20 DE ALLEBAL DE DEVER;
Directed by MSTYSLAV Chernov, 2023; Dogwoof, PBS and others.
International relations students will find this film-film representation of the conflict in Ukraine as precious source equipment. He illuminates the work of 21st The armed conflicts of the century and the challenges of the collection of evidence during the war in its own right. The sources that have been examined medico-legal and subject to an analysis largely anxious by international filmmakers are rare. This one succeeded in the test. He was widely acclaimed for his reports based on evidence, his circumspection in the comments and the attention to the step -by -step verification. For those who wish to know more about how the authenticity of the film is assessed, there are excellent existing studies such as Digital Witness, Oxford University Press’s open-source information for the survey, documentation and human rights responsibility.
The writer-director Mstyslav Chernov is a Ukrainian filmmaker, war correspondent and photojournalist, known for his projects, Dignity Revolution,, War in Donbas,, The drop in flight MH17And on the Syrian civil war, the Battle of Mosul in Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. For his work on the Mariupol seatHe received the Pulitzer Prize for the Public Service, Deutsche Welle Freedom of Speech Award, Knight International Journalism Awards, Bayeux Calvados-Normandy Award, Free Media Awards, CJFE International Press Freedom Award, Royal Television Society Television Journalism Awards, among others.
Chernov is a journalist of the Associated Press and president of the Ukrainian Association of Professional Photographers (UAPF). He has been a member of the “Ukrainian pen” since July 2022. In this project, in the space of twenty days (which, in their intensity, resemble twenty years), the resistance of extremely more numerous and sick Ukrainian fighters is very portrayed. It offers a beautifully composed filmography of some of the most brutal European war stages ever placed in public broadcasting.
While the vast majority of images represent the defense of Mariupol by Ukrainian reservists and volunteers; The filmmakers, manage (through images of drones) to give an idea of experienced suffering on the Russian side. This contributes to giving this film a much more objective tone than we could expect from a film film based on the film report of the crew of Ukrainian war lines.
The film begins with a frank and honest summary of recent events in the region which is neither openly passionate nor less than the objective of fate that reached Ukraine in this David against Goliath -type meeting with the power of the Federation of Russia. He tells the facts, and there is not much that anyone from the Kremlin Ministry of Information can rightly do so to challenge the way Mstyslav Chernov explains things as close to objectivity that you could hope to receive as a student of IR.
Inevitably, the vast sequences of films itself (ranging from the plans of the war in its own right, from the Russian actions breaking specific prescriptions of the UN on the use of the order and the generic protection of international humanitarian law) defy Any definition of equity in conflicts. In short, it is the evidence, not the narrator, which is implicitly emotional. There are interviews with participants, soldiers and first aiders and although they are inevitably only on the Ukrainian side, again, the film is so well published that we would have no reason for doubt his honesty.
There is an abundant descriptive photomontage and a filmography of existing and well -approved sources which have gone through the verification of the BBC and other accreditation of the film well considered. There are images of drones from the two angles of the battle lines. When the fighters are questioned, while they are exclusively on the Ukrainian side, most of them are volunteers rather than professional soldiers.
The information provided is provided almost without personal emotion and is often formulated in words which are very articulated, because many armed volunteers are academic professionals. We see accounts of doctors and lawyers, serving as Ukrainian soldiers. Their testimony is invariably supported by specific evidence for incidents and examples of carefully organized experience. There is surprisingly little invective on the other side.
The main deficit in this film is the inevitable – the cinematographic elephant in the room of a war report – that 20 days in Mariupol depict events mainly from the interior of a large industrial complex. Ukrainian fighters have siege by surrounding the Russian forces. We cannot see the close sufferings of the Russian lines. No interview discusses the possible atrocities committed by Ukrainian fighters. We see images of fighting drones on the Russian side, but it is mainly the filmography gathered for military recognition. It lacks potential for those who could wish to assess the human impact of this war on Russian recruits. For this reason, if for no other plausible, such a filmography is still in danger of being considered as unilateral. Fortunately, this danger is (largely) avoided by the skillful narration and the meticulous improvision of Chernov and his team, and by the beautiful cinematography which he shares with Evgeniy Maloletka.
While the bitter war of Ukraine (Putin continues to qualify as “special military functioning”), there have been complaints of cinematographic propaganda and manufacturing on all sides. Single revision services such as BBC Verify have endeavored to maintain these cinemobrian evidence to account. 20 days in Mariupol were congratulated by many credible sources such as a carefully sought -after event of events. This Ukrainian documentary had his world premiere at the Film Film Sundance 2023 where he took the Documentary Competition for World Cinema. He won a BAFTA prize, Columbia University Award, Directors Guild of America Award and was tried one of the five best documentary films of 2023 by the National Board of Review.
Chernov and his team arrived in Mariupol besieged after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine. Chernov has increased its evidence with images compiled with Frontline and the Associated Press (AP). Guardian journalist Peter Bradshaw noted in a very powerful criticism, that “this burning film testifies to a brutal seat”. Dennis Harvey of CanWritten there that “it is a dark but essential vision … The director’s unpretentious narration and the intensity of the evidence of the war compiled nevertheless make him river.”
This criticism examined the film mainly of its potential usefulness to IR students. On a premonitory subject and which literally makes the headlines, 20 days in Mariupol offers a refreshing and balanced report of a tragedy which must surely support bitterness and trauma on all sides. He cannot really hope to transmit the suffering of the Russian conscripts and, in his nature, he does not live on the possible atrocities perpetrated on the Ukrainian side.
With this separate warning, the filmography is so varied that one could never consider it as selective. One concludes that it is really twenty days in Mariupol, as the experience of combatants and humanitarian volunteers shows behind the Ukrainian lines. This is counterbalanced with images of suffering among the Russian campaign, and captured by images of drones and generated for military intelligence purposes.
Nevertheless, this juxtaposition of the war experience means that the film never becomes an exclusive account of the fight against Ukrainian freedom or their painful losses. The pains on both sides are exposed to a professional filming analysis, and there is a horrible fullness of content which is graphic, and sometimes so brutal, that it would be better excluded from young viewers. Otherwise, this film is an excellent cinematographic tool for instructors and students in the IR field and explains a large part of the written speech may not put succinctly. The famous quote “an image tells a thousand words”, that is to say that seeing something is better for learning than describing it, comes from Henrik Ibsen. His original words were “a thousand words do not leave the same deep impression as that of a single act”. 20 DE ALLEBAL DE DEVER; is additional proof of the solidity of this old truism.
Read more in -depth on international relations
