two hours without looking at their cell phones every few minutes.

An amazing scene took place in the well-known youth club “CD-Kaserne” in Celle. After the screening, a controversial debate broke out among the 120 people aged between 16 and 22 all by itself, without any moderation. It was only after twenty minutes that Sebastian Ramnitz reminded the audience that the filmmaker was also present and suggested that they ask me a question.

I also remember an event with the Industrial Union where something like a small One German Party fan club had formed. One audience member reported that he had now seen the movie for the third time. Due to the coronavirus coverage, he had actually lost confidence in public broadcasting. That's why he was initially skeptical about our state-sponsored documentary - “probably just supervised thinking again”, he suspected. It was only after the first viewing that he understood that the film actually trusted him to form his own opinion. He then watched it again alone at home - and for the third time that evening at the union. Only then did he speak up in the discussion. His conclusion: “They're rubbish.”

Another member said that a German party had given her hope that there might still be people among AfD voters who could be talked to. She had been campaigning against the right for years and was impressed that the film “did not despise” the protagonists, but rather gave them their dignity - something that many right-wingers denied others.

A third viewer reported that he was so captivated by the film that he felt as if he was watching it himself - with a mixture of fascination and repulsion. He was gripped by a subtle horror that increased more and more as the film progressed, the beginning of the film had initially irritated him because nothing  of what was shown seemed very particular.

I think there is an element of empowerment behind the positive feedback that an observational documentary can generate. Precisely as A GERMAN PARTY did not provide a ready-made interpretation, it demanded that the audience make an effort to understand and interpret - and trusted people to do so. This meant “work”, but was often described as “liberating”. A certain degree of excessive demands resulted in a productive, knowledge-promoting restlessness. For sensitive people or those who felt they were being targeted by right-wing enemy images, being directly placed in the party's communication space was an imposition and was often “difficult to bear” - yet they also expressed their appreciation for this form of presentation.

Those responsible at institutions sometimes remarked after events that my presence had contributed significantly to the success of the film - a double-edged compliment that indirectly expressed that it was a work that should not be watched “unsupervised”. What if someone thought the “wrong” thing while watching it? I consider such mistrust of the audience to be not only a tactical boomerang - considering what I have learned so far about the psychology of potential AfD voters - but also unfounded. Of course, my co-moderators or invited experts and I were able to answer questions and encourage a willingness to discuss. But relevant debates also arose quietly and in private conversations - in cafés and living rooms, long after the credits had rolled. Again and again I received letters like: “Me and my girlfriend talked and argued about it after the movie until dawn.”

The list of questions discussed in the movie talks is long. What role do fears of decline play, what role experiences of devaluation, of authoritarian German traditions, of gaps in political representation, globalization, the relationship between East and West and the media change? The trade unions also discussed specific reasons for the high proportion of AfD voters among industrial workers (keywords: climate change man-made or not) and how to deal with populist-oriented members. In schools we talked about the appeal of radical right-wing subcultures and online communities, about (toxic) masculinity and, of course, migration and racism.

As part of an academic working group on “Filming the Enemy?”, initiated by cultural anthropologist Christine Moderbacher, I had the opportunity to reflect on the documentary film theory aspects of my work. Together we published a roundtable discussion in the magazine Montage AV and presented our ideas on a panel at the Visible Evidence Conference in Udine, Italy.

Of course, there we had hard political debates. In a cultural center with a left-wing, anti-fascist tradition, for example, a third of the audience - mostly older people - were outraged by the film's supposed leniency. They lacked investigative explanations of the networks and the money flows in the background. Another third - the younger ones - disagreed: You often enough only see “propaganda for the right cause”. A small group even left the hall and slammed the door. The organizer was nevertheless satisfied - and so was I. The topic is complex and our responsibility is great - controversy is inevitable.

A similarly charged but different situation arose in a Berlin district center - a few weeks before the last federal election. 150 people came: Members of the church community, coronavirus sceptics, AfD voters, supporters of the SPD and Greens, many young people with a history of migration. The atmosphere was tense, it got emotional, but it remained an exchange. One young person talked about personal experiences of discrimination and how frightened he was by the rise of the far right. Extremism researcher Hendrik Hansen sat next to me on the podium. We talked about the sometimes subtle but important differences between “right-wing”, “right-wing populist” and “right-wing extremist”. We also had to take a few knocks: one person accused us of working for the Verfassungsschutz (Domestic intelligence service), another got angry when we expressed skepticism about a party ban.

The evening only ended because the organizer had to go home. Many people signed up for spontaneous contact lists - they wanted to keep talking. A few days later, one of them wrote Prof. Hansen an email: Whether he could have 30 minutes of his time. He wanted to listen quietly and understand why he should not vote for the AfD. Hansen agreed.

For quite a while, the tour with A GERMAN PARTY was my main occupation. It took me to well over a hundred events - in front of thousands of people who discussed the key challenges facing our democracy. Often beyond the movie theater.

I would like to thank everyone who made this possible and accompanied me on this journey.

Simon Brückner, May 2025