It is not easy to get an interview with a brand new Oscar winner in the days following the gala at the Dolby. The race for the prizes is exhausting, and those who have participated urgently need to recharge their batteries. However, Mstyslav Chernov, who won the golden statuette for Best Documentary for the shocking ’20 Days in Mariupol’, does not hesitate when ‘La Vanguardia’ proposes a meeting. This multi-award-winning war correspondent, novelist and now film director who covered the siege of that Ukrainian city at the beginning of the war with Russia for the Associated Press, knows that this is his best moment to spread a message that he considers urgent: that What happens in his native Ukraine can spread to the rest of Europe at any time.
How strong was the contrast between the glamor of Oscar night and what you have experienced in Mariupol and other places you have been as a war correspondent?
Over the past ten years I have been experiencing very similar dissonances. Many times, if you are covering a war, as in the case of Ukraine, my home, I have had to go to countries that enjoy peace. Logically, your body and mind’s first response is to try to tell the people around you that they have to pay attention to what is happening in the world. You realize that the logical thing is that they are not thinking about war, because that is not normal. But, when you are in the middle of conflict for a long time, war becomes your normality. Going on stage and talking to people who don’t spend their days thinking about war seems as important to me as being on the front lines. But yes, that experience always seems very strange to me. I remember once being in a small rubber boat, crossing the Dnipro River at dawn, as Ukrainian forces advanced towards the left bank that had been occupied. A historic, truly dangerous moment. And, the next day, I was in New York at a party, talking to people, and that dissonance seemed absurd to me. But at the same time, that shows how close what is happening in Ukraine is to the people of Europe and the United States. It forces us to recognize that war is not far away, it is very close. Winning an Oscar gave me the opportunity to speak to millions of people from the Dolby stage and also to those in the room, talented people who are dedicated to creating stories. I hope that cinema does not separate itself from the problems of the world. It is not.
Because it says?
It is clear in the films that were recognized this year, not only those of my colleagues nominated for best documentary, but also those that were competing for best film. ‘Oppenheimer’ touches on themes that refer, indirectly, to what is happening right now in the world. When I had the opportunity to speak with Christopher Nolan and Cillian Murphy, I felt that they made that film because of that same connection with what is happening to our modern society.
When Russia began the siege against Mariupol, did it realize the significance of what was happening?
Yes of course. I felt that it was the starting point of something much greater, a new stage in Ukrainian, and even European, history. That’s why I had the urge to record everything so that there would be a record of what was happening. It was a way to preserve tragedies and their meanings, also thinking about a cinematographic format, which lasts longer than the news. Cinema simply survives the sea of ??information in which everything disappears quickly. The movies, if they are lucky, remain in history. That’s why I felt that we had to risk even more than we usually do in other wars. It was an unforgettable and sad moment in history. The Oscar will help, of course, to ensure that Mariupol is not simply an old headline. He will no longer be just a name, he will have a meaning. And that is the magic of cinema. This is what both documentaries and fiction films do.
As an Associated Press envoy, how did thinking about a movie mesh with reporting?
When you are in a war zone, your priority is to be able to broadcast what you see, so that the world knows about it. Surviving is a task in itself. That has been the hardest and most dangerous experience I have had in my life. And I’ve been through six wars. I have lived through very hard moments. But this was certainly the most difficult. That’s why what mattered most to me was recording everything. I didn’t think about what the structure of my film was going to be, or how I was going to construct the narrative, or any other cinematographic problem. My goals were to gather information, pass it on, and survive. I had to be able to eat once a day, have some water to drink, and be able to charge my batteries. But deep down, I understood that I was living a historical and symbolic moment. When you’re covering news you don’t approach the material the same way.
Do you feel that your experience as a war correspondent allowed you to remain calm while filming despite facing scary situations?
Of course, especially since it was something very personal. The experiences I had over the last ten years helped me overcome my emotions and be able to continue working. They also helped me be able to tell this story. Everything I studied about film and journalism, and what I learned about survival, led me to a single event that became the most important and defining event of my life, which was the siege of Mariupol. What happened there transformed me forever, and thousands of people as well. It is something that will always define my existence.
While filming in Mariupol he was already a famous journalist. Was that an advantage or a complication?
It’s true, he was no longer an anonymous person. The danger was much greater than for an unknown person. At the same time, that helped, because a lot of people wanted to talk to me and brought me stories. But I’m not the only one who has to worry about their safety. Every person with a camera, now, is a target. Since information has become a weapon, they think that journalists and filmmakers are legitimate targets, even though they are not. We are civil, and we simply try to be objective and fair when we tell what we see. I don’t forget what happened to Mantas Kvedaracius, a Lithuanian filmmaker who was in Mariupol at the same time as us. He was captured and shot by the Russians, when he tried to leave using the same roads that helped us leave.
They see it as part of the news war…
Limiting access to facts is also a weapon. It is something that I portray in ’20 days in Mariupol’. At the end, you see the Russian envoy to the UN talking specifically about information warfare. It is a topic that modern media should pay more attention to, not only in documentaries but also in our daily coverage because, in modern war, we fight with information. Even so, I am strictly opposed to thinking that journalists are seen as soldiers or participating in war. It is governments that turn information into a weapon. We are not journalists. We must do everything possible to resist such use of the news.
Do you feel there is a connection between what you show from Mariupol and what is currently happening in Gaza?
Yes of course. The effect of war on civilians is universal. I tried to show in my film that the story of Mariupol goes beyond specific events, it has a symbolic meaning. Mariupol is a symbol of all the Ukrainian cities that have been destroyed by Russian bombs, but it is also a symbol of the devastating impact of war on civil society. War is absurd, and the people who are trapped have very little control over what is happening. I’m glad that people can see that there is a connection, and know that I managed to talk not only about Ukraine, but about something universal. That’s what cinema has to do, be it documentary or not. Even if you tell small, personal stories, you have to talk about universal themes to the audience.
The Oscar has placed him in a privileged position. Will she continue covering wars or try to continue her career in another way?
I will return to war, without a doubt. I have two other documentaries in Ukraine, which I’m filming at the moment. I will continue to return to Ukraine as long as the Russian invasion lasts. It is going to be a central theme of my work. On the other hand, I am in a position where I can help the younger generations of Ukrainian filmmakers. When I started, I would have benefited from the support of a community. And that is something I can now offer. It’s going to be one of my priorities. I hope to continue representing Ukrainian cinema in the United States and Europe. I want to be able to take Ukrainian culture beyond our borders, because it is beautiful, and not everything happens through war, even though that is the case now. I will also continue working on a novel, and I want to make fiction films. The truth is that this is not the time to rest. It’s time to get back to work.
