Český žurnál

I do not deny the entertainment value of the film; in fact, it even has a spicy taste for me. I knew Mrs. Volfová from the time she led the Social Democratic Women when she used different vocabulary and stood for different values. A closer look suggests many unflattering things about the inability to communicate and maintain cohesion on the radically right-wing side of the political scene. However, this is only a secondary and probably unintended effect. Zuzana Piussi could perhaps be praised for how she managed to make both interviewed groups open up, but let's be honest, she didn't have to try very hard. They were eager to show off their arsenal of ideas. The film lacks scale and any deeper analytical perspective on the issue. Yes, activists are often naive idealists, but their influence and numbers are negligible; on the other hand, the views of the second group have become mainstream in the Czech Republic, with far-reaching influence on the political scene and real decisions and functioning of public administration. In a country with a tiny, at most 20,000-member Muslim minority, living dispersedly, highly educated, and well-integrated, in a country with a long-standing conservative, very cautious asylum policy and refugee camps empty, it is rather interesting how incredibly quickly hysteria has escalated and influenced the social climate and the media. A documentary on this topic would be much more useful, because the more we chase after phantoms, the less energy we will have left to solve real problems. Overall impression: 55%. (28.09.2017)

A documentary about the fact that we largely live in closed bubbles, and at the same time, an exemplary demonstration of the thinking of urban liberals who use the word "gender" in every other sentence and are soaked in feminism. However, they are completely unaware of how bizarre they appear in the eyes of those who hold different values. The problem of the documentary does not lie in what it relies on, but in how it is communicated. It convinces the convinced and reinforces the others in their rejecting attitudes. It is clumsy and very poorly presented. Overall impression: 25%. (21.02.2018)

I appreciate Saša Uhlová's project, and therefore I am even more disappointed that I have to express my disappointment with how the documentary turned out. I considered the idea of a series of investigative visits to companies relying on low-skilled workers to be necessary and impactful. I read the original texts with enthusiasm, and the reactions to them allow for a better definition of the dividing line of political opinions across society than anything else. Unfortunately, Apolena Rychlíková's film adds practically nothing to them - on the contrary, it dilutes them. The technical quality of the hidden camera footage is desperate, and the content of the documentary is ambivalent. Instead of analyzing her own feelings, Saša should have focused on the stories of those for whom the environment that traumatized Saša is a long-term fate, not a short excursion. Overall impression: 50% out of respect for Saša. (21.01.2020)

I would not blame the film for being straightforward agitprop, but rather for being incredibly unpleasant and annoying and evoking the opposite emotions than those it should strive for. It is the case when instead of thinking about how you can contribute to nature conservation, you consider it a good idea to participate in destruction and preferably eliminate one or two animal species. Overall impression: 10%. (18.11.2020)