‘The Helsinki Effect’ review: Timely doc revisits pivotal East/West summit

Dir/scr: Arthur Franck. Finland/Germany/Norway. 2025. 88mins

In the summer of 1975, with the icy fingers of the Cold War still exerting a tight grip on global politics, the leaders of eight socialist and 27 capitalist countries met in Helsinki for the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). After lengthy diplomatic negotiations, the Helskinki Final Act – intended to bridge the gap between East and West – was signed. It was a pivotal moment in history: a paradigm shift was set in motion that not even the geopolitical heavy-hitter attendees could have anticipated. It was also, acknowledges Finnish writer/director Arthur Franck, “very, very boring.” Casting an irreverent but politically astute eye over archival footage and newly declassified transcripts of high-level conversations, this lively essay turns the slowly grinding machine of diplomacy into a pacey, compelling ride.

 Lively essay

Franck, whose previous feature documentaries include The Hypnotist (2019), which also screened at CPH:DOX, is correct in his assessment that the CSCE is potentially a stuffy subject. But in addition to his deft and playful handling of the material, there’s another element that works in the film’s favour: the fact that at this particularly choppy moment in history, The Helsinki Effect, with its insights into the behind the scenes machinations and manoeuvring, could hardly be more timely.

The use of AI technology to recreate the speaking voices of Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger may prove to be a stumbling block for some audiences. But the film’s light-footed dance through its heavyweight themes should make it a title of interest at further festivals and for specialist documentary distributors.

Franck’s fresh and informal approach to the material involves incorporating himself as a character in the film from the outset. Footage of the pivotal document signing sets the scene – a huge, crescent-shaped table in Finlandia Hall decorated (bizarrely) with what looks like overgrown astroturf; the bristling telephoto lenses of the world’s press; a percussive, ticking-clock score. But just as Brezhnev is about to put pen to paper, Franck freezes the image and tells us, in a chatty, conversational voiceover, that, “This man is about to make a huge mistake.”

Franck goes on to confess that, although the conference took place in his home city, he knew very little about it until recently. “I thought making this film was going to be easy,” he confides. After all, the geopolitical stars of the era arrived in Helsinki together to end the Cold War, and there was a vast amount of footage to choose from. The issue, he soon realises, is that negotiations were stultifying and largely impenetrable, even to the people who were directly participating in them. “This seems important,” he says. “But how can I make it interesting?”

To this end, Franck deploys every tool available to him as an archival documentarian. The film is punctuated with illustrative vintage footage of European absurdity – people in ridiculous costumes and silly hats abound. There are numerous shots of CSCE delegates nodding off during the endless speeches. He’s more interested in the moments before television broadcasts, with crooked backdrops and botched lines, than he is in the final polished products.

Franck’s breezy narration makes the dense negotiations refreshingly accessible: the non-binding nature of the final document, for example, makes it into a “glorified pinky-swear”. And then there is the creation of AI voices for Kissinger and Brezhnev, a device that permits Franck to stage phone conversations with each man to ask questions about the conference and the Cold War (their answers are taken from the men’s own words, drawn from transcripts, statements and books).

The parallels with the current political climate are not overtly stressed but they are unavoidable, something which makes the picture uneasy viewing at times. Franck leaves us with a persuasive final thought: that however tedious and interminable the process of diplomacy might be, it will always be preferable to the alternative.