Green Border

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 88% based on 17 reviews, with an average rating of 7.8/10.[25] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 85 out of 100, based on 9 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[26]

The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw assessed the film as being a difficult but vital cinematic experience.[27] Jo-Ann Titmarsh of the London Evening Standard praised Holland for unsubtly displaying her "righteous indignation", but not letting it overpower the film.[28] Rodrigo Perez of The Playlist similarly called it a "righteous, masterful work, arguably her best since Europa Europa."[29] Leslie Felperin of The Hollywood Reporter hailed the execution and precision of the film's multiple storylines, which she wrote "make for a bracing, impassioned skein of humanist cinema, old-school in technique but right up to the moment in terms of its subject matter."[30] Screen International's Wendy Ide echoed praise of the film's "supremely confident handling of a fractured, fragmented structure and its twin driving forces of compassion and fury."[31]

In a less favourable review, Kevin Maher of The Times acknowledged the film as "expertly made, and harrowing", but criticized its dialogue as "podium-speak, ramming manifestos into the mouths of characters and transforming every scene into a Manichean struggle between the forces of darkness and light." Maher ultimately panned the film as being nothing more than misery porn, lacking the nuance of other modern refugee dramas such as For Sama (2019), Flee (2021) and Tori and Lokita (2022).[32]

Green Border has been consistently criticised by Polish government ministers:

• Zbigniew Ziobro, Minister of Justice, condemned the film ahead of its Venice premiere, writing on X that "In the Third Reich, the Germans produced propaganda films showing Poles as bandits and murderers. Today they have Agnieszka Holland for that."[33] In a subsequent Radio Maryja interview, Ziobro further condemned Holland as having made herself part of Russian propaganda and disinformation and as "preparing a film that distorts the image and shows Poland from the worst angle."[34] Some time after Holland announced that she would be suing him, Ziobro used a wPolscePL interview to make new comments, stating that his earlier comments were made deliberately, they were "exactly what I think", and he would not back down from them. In reference to Holland's threats to sue, Ziobro stated that the Last Judgement took precedence over any eventual court judgement and went on to accuse her of "reduc[ing] Polish soldiers [and] border guard officers to the level of criminals and sadists" and of hypocritically comparing these and the Polish government to Nazis. He did, however, say that his comments were less about the film itself and more about Holland's views as expressed in interviews about the film, as well as admitting he had yet to see the film in person.[35] When a court injunction was issued to prevent him from making further comparisons of Holland and her film to Nazi propaganda, he denounced it as an "assault on freedom of expression" and said that the judgement enabled Holland to "compare Polish soldiers and the border guard officers to bandits, sadists and German Nazis" while not allowing him to "respond to her words by standing up for the Polish soldiers and border guard officers who are so horribly challenged and insulted by her."[36]
• Mariusz Kamiński, Minister of the Interior and Administration, branded the film as a "brutal attack on Polish uniformed officers [who are] defending not only Poland but also Europe" and as "consciously manipulat[ing] our emotions".[34] In a later TVP Info interview, Kamiński claimed that the film was "a presentation of Holland's political views that has nothing to do with reality", that it was "intellectually dishonest and morally shameful", and that it downplayed the Belarusian angle. Kamiński stated his intention to make a further statement once the film had had its Polish premiere where "[the government] will show how this is a deceitful picture, this isn't an existent reality".[37][35]
• Stanisław Żaryn, Secretary of State at the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland and Government Plenipotentiary for the Security of Information Space, claimed that the film was repeating narratives presented in Russian and Belarusian propaganda, that said Belarusian propaganda was delighted by the film, and that the film was falsely painting Poland as condemning refugees to die.[38]
• Przemysław Czarnek, Minister of Science and Higher Education, sarcastically thanked Holland for making the film and called it yet another phase of "spitting on [...] everyone who risks their life and limb to guard the border twenty-four hours a day" and yet another example of what "that side represented by Gazeta Wyborcza" supposedly thought of Poland's uniformed services.[39][40] He would later declare that, for "slandering Polish services, the Polish military, spitting on the Polish state", Holland and her "political helpers" did not have the right to call themselves Poles.[41]
• Marcin Przydacz, Head of the International Policy Bureau of the Chancellery of the President, said it was obvious from the beginning that the film would present a biased view of the border crisis.[42]
• Michał Dworczyk, Chief of the Chancellery, said that the film was "extremely dishonest" and was concerned not just with "presenting a false picture" but also with causing problems for and discrediting the Polish government.[43]
• Błażej Poboży, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, said that the best way to describe the film was as a "disgusting libel" and that the film portrayed "those who risk their lives to defend the Polish border in an extremely unfair manner", was "harmful to the Polish state and to Poles", and contained "so many untruths and distortions". It was Poboży who would announce the government's intention to make independent "studio" cinemas show a short video on "elements that were missing in this film [...] the context of the hybrid operation, the course of this operation, and the measures we have introduced to guarantee the safety of Poles" prior to screenings; in his view, the "most important element" missing from the film was any reference to Belarusian and Russian involvement in the border crisis.[21]

Holland responded to Ziobro's comments by saying that the government was afraid of her film's depiction of the crisis. She called Ziobro's comments defamation and announced that she would be pursuing legal action for the same and for hate speech unless she received an apology within seven days.[44][34][45] At the film's Warsaw premieire, Holland spoke more generally about government criticism of her, saying that she had expected hatred to come her way for making the film "but not so brutally and from the highest government bodies [...] we are no longer in the country we would like to be in if the highest authorities direct a hate campaign against the creator and the film."[21] Gazeta Wyborcza published an open letter with over 500 signatories condemning the attacks by public officials and expressing full solidarity with Holland.[46] Virtually all ministerial comments were made prior to the film's release or otherwise without seeing the full film and were therefore based mostly on the film's trailer and other promotional materials as well as second-hand accounts.[38][37][35]

On 8 September 2023, a union representing members of the Polish Border Guard's Nadwiśle division published a press release titled ""Green Border" - Only pigs go to the cinema" (Polish: ""Zielona Granica" - tylko świnie siedzą w kinie") in which they lambasted the film as, among other things, being "a scandalous, anti-Polish film [...] that glorifies the pathological phenomenon of illegal immigration", being a "propaganda product", and slandering the Polish state as an "inhumane dictatorship" and Poles who were patrolling the Belarusian-Polish border as "soulless guard dogs of an oppressive regime". The authors of the press release claimed that to distribute the film was to incur "disgrace and the deepest contempt" and, in criticising Holland's portrayal of engineers, doctors, and writers being among the migrants, challenged her to tell Border Guard officers that the thrown objects they were being attacked with were merely "calipers, stethoscopes, and pen nibs".[47][48][49][38] The phrase "Only pigs go to the cinema" (Polish: "Tylko świnie siedzą w kinie") was originally associated with opposition to Nazi propaganda films screened in Poland during its occupation by Nazi Germany; its usage in the press release thus formed yet another part of efforts to compare Holland's work to such propaganda.[50]

Anna Michalska, a Border Guard lieutenant who often serves as a spokeswoman for the service, said that while the press release was merely the opinion of the union members rather than the actual Nadwiśle Border Guard division, many Border Guard officers were indignant at what she called a "shameful and harmful film"; likewise, she said that, while the Border Guard respects artistic freedom, the film did not have any factual basis. Michalska claimed that the film does not show the perspective of Border Guard officers, even though one of the principal actors (Tomasz Włosok) portrays such an officer (Jan), and then went on to decry the film as being a "deliberately created offensive film which does not tell the reality" and to state that "as officers [...] of the Border Guard, we firmly oppose all who slander the uniform". When asked if anyone from the Border Guard had seen the film, Michalska said that neither the film's plot nor its portrayal of the Border Guard were unknown;[12][51] she then claimed to have personally seen the full film herself despite it having yet to be screened in Poland at the time of her statement and despite there being no evidence of a delegation from the Border Guard or the Polish state in general at the Venice Film Festival screening, and would repeatedly refuse to say how she had supposedly done so. When challenged about this on a later occasion, she insisted that she knew "every minute" of the film.[52][53] In a later Polskie Radio 24 interview, Michalska again claimed that the film was pure fiction and that it showed nothing from a Border Guard perspective. She also said that the filmmakers did not consult the Border Guard with regards to the film; while this may be true for the Border Guard proper, Holland claimed during the Venice Film Festival that she did have input from individual Border Guard officers who contacted her anonymously.[12]

According to Kino Świat, Green Border was seen by over 137,000 people during its opening weekend; this would be a record result for Polish films that premiered in their home country during 2023.[54][55][19]

In the weeks leading up to the film's release, pro-government and nationalist individuals organised a review bombing campaign on Filmweb; out of 78 ratings on the site as of 6 September 2023, the average score was just 2.0 out of a possible 10. This was in stark contrast to the film's approval rating of what was then 88% on Rotten Tomatoes as well as a review by Filmweb's own critic, Jakub Popielecki, who gave 8 out of 10. Comments and forum posts on Filmweb's page for the film acted as an extension of the campaign, with one of the more popular posts calling for a boycott of what the post's author deemed to be "anti-Polish trash"; many posts also directed strongly worded criticism or indeed invective at Holland and at the film's cast. As with the comments by public officials, the campaign was based mostly on promotional materials rather than the film itself.[56][57][58] As of 11 September, the film was rated by over 5,500 users and had an average score of 2.5 out of 10;[59] at a later point, this fell to 2.3 out of 10 based on the ratings of over 8,000 users.[57][35] Filmweb's deputy editor-in-chief Łukasz Muszyński said that the situation surrounding the ratings was "unprecdented" and that, while the site's users do occasionally leave ratings that are not based on a film's artistic merit, this phenomenon was being taken "to an extreme" with regards to Green Border. Muszyński said that Filmweb was monitoring the situation and that, in addition to general moderation of user comments, it had disabled comments on news about the film and on professional critics' reviews; in the latter case, he noted that the comments did not express an opinion so much as they consisted "purely of invective".[59][57] Muszyński said that user ratings were an integral part of Filmweb and similar websites and so the ability to rate the film would be left in place,[59] but the film's page was later modified to only display ratings based on professional critics' opinion of the film; these produced an initial average score of 7.6 out of 10,[57] with a later score standing at 7.8 out of 10.[35]

Some cinemas showing the film were subject to protests organised by those who supported the government or the political parties comprising it. There were also counter-protests organised by those who supported the film or were generally critical of how the Polish government was handling the border crisis.[19][60]

Green Border won or was nominated for the following awards:

The film was tipped by some to be Poland's entry for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film at the 96th Academy Awards, but the judging committee ultimately chose to nominate The Peasants (Polish: Chłopi) by four votes to Green Border 's two. Following the nomination process, Holland claimed to have been told by several committee members that, while her film would have been the better choice to be nominated, they feared that doing so would lead to government reprisals in the form of restricted or withheld funding for future film projects; she did, however, add that she was unsure whether her production would have had the means to launch an independent Academy Awards campaign. Ewa Puszczyńska, the head of the judging committee, insisted that the committee was independent, that its members voted purely in accordance with their conscience, and that the result of the nomination process had been arrived at after deep discussion.[36][55][66]