20 Days in Mariupol
A brave documentary that raises familiar questions about war journalism
ABOVE: Director Mystyslav Chernov in Mariuopol on Feb 24, 2022. (AP Photo by Evgeniy Maloletka)
20 Days in Mariupol is a terrifying journey through the beginning of the brutal war in Ukraine. More than 400,000 people resided in this port city on the Sea of Azov before the war began. At the start of the Russian invasion of Mariupol in February 2022, the director Mstyslav Chernov and his colleagues from the Associated Press, photographer Evgeniy Maloletka and field producer Vasilisa Stepanenko, were in Mariupol for twenty days until they were able to escape the city with their footage. Other international journalists evacuated much earlier, but Chernov’s team stayed longer and became one of the main sources of news from Mariupol.
Because they were some of the few remaining journalists, many of the faces in the documentary you might recognize from news clips and photos that appeared in February and March 2022. In the documentary we learn more about the individuals shown and get to see how these images and videos were obtained. Evgeniy Maloteka was often photographing events as Chernov filmed them. Chernov is frequently running while recording in order to capture rapidly changing events or to escape danger. Point of view shooting and his narration make this an intimate account of a conflict that is often portrayed as distant and foreign to international audiences.
This shocking and powerful documentary is difficult to watch, but necessary to try to understand the situation for civilians in Ukraine. It is hard not to be brought to tears by the devastation and suffering of innocent civilians and children. But the documentary also contains heroic doctors, nurses, and ordinary people doing all they can to help others. There are brief moments of joy and beauty throughout a chaotic and violent backdrop. It can feel wrong to watch people at the worst moments of their lives, but some participants state directly to the camera that they want their suffering to be seen by the world, so that it will not be meaningless, and so that something can be done.
After we have witnessed the events onscreen, what is our responsibility as the audience? What kind of action are we supposed to take after seeing such immense suffering? How can we continue to view these upsetting images of war without becoming indifferent? These questions are discussed at length in Susan Sontag’s 2003 book-length essay Regarding the Pain of Others. The book examines the history of war photography and the ethics around recording and viewing images of suffering. Although writing about photography, her ideas about the impact of war journalism are relevant to 20 Days in Mariupol.
One of her main critiques is of the fast and casual way in which images of suffering are dispersed in the news. She questions whether the frequent display of violent images will numb the public and can cause them to lose sympathy over time.[1] Another concern is that a photograph often lacks important context – as to how it was obtained, what happened to the participant afterwards, and the larger history behind a conflict.[2]
In some ways Chernov’s documentary is what Sontag would see as an ideal example of an examination of war. It is an in-depth look at the impact on one city, and the documentarian is honest about his highly subjective viewpoint as a Ukrainian citizen. Chernov also makes an effort to follow up with some of the subjects after his initial encounters with them during bombardments. The most notable example is when he tries to find some of the pregnant women he recorded as they evacuated a bombed hospital. When we discover the different fates of a few of the women, it is heart-wrenching to find out who survived and who did not. This is the kind of extended narrative that we often don’t get from a brief news story.
It is important to examine the difference between viewing a 94-minute documentary versus scrolling rapidly through the same images online. Sontag’s book was first published in 2003 before the explosion of social media, but her warnings are still relevant. She specifically warns that images of atrocities will be accused of being fake because of the ability to manipulate and stage photos.[3] These types of accusations are likely to increase with the expansion of AI’s ability to create and manipulate videos and photos. An important part of Chernov’s documentary is showing how Putin’s regime reacts to news stories about Ukrainian civilians under attack. They try to discredit them as being staged. In one segment Russian propaganda outlets accuse some of the maternity ward victims of being hired actors. Often this type of disinformation spreads rapidly on social media, where it is difficult for the average person to discern real and fake information without careful investigation.
Citizens’ voices matter and should be empowered to tell their own stories, but viewers cannot rely on these individuals’ posts alone to gain a detailed and full picture of current events. It is irresponsible of the increasing number of people who rely on social media alone for news. Users may argue they are not being subjected to the bias of a traditional news organizations or media outlets. But instead they are subjected to the bias of a mostly unregulated algorithm whose sole aim is to profit from their attention. Algorithms promote the most extreme views. These social media platforms often lack the careful fact checking and research that is mandated by trusted news organizations.
Increasingly we are being warned of shortened attention spans and that it is necessary to be brief to gain support for the issues we care about. Will people have the patience to watch a 94 minute documentary? This may sound absurd to someone taking the time to read this article, but it is a real challenge to reach people who are not already highly informed on an issue. Sontag mentions the context in which an image is displayed is important. “Space reserved for being serious is hard to come by in a modern society, whose chief model of a public space is the mega-store,” says Sontag. One example she uses is a magazine that has Robert Capa’s photo of a soldier being shot that is right next to an ad for men’s hair cream.[4] How does it impact you as a human being if you look briefly at the photo of a wounded child and then seconds later scroll down and laugh at a funny ad?
At the beginning of the war in Ukraine images of the war were widespread across social media – including some that are featured in 20 Days in Mariupol. The documentary makes clear the direct impact these images had in gaining support for Ukraine. But two years later, the conflict is much less visible. Only recently has it been regaining attention because of Ukraine’s military setbacks and the potentially devastating loss of U.S. military aid. 20 Days in Mariupol is an unforgettable and important film that I hope will help reinvigorate support for Ukraine. We are not powerless spectators. Those of us living in a democracy can put pressure on our leaders to take action.
20 Days in Mariupol is available to stream online for free in the US at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/20-days-in-mariupol/
[1] Susan Sontag, Regarding the Pain of Others (New York: Picador, Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2004), 82.
[2] Sontag, 89, 104.
[3] Sontag, 11, 53-55, 58.
[4] Sontag, 119-120.