"This is a memorial to those who did not survive in Mariupol." An interview with Mstyslav Chernov

On August 31, the documentary film 20 Days in Mariupol by Mstyslav Chernov will be released in Ukraine.

After the start of the full-scale Russian invasion, journalist and photographer Mstyslav Chernov, together with photographer Yevhen Malolietka and producer Vasylisa Stepanenko, were the only international journalists working in Russian-sieged Mariupol. Chernov brought the footage from there.

The film was first screened at the Sundance Film Festival in the US, where it won Audience Award in World Cinema Documentary category.

The Ukrainian premiere took place at the Docudays UA festival, where 20 Days in Mariupol won the best film in the National Competition and the Audience Award.

Read about the stay in Mariupol, the evacuation, the filmmaking, the reflection on what he saw, and the reaction of foreigners to the film in this article.

— I feel that we need to work even harder. We left [Mariupol] on March 14, and the next day, we heard about the bombing of the Mariupol Drama Theatre. I thought a lot about the fact that maybe we should have left later.

The film has been released in many countries. I see how the audience perceives it and realise we need to do more. During the information war, context is one of the most important components of the correct interpretation of the information we receive. Documentaries, large projects, investigations, films, and books help with this.

We are continuing to work with the individuals featured in the film. We conduct interviews with them and involve them in the investigation of Russian crimes. This is not something you do and forget because the story of Mariupol is not over, the work continues.

— There is a lot of footage that I couldn't send because there was no connection. This is at least 30 hours of video. There were moments that no one saw because people were in Russian captivity, and we could not publish them.

I was a little worried when the people of Mariupol saw the film. I was afraid that it would traumatise them and they would relive these events. However, these people did not just see and re-experience a small part of what happened to them. They now know that the whole world has seen it.

The film is made in such a way that even a viewer who is far from Ukraine will find themselves in the middle of the events described: we take them to the tragic events, and they cannot leave. The viewer will experience it together with the people of Mariupol.

Instead, Ukrainians see that this will not be forgotten. It was important for me that it became a reminder of what happened.

— We saw a lot more death, suffering, and destruction, but it didn't make it into the film. You have to keep a balance here. Not to make the perception of the war easier, but not to drive foreigners away.

I wanted to show everyone who lost their families and homes. It was impossible. Some moments were just so terrible that they would have pushed the viewer away.

— When people are far away from the war and don't see something on the news, they think it's not happening. It was important for me to make something to remind people of the war. Especially for those who don't read the news. A film is a different format and a different audience.  

One of the important themes of the film is the information war and how information spreads in waves around the world, how it affects people, how the world sees the events in Ukraine and interprets them. To talk about this, we need time and context.

— Our film crew was covering the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where we have been working for nine years. We have been working in Mariupol for several years. The team did not know exactly how and where the offensive would begin, but it was clear that there would definitely be a new wave of escalation. Mariupol seemed to be one of the main targets because the Russians failed to occupy the city in 2014.

What we didn't consider was the speed of the encirclement and how few journalists would be left there. We did not think it would be completely cut off from Ukraine by tens of kilometres of occupied territory.

— Police, military, and doctors had the opportunity to leave. Many volunteers continued to work despite the shelling. It was not just one team of journalists who decided to stay. Many people did.

Lithuanian documentary filmmaker Mantas Kvedaravičius also stayed, and when he tried to leave, he was executed. This could have happened to us.

We did the same thing as hundreds and thousands of people who fulfilled their duties. Many international journalists I know did not leave because they were afraid. At the time, it seemed that the most important stage of this battle was taking place in Kyiv. The Russians were already on their way to Kyiv, and there was a risk that the Russian army would enter the capital.

— There were several ways to save the original footage. We wanted to bury or hide it so our friends could hand it over later. There was a possibility to have it transferred by civilians via another road so that we didn't have to take it out ourselves. But we did not want other people to put themselves at risk. So we decided to take it out ourselves. We passed 15 checkpoints, and it was absolute chaos. We knew that the Russians knew our names, but we were lucky that there was no system for checking documents, phones, etc.

We hid hard drives and cameras in the car under the seats and clothes. One of the data cards that Taira (Ukrainian paramedic and volunteer Yuliia Paievska — ed.) gave us was put into a tampon by our producer Vasylisa Stepanenko.

— Everything is reflected upon because you watch each moment over and over again during the editing process and relive it. You write a text and lead the viewer through these events, explaining what is happening.

I didn't remember the moments when I put the camera down, and it was hanging on my shoulder somewhere. When I'm talking to someone or reacting to the events around me, I don't turn the camera off because I'm afraid of missing something, but I didn't remember those moments.

When a child dies, I just slide down the wall and sit on the floor. These human moments were a great discovery [while watching the footage]. This can only be shown in a film.

— Actually, if you watch the film carefully, there is not much blood. It can be difficult to watch because we are emotionally experiencing it together with the characters. The Mariupol residents we see are real people who are losing their loved ones, children, homes, and city. It is hard.

But in each moment, there is someone who supports them, so it is also hope and strength. The main principle during editing is to treat people with respect.

— The only tendency I saw in Mariupol was that the further the city was destroyed, the more people approached us and asked us to film everything around them. They wanted us to film them so that their relatives could find them. They said we had to show the world what the Russians were doing to the city.

There were those who did not want us to film them. They are not in the film. It was important for me to show all the reactions because there was confusion and panic. This is part of the effect Russia was trying to achieve when it not only encircled the city but also cut it off from the world in the information space. This led to people believing everything they heard. The topic of information warfare is one of the most important in the film.

— One that I have never seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Karabakh, or Ukraine [before the full-scale invasion]. I have never seen such an intensity of fighting, killing, or war crimes. I have never seen such a level of suffering.

— Video and photographic documentation is important for the investigation of war crimes, but it is not the only thing that is needed.

The investigation of Russian crimes in Bucha became possible when the city was de-occupied, and prosecutors had access to the bodies. At the moment, international prosecutors cannot go to Mariupol. Every day more and more evidence of the crimes is being destroyed.

The more time passes, the harder it will be to investigate these cases. The first step in international investigations is the de-occupation of Mariupol.

— Every story has its own language to be told. There are stories that can be told through literature and those that can be told through documentaries or fiction films.

There are stories about the war that can only be told in fiction films. They are necessary. I also work not only with a documentary but also with a fiction perspective.

— Precisely because it is a film, there is enough context. They see a live camera that sometimes records and sometimes doesn't. They see different human reactions to events. This adds credibility to the material.

— No, it's not. I can't say that I put in certain messages. The tone of the story is not preachy or moralising. All I'm doing is asking questions I've wanted to ask for a long time.

— I don't want to make any appeals because this is not a moralistic film. I don't set myself the task of teaching anyone. My task is to keep working and tell about what happened.

I want this film to give hope because of how fantastic Ukrainians are. Despite the tragedy that has happened to us, we are not just surviving, we are continuing to fight.