Women who demand freedom and religions that know how to prevent it are the two forces pulling against each other in GIRLS & GODS. The feminist activist Inna Shevchenko travels to various cities in search of points of view - from believers and non-believers,
from women who quietly reform their religion from within and those who raise their voices to challenge it and, most of all
from those who who have put everything on the line for their position. Dialogue instead of dogma is the fundamental tone of
this attempt to sharpen the focus on plurality as the only vector for social change.
We talked with Inna Shevchenko, Arash T. Riahi and Verena Soltiz
Inna, you were the starting point of the film project, GIRLS & GODS. You have always clearly identified yourself as "Girl
vs God” underlining your thesis that Religion and Feminism are incompatible. Would it be reading too much into this small
shift from "vs" to "&" to think it captures the fundamental idea behind this film?
INNA SHEVCHENKO: You’re reading the title exactly as it was meant. The initial idea is deeply rooted in my long-standing activisman activism
that has always defied power structures that push women back. I define myself as a rebellious, feminist atheist. But choosing
film as the medium came from a need to go beyond slogans, beyond easy answers. After years of facing the world with very defined
statements, I reached a point where I felt I couldn’t go further without asking deeper questions. This film, with all its
conversations, is not a reflection on my activismit is the evolution of it. That’s why it’s not Girls vs. God, but Girls
& Gods. The fundamental idea was to go in-depth, to explore the complex relationship between historic antagonistsfree women
and the God of organized religions. The film also reveals the thin line between devotion and defiance. Throughout this journey,
I discovered how small the step can be between dedicating oneself to something vast and unquestionableand beginning to challenge
it, sometimes while remaining within its structure. We called the film GIRLS & GODS because it was never meant to impose a
clear set of answers or beliefs. It embraces complexity, even contradictions. And that’s what makes real discussion possible.
From the beginning, we called GIRLS & GODS a debate-filmnot a film that provides answers, but one that forces us to ask the
right questions.
Verena and Arash, you are the two directors of GIRLS & GODS. How did you come together as a team of three? Which of you contributed
what input?
ARASH T. RIAHI: I was involved from the very beginning and encouraged Inna to explore it. Religion has always influenced my life from childhood
on. We had to flee from Iran due to an Islamic government, we lost several family members because they were not believers,
on the other hand there are my grand-parents who are believers and who’d never harm anybody. When I met them in Saudi Arabia
for my documentary Exile Family Movie in 2005 they said, “If we had real Islam you wouldn’t have had to flee.” Very often
I heared the expression “real Islam”. What does that mean? Everybody think to have the right of interpretation. If someone
like Inna, who had done so much radical protest and radical feminist actions reaches out a hand to meet progressive elements
inside those religions, I thought that’s what we need in our current situation. We have to look at the world, not only with
a utopian vision. We have to focus on what kind of fight is realistic. 95% of people are non-violent believers, they just
want to have their religion. We said, “Let’s make the women visible who try to change the systems from inside. I’ve been
knowing and working with Verena Soltiz for twenty years. We appreciate her freshness, her visual approach, her input to the
whole project. A femal-driven project needed to be balanced genderwise and it was obvious for us to ask Verena
VERENA SOLTIZ:
and we’re still friends after all the many debates we had. They were totally worth it. It was a very inspiring and intense
collaborative work.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: I must say, I always left the fighting to the directors (laughs). Artistic decisions were their prerogative. Even on an artistic
level, this was always a debate-film. As the writer of the documentary concept, my role wasn’t just about shaping the narrative
or structuring the film dramaturgicallyit was about full immersion. I had to step inside the debates, not just as an observer
but as a participant. To challenge, to provoke, to carry the questions I have always carriedand to confront the answers we
encountered along the way.The ending was the result of a truly collective process between the three of us. This film doesn’t
hand an easy victory to any sidebecause it was never about winning. We knew we were working with a controversial and sensitive
subject. I came in with my narrative, I stand by it, and I fight for itbut from the beginning, we committed to the premise
that no single narrative would dominate. That openness extended even into the editing processevery decision was part of the
debate. This film, from start to finish, was built as a conversation.
The presence of art constitutes one of the fundamental visual elements of this film: sculpture, caricature, photography, body
art, murals with feminist themes, literature, music
You use a very wide range of artistic forms. Why did you choose art as
a key vector in engaging with this topic?
INNA SHEVCHENKO: This was Verena’s contribution.
VERENA SOLTIZ: There is a lot of talking with very outspoken people in our film. One of our aims was to give a voice to persons who normally
don’t get one in movies. I thought that “visual opinions” expressed by works of art also matter, and sometimes touch the heart
even more. We wanted to give the stage to poets, musicians, graffiti artists etc. who contribute to the discussion in their
way, and we also searched for a balance. It was easier to find artists in opposition to religious dogmas, but we also find
some who are in favor. At every location we went for shooting we searched for art that contributed to the topic. Every piece
of art has its own little story.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: Turning to art felt naturalit’s deeply rooted in political activism. I come from a culture, where activism isn’t just about
words, but about performance, disruption, and symbolism. Those who challenge rigid systems of control must be inventivebecause
often, creativity is the only way to voice dissent when direct protest is silenced. Art offers space to say what needs to
be said, in ways that can’t be easily censored. Art stands in direct opposition to propaganda. Propaganda imposes certaintyart
provokes questions. It doesn’t dictate answers; it invites people to search for their own. That was central to this film.
And beyond that, it was about the artists themselves. While we spoke at conferences, we also met incredible artists who were
using their work as a form of resistance. Their presence in the film wasn’t just intentionalit was essential.
ARASH T. RIAHI: I stated a parallelism between the women who try to reform the religious institutions from inside and those who are openly
against it. I see the same parallelism in art. Religions always were in a dialog with art. You can find beautiful paintings
in churches etc., at the same time artists were the enemy of the church, of religion. Think of the members of Charlie Hebdo
who were killed for their artistic work. This shows the power of art, that’s why art had to be part of the film. We want to
raise awareness on so many little things carrying a message out there, when you walk through the streets.
Art works make it possible to compress contradictions within one single image. I’m thinking of the opening sequence, with
artistically designed vulvas in a church, implying a progressive and provocative dialog between the church and feminism, while
the fact that they are exhibited on metal rods also adds a violent aspect. What made you choose these images as the opening
of GIRLS & GODS?
VERENA SOLTIZ: It’s an installation by the Austrian artist Ina Loitzl. A large tongue is exhibited in the Klagenfurt Cathedral, under the
guidance of the open-minded priest Peter Allmaier. After the installation, hundreds of people launched an online petition
demanding its removal and claiming that the cathedral was being abused by the artwork. The priest rejected the request, as
he wanted to emphasize the importance of empowering women within the church. While the installation sparked an international
protest, the local community was very supportive. Many women, including elderly women, expressed their admiration and respect
for the priest, praising his courage in giving Ina Loitzl such a platform and standing firm against the criticism. Therefore
this installation is the great symbol for our film.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: If this opening picture evokes these contradictory feelings, it means that we have made the right choice for the entry scene.
I’d like to mention the eye in the center of the exhibition, meaning that we want to open our eyes and we hope that this film
is an eye-opener for many people.
The French cartoonist Coco is the artist most featured in the film. Can you talk about her role? Were there perhaps other
artists you really wanted to have in your film on top of those you discovered on location while shooting?
INNA SHEVCHENKO: Everywhere we went, intense research was done. Verena was hunting for art in local museums, searching for what was happening
at that very moment. But of course, some artists were essential to this discussion from the start. One of them is Coco. Her
presence in this film was not just importantit was necessary. Without her, GIRLS&GODS would be a different film. Coco’s story
is a statement in itself. A survivor of the Charlie Hebdo attack, she remained committed to her art, despite everything. And
like this film, she brings contradiction into a heavy debate. Her drawings can feel light, innocent, even playfulbut they
also carry profound weight. Those who can laugh, will laugh. But the message stays. For me, it was impossible to make this
film without Charlie Hebdojust as it was unthinkable to make it without ex-Muslims who left their faith as apostates. This
is a story rarely given enough attention. These are people who once deeply believed, but whose decision to leave their communitiesout
of conscienceoften costs them everything.
The second basic approach involves going inside religious communities and obtaining a wide range of views, often with members
who have critical or even rebellious voices. What was the idea governing your choice of protagonists?
INNA SHEVCHENKO: The guiding principle was to make contradictions visible. There is no single religious experiencethere is a vast spectrum
of beliefs, even within the same faith. We wanted to bring that plurality to the screen. Take the hijabone of the most controversial
topics in feminism today. We have two protagonists who wear it, yet their perspectives could not be more different. And that
is valuable. It forces us to step beyond simplistic narratives and see how diverse religious experiences really are. Our main
goal was to seek out plural voices and make them coexist within this film. Debates on hijab, on abortion, on anything related
to women’s autonomy are happening all the timebut only in closed circles, among those who already agree. This film breaks
that pattern. It brings opposing perspectives into the same space and forces them to meet.
VERENA SOLTIZ: I think that Inna is one of the bravest women I ever met. She stands for her own opinion; she is always respectful and she
dares to ask questions nobody dares to ask. The strength in this film is Inna herself. GIRLS & GODS encourages to question
the things you were told a long time ago and it includes very many surprising points of view with revolutionary answers that
might head us to a new future.
ARASH T. RIAHI: In our society we’re stuck with totally polarized views. One is for it or against it and there’s nothing in between. One of
the reasons why we ended up in this situation lies in the weakness of the left to address societal problems out of fear of
hurting political correctness. There’s too much fear of harming feelings only on one side. The manipulative mechanisms of
social media cause us to remain in our bubble. GIRLS & GODS is also an outbreak out of our own bubble to encounter the other
side, to discuss different topics with religious people, to enhance our own thinking and hopefully also their thinking.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: I think the most heated discussion in the film happened with a woman in a mosque. She didn’t move a step from her position
during the whole conversation. We absolutely disagreed, but I respect her for the fact that she fought for her vision. And
when the camera was off, she said to me, “You have good arguments.” There was a mutual recognition with many of the protagonists.
Each of us was a decent defender of their own narrative. None of the protagonists is weaker than the other. This film goes
further than these debates about religion itself, it raises the question: Are the biggest power structures of this world really
so immovable as we think? The film shows how many things within these very power structures are moving and how many people
want them to move. I hope that people will understand our potential of changing things in this moment of history in which
we think that big power and only guys wearing proper suits decide everything for us. We can see that not only people so radically
against power structures like me want change, but that people inside those power structures are doing a lot to move those
systems.
Formally speaking, the film is conceived as a journey through various cities in Europe and the US. Can you tell us about how
you developed the trajectory of GIRLS & GODS?
ARASH T. RIAHI: Some of our protagonists were already defined at a very early stage. Since it was a project over a long period of time, reality
changed, some personalities became more important, others became less available, so, of course, we had to deal with changing
and adapting our lists. We wanted to have people from three categories: people who are against religion, people who are fighting
those who are against religion and people who are changing it from inside. The complexity of the journey results from the
fact that normally there’s a hero that starts from a certain point and who is in the end of the film a different person. One
thing was clear: Inna would not become a believer by the end of the film. Dramaturgically speaking we had to transfer our
journey to a different level.
VERENA SOLTIZ: Still, I think Inna had her own journey. During the making of the film Inna became a mother which changed her completely.
During the edit I tried to carve out her journey, how she comes a little bit into peace with the world even though she remains
very strong in her opinions and never give up fighting. Beneath the structure of the film lies Inna’s personal journey.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: It’s an interesting point that everyone presume that I have to follow the very classical dramaturgy. The film is rooted in
a change that happened inside me: my will to go beyond slogans. One comes to terms that you can’t change the world with a
one-time act or a slogan. It requires non-stop, permanent collective action which only can happen together with those who
think differently but share similar needs. Needs of getting rid of control systems, of hierarchies that put women behind.
How many religious women who fully dedicated themselves according to the dogma are unhappy with the fact that they can’t celebrate
their God in the way they wish and feel it. Many of them say “I can’t fully enjoy my religion because of discrimination imposed
by the scripture”. Here’s a contact point and you start understanding each other even though you come from an absolutely opposite
point of view.
ARASH T. RIAHI: The film is a homage to the huge number of people who oppose the patriarchal, capitalistic representatives of religion, who
are very few but powerful having the dogmas behind them. They have the power and the money to use and exploit women. It’s
a modern form of slavery and nobody realizes it. This film is for reaching out to each other. As Inna puts it, “Even those
who hate me, I somehow think that one day they will be on our side.” There’s a core message that suggests, “Let’s not think
that we are so fundamentally different.”
Inna, you’re frequently on screen – sometimes in agreeing with your protagonists, sometimes listening, sometimes questioning
them, sometimes arguing with them. These scenes are complemented by visual memories of your dismantling the cross in Kyiv,
the terrorist attack in Copenhagen... Does the film also record what it means to be an activist?
INNA SHEVCHENKO: It was never about making another film about me. I’m fully inside this project, precisely because I wanted to step away from
telling my story, which is anyway always twisted by everyone. Here, I wanted to go fully into exchanging opinions and definitely
not tell for another time a story, even if from my own angle.
ARASH T. RIAHI: I observed a lot of things happening in the last years. So many people, especially from the media, had their own say about
Inna, about Femen. The story was always told in a way that served the interest of their media. It was very important for us
to avoid making a propaganda film for Inna, but on the other hand to let her the floor to tell something without anybody instrumentalizing
her. The goal was to make an honest film in which Inna breaks her roles and her image, she shows herself vulnerable, self-critical,
she shows the way she has changed in the course of time. It’s not a film about Femen either. It’s about some of the topics
they fought for, but millions of other women also do.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: I’m glad you see that the film also speaks to what it means to be an activist. Coco doesn’t say a word, but her presence
alonebeing part of Charlie Hebdosays everything about what it means to be a cartoonist who dares to tackle taboo subjects.
Nadya Tolokonnikova from Pussy Riot spent three years in a Russian prison and cannot return to her country. Agents from the
Islamic Republic attempted to assassinate Masih Alinejad on American soil. Maryam Namazie, an ex-Muslim, lives under constant
death threats. The Vatican refuses to recognize female priests as believers. Each protagonist carries a story of what it means
to challenge power. The film began as my initiative, but each of these women embodies the same truth: defiance has a cost.
The film closes with images that suggest a positive perspective, by showing that there are ways to free oneself, ways of living
one’s faith beyond the dogma. How important is this positive energy at the end of the film?
ARASH T. RIAHI: All my films have to end with hope even though hope is not everything. Hope without action won’t change anything. The idea
was to show how many great people are doing things so that there is reason to hope. None of our protagonists was sitting at
home being depressed. They were full of energy. We were for example able to capture so much energy while shooting at the pride
parades in London and Berlin.
One of the very last images shows people visiting a former sacral building that has been reclaimed by nature givings me the
impression that you are also suggesting a possible future “after religion”.
VERENA SOLTIZ: It’s an image of hope showing the beautiful architecture of traditional forms taken over by mother nature.
ARASH T RIAHI: I’d rather opt for the science fiction version. Nature and art go in a peaceful way together, but it’s about something that
maybe someday we won’t need any more. I’d like to recall the very last image showing the sky. There’s a possible interpretation
that once the institutions have rotten away, there’s a path between us and God, if he or she or whatever exists.
INNA SHEVCHENKO: Each of us sees something different in this image, it is meant this way. And I hope the same will be true for the audience.
Coco’s message to God‘Let’s just stay the way we are. I will be a blasphemer, and you will be the perfect subject for my
cartoons, since that’s all you can be for me’is one stance. But there are also women in this film who challenge power not
by rejecting it, but by taking over the space. The ending is intentionally plural. But if there is one message that unites
all these voices, it is this: oppression is outdated. And that is something we stand by, with our different attitudes towards
religions, without hesitation.
Interview: Karin Schiefer
March 2025
