The documentary 20 Days in Mariupol by Journalist Mstyslav Chernov follows a more traditional framework of storytelling. In doing so, Chernov masters a narrative that is very intentional and emotional, with scenes that accurately relay the devastation and heroism of the Mariupol community.
The theme of the documentary is war, being that the ‘plot’ is centered around Russia’s siege of Mariupol, but there is also a theme of truth. Truth, being the driver of this story which breaks the Ukrainans people’s silence (through the heroic storytelling of Chernov), reveals to outsiders the reality of what is happening to these communities and people. The exposition is the silence before Mariupol is attacked, before the pain and destruction. The rising action is the attack by Russia while the climax is the aftermath, when around every corner people are met with death and destruction. The turning point is Chernov’s and his team’s decision to continue their coverage and brave the danger so that Mariupol’s story is told.
Although Chernov is behind the camera, he is experiencing everything that is happening on screen which translates into his perspective and storytelling in accompaniment of the visuals. This is a story that is very much his, but also one that connects to the conflict as a whole and the Ukrainian people. That being said the ‘end’ or denouement of the documentary is Chernov and his team leaving Ukraine despite the ongoing war, but they have a job, a duty to release their footage and bare the truths.
Overall, I think this film is a true and very raw piece of journalism that is very appropriate in its visuals and exposure of graphic content. While watching, I had to turn away for certain parts or pause it, and most definitely cried during more than one instance. I think that reaction is telling of really well done reporting and something that journalism needs more of. This perspective of journalism, war and humanitarian crisis’ especially, is really heavy and deep, but these are truths that we have created and must confront in order to help/save ourselves and each other. Additionally, the authors point to now having a record of the atrocities that have been carried out in Ukraine and the potential impact their footage will have when the war becomes history and winners and losers inflict stories and their truths.
Class on Monday next week (March 4) will be an editing and production day.
The rough cut of the visual poem will be due March 6, which is next Wednesday. The final cut will be due March 18.
Class on Monday next week will be an editing and production day.
Discussion: 20 Days in Mariupol
Let’s go over your thoughts on the film. How did it fit within the storytelling frameworks we talked about last class?
Longer-form Filmmaking
It’s an exciting time in the documentary filmmaking world, especially with streaming sites getting in on the game and producing and distributing so many buzzy, prestige, high-production-value feature-length docs and docu-series. Think about how many documentaries in recent months and years have been talked about around the dinner table: Leaving Neverland, the R Kelly documentary, Wild Wild Country, Abducted in Plain Sight, The Ted Bundy Tapes, Icarus (about Russian doping in the Olympics).
In this class, you have been learning to do things more or less “one-man-band” style. On a well-funded documentary project, there are more roles available: DP (director of photography), B camera operator, lighting technician, sound technician, producer, editor, etc. If you continue pursuing this field, you may find that there’s something in particular you are drawn to. Maybe you love shooting but hate editing, or vice versa. Maybe you’re a fantastic ideas person and extremely good with people and making things happen, but not as strong with the technical parts of filmmaking.
All that said, there are still plenty of documentary films out there being made by one person.
Cartel Land: A film made mostly by one guy filming alone for nine months.
“As someone who [is] a director and a producer, and also shoots themselves, it makes it a lot easier to just jump in because I don’t have to necessarily raise money,” Heineman told IndieWire in a panel discussion at the Sundance Film Festival, where his first film “Ghosts” premiered. “Canon was very supportive of me — [they] give me a camera to help shoot this, so it was very easy to just dive in and start making this.”
While there seems to be no shortage of cursory stories from the front lines of recent Middle Eastern conflicts, filmmaker Rachel Beth Anderson decided to dig deeper. During the Libyan uprising the duo smartly embedded themselves not with emotionally inaccessible military units but with two Canadian students – friends who cast away their safe and secure western lives to take up arms in the fight to overthrow their homeland’s dictator. The resulting documentary “First to Fall” is an unflinching look not just into the struggle that would eventually oust Gaddafi, but a cinematic, exacting account of how war turns boys into men.
Lauren Wissot: So how did this doc come about in the first place? How did you meet Hamid and Tarek?
Rachel Beth Anderson: I had been living and working in Cairo as a journalist prior to the Arab Spring. When the Egyptian uprising began in 2011 I found myself filming my own friends as they turned from everyday civilians into revolutionaries. Their world as they’d known it was quickly consumed by protests, teargas, and risking their own livelihoods for the hope of a better future. I was fascinated by how quickly they rose to this “call to action,” never wavering as the danger increased, until the current dictator was removed and they were celebrating what they felt was a victory at the time.
It seemed natural to me that I should cover the next country, which happened to be Libya, where everyday people were rising up. Following the youth in Libya was an entirely different experience than in Egypt, because they weren’t just battling teargas, but were up against Gaddafi’s army who had turned his guns on his own people. Specifically, I found myself fascinated with stories such as that of my main protagonists, Libyan expatriates Hamid and Tarek. They were young men my age, studying at university like I did, living a free and comfortable life – and had felt it their personal duty to give up everything, travel thousands of miles, and go to war as untrained soldiers. I knew they would be the perfect individuals to help reach audiences beyond the borders of Libya. Tarek was incredibly sweet and he always felt it was his responsibility to help me tell the story of Libya, and Hamid had one of those strong and silent personalities that magnetized the other young fighters – everyone flocked to be around him. He took on the role of big brother to Tarek, and you could immediately tell there was something to take from these young men who idealistically wanted to create change as freedom fighters, but hadn’t yet considered the outcome.
How do these kinds of solo independent doc films get made, financially speaking?
Depends on the film. If it’s a passion project and the filmmaker has the access, equipment, and time, they might be able to do most of it themselves. Or the filmmaker may start off covering expenses themselves, and then once they have enough footage to show people, they cut together a “sizzle reel” and either crowd-fund it on something like Kickstarter, or they apply for grant funding, find a private donor, team up with a production company, etc.
While watching the documentary 20 Days in Mariupol by journalist Mstyslav Chernov brilliantly showcases the siege of the city of Mariupol done by Russian forces. While watching, I was able to grasp the full extent of the situation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and how its citizens remain united.
The opening clips show the tension of smoke and tanks rolling into a once peaceful city now surrounded by debris. The shaky camera and dialogue of those speaking shows the theme and the filmmaker’s motivation to show how war is destructive to homes/neighborhoods yet it cannot damage the bond the people have with their homeland. The video showing clips of vertical and horizontal shows how these attacks are occurring within reach that we can take out our phones and record. There were clips of news anchors and them describing the events, having that included was helpful as it puts into context what was going on but also shows the raw extent Chernov wants the world to see.
The story circle we learned is displayed in this documentary where first is getting shots of the neighborhood and the people and them expressing their feelings. And later on as the days passed on the rising action shows the various events of the city being under attack. For me the climax was when the hospital was giving chest compressions to a toddler which made me reflect on what happened toward the beginning where Chernov recorded families and their kids, showcasing their feelings and frustrations not being able to enjoy their life. Even though the story ends with the journalist returning safely it brings awareness to what the people living there have to go through and how we must take action to keep their families safe.
This documentary was powerful, showing the side that people don’t tend to see, I was able to understand the resilience of the Ukrainian people and how we should have their stories told.
The documentary “20 Days in Mariupol” by journalist Mstyslav Chernov skillfully blends the facts and ground levels, offering a gripping portrayal of the siege of Mariupol by Russian forces. The film maintains great pacing and a well-structured narrative that captivates the audience from start to finish.
The primary theme revolves around the devastating war between Russia and Ukraine, specifically focusing on Mariupol’s transformation from a peaceful city to a perilous warzone. The storytelling elements persist consistently, with the theme centered on war and the dramatic arc following the civilian perspective.
While the overarching theme of war is always present, the documentary emphasizes the dramatic arc, portraying the civilians’ real time reactions and experiences during the conflict. It effectively captures the emotional spectrum of individuals facing the traumatic events, presenting a raw and intimate view of their struggles.
The filmmaker adeptly alternates between three key perspectives: Chernov’s immersive narrative, displaced residents grappling with the circumstances, and first responders attempting to salvage lives amidst the wreckage. Grim scenes from hospitals and makeshift graveyards underscore the harsh reality of war.
The raw and eye-opening nature of the documentary is evident, showcasing interviews and footage that bring to light the devastating fallout of war. The film adheres to traditional narrative structures, including exposition, rising action, and turning points, providing a comprehensive view of the war’s impact.
Aligning with basic frameworks of theme, motivation, and dramatic arc, the film effectively communicates the gravity of the national conflict. Powerful visuals, such as tank sightings, explosions, and presidential messages, convey the theme of war. The motivation is clear: to reveal the harsh realities of the conflict and condemn Putin’s actions. The dramatic arc includes rising points, such as targeted attacks on journalists and doctors, illustrating the ongoing struggle for survival amid the chaos. It sheds light on the atrocities in Ukraine, offering viewers a mere glimpse into the resilience of those enduring the conflict.
Personally, I believe that film fits the first framework mentioned. Although there isn’t much of a falling action or denouement, the film follows the sequence of a dramatic arc and makes note to show the theme and motivation. We come to understand that the theme here is how the normal citizens of a city have been greatly impacted by the effects of a deadly war. The motivation behind the film is to tell the story of the attack on Ukraine and of those who have been injured, killed, and suffered loss as a result of the attack. The exposition is revealed at the beginning, giving the audience a taste of what’s to come, when a clip of a tank is shown and we find out that doctors and patients are being surrounded by Russian troops. The rising action is the actual attack on Mariupol, where we see various scenes of infrastructure deteriorating due to shelling and missiles being fired at civilian locations. The climax or turning point in the film happens when Mariupol is now surrounded by Russian troops and it is said that there is no way out, safely. At this point, civilians have nothing and nowhere to live. Electricity, water, supplies, along with cell phone and radio lines have been cut.
I think the closest we get to a falling action is when we see the journalist make it out of Mariupol while it’s still under attack. There’s still no real resolution or denouement because two years later, the war is still taking place and as the journalist left Maripol, there were still more civilians left behind that couldn’t be saved.
For me, this was jarring to watch. I had a surface understanding of what was happening between Ukraine and Russia, but this opened my eyes to the severity of this deadly, ongoing conflict between the two territories.
While watching this documentary I noticed the excellent pacing and story structure that kept the entire movie engaging from beginning to end. And in the documentary there were two storytelling elements we discussed in class that remained consistent. Those two storytelling elements were the theme and the dramatic arc. The theme in this documentary was centered on the devastating war between Russia and Ukraine as it was happening. More specifically how the city Mariupol in Ukraine went from a peaceful city to a dangerous warzone. The second element was the dramatic arc being the perspective of the civilians of Ukraine as the war was happening. We see people losing their lives in the hospitals, people losing family members, people losing their house and sharing multiple emotions as the war was happening.
I personally felt that the dramatic arc storytelling element was more apparent than the theme in this film. Yes, the theme was present throughout the documentary being centered on war. But it felt more focused on showing (dramatic arc is defined as literary term for the path a story follows)the path of civilians and their reaction to the war. In this documentary it never really showed any Russian soldiers or much combat. The most it showed was a tank and explosions happening close by the cameraman location.
My main takeaway from the film is how everyone had different reactions to the war. For most people they felt devastated by the war after they lost their house, their livelihood and even family members. But you had teenagers using the war as an opportunity to steal electronics. Seeing the different perspectives really lets you know it’s real regular people going through a traumatic experience.
The documentary 20 Days in Mariupol by journalist Mstyslav Chernov tells the harrowing account of the siege of Mariupol by Russian forces. Chernov’s documentary follows the traditional framework of storytelling.
The theme is the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the motivation is to report the war from ground zero in real time. The exposition is the foreshadowing of the imminent invasion complete with shots from a city awaiting a catastrophe, the rising action is Russia’s actual attack on Mariupol, the climax is the aftermath (death and destruction), the turning point is the team’s continued journey to cover the war and the falling action is the minimization efforts and apathy espoused by Russian politicians and others. Since the war is ongoing, there is no resolution or denouement.
The documentary breaks the narrative into three main perspectives: Chernov’s narrative complementing the visuals placing him in the midst of action, the viewpoints of displaced, angry, helpless residents of Mariupol comprehending their pathos and the outlook of the first responders trying to salvage life from rubble despite the ramifications.
The scenes are grim and depict the unpalatable reality of war especially the distressing visuals from the hospitals and makeshift graveyards. The edit alternates between these threads: Chernov’s narrative and the impact it has on the team filming the documentary (such as Vladimir), the interviews presenting the sorrowfulness of the residents and the mitigation efforts (and interviews) illustrated through wide, medium long shots, and close-ups for maximum effect.
The raw nature of the documentary is astonishing and eye-opening. The fallout of war is jarring to say the least and the courage of those telling such stories is commendable.
I believe the film best aligns with the story’s basic frameworks. It loosely follows a theme, motivation and dramatic arc. Within the first couple of minutes the viewer can grasp that the theme which is effects of war by showing the Z tank, explosions, fighter jets and presidential messages from President Putin and President Volodymyr. It speaks to the gravity of the national conflict.
The motivation behind the film is to show other nations what is happening in local neighborhoods , how Russia is invading Ukraine, and as one of the doctors put it to show proof of how vile Putin’s actions are to children and women. The dramatic arc includes minimal background of what Ukraine has been facing for years, how Russia plans to invade Ukraine cities by force and violence. There are many rising points such as where the journalist and the doctors are being targeted by Russian tanks that are attempting to take over the last hospital where they are trying to save lives. However, there is no denouncement, turning point or falling action in regards to the war(the bigger picture), for the journalist he finds safe passage back home but the lives of the local residents are still in danger.
It was difficult matching the film to a framework since there is a lot that is still going on as we speak and the film shows only the POV of Ukraine and not Russia.
Watching the film was emotionally and mentally devastating, the most shocking part was in the beginning where an ambulance comes into the hospital giving chest compressions to a toddler. As the doctors were trying to revive him, I was emotionally distraught. I have heard snippets of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the news but I was not aware that innocent residents were being killed/targeted. It’s difficult going back to live my “normal” life when atrocities are taking place in Ukraine.
I would like to create a story about the different Hip-Hop murals in the City for my visual poem. I have two Rap Music art projects in my room that truly show my love of music, especially the rap genre. My main concept would be how rap evolved over time and how music to me is how I tell time. How a particular artists or song brings me back to certain time in my life or where I was when I first heard a song. I have a collection of rappers depicted as comic books which I would use to transition from the artworks in my room to the murals in the world. There are many different murals throughout each borough so I have a big sample size to choose from.
Before we do anything else today, we’ll finish up workshopping the last handful of visual poem pitches.
Storytelling in Film
Here are two frameworks through which we can think about storytelling.
THEME
MOTIVATION
DRAMATIC ARC
EXPOSITION
RISING ACTION
TURNING POINT
FALLING ACTION
DENOUEMENT
You — A character is in a zone of comfort,
Need — But they want something.
Go — They enter an unfamiliar situation,
Search — Adapt to it,
Find — Get what they wanted,
Take — Pay a heavy price for it,
Return — Then return to their familiar situation,
Change — Having changed.
Homework Assignment
Watch the following feature-length documentary in its entirety. While you’re watching, please note down how the components of this film fit into the basic elements of storytelling discussed above. Which of the two frameworks fit the story told here? (Does one fit better than the other, or do they both/neither work?) Please write a brief (250-300 words) blog post analyzing the scenes, editing, and structure of this film, how it aligns with one or both of these two frameworks, and any other observations or takeaways you feel about the experience of watching it. Post it here on the class site by class time on Monday.