OSCARS 2024: 20 Days in Mariupol (2023)

At the 92nd Academy Awards, back in early 2020, two films about the Syrian Civil War were nominated in the Best Documentary Feature category. Both were ground-level films, largely composed of footage recorded by people trapped in the middle of the combat. “For Sama” and “The Cave” were both harrowing watches, the former especially. This year, the Academy has saw fit to nominated another non-fiction film recorded in an active war zone. “20 Days in Mariupol” is set in a different country, during a different war, but remarkably similar in its unbridled grimness and unwillingness to look away to the aforementioned films. Once again, my totally self-imposed mission to watch all the nominated films has me seeing sights I really have no business looking at. Let's see if I can find something meaningful to contribute to this topic.

“20 Days in Mariupol” is set in the titular Ukrainian city. War correspondent and videographer Mstyslav Chernov and his team are in Mariupol, documenting the city on the eve of Russia's 2022 invasion. Russian president Vladimir Putin initially promised that the military would not attack citizen cities. As the violence begins, it immediately becomes clear that no attempt is made to fulfil this promise. Mariupol immediately becomes a battleground, the civilian population caught in the middle as Russian forces attack schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Local humanitarian forces are quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of injured and dead. Chernov and his team are trapped in the city for twenty days, their cameras capturing many of the atrocities and tragedies as they occur.

“For Sama” featured one of the most distressing scenes I've ever seen in any movie, when an infant is pulled from a dead mother and the doctors attempt to get the limp baby to breathe. I bring this up because “20 Days in Mariupol” features nearly the exact same series of events. In both cases, the baby does start crying, proving it's alive. Which, I suppose, make these scenes ultimately less disturbing than a lot of the other destruction both films capture. “20 Days in Mariupol” is a nearly unending parade of horrifying war footage. We see children in the emergency room, their bodies broken and bloody, many of them not surviving their injuries. Women scream through blood on the operating table. The dead and dying are carried on stretchers through the wreckage. People weep and cry, their children and loved ones taken away from them. Buildings explode. Eventually, the authorities can do nothing but pile up the corpses in a trench, a mass grave forming before our eyes. 

Over and over again, Chernov's grim narration repeats how important it is to capture this footage. To show these events happening. He befriends one of the cops hopelessly trying to maintain order in the city, who speaks the same message in Russian and in broken English directly into the camera. He asks the people in the west to help, that the suffering in Mariupol not be forgotten. And this is probably the greatest value “20 Days in Mariopul” has. At one point, a legal expert assures the filmmakers that, based on what has happened in this city, the Russian government could easily be prosecuted for war crimes. In which case “20 Days in Mariupol” might be most valuable as video evidence at such a trial. Yes, I do think these events need to be documented. These people, who lived and died and struggled and suffered, deserve to have their stories told.

But what do I, as one individual person, gain by watching this? I can't stop Russia from invading Ukraine. I can't help the people who I see harmed and killed in this film. I don't think me dropping everything in my life, getting on a plane, flying into a war zone, and trying to do aid work will help much. The most I can do is donate to on-the-ground organizations and charities in the Ukraine. Which I did, immediately after watching “20 Days in Mariupol.” If that was simply the filmmakers' goals, then I guess they achieved their purpose. If heads of states watch this film and are moved to help in some way, via political pressure or legislation, then “20 Days in Mariupol” can make a difference too. 

Otherwise, I can't help but wonder what the point is simply watching these hideous things happen. Especially when the documentary filmmakers center themselves in this story repeatedly. Throughout “20 Days in Mariupol,” Chernov and his cameras meet people on the streets. Such as a strangely serene man dragging his possessions behind in a cart. Or a fellow carrying a turtle in a little bowl, determined not to give up on his beloved pet even in the middle of a war. We get these tiny slivers of these deeply human stories within this horrible situation. Wouldn't “20 Days in Mariupol” have honored all who lived and died through this war by focusing on the stories of the people? Instead, the film is about the brave reporters documenting these hideous events. A narrative structure even forms in the last act, the movie building towards a climax of the reporters escaping from a besieged hospital and sneaking out of the city, the politically sensitive footage hidden under their car seats. Is “20 Days in Mariupol” trying to be an entertaining movie in these moments? How does that help bring attention to the plight of the citizens of Ukraine?

Several very brief scenes in “20 Days in Mariupol” show Russian officials denying these war crimes are happening. Saying it's all fake news and propaganda, that Russia is simply defending itself. I suppose simply recording what happened, in the face of disinformation like this, makes “20 Days in Mariupol” important. Yet I still can't help but question the motivation of editing footage like this into a movie – a piece of media to be watched, content to be consumed – and releasing it to the masses. There are powerful images in “20 Days in Mariupol.” There are also horrible, disturbing ones. Does giving myself nightmares by watching this make things any better for the people of the Ukraine? Will giving this movie an Oscar help the families of those who died in Mariupol or those who escaped? Is showing the world atrocities enough? I don't have the answers. Subsequently, “20 Days in Mariupol” is difficult to watch, even more difficult to write about, and impossible to assign any sort of grade or rating. [-/10]