M
The eyewitness documentary “20 Days in Mariupol” by Styslav Chernov depicts the brutal siege of the Ukrainian port city by Vladimir Putin from February to May 2022, resulting in over 20,000 fatalities. It is essentially the director’s uncut version, featuring the original video reports by Associated Press journalist Chernov for western news outlets. These reports were already difficult to watch, but Chernov’s footage of mass graves had a significant impact in rallying western support and silencing dissenting voices that questioned the decision to support Zelenskiy and the role of Nato in provoking the Russians.
The content is deeply disturbing: this movie serves as a harrowing depiction of hell on earth. The director, Chernov, unflinchingly portrays the shattered bodies of men, women, and children, and also captures the heart-wrenching scenes of loved ones crying over their lost ones. The emotional pain is almost too much to bear, displayed in a raw and explicit manner. Chernov and his photographer, Evgeniy Maloletka, become part of the story as their presence elicits reactions from their subjects. Some angrily demand for them to leave, but others, with a sense of despairing anger, urge them to stay and document the horror they are experiencing. At one point, Ukrainian troops rescue Chernov and Maloletka from a hospital under sniper fire. Their capture by Russian forces would have been a propaganda victory for Putin.
However, perhaps even this is not the lowest point that Chernov explores. The bleakest moments occur when the film depicts Ukrainian civilians, in dire circumstances, resorting to looting from shops. The owners of these small businesses are unable to stop them – although Chernov and his camera manage to persuade some looters to return some of their stolen goods with shame. Some are looting out of necessity for food, while others are simply taking advantage. The war has stripped away their humanity. This complex portrayal is something that the nightly news fails to capture.
As we approach the end of the year, 20 Days in Mariupol is now situated in a changed geopolitical landscape. The rebellion against Vladimir Putin by Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group – the very type of internal uprising that the western world had hoped for – has been unsuccessful and Prigozhin has died in a mysterious plane accident. Therefore, any sense of poetic justice in the potential defeat portrayed in this film has been eliminated. Additionally, the tragic events of October 7th, in which Hamas initiated an attack on Israeli civilians resulting in Israel’s harsh and ongoing retaliation, have occurred. Putin has also seen this as a means to further weaken the west’s focus and resources.
It is clear that there is a valid argument that the West shows more support for Ukrainians than Palestinians. However, even this balance is distorted, possibly replaced by the uncomfortable balance of “the enemy of my enemy”: Hamas has aligned with Russia, a country at odds with America, in regards to the Ukrainian invasion and received financial assistance from a Moscow-based cryptocurrency exchange prior to the attacks.
The reception of 20 Days In Mariupol has been impacted by these issues as the year comes to a close. However, they do not diminish its strength and significance.
Source: theguardian.com
