The film of Kharkiv director Mstislav Chernov “20 Days in Mariupol” won the Oscar in the nomination Best Documentary Feature. We spoke with the author of the film in the first hours after the ceremony. Fragments of the audio version of the exclusive interview of Elena Guseynova with Mstislav Chernov listen on Radio Culture.
— In one of the interviews you said that you had to work with the team every day. That “20 Days in Mariupol” is a film that was not backed by global streaming platforms of the level of Netflix or a corporation with money. What does it mean for you to keep all this time “20 days in Mariupol” in the field of view?
“20 Days in Mariupol” is a joint project of the international news agency Associated Press, me as a Ukrainian director and PBS Frontline studio.
It is always more difficult for a public broadcaster to find a budget for a promotional campaign than for companies like Apple TV, Netflix or National Geographic. Therefore, films like “20 Days in Mariupol” have to make a little more effort to compete for the attention of the audience.
Our task was and remains the same — to constantly keep an eye on the film, its themes and events in Ukraine.
This film is the result of the titanic work of a large team: volunteers, Ukrainians abroad, foreigners who share this important topic, and team members who have traveled tirelessly and talked about it.
This is an extremely difficult job, because we are talking about terrible tragedies that must not be forgotten. But we know it's important, so we continue our work.
We must continue the information work. The world needs to know that the war in Ukraine is not only our problem, but also a threat to democracy and the security of all.
After the Oscars, we traveled to the states of the United States with a screening of the film. They met with Americans in New York, Washington, Montana, Oklahoma and Texas, where there is a very strong anti-Ukrainian lobby. They communicated with the audience and explained the political situation in Ukraine, telling about what is happening to Ukrainians since Mariupol was occupied.
This journey has given me a lot. I got a better understanding of the Americans, their views on Ukraine and the war. It turns out that many of the people who support us do not understand the context and global implications of this war.
Russian propaganda is dividing people, waging an information war against the United States and Europe, and many people still do not realize it.
— You are now at the most important point for strategic support of Ukraine — in the United States. What happens after the Oscar? What was the reaction of the American media after the ceremony?
— It is important to remember that the tone we have chosen when we talk about Ukraine and about the film is a tone of objectivity and humanity. The focus is not on politics, but on the lives of Ukrainians, on crimes committed by the Russian Federation. We never tried to convince anyone of anything. This is the power of the film, the power of perceiving the truth. And it actually works. Because modern society, especially in the United States, is very sensitive to trying to convince them of something. Political status actually interferes with cinema. Any judges or experts are very sensitive to politics and do not like this pressure, so I tried to draw attention to the humanitarian problems caused by the Russian Federation.
— The winner of “20 Days in Mariupol” was cut from the international TV version of “Oscar”. What was your reaction to this and is the Russian Oscar lobby possible?
— I still understand this topic: whether this category was present in TV versions in previous years. So I'm not ready to say right now whether we can do anything about it at all, whether it's a systemic problem, or a problem this year. I need time to find out exactly what happened. If Ukrainian society attracts the attention of foreign media to this, it will have an impact and perhaps even give more weight to my words. If we really see that there is a problem, then we will think about how to fix it.
— What does the invisible part of the ceremony look like and what does it mean for you?
“Oscars” is a truly grand event, striking in its scale and clear organization. It's like watching a blockbuster production shot by a big studio, where everything is planned to the smallest detail. We only see the show on the screen, but behind the scenes life is boiling, like a synchronous ballet. More than 1000 people — participants and spectators — are doing everything to make the ceremony go flawlessly.
It's a huge press presence. In a separate room, hundreds of journalists are constantly writing and watching the broadcast. Nominees and winners come here to talk to the press.
This year, many people asked about politics, about Trump, about the Pope, about whether the film could influence the decision of American politicians to help Ukraine. These are difficult questions, because I answer them as a director, documentary filmmaker and journalist, not as a politician. My duty is to adhere to the standards of journalism, to be as objective as possible, covering the opinion of Ukrainians, but at the same time to remain neutral. The international press clearly senses the line between propagandists and art directors, and that's right.
— What happened next at the ceremony itself, who did you manage to communicate with and who congratulated you?
“20 Days in Mariupol” was watched by almost all Oscar nominees: Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Greta Herwig, and Killian Murphy. This means that they have heard the voice of Ukrainians and will remember us.
The film tells about difficult events, but at the same time it is still an art. It was important for us to convey to the Hollywood industry that Ukraine is not just a war. It is a country with deep cultural roots, where talented artists live who have something to say to the world. I believe that we are appreciated, heard and seen.
— The film “20 Days in Mariupol” not only shows the tragedy of the city, but also explores how it affects people. You do not become observers, but share your emotions and experiences with the audience. This makes the film not just a documentary testimony, but also a deep emotional experience. How did you come to this?
— It cannot be said that the subjective view that exists in modern cinema is a trend, but it is appreciated. Even if we are talking about documentary and feature films. Look at the film that won the Oscar this year — Oppenheimer. This is not just a biopic, but a film that first of all shows the story through the subjective point of view of one person.
Now that we are flooded with news and create constant media noise — such stories are really appreciated. A personal view of events is appreciated, but subjectivity can also be fair. And this is what I, as a director, tried to achieve in “20 Days in Mariupol”. Yes, this is a subjective picture, my personal point of view, but not my story. The main character of the film is the city of Mariupol.
Even if we see something that I don't like, that I don't agree with
— we still see it. That is, we keep a personal perspective, but still tell honestly. This is what is valued in contemporary art: the ability and ability to focus on something and tell stories while maintaining focus.
How was it decided that this story would be told with your voice?
— The first idea was to use my diaries and someone else would read the text. In this way, the viewer would not know about my fate as an author. But, since I am an integral part of the story, and it is about journalism, it was decided that I would read the text myself.
Finding the right tone for the story was not easy. At first, the text was too emotional, because I sincerely empathize with the heroes of the film, many of whom have become close to me. Over time, we tried a more detached option, but it did not convey the depth of experience.
We wanted the film to be as truthful as possible, but also understood that it would not be enough just documentary to succeed. It should also be art, a real cinema with a clear structure, three acts, understandable themes and interesting characters.
It was not easy, but in my opinion, we managed to find a balance between realism and art. “20 Days in Mariupol” is not just a documentary about the tragedy, but also a deep emotional experience that will make the audience empathize with the heroes and reflect on the important.
— It is important for artists to find a balance between shock and trying to evoke sympathy from the viewer. How did you manage to cope with this burden?
“It's not a burden, I call it an artistic challenge. With the right balance, art remains in the heart of the viewer. But this is a fine line, along which you have to go skillfully. But if I did not have a beautiful editor, Michelle Mizner, if it were not for editors and chief producers, I would not have gone this way alone. All of them worked hard to maintain the correct tone of the film and leave in it exactly as many frames as needed to show the whole horror of the war, but at the same time not to lose the viewer, his empathy and attention.
— You mentioned Vladimir the policeman and a lot is being talked about in Ukraine now. They say that in the film people begin to recognize their acquaintances.
“Vladimir recently said to me, “Please tell Killian Murphy that I watched his film and I really liked his role and the way he played it.” And I said to him, “Vladimir, you know, Killian Murphy also watched your movie and he really liked you too. He sends you greetings!”
Unfortunately, a few months ago in Pokrovsk, Vladimir was seriously injured. He helped wounded civilians evacuate after Russian shelling, but a second rocket flew in and hit the same spot, killing several rescuers. Fragments entered Vladimir's lungs, and we were very afraid for his life, but now he is better.
— There is a feeling that the belief that showing the truth can change the situation is being lost. How to maintain this faith? After all, without it, living in our reality becomes very difficult.
“I doubt that the testimony can change anything, because I remember the first eight years of this war. Despite all the terrible events and footage that we shot, nothing has changed, everything has only become worse...
Yes, the world saw what happened in Mariupol. The world saw the tragedies that happened to Bakhmut, Maryinka, Avdiyivka. In the same way, when we talked to people from Mariupol, when they ran across the road under the bombs because they saw the inscription PRESS on our helmets, they said: “Please take down everything that is happening here. Show it to the world.” They probably did it because they wanted to be heard.
In my opinion, the desire to be heard and the knowledge that you are not ignored helps to survive. It seems to me that our mission, as journalists or documentarians, is not only to tell the world about tragedies, but also to give people hope that they will be heard.
Fewer and fewer people believe in the power of journalism, unfortunately. But we cannot stop, and I hope that “20 Days in Mariupol” will contribute to this hope.
— Oscar is a point after which you can relax, or a point of new work?
It's definitely three points. I have two more unfinished films and plan to finish them in Ukraine. I hope to finish one of them by the end of the summer.
I want to write a second novel. This will be both a novel and a script for a film about Mariupol.
Recall, after receiving the Oscar, the film “20 Days in Mariupol” was returned to national release. Read the full list of where and when you can watch the tape in Ukraine offline by link. Also, the project of Mstislav Chernov is publicly available on the American YouTube link. On Ukrainian streaming platforms from March 21, the film will be available at Takflix. But you can buy viewing on platforms such as: Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play Movies, Vudu, Microsoft.
The material was worked on:
Author of the text: Marusya Maruzhenko
Bildeditor: Olga Kovalyova
Literary Editor: Julia Futei
Site Manager: Vladislav Kuhar
The film of Kharkiv director Mstislav Chernov “20 Days in Mariupol” won the Oscar in the nomination Best Documentary Feature. We spoke with the author of the film in the first hours after the ceremony. Fragments of the audio version of the exclusive interview of Elena Guseynova with Mstislav Chernov listen on Radio Culture.
— In one of the interviews you said that you had to work with the team every day. That “20 Days in Mariupol” is a film that was not backed by global streaming platforms of the level of Netflix or a corporation with money. What does it mean for you to keep all this time “20 days in Mariupol” in the field of view?
“20 Days in Mariupol” is a joint project of the international news agency Associated Press, me as a Ukrainian director and PBS Frontline studio.
It is always more difficult for a public broadcaster to find a budget for a promotional campaign than for companies like Apple TV, Netflix or National Geographic. Therefore, films like “20 Days in Mariupol” have to make a little more effort to compete for the attention of the audience.
Our task was and remains the same — to constantly keep an eye on the film, its themes and events in Ukraine.
This film is the result of the titanic work of a large team: volunteers, Ukrainians abroad, foreigners who share this important topic, and team members who have traveled tirelessly and talked about it.
This is an extremely difficult job, because we are talking about terrible tragedies that must not be forgotten. But we know it's important, so we continue our work.
We must continue the information work. The world needs to know that the war in Ukraine is not only our problem, but also a threat to democracy and the security of all.
After the Oscars, we traveled to the states of the United States with a screening of the film. They met with Americans in New York, Washington, Montana, Oklahoma and Texas, where there is a very strong anti-Ukrainian lobby. They communicated with the audience and explained the political situation in Ukraine, telling about what is happening to Ukrainians since Mariupol was occupied.
This journey has given me a lot. I got a better understanding of the Americans, their views on Ukraine and the war. It turns out that many of the people who support us do not understand the context and global implications of this war.
Russian propaganda is dividing people, waging an information war against the United States and Europe, and many people still do not realize it.
— You are now at the most important point for strategic support of Ukraine — in the United States. What happens after the Oscar? What was the reaction of the American media after the ceremony?
— It is important to remember that the tone we have chosen when we talk about Ukraine and about the film is a tone of objectivity and humanity. The focus is not on politics, but on the lives of Ukrainians, on crimes committed by the Russian Federation. We never tried to convince anyone of anything. This is the power of the film, the power of perceiving the truth. And it actually works. Because modern society, especially in the United States, is very sensitive to trying to convince them of something. Political status actually interferes with cinema. Any judges or experts are very sensitive to politics and do not like this pressure, so I tried to draw attention to the humanitarian problems caused by the Russian Federation.
— The winner of “20 Days in Mariupol” was cut from the international TV version of “Oscar”. What was your reaction to this and is the Russian Oscar lobby possible?
— I still understand this topic: whether this category was present in TV versions in previous years. So I'm not ready to say right now whether we can do anything about it at all, whether it's a systemic problem, or a problem this year. I need time to find out exactly what happened. If Ukrainian society attracts the attention of foreign media to this, it will have an impact and perhaps even give more weight to my words. If we really see that there is a problem, then we will think about how to fix it.
— What does the invisible part of the ceremony look like and what does it mean for you?
“Oscars” is a truly grand event, striking in its scale and clear organization. It's like watching a blockbuster production shot by a big studio, where everything is planned to the smallest detail. We only see the show on the screen, but behind the scenes life is boiling, like a synchronous ballet. More than 1000 people — participants and spectators — are doing everything to make the ceremony go flawlessly.
It's a huge press presence. In a separate room, hundreds of journalists are constantly writing and watching the broadcast. Nominees and winners come here to talk to the press.
This year, many people asked about politics, about Trump, about the Pope, about whether the film could influence the decision of American politicians to help Ukraine. These are difficult questions, because I answer them as a director, documentary filmmaker and journalist, not as a politician. My duty is to adhere to the standards of journalism, to be as objective as possible, covering the opinion of Ukrainians, but at the same time to remain neutral. The international press clearly senses the line between propagandists and art directors, and that's right.
— What happened next at the ceremony itself, who did you manage to communicate with and who congratulated you?
“20 Days in Mariupol” was watched by almost all Oscar nominees: Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Greta Herwig, and Killian Murphy. This means that they have heard the voice of Ukrainians and will remember us.
The film tells about difficult events, but at the same time it is still an art. It was important for us to convey to the Hollywood industry that Ukraine is not just a war. It is a country with deep cultural roots, where talented artists live who have something to say to the world. I believe that we are appreciated, heard and seen.
— The film “20 Days in Mariupol” not only shows the tragedy of the city, but also explores how it affects people. You do not become observers, but share your emotions and experiences with the audience. This makes the film not just a documentary testimony, but also a deep emotional experience. How did you come to this?
— It cannot be said that the subjective view that exists in modern cinema is a trend, but it is appreciated. Even if we are talking about documentary and feature films. Look at the film that won the Oscar this year — Oppenheimer. This is not just a biopic, but a film that first of all shows the story through the subjective point of view of one person.
Now that we are flooded with news and create constant media noise — such stories are really appreciated. A personal view of events is appreciated, but subjectivity can also be fair. And this is what I, as a director, tried to achieve in “20 Days in Mariupol”. Yes, this is a subjective picture, my personal point of view, but not my story. The main character of the film is the city of Mariupol.
Even if we see something that I don't like, that I don't agree with
— we still see it. That is, we keep a personal perspective, but still tell honestly. This is what is valued in contemporary art: the ability and ability to focus on something and tell stories while maintaining focus.
How was it decided that this story would be told with your voice?
— The first idea was to use my diaries and someone else would read the text. In this way, the viewer would not know about my fate as an author. But, since I am an integral part of the story, and it is about journalism, it was decided that I would read the text myself.
Finding the right tone for the story was not easy. At first, the text was too emotional, because I sincerely empathize with the heroes of the film, many of whom have become close to me. Over time, we tried a more detached option, but it did not convey the depth of experience.
We wanted the film to be as truthful as possible, but also understood that it would not be enough just documentary to succeed. It should also be art, a real cinema with a clear structure, three acts, understandable themes and interesting characters.
It was not easy, but in my opinion, we managed to find a balance between realism and art. “20 Days in Mariupol” is not just a documentary about the tragedy, but also a deep emotional experience that will make the audience empathize with the heroes and reflect on the important.
— It is important for artists to find a balance between shock and trying to evoke sympathy from the viewer. How did you manage to cope with this burden?
“It's not a burden, I call it an artistic challenge. With the right balance, art remains in the heart of the viewer. But this is a fine line, along which you have to go skillfully. But if I did not have a beautiful editor, Michelle Mizner, if it were not for editors and chief producers, I would not have gone this way alone. All of them worked hard to maintain the correct tone of the film and leave in it exactly as many frames as needed to show the whole horror of the war, but at the same time not to lose the viewer, his empathy and attention.
— You mentioned Vladimir the policeman and a lot is being talked about in Ukraine now. They say that in the film people begin to recognize their acquaintances.
“Vladimir recently said to me, “Please tell Killian Murphy that I watched his film and I really liked his role and the way he played it.” And I said to him, “Vladimir, you know, Killian Murphy also watched your movie and he really liked you too. He sends you greetings!”
Unfortunately, a few months ago in Pokrovsk, Vladimir was seriously injured. He helped wounded civilians evacuate after Russian shelling, but a second rocket flew in and hit the same spot, killing several rescuers. Fragments entered Vladimir's lungs, and we were very afraid for his life, but now he is better.
— There is a feeling that the belief that showing the truth can change the situation is being lost. How to maintain this faith? After all, without it, living in our reality becomes very difficult.
“I doubt that the testimony can change anything, because I remember the first eight years of this war. Despite all the terrible events and footage that we shot, nothing has changed, everything has only become worse...
Yes, the world saw what happened in Mariupol. The world saw the tragedies that happened to Bakhmut, Maryinka, Avdiyivka. In the same way, when we talked to people from Mariupol, when they ran across the road under the bombs because they saw the inscription PRESS on our helmets, they said: “Please take down everything that is happening here. Show it to the world.” They probably did it because they wanted to be heard.
In my opinion, the desire to be heard and the knowledge that you are not ignored helps to survive. It seems to me that our mission, as journalists or documentarians, is not only to tell the world about tragedies, but also to give people hope that they will be heard.
Fewer and fewer people believe in the power of journalism, unfortunately. But we cannot stop, and I hope that “20 Days in Mariupol” will contribute to this hope.
— Oscar is a point after which you can relax, or a point of new work?
It's definitely three points. I have two more unfinished films and plan to finish them in Ukraine. I hope to finish one of them by the end of the summer.
I want to write a second novel. This will be both a novel and a script for a film about Mariupol.
Recall, after receiving the Oscar, the film “20 Days in Mariupol” was returned to national release. Read the full list of where and when you can watch the tape in Ukraine offline by link. Also, the project of Mstislav Chernov is publicly available on the American YouTube link. On Ukrainian streaming platforms from March 21, the film will be available at Takflix. But you can buy viewing on platforms such as: Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play Movies, Vudu, Microsoft.
The material was worked on:
Author of the text: Marusya Maruzhenko
Bildeditor: Olga Kovalyova
Literary Editor: Julia Futei
Site Manager: Vladislav Kuhar
UAPP is an independent association of professional Ukrainian photographers, designed to protect their interests, support, develop and promote Ukrainian photography as an important element of national culture.
UAPP's activities span educational, social, research and cultural initiatives, as well as book publishing.
UAPP represents Ukrainian professional photography in the international photographic community and is an official member of the Federation of European Photographers (FEP) — an international organization representing more than 50,000 professional photographers in Europe and other countries around the world.
