Talk:Russians at War

Is it possible to watch the film?

If yes, then how? Thanks,   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You asked on the talk page for the 'Russians at war' movie where you might be able to see it. I've deleted your question; article talk pages are intended for discussing article improvement, only. I say this without any snark - Google is the first stop. Second, the lede of the article states it premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival. Film festival entries are almost always shown before the film is released elsewhere. But you can probably visit the Venice festival website and learn more about where it may end up being shown - probably streamed, as it's unlikely to be a film that would earn anything at theaters (notwithstanding that documentaries almost never make it to theater release any more to begin with). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is about improving the article. Editors can better frame edits if they view the media. Making blind edits without viewing the media is less helpful than actually have watched the media in question. In terms of searching the internet, that has been done and have come up empty. I feel like anastrophe wants to censor the subject.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Editors editing the article based on viewing the movie would be presenting their own opinions. That's called original research. We go by what reliable sources have stated, not the judgements editors have made from viewing a movie personally. Removing the question has nothing to do with censorship; I'm baffled how you come to that conclusion. Asking if the movie can be viewed has nothing to do with directly discussing material improvements to the article, that's why I deleted it. Are you suggesting that the article should state that editors don't know if it's possible to watch the film? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Editors are allowed to use wp:common sense. All the of the criticism is one sided. We have not heard from other sources and viewing the media may bring some common sense to the article.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

More relevant is MOS:FILMPLOT. Most film plot (or synopsis) sections are written without references, i.e. with an implicit reference to the primary source: the film.

Also, distribution is an aspect we cover in film articles, so this was a perfectly fine and relevant question to ask. Nardog (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a documentary, not a popular fiction movie. Common sense would generally suggest that if one searches the 'net and can't find any information about where to view a film that was just a few days ago submitted to a film festival, it's self-evident that it is not yet available for viewing outside of the film festival (where reliable sources - film critics - are often found). Using the talk page to ask questions about the topic of an article is generally 'frowned' upon. Quoting from WP:NOTAFORUM: In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.

Simply asking Is it possible to watch the film? If yes, then how? offered no context for the query, and it, in itself, gave no clue as to intent or motive for asking the question. I do a lot of editing here, and I've run across too many instances of people pushing some general query about the topic of an article to the talk page, with no clear intent to improve the article (e.g. "Does salt water taffy have sea water in it?", things like that). It happens frequently, and often results in the question being summarily deleted per WP:NOTAFORUM. Perhaps next time, include the context for asking the question. As written, it looked like a random question that would be more suitable for a 'net search. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article

This isn't a general discussion about the subject of the article. I thought it would be obvious that knowing first hand about the subject, rather than relying on bias sources was a good thing.

it's self-evident that it is not yet available for viewing outside of the film festival

Irrelevant. When it becomes available then respond on the talk page. Also wikipedia editors are a smart bunch that have clever ways above what is visible in the first few pages of an internet search.

It's a documentary, not a popular fiction movie

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Documentaries

Documentary films require a modified approach for their articles. Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT).

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Critical" Response?

Much of the content in the "Critical Response" section seems to be political responses rather than film criticism. Should it be split up? Thrilway (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense. Adebax (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I even suggested earlier to split this section to the reception by industry, response in Ukrainian-Canadian community and reception by festivals but my proposed changes were reverted. I think it makes sense not to blend several types of responses. Plus a common reader might perceive the word "Critical" as something negative and not as "Analytic" even though "Critical" means analytic. So I suggest returning my sections. EVS-VR (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit [1] added Notable, during Ms. Bassel's press conference at the festival on September 4th, 2024, Ms. Bassel admitted that she didn't watch the "Russians at War" yet when she was making this comment. Where in the source she saying that? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest slitting this sections into several types of responses, otherwise it reads as a soup. Since Ukrainian media differs from Western sources, and there are mixed responses in Russian opposition media, perhaps it is better to have subsections: (1) Response in the Western media (2) Response in the Ukrainian media and 3) Response in Russian media (that would include opposition and, most likely, coming responses from Russia, when they see the film). So clearly even how we can separate the text between first two sections. EVS-VR (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Plus there is a mixup of the text in Critical Response and Controversy. There is also no subheading under the Controversy title, but then level-2 section follows in the Controversy section. Part of the Critical Response covers the Controversy issues. It also misses several reviews of the film. I suggest 1) having a section, level 1 “Controversy” and move all types of responses under that title, as level-2 sections. After the text is all about responses. We can also change the title of such big section to “Controversy and critical response”. The level-2 subsections here would be: 1) Response from film festivals and professional organizations 2) Response from media 3) (maybe) Response from politicians 4) anything on controversy here, if needed Volunt (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph requires amendment

I think we need to be less handwavy about the very serious allegations against the film - it's very dangerous to present it as a regular documentary film - which it is not. I propose an amended introduction to raise awareness of controversy early on:

Russians at War is a 2024 documentary film directed by Russian-Canadian cinematographer Anastasia Trofimova, which has been widely criticized as Russian propaganda. The Canadian and Ontario government-funded film focuses on the perspective of Russian soldiers invading Ukraine during the ongoing 2014 Russian-Ukrainian war. It premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival.

OR

Russians at War is a 2024 documentary film directed by Russian-Canadian cinematographer Anastasia Trofimova. The Canadian and Ontario government-funded film focuses on the perspective of Russian soldiers invading Ukraine during the ongoing 2014 Russian-Ukrainian war. It premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival, after which it was widely criticized as Russian propaganda.

Please amend ASAP! 0lida0 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This debate gets extremely polarised, just like in the palestine-israel conflict, where all intentions of seeing humans on the other side are critized. Many critiques haven't even seen the film, as it was written here in a former version, too. Adebax (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion about the poor misunderstood Russian soliders is irrelevant to topic at hand. Introduction still needs amending to illustrate the significance of the controversy surrounding it - it would not have been this widely covered in media without widespread criticism that it is a thinly-veiled a Russian propaganda film. 0lida0 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no longer needs amending - thanks eds! 62.197.35.21 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The following sentence is very awkward: "The film focuses on the anti-war perspective and thoughts about Russian-Ukrainian unity reflected by Russian soldiers fighting on the front lines in Ukraine and civilians burying their men during the Ukrainian-Russian war." Also, the director's own descriptions of the film don't suggest that it is focused on any of these things. Surely, this sentence deserves a citation if there is any evidence to support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.225.146 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Worth adding another Russian voice

suggest including this paragraph:

Russian director Vitaly Mansky said that "it is quite obvious that the author is on the side of their heroes" and called the film's screening in Venice "a mistake by the festival." Mansky himself attempted to send a cameraman to film on the Russian side during the invasion, but his cameraman was promptly arrested.

0lida0 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Ms Bassel hadn't watched the film when she criticized it

Greetings @UrbanVillager, you added During Ms. Bassel's press conference at the festival on September 4, 2024, she indicated that that she "hadn't watched the "Russians at War" yet" when she was making these comments - [2] , where the source says so? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There are more issues with your edit. Mansky himself attempted to send a cameraman to film on the Russian side during the invasion, but his cameraman was promptly arrested. sourced to Все переругались из-за фильма «Русские на войне». Его сняли на российской стороне фронта и показали в Венеции Разбираемся с экспертами «Медузы» — военными аналитиками и Антоном Долиным, — как относиться к этой картине — Meduza - why was it removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The Ukrainian government sent a protest letter to the 81st Venice International Film Festival in August 2024, before the film's trailer (September 4) or the film itself (September 5) had been released - where's the source for that? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The film sparked backlash from some regional experts, Canadian politicians and the Ukrainian-Canadian community, who characterized it as "Russian propaganda." - why was it removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The cited article in fact says that she made her comments after seeing the film. The cited article is directly contradicting this Wikipedia article in this regard. 104.158.225.146 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ms Bassel's press-conference was on September 4th, during which she gave a long answer to the question about Russians at War, justifying why she didn't watch the film yet, and why does she think that it is a Russian propaganda. Ms Bassel later realized that she should be aware of the details of the film and perhaps watched it after the press-conference. There are recording of these press-conference, which are not published. So technically she hasn't watched the film while responding to that question. EVS-VR (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

proofs? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The best proof would be asking Ms Bassel herself (which likely you can do), about the timeline: when did she had her press-conference when she was asked that question and gave her answer and when, what date did she actually saw the film. My proof would be only my own experience since I was in Venice, present during all press-conferences. EVS-VR (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PROOF. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

During the film's word premiere at the 81st Venice International Film Festival on September 5, 2024, the film received a five-minute standing ovation - where you take those from? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

We were there at the premier, recorded the ovation and timed it. Question is - where should we post it just to prove the point, if otherwise it would be not interesting to watch and has limited information? EVS-VR (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Who are "we"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My spouse and I, who were at the premier EVS-VR (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

But it was not your spouse but UrbanVillager who added the text. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Super, so it wasn't just us who were at the premier. I hope more people who were there would comment here, to verify this fact EVS-VR (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

so it wasn't just us who were at the premier
How do you know? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "How do I know? It was a big audience in the Grande theater, what is here to know? EVS-VR (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In case it matters: I was there, in Venice, and the ovation indeed lasted longer than for other films. It felt like 10 minutes for me, and I didn't time it. I remember seeing the film director as a petit skinny girl, not knowing how to react, not expecting such attention and breaking into crying after the 2nd minute of ovation. So the audience tried to support her, I guess. The main sense was that she, by her own initiative, risked her life to record the evidence of Russian soldiers saying, "We don't want to kill Ukrainians; they were always our brothers". I am sure this film will screw up Putin's plans to recruit more soldiers. I find it almost funny that it is the Ukrainian media that is most aggressive against the film, whereas the film wants to save lives, including Ukrainians. Volunt (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the line about the ovation should be returned to the published text. Volunt (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PROOF. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You write Within the film industry, Trofimova's film was recognized as an original, professionally done and gutsy anti-war documentary.[10][9][11][6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

I'm looking at the source [3] and it writes "This film may mislead you into believing that it is an anti-war film, one that questions the current regime in Russia," Darya Bassel, a producer who watched the film at the festival, said in a Facebook post. "However, what I witnessed is a prime example of pure Russian propaganda," she said. The whole edit should be reverted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This reference was was likely included after the text was posted, so it was not in line with the other references, and should be removed to the section "Reception by the Ukrainian media" or "Reception in the industry". The rest of the paragraph should be returned. EVS-VR (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This reference was was likely included after the text was posted
No. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You also removed Historian Ian Garner noted that Trofimova's claim that she did not have official permission to film the soldiers "hardly stands up to scrutiny in a country where independent journalism simply does not exist"
and replaced it with Some media outlets expressed doubts about Trofimova's accompanied the Russian military to the front, filmed footage of military equipment and operations, asked her provocative questions and lived there for 7 months without an official approval from the Russian Ministry of Defense ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is not very relevant for the films about the wars as many war journalists risk their lives going back and forth between borders. During the wars, official permissions are often omitted, especially for documentalists, who have to record events here and now, not waiting for formalities to be completed. Besides, as in the story of Mansky about an arrest of his operator, during the wars, there should be additional creativity and risks, and not reliance on "things as usual". Trofimova made several films about ISIS, which, considering the content of the films, required permissions of 4 different countries, and none of them were obtained. This is just a specifics of war journalism. EVS-VR (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the concerns raised above. So they stay. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I did address it: Mr. Garner forgets or is not aware of the specific of war journalism. The film is about the war, so such specifics is expected. The industry knows it, that is why nobody in the industry worries about it. We hear such questions only from outsiders of the industry. I also suggest returning the deleted fragment about Trofimova asking provocative questions. Being Canadian, asking provocative questions to the Russian solders at the front is rather risky. This is important for the context of the film. EVS-VR (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: doubts that Trofimova went without "supervision" or permission of military - why did her responses to criticism were removed from this wiki page? It is better to hear from the "horse' mouth". Considering her ISIS-related films, I trust her story completely, it is her style. EVS-VR (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole edit was misleading and was removed. After so much misleading info, every sentence needs to be checked. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What part was misleading? Did you watch the film? Were you in touch with the film team to know the specifics? Did you watch Trofimova's other films, to get the sense of your style, focus and levels of risks that she is used to? Please base your suggestions on facts, as I do. EVS-VR (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What part was misleading?
Should we really answer this while this very topic is all about it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So it sounds like you haven't watched the film so you shouldn't participate in editing of this page. EVS-VR (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not Wikipedia editors have seen the film. The point is credible sourcing and objectivity.

But heads up to everyone - this "you haven't seen it so you can't have an opinion" line is the party line that all russian trolls are pursuing at present, whether or not the person they're arguing with has seen the film. 0lida0 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It DOES matter if the editors use a judgemental and evaluative language (such as "Russian propaganda"), and not just add relevant information. EVS-VR (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The film was widely criticised for being russian propaganda – that is a simple fact that can be sourced and referenced by reliable sources. The film would have received zero media attention without the immediate critical reactions after people saw it at venice. 0lida0 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It was widely criticized in Ukrainian and some (not all) Russian opposition media but the reviews in Western media were positive. I think, it makes sense to have sub-sections in the Critical Response part. EVS-VR (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I see little point in separating them by nationality and some don't fall into neat boxes, e.g. Garner is writing in the Moscow Times, which is based in the Netherlands, from Canada. Mansky is Russian but Meduza is based in Riga. Ukraine is a western country in that it's part of frontline Europe, so it could be generally better considered appropriate to group those reviews with more fawning Canadian reviews and separate the Russian reviews. Trying to make clear distinctions is a losing battle. 0lida0 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That's from the press conference. [4] UrbanVillager (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, mixed up the filmmakers. Ms. Zhurba made the comment on not seeing it. Apologies. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Censorship by Wikipedia editor, possible WP:COI

Controversy removed from introduction, important quotes from Mansky and Garner removed. Who is editing this into a press release for Trofimova? Stoptheprop (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction should have a general information, and controversy should be placed under "Controversy" EVS-VR (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Toronto police said they made no safety recommendations

"In a statement to CBC, the Toronto Police Service said the decision to pause screenings was made independently by event organizers, and not based on any recommendation from Toronto Police." https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/russians-at-war-paused-1.7321915 Stoptheprop (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

just added to the article, cheers. Tdmurlock (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can remove it from the lead as per this discussion and being not historically significant. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

i think it should be left in - if we're mentioning why it was pulled we need to clarify that TIFF's reasoning was not corroborated by police. Need balance. 0lida0 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would characterize the screening cancellation as being news-ly and not significant for the lead as well. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether it was recommended by the police or not? What difference does that make to anything? Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If there were any significant safety threats police would be involved. 62.197.35.21 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And what does whether the police are involved or not have to do with anything? What difference does that make? People wanted the film cancelled, and now that it's been cancelled they're still criticizing TIFF for cancelling it? Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of being objective and stating the facts. TIFF said there were safety threats, police denied there were any safety threats significant enough for police to be involved. It's not our fault if that makes TIFF look bad. 0lida0 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

New article, with potential additions for critical Response section, suggested adds

Suggest:

Other critics noted that Trofimova engaged in to stylistic efforts to create an atmosphere of innocence. "Anastasia endeavors to empathize with Russians not only diegetically but also cinematically. For instance, throughout the film, images of the characters are interspersed with observational footage of kittens in the military camp's interiors" said critic Volodymyr Chernyshev. "It’s just empathy for the soldiers without any critical context," said Anna Hints, director of Smoke Sauna Sisterhood.

--

As a result of the documentary, there were calls for Canada to investigate the "shameful" public funding of a Russian propaganda film. 0lida0 (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Duplication of information

These parts of the intro are duplicates of existing information in later parts of the article:

The film was criticized as Russian propaganda, while the Toronto festival organizers defended the film as being "anti-war".

This information is already in the "Controversy" section.

Although public screenings were cancelled, with organizers blaming "significant threats", Toronto police were reported to be "not aware of any active threats".

This information is already in the "Response from film festivals and professional organizations" subsection.

I would recommend erasing these two sentences from the intro because a. they're duplicates, b. they're referring to a very sensitive issue that could easily be misunderstood by casual readers, and c. they're inviting users to a fight over who said what at the very beginning of the article.

My proposal is to add a simple neutral sentence like "The film caused controversy following the world premiere." and those interested in the controversy can learn about it in depth in the appropriate section, with enough different viewpoints on the matter. Thoughts? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

urbanvillager has been clocked for trying whitewash this article and inserting inaccuracies . The controversy should be in the introduction as it is basically its major defining feature - there would be little media coverage of this film without it. 0lida0 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The nature of the controversy needs to be specified as the article states that it is a documentary film, and that is not strictly the case if it is a work of propaganda - that requires early clarification so readers are not misled. Otherwise we should introduce it as a documentary/propaganda film. 0lida0 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with UrbanVillager. OlidaO is clearly biased, devaluing the anti-war focus of this film. Trofimova risks her life, going their on her own (even Dolin can't believe that that was real, and praised her if it is) - similarly as she did in her other projects. She will likely get a very negative reaction from Russia when the film will reach Russia. So how it is propaganda? I wonder if OlidaO saw the film. I think editing of this page should be done by people who watched the film, as I did in Venice. EVS-VR (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

To return the sections about disbelieve and Trofimova's position

Two small sections (see below) were removed but they were relevant to the description of the film. The first one relates to the heated discussions that the story is fake, and was a made-up by Russian authorities as propaganda. The second is Trofimova's response and position as cited in media. I suggest returning these sections. Here they are, from previous edits:

A disbelieve in Trofimova's story in some media

Many media outlets expressed doubts about Trofimova's story: that a small single woman can ride with the Russian military all the way to the front, film footage of military equipment and operations, ask her provocative questions, live there for 7 months, all without an official approval from the Russian Ministry of Defense. If these were true, then it would be a great risk for Trofimova, a Canadian citizen, to engage in questioning Russian solders at their front. Some are convinced, therefore, that the film is simply a carefully crafted Russian propaganda project. They speculate that Trofimova, a former filmmaker at RT Documentary was secretely hired by the Russian authorities to produce this film.

However, Trofimova explains that there were many gaps in the control over media in the Russian Army, which was focused more on the military than on the media issues. She also reminded that the speculations about her being hired by Russia to produce this film don't make sense as "no Russian channel is allowed to show even a death of a solder, or criticize the war, unlike my film". She reminds of her risks of being prosecuted in Russia and that Russian soldiers wanted her to film them and their opinions as they had nothing to lose .

The position of the film director Anastasia Trofimova

Trofimova responded to the criticism in multiple interviews, stating that:

"I want to make it clear that this Canadian-French film is anti-war and was made under great risk for everyone, especially for me"

"I find it a little bit of a strange question if we can humanize or not humanize someone. So, are there lists of people who we can humanize and people who we can't? Of course, we have to humanize everyone. This is a huge tragedy for our region, first of all, and for the entire world" .

"If we don't see each other as people… these black and white stereotypes about each other, this will only make the war continue. This will only make the hatred grow… unfortunately, that's sort of the route taken by politicians, but I don't think that this is the route that regular people should take."

“Ukrainian side wants me to show and then condemn military actions of Russian soldiers but their own films don’t show military actions of their soldiers. Instead Ukrainian films show human faces and lives involved in this war. So that what I show too: human lives. What Ukrainian side wants relate to different topics and scripts”.

Trofimova also agreed that the project was very risky for the soldiers and for her personally, and she did not believe at every stage of this project that it was possible. She felt that an anti-war film like this was worth the risks and could be her contribution to finishing the Russian-Ukrainian war.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EVS-VR (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

These are useful sections and very relevant. The "Disbelieve" about possible Russian financing could be added to the Budget section, and the "Position of the Director", as it is sufficiently referenced, can conclude the page. I vote for including both sections to the text. Volunt (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Windsor paragraph

I would argue we don't need this paragraph at all. I recommend deleting, but if kept I recommend this tweak as existing para assumes TIFF threat claims are real.

The film will be shown at the Windsor International Film Festival which will run from October 24 to November 3, 2024. Executive director Vincent Georgie stated that "the film is there to create discussion and debates" and added that there will be additional security measures during the showings of the film, in response to TIFF's claims of threats. 0lida0 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

or, "in response to alleged threats". I don't think there should be an assumption that the threats were real given the statements from police 0lida0 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Another possible addition

British journalist Edward Lucas said that in adding the film to festival programs, "decision-makers should expect a storm of criticism for their mistakes. Lawmakers should ask questions. So should sponsors. Festival-goers can complain. With luck, Trofimova’s film may eventually serve a useful purpose, as a career-killer for all those so shamefully involved in making and promoting it." 0lida0 (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Anita Lee isn't a critical response

she's involved in festival programming so not a film critic

https://tiff.net/programmers/anita-lee 0lida0 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Festivals have vested interest in self-promotion. Should only be used if described and assessed by secondary sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole section "Critical Response" is a mix-up and should be probably united with "Controversy" and then structured. Perhaps, into subsections, as I suggested above. Volunt (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please add a hatnote:

This article is about the 2024 film. For Russian-participating wars, see List of wars involving Russia.

{{about|the 2024 film|Russian-participating wars|List of wars involving Russia}}

-- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Bunnypranav (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

THR did not confirm anything

This new addition is incorrect'

"At the screening, festival CEO Cameron Bailey stated that "In emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of verbal abuse. Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence." Although Bailey did not state this on the record, The Hollywood Reporter further confirmed that TIFF staff had received numerous worrying inquiries requesting schematic floor plan diagrams of the Scotiabank Theatre, and precise details of its security arrangements for the entrance and exit of high-profile talent to and from the venue."

The Hollywood Reporter is simply quoting Bailey verbatim, who did speak on the record, and provides no additional evidence of threats. 0lida0 (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We should also add:

Two Ukrainian murals were desecrated with red paint near the TIFF festival premises. 0lida0 (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

Here is a comprehensive and the most recent version that accommodated previous information and addressed the following concerns: 1) The section describing the film’s screenings at the festivals was renamed to Release, a more common section’s subtitle for Wikipedia pages about films. Similarly, the section Critical Response was renamed to Reception, and additional references were added to this section. The Release section was positioned before the Reception section, in line with the format of other wiki’s pages about films. 2) The section Release (the information about its releases in the festivals) was updated, including TIFF screening and information about other festivals. 3) The introductory paragraph of the previous version had duplicating information about the premiere and controversy (this information is given in the subsequent sections) and so was removed. 4) The Synopsis section had several duplicated sentences, which were integrated in one logical text in this new version. 5) The reference on 5 min ovation was added, as requested by other editors. 6) The reference that Ms. Freeland hadn’t seen the film when she was making her statement on September 10, 2024, being in British Columbia, was added to the text, as requested. 7) The opening chart with the formal information: the runtime information was added, please stop deleting it. Also, the line “starring” is irrelevant here as this is a documentary about “just life”, with no stars.

Russians at War
Directed by	Anastasia Trofimova
Written by	Roland Schlimme
Produced by	Cornelia Principe Sally Blake Philippe Levasseur
Cinematography	Anastasia Trofimova
Edited by	Roland Schlimme
Music by	Amin Bouhafa
Release date	September 5, 2024 (2024-09-05) (81st Venice International Film Festival)
Running time	2 hours 9 minutes
Countries	Canada France
Language	Russian

This article is about the 2024 film. For Russian-participating wars, see List of wars involving Russia.

Russians at War is a 2024 Canadian and French documentary film, directed by documentary maker Anastasia Trofimova ]] . The film focuses on the perspective of Russian soldiers and medics during the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war . Trofimova illegally made her way to the frontline without the permission of the Russian Ministry of Defense using just the good will of soldiers helping her to travel with them. She then spent seven months near the frontline on the Russian side filming her interviews with soldiers and their everyday routines.

The film generated significant controversy at international film festivals, the media and among Canadian politicians, with many critics praising it for its anti-war spin but some seeing it as sophisticated Russian propaganda .

 Not done: Copy pasting the entire article is not the appropriate way to request a change, an edit request needs to be in a "change X to Y" format. This request needs also needs to be broken up into more managable sections, possibly utilizing the {{text diff}}. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Production

Trofimova and Canadian Oscar-nominated (To Kill a Tiger) producer Cornelia Principe and co-producer Sally Blake described during their press-conference in Venice September 5, 2024, that the production of this film started as an anti-war project to reflect the perspective of Russians citizens and soldiers . Then, as an unexpected turn of events, Trofimova used a unique opportunity to follow a Russian soldier, whom she met in Moscow subway, on his way to the frontline. Without permission from the Ministry of Defense, and taking advantage of lax approach of local commanders, she eventually embeds herself with the Russian battalion, as it makes its way across the Donetsk or Luhansk regions. With very limited internet access and telephone contacts, Trofimova, Principle and Blake had to improvise to secure the obtained footage. .

Editing and post-production was conducted in Canada and France, with experienced video-editor Roland Schlimme involved in shaping the film from the start of its production. French musician Amin Bouhafa, who previously wrote the music for the films Along Came Love, Class Act, Halal Love, You Will Die at Twenty, Tug of War, Amin, Nika, Astel, produced the music for this film at a very tight time schedule.

According to the The Kyiv Independent, the film received in total CA$340,000 in funding from the Canada Media Fund

Synopsis

Shot in a fly-on-the-wall cinéma vérité style, Russians at War follows documentarian Anastasia Trofimova as she spends seven months following Russian soldiers and medics from one location. She films their routines and dialogues, as well as asks her own provocative questions, getting a rare glimpse of an often ramshackle army in a regular state of disarray .

Many of her subjects reveal feelings of confusion and disillusionment with their government.. The film takes the audience from 180 km behind the front lines where ranks are "replenished" to the trenches of the front line where men die. The soldiers depicted are often volunteers who say they went to the front for various personal reasons: vague patriotism, avenging fallen friends, protecting loved ones, preventing their children from going to war in the future, or, more commonly, for money .

"Deadline Hollywood 's" Melanie Goodfellow describes the film as depicting "botched military sorties; hiding, petrified in dug outs; shrapnel-shredded dead comrades being slung into trucks in body bags, and commanders in shell shock as they relive the day's horrors. Any initial patriotic fervour dissipates, with the handful of subjects who survive to the end of the film questioning why they are there and expressing their lack of desire to fight, but suggesting they have no choice but to follow orders."

Release

The film’s trailer was first released September 4, 2024 .

Venice International Film Festival

The Word premier of “Russians at War” occurred at the 81st Venice International Film Festival on September 5, 2024. The film received a five-minute standing ovation from the audience .

The Artistic Director of the Venice Film Festival Alberto Barbera defended the film from Ukrainian critics, noting that the film is "very far from being an act of propaganda" and that "it is an anti-war film, with a very sensible and touching human approach, as well as great artistic craftsmanship."

Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF)

The film had its North American premier on September 17, 2024 at the 49th Toronto International Film Festival, immediately following the Venice Film Festival . In contrast to the smooth presentation of Russians at War at the 81st Venice International Film Festival, screening of the film at TIFF was surrounded by a noticeable social and political controversy. On September 10, 2024, the Ukranian community held a protest outside Scotiabank Theatre Toronto, where TIFF was holding the film's press screening. As the press noted, none of the participants of this protest saw the film as it was only screened in closed venues in Venice, Italy a few days prior .

TIFF denied the request of the Ukrainian-Canadian community to exclude the film from the program. TIFF defended its decision in a statement released on September 11, noting that "in no way should this film be considered Russian propaganda" and that "as a cultural institution, we stand for the right of artists and cultural workers to express fair political comment freely and oppose censorship. Because filmmakers, like all artists, work in dynamic engagement with their societies, we believe that our role as curators and presenters of the film must stand for an unequivocal defence of artistic expression and a commitment to provide safe, open spaces to engage, critique and reflect on artists' work."

According to the TIFF organizers talking to Hollywood Reporter, “a number of former TIFF staffers had received numerous worrying inquiries requesting schematic floor plan diagrams of the Scotiabank Theatre, and precise details of its security arrangements for the entrance and exit of high-profile talent to and from the venue.. TIFF CEO Cameron Bailey described that “in emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of verbal abuse. Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence. We were horrified, and our staff members were understandably frightened. “We also learned of plans to disrupt or stop the screenings. Because last week’s screenings were scheduled at a 14-screen multiplex on some of the festival’s busiest days, we determined that it would be safer not to go ahead with those plans.” . In a move, unprecedented in TIFF history, on September 12, TIFF announced that it was pausing the North American public premiere for the film citing "significant threats to festival operations and public safety". The pause resulted in the cancellation of three public screenings planned from September 13-15.

On September 15, TIFF announced that it arrange the film’s North-American premiere with two screenings on September 17, 2024 at the TIFF-owned Bell Lightbox cultural center located in Downtown Toronto . During the screenings and unusual for TIFF, there was a visibly enhanced presence of police and security personnel controlling the interference from Ukrainian-Canadian protestors

In his open speech before the screening on February 17, 2024, the festival CEO Cameron Bailey reiterated that Trofimova’s film (which is a France-Canada co-production seeking international distribution) went through a “rigorous selection process and was invited based on its “artistic merits” and on its “relevance to the horrific, ongoing war prompted by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.” He added that “TIFF screened a number of docs from Ukrainian filmmakers at the 2022, 2023 and 2024 festivals, offering firsthand insights into said horrors. We are deeply sympathetic to the pain felt by Ukrainian Canadians at the violence and destruction caused by Russia’s invasion, but verbal abuse and threats of violence, in response to the screening of a film, cross a dangerous line. We’re presenting ‘Russians at Wars’ to stand against that abuse, against those threats, and for the importance of media and curatorial independence.”

Anita Lee, the Toronto International Film Festival 's Chief Programming Officer wrote that "Trofimova assembles a spellbinding tale of sacrifice and disillusionment in which soldiers resemble pawns in a nefarious game. "Russians at War" reminds us of the human cost on both sides. As Trofimova so eloquently puts it, "the fog of war is so thick that you can't see the human stories it's made of.""

Lunenburg Documentary Festival

Lunenburg Documentary Festival in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia also received protests from the Ukrainian-Canadian community against screening this film. In response to this protest, the festival issued a statement: “The film “Russians at War” was selected to provide further insight into a tragic conflict which is still ongoing. While not a comprehensive study of the invasion, it does provide a window to observe the devastating impact of distant political decisions on the lives of less powerful individuals. In another selection, “Porcelain War” we will see how determined individual Ukrainian men and women continue to create art, while being subjected to the chaos of the war. The decision to exhibit these films was based on their merits and fit with our programming objectives. .

‘Russians at War’ was screened at this festival on September 20, 2024.

Athens International Film Festival, Premiere Nights

The Pan-Hellenic premiere of this film is scheduled at the 30th International Documentary Film Competition of Athens Premiere Nights, Greece, taking place October 2-24, 2024

Zurich Film Festival

The film is scheduled for four screening also at the Zurich Film Festival October 3-13 October 2024 . The organizers of this festival already acknowledged receiving "protest letters" from the Ukrainian government . France24 channel reports that the organizers released the following statement: “We can understand that the film evokes strong emotions in Ukrainians, but we will maintain its projection, because we consider that 'Russians at War' is an anti-war film” . Keyston-ATS news agency also cites the director of the Zurich Film Festival Christian Jungen saying: “It was understandable that "Ukrainians are unhappy" but insisting that "films should incite discussion". Jungen added that he considered the documentary an "anti-war film" .

The Ukraine Ambassador to Switzerland Iryna Venediktova, who didn’t see the film, arranged a meeting with the ZFF Artistic Director Christian Jungen on September 24, 2024 and, as stated in her X post, “urged @zurichfilmfest to ban the screening of 'Russians at War' to avoid being weaponised by Russian propaganda” .

On September 26, 2024 the festival ZFF has issued the statement that even though the film “will remain in the Documentary Film Competition of the ZFF”, the festival cancels the public screening of the film “due to safety reasons. For the ZFF, the safety of its audience, guests, partners as well as the staff is the top priority.” .

In her interview to the Swiss DIE WELTWOCHE, the film’s director described unprecedented threats to the festival organizers . The Swiss outlet Neue Zürcher Zeitung comments that “This leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The question arises as to how drastically official bodies have interfered… It is an unprecedented incident: one cannot remember a Swiss cultural institution ever being forced to take a similar step by foreign actors – especially by actors from a friendly state.”

Windsor International Film Festival

The film will be shown at the Windsor International Film Festival which will run from October 24 to November 3, 2024. Executive director Vincent Georgie stated that "the film is there to create discussion and debates" and added that there will be additional security measures during the showings of the film, in response to the TIFF threats .

Reception

Noticeable anti-war content

Many critics who saw the film praised it for the anti-war spin . The American magazine Hollywood Reporter noted, “running the gamut from left-wing to -right, the country’s three national newspapers — the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the National Post — all published pieces praising the film (which this writer has seen) as a powerful anti-war polemic that portrays Russia’s infantry as inept and unmotivated, feeling betrayed and confused about why they are actually fighting” .

• Toronto Star gave the film 4 out of 4 stars:“Russians at War” is, despite the controversy surrounding it, an excellent and bracing documentary. Its observational honesty is its great feat, sharing the harrowing experiences of soldiers easily demonized in the West and glossed over by state media at home.

• The prominent American film-critics source named after Roger Ebert: “Not dissimilar to Erich Maria Remarque’s novel about German soldiers in the Great War, Trofimova’s film gives a welcome perspective at the level of the individual soldier .

• “Set the Bar” of the WordPress gave the score 95/100: “Comparisons to “Platoon” and “All Quiet on the Western Front” can be drawn here. Mismanaged grunts quickly realizing the brutality of war minimized and glorified of course by Russian politicians and the media.”

• French channel TV5Monde: “The film is deeply pacifist” .

• Marsha Lederman from The Globe and Mail: “It shows, unvarnished, the horrors of the war, including some of the most horrific footage you will ever see on a big screen. This documentary in no way glorifies Russia or its army or its war effort. This film in no way demonizes Ukraine or its people…”.

• Pat Mullen from the “Point Of View”, as well as The Globe and Mail draw parallels between this film and a winner of four Academy Awards the film All Quiet on the Western Front, “perhaps the greatest of anti-war works” as it “observes an awakening as some soldiers, and the families who grieve them, ask questions that are absent from the barracks in the early scenes.” .

Media praised the rarity of the footage

The majority of reviews acknowledged the professionalism and surprisingly rare access to the daily routines of soldiers fighting on the Russian side during the Ukrainian-Russian war:

• American film critics sourceRoger Ebert: “Anastasia Trofimova, provides a unique glimpse into the lives of the soldiers on what for them is the Western Front.

• The German channel DW News: "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." .

• The Canadian “Globe & Mail”: “Anastasia Trofimova’s film is no-holds-barred reproach of war in general… It is extraordinary” .

• Toronto Star in its 4/4 stars review: “without casting aspersions on Trofimova’s personal beliefs about the war’s causes, the film is wholly uninterested in having that political-historical debate. Rather, what it offers is unfiltered insight into present conditions and contradictions… Importantly, Trofimova does challenge her subjects, prodding them with questions about their views, purpose and actions in the war” .

• German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “Russians at War” can clearly be read as an anti-war film. Trofimova shows that the Russians who are being used up in Ukraine are there primarily for financial reasons, that they have to continue fighting without pay after they have served their contracts. She shows how the propaganda has an impact, but also how cynicism and alcohol shape everything. And she shows that the Soviet Union still has an enormous influence. A young medic says that her worldview is shaped by the old films from that time, which she sees as “uncynical”. She does not say the implication that she is serving in a cynical war, but it can be read in “Russians at War”. Trofimova is present in her film above all with her questions from off-screen. These are the simple questions that arise from a humanistic perspective.

• Canadian “In The Seats”: “the art of this film “is vital to … our understanding of the human condition on many different levels”

• The Italian cultural channel Sentieriselvaggi: “Russians at War” is “one of the most interesting and fascinating films of the entire 2024 Film Festival”, “one of the most interesting and courageous films of this edition”

• Zinaida Pronchenko from the American-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "Regardless of the motives and conditions of filming, this is a unique material, the very 'trench truth' that is usually not visible behind the 'fog of war'."Pronchenko described the feelings from the film as fear and despair

• The German TV channel ARD: “The film is an important contemporary document… Trofimova gave us a perspective that we rarely see”

• Film critics “Pravila Jisni” Egor Moskvitin, responding to the questions of the channel ‘Business FM’ considered the film “talented”, praising “the trust of her characters to the film-maker” and “polarity of opinions of the characters in this film; they don’t offer one specific point of view on the events, not simplifying the documentary perspective of this film… The film had a positive reception (in Venice) because the producer managed to maintain the most important balance between publicism, giving her own view of the events and responsibility for her characters.”

Acknowledgement of the bravery of the film’s director

The footage of the film was obtained by its director at her own risk and initiative, when she and her Canadian team were looking for an opportunity to talk to Russian soldiers after the Ukrainian-Russian war has started When such opportunity suddenly occurred by pure chance, Trofimova grabbed her camera and “jumped to the wagon”, joining one of the Russian soldiers with great personal risks and no approval from the Russian Ministry of Defense .

Critics praised Trofimova’s bravery , calling the film courageous” .

The Globe and Mail evaluated the film as “a brave and exceptional documentary: “A talented filmmaker, without an official posting or even a press pass, followed …Russian fighters… almost all the way to the front so that we could know about it. And be outraged. Not at the film; at the war.

Even the TVO in their statement from September 6, 2024 praised the film pointing out that “It is unauthorized by Russian officials and was made at great personal risk to the filmmaker, who was under constant threat of arrest and incarceration for trying to tell an unofficial story.” . The TVO called “Russians at War” “a documentary made in the tradition of independent war correspondence” .

Trofimova also agreed that the project was very risky for the soldiers and for her personally, and she did not believe at every stage of this project that it was possible. She felt that an anti-war film like this was worth the risks and could be her contribution to finishing the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Controversy and political pressure

Protests by those who haven’t seen the film

The film became a matter of controversy within the first few days of its world premiere in Venice. A famous American source for films analysis “Roger Ebert” summarized the controversy as “The film became … the subject of mass protests outside the venue by supporters of Ukraine believing it to be mere propaganda (none of whom had seen the film), and even members of Trudeau’s government excoriating the festival for playing the film at all .

Indeed, many film critics noticed that the time line of the film premiere and subsequent screening suggested that the majority of those who protested against the film, hadn’t seen it, including politicians . The film was screened on September 5-6, 2024 in the secluded area of Lido Island of Venice during the 81st Venice International Film Festival, to which the access was limited to pass holders and then at a closed (industry) screening at TIFF on September 10, 2024.

The first uninformed criticism of the film came from the Ukrainian director Olha Zhurba who also presented a documentary regarding the Ukrainian-Russian war at the 81st Venice International Film Festival. Zhurba admitted not seeing the film at the time of her statements expressed on September 4, 2024 but raised concerns about the film’s empathy to Russian soldiers. The Ukrainian producer of Zhurba’s film Darya Bassel criticized the decision of the Venice Film Festival to screen Russians at War because the film "presents a very distorted picture of reality" and that Trofimova's documentary is "spreading false narratives" Bassel pointed out that the film pictures as Russian invasion started in 2022, while Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014; people shown in film repeat Russian propaganda narratives about "Ukrainians are nazis" and "civil war in Ukraine"..

Zhurba’s and Bassel’s opinions quickly echoed in Ukrainian and the Ukrainian-Canadian communities, as well as Canadian politicians who characterized it as “Russian propaganda".

On September 9, 2024, the Ukrainian MP Yevheniia Kravchuk, without any chance to see the film, stated that the film is a "striking example of how Russia, thanks to its soft power, is trying to promote its narratives about a ‘more comprehensive understanding of the war’. And unfortunately, they are doing this quite successfully.". Ukrainian officials called for the film to be removed from the TIFF and to prevent the film from being screened .

Ukraine's consul-general in Toronto, Oleh Nikolenko, also hadn’t seen the film when submitting his letter dated September 5, 2024 to TIFF as he wasn’t a delegate in Venice Festival. On behalf of the Consulate General of Ukraine in Toronto, the Ukrainian embassy in Ottawa and the non-profit Ukrainian Canadian Congress, in this letter he urged TIFF CEO Cameron Bailey to remove the film from the festival schedule and criticized the Canadian government for helping to fund the documentary .

On September 7-10, 2024 Ukrainian-Canadian community called for its members to protest against its screening at TIFF, requesting removal the film from the program. Many journalists who talked to protesters noted that the majority of them “haven’t seen the film but screamed propaganda” even when it was eventually screened in Toronto.. Washington Post cites Ukrainian protesters saying that they bought tickets to each of the two screenings “not because they intended to go, but to prevent others from seeing it.” Protesters admitted not seeing it, saying “the trailer was enough”, “I don’t want to listen to any stories, any explanations, any justifications from Russians”, “They are war criminals”. Other Ukrainian protesters started watching the film but didn’t finish . As German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung pointed out,“Most of the demonstrators had only seen the trailer, but suspected Russian propaganda. They would probably not take back the accusation even if they had seen the whole film.” . “As is always the case, - wrote National Post, the people who managed to get this film cancelled almost certainly haven’t seen it” . Canadian “Point of View” magazine writes: “Protesters, who by all accounts hadn’t seen the film given the inaccuracies of their characterizations of it, decried the doc as Russian propaganda and picketed the first press and industry screening, which preceded the public events by several days. Which is a shame, since it’s a strong (if flawed) film and one example that showed how 2024 marked an exceptionally notable year for TIFF Docs”

Meanwhile, the political controversy increased when the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland made a denouncing statement about ‘Russians at War’ while speaking to reporters in Nanaimo, British Columbia on September 10, 2024 , not having had a chance to see the film at that time as she was over 3500 km away from Toronto that day. By the request of the CBC, on September 16, 2024 she issued the statement “I have seen the film” but didn’t specify, when. Yet, in her statement, she denounced the film, saying, "it's not right for Canadian public money to be supporting the screening and production of a film like this." Freeland famously helped accommodate a million Ukrainian refugees in Canada after February 2022 and, according to her Wikipedia pagehas Ukrainian heritage and “has played a critical role in the Canadian response to the Russo-Ukrainian War, including the implementation of sanctions on Russia, sending aid to Ukraine before and after the invasion in 2022” .

Canadian MP James Bezan who in his facebook post wrote “My family is proud of our Ukrainian roots and always love a chance to celebrate” submitted a petition to Canadian Senate, without seeing the film but stating that the film “paints a nice picture of how Russians are fighting in Ukraine and requesting an investigation of how Canadian Funds “were used to pay for this Russian misinformation complain and… represent Russian interests here in Canada” and asking “to cease all the footage that was captured”

Two Canadian senators of Ukrainian heritage, Stan Kutcher and Donna Dasko , according to Kutcher facebook page, “sent a letter to Lunenburg Film Festival regarding their showing of the film “Russians at war”. We asked them to reconsider giving a platform to this sort Russian propaganda”. Dasko and Kutcher sent a similar letter to TIFF and had many posts on the facebook insisting that “Russia at war” is “Russian propaganda and disinformation” and, during the Senate’s hearing, requiring to ensure that Canadian money would never go to “films like this” .

The Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications included the director of this film Anastasia Trofimova in the list of people posing a threat to the national security of Ukraine (the order No. 652 from September 17, 2024) . Trofimova’s name, her email and other contact information, address and background information was also added to the “hit list of Ukrainian enemies” Myrotvorets .

Under political pressure, the TVO made a decision to withdraw from the film

Immediately after Freeland’s comments to reporters in British Columbia and before any screenings of the film in Canada, the same day on September 10, 2024 the documentary’s distributor TV Ontario (TVO), backed away from the film in a very brief, 3-line statement: “We have listened to the Ukrainian-Canadian community and their thoughtful and heartfelt input… TVO will be reviewing the process by which this project was funded and our brand leveraged."

Several media outlets considered this decision as made under political pressure from Chrystia Freeland since “ironically, TVO’s decision to pull the film came mere hours after an industry panel at TIFF where filmmakers praised TVO for its support for filmmakers eager to take risks and engage audiences with challenging and topical films.” . Indeed, the TVO board’s decision to pull the film from the schedule backtracks on a statement made by the TVO Education Group just four days earlier on September 6, 2024: “Russians at War is at its core an anti-war film… This film shows the increasing disillusionment of Russian soldiers as their experience at the front doesn’t jive with the media lies their families are being told at home. The film was produced by an Academy Award nominee with the support of cultural agencies in France and Canada because it is a documentary made in the tradition of independent war correspondence. We encourage people to see the documentary for themselves when it is available.”.

Media universally saw the statement of Deputy PM and the TVO decision as censorship

Media outlets, such as The Globe and Mail , National Post , , Washington Post, Toronto Star and Point of View immediately reacted to the statement of the Deputy PM and the TVO decision, seeing it as censorship. Canadian Szechuan Palace magazine reported that “the film was seen by a significant number of Canadian journalists during the fest, with press reaction unanimous in rejecting the deputy prime minister’s characterization.” .

Citing Deputy Prime Minister Freeland’s concerns, that “it’s not right for Canadian public money to be supporting the screening and production of a film like this”, National Post responded: “No, what’s inappropriate is recipients of public money cancelling projects under pressure from politicians and special-interest groups.. The most important point is that government and government-funded entities — Ontario’s public broadcaster, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC), TIFF, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and other MPs — successfully conspired to keep people from seeing the film and judging for themselves ” .

‘Point of View’ magazine writes: “Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who also hadn’t seen the film, bought into the misinformation campaign of the uninformed protesters and denounced both the doc and the festival for allegedly white-washing Russia’s crimes (which it doesn’t). As she legitimatized the mob and gave the controversy traction, Freeland essentially threw public funding for political art under the bus—an affront to this lefty film critic who believes that everyone should watch a film before reviewing it, although I can appreciate the pain that Ukrainian-Canadians may feel over the film’s premise.”

Moreover, in response to the TVO withdrawal from the film, the Documentary Organization of Canada issued a statement, in which it is "profoundly alarmed by TVOntario's Board of Directors' recent unilateral decision to withdraw support for the documentary "Russians at War"… This project, a Canadian-French co-production, was developed through a multi-year collaborative effort involving the filmmakers and TVO’s Documentary team. TVO’s team has traditionally operated with editorial independence, fostering essential collaboration with independent filmmakers through established journalistic processes of review and discussion. The Board’s decision undermines these fundamental processes and raises serious concerns about political interference, and must be confronted in order to preserve the integrity of our media institutions”

Jane Jankovic, the former executive producer of documentaries at TVO following her retirement, also issued a statement on the TVO board decision. “I commissioned this film for TVO when I was executive producer of documentaries. I was surprised the board of directors at TVO decided it will not broadcast the film,” she said. “This action is worrisome for the documentary industry. What has happened to Russians at War is a form of censorship. It creates a chill among documentary funders that will prevent important and controversial stories from being told. That is not our tradition in Canada. Documentaries are meant to create conversations, not shut them down.

The editors of Canadian magazine “Point of View” stated: TVO’s decision to withdraw support comes at a moment of seismic change for the documentary community. Talking points at festivals and industry panels have noted distributors’ and broadcasters’ risk aversion and growing reluctance to support overtly political documentaries as music docs and celebrity biographies inundate streamers and broadcast windows. The result could have serious implications for filmmakers eager to depict challenging and provocative stories.

Indeed, Marsha Leberban from The Globe and Mail reminded that censoring art is never a good idea. But keeping this film under wraps is denying the public of more than the experience of seeing an excellent movie. It is restricting access to a vital message: an unforgiving indictment of war”, “it is a cowardly move to work to suppress his courageous film. And it is a mistake… Propaganda? Please. Triumph of the Will this is not. This is eye-opening and gutting. The only “propaganda” this documentary serves up is an anti-war message that should be delivered as far and wide as possible.”

Andrew Phillips from Toronto Star called the “TVO’s position in this mess is particularly egregious” translating the TVO’s board of directors September 10, 2024 statement as “”We got pressured and we caved.” Phillips’ opinion was that “for politicians and organizations like TVO to go along in this case with what amounts to a demand for censorship is shameful”

TIFF CEO Cameron Bailey explained his decision to keep the film in the program despite political pressure: “I believe that surrendering to pressure from some members of the public — or from the government — when it comes to presenting any cultural product, can become a corrosive force in our society. We were guided by TIFF’s mission and its values when we selected the film, and I believe those principles — and the principle of independent media in Canada — are worth defending.”.

When Chris Selley from the National Post argued that this film shouldn’t be cancelled under pressure from politicians and special-interest groups, he was accused of enabling fascism by a member of the King’s Privy Council, former Conservative immigration minister Chris Alexander , who admitted not seeing the film . Selly also points out that another politician, Canadian Liberal MP Yvan Baker crowed on social media “We did it!” after TIFF paused the film’s North American premier. Instead of restraining protestors from reported threats of violence, Baker wrote to them “Thank you to all who worked to make this happen.” Selly comments on this: “Censorship is bad. If you need a citation, I would suggest the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the principle predates that document by centuries”.

The production team submitted an official legal request to the TVO demanding this network to reinstate the support for the film. As The Globe and Mail reports, in a letter dated September 19, 2024 and addressed to TVO board and management, lawyer Danny Webber wrote that the network’s decision to pull support for the film “represents a clear violation of the filmmaker’s rights, not only under the broadcast agreement but also in terms of the broader principles of fairness, editorial independence, and respect for artistic integrity”

“Propaganda” debates

The statement of Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland characterizing the documentary as propaganda echoed in several Ukrainian outlets . Canadian senators of Ukrainian heritage Stan Kutcher and Donna Dasko specifically called “Russians at War” as a “propaganda film”. This narrative dominated protests at TIFF. Donovan Vincent from the Toronto Star described that “At one point I was booed by several in the crowd. One protester shouted laudly at me, singled me out and accused me of helping to “finance Russian propaganda”.

Russian film director Vitaly Mansky praised the film’s professionalism but said that "it is quite obvious that the author is on the side of their heroes" and called the film's screening in Venice "a mistake by the festival." Mansky himself attempted to send a cameraman to film on the Russian side during the invasion, but his cameraman was promptly arrested.. Kyiv-born producer Alexader Rodnyansky published articles criticizing TIFF’s support of the film and insisted that it was sophisticated Russian propaganda . Ukrainian-Canadian freelance reporter Lidiia Karpenko argued that “whitewashing Russian soldiers is an insult to the Ukrainian victims of their invasion” .

However, many film critics and journalists who saw the film disagreed that it is Russian propaganda:

Julian Carrington, formerly of Hot Docs and current executive manager of the Racial Equity Media Collective stated: “As a former Senior Industry Manager at Hot Docs, I was the administrator of the Hot Docs Ted Rogers Fund when Russians at War was selected to receive production support in 2022. I have also now seen the finished film, which evidently cannot be said for the overwhelming majority of those who decry it as Russian propaganda. Indeed, having actually seen the film, the notion that it is pro-Russian propaganda is bewilderingly upside down” . Jane Jankovic, the former executive producer of documentaries at the TVO agrees: “The film is not propaganda for the Russians. In fact, it shows the embarrassing fragility of the Russian war machine and the lack of conviction of its own soldiers.” .

The National Post categorically disagreed with Freeland’s characterization of the film as propaganda: “Only a purebred lunatic could suggest such a thing, having seen the film”. Charges of the film being Russian propaganda fall flat on their face” . The outlet cites members of the public who “decided to see the film after politicians began criticizing it…” They said “it was far from Russian propaganda. I think it was clear that the group of soldiers that she embedded with were teenagers. They knew nothing. They have no idea what’s going on, and they did say more than once, ‘Don’t watch Russian television.’”

Several reviews and opinion pieces in the most experienced journalists of Toronto Star supported this view . Rosie DiManno summarized it: “‘Russians at War’ isn’t propaganda, it’s a vital testament to the horrors of Putin’s brutality… There’s no jingoism or flag-waving for Mother Russia in this exposition, no intimation that Putin’s ‘special military operation’ can ever be won, and no camouflaging the horrors of war”.

“It’s the furthest thing from propaganda on behalf of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine you could imagine…It’s the view from ground-level, quite literally as soldiers dig into the dirt for protection and scrape the remains of their comrades out of muddy shelters. Trofimova meant it to be an anti-war statement, and it certainly is that ”, wrote Andrew Phillips . Justin Ling adds: "To fully understand “Russians at War,” you must appreciate that it is neither documentary nor propaganda: It is Kino-Pravda, ‘film truth,’ a style pioneered by Russian filmmaker Dziga Vertov. Kino-Pravda sought to replace art and romanticism in cinema with scenes of real people living out the noble mundaneness of life." He further stated that "after watching the film and speaking to Trofimova, I’m here to tell you that the truth lies in between: It is not propaganda, but it is informed by it… As a piece of primary historical evidence, “Russians at War” is incredibly useful. ...I don’t think Trofimova is a Kremlin stooge — she offers a “100 per cent” guarantee that her film has no involvement from any facet of the Russian government. And so there is no reason, in my mind, to censor, cancel, or denounce it”. . Corey Atad gave the film 4/4 stars noting “Despite baseless accusations of Trofimova being a Russian state-backed operative, her matter-of-fact and mostly non-editorialized approach to capturing the drudgery and horror of the war experience is, for anyone convinced of Russia’s wrongdoing, understandably frustrating to watch.”

German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also disagreed that the film was propaganda: “Anastasia Trifomowa shows the war in Ukraine from the point of view of ordinary Russian participants. She followed a soldier to the front and then shared the everyday life of the foot soldiers of the war for several months, first at Krasnyj Lyman, later in front of Bakhmut.”

Chris Selley from the National Post writes: “If Anastasia Trofimova’s film Russians at War is a piece of Kremlin-approved propaganda, as its legions of detractors allege, then whoever approved it should stay well clear of any high windows”.. He also published a follow-up article describing Canadian MPs siding with protesters at TIFF and practically calling this journalist a “fascist” simply for sharing the position of TIFF organizers .

The Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung also concluded: “It is doubtful that the Kremlin likes this portrayal of the soldiers. It is difficult to see a sophisticated propaganda effort behind the film”. <ref=NZZ27-09/>

The producer of the film, Cornelia Principe, responding to the criticism of the film omitting the coverage of war crimes stated that none of the film could cover all topics, and this film simply focused on a different topic than what Ukrainians would like the film to show . “The film doesn’t say the war crimes didn’t happen, it’s totally outside of the film. This film is about specifically this battalion, I don’t think there is any contradiction on that” - said Principe . "Trofimova explained: “Ukrainian side wants me to show and then condemn military actions of Russian soldiers but their own films don’t show military actions of their soldiers. Instead Ukrainian films show human faces and lives involved in this war. So that is what I show too: human lives. Whatever the Ukrainian side wants, it relates to different topics and scripts” . "If we don't see each other as people – says Trofimova - these black-and white stereotypes about each other this will only make the war continue. This will only make the hatred grow… unfortunately, that's sort of the route taken by politicians, but I don't think that this is the route that regular people should take."

The issue of obtaining permissions for filming in war zones

The historian Ian Garner noted that Trofimova did not have official Ukrainian permission to film the soldiers after entering Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. According to Garner, this "hardly stands up to scrutiny in a country where independent journalism simply does not exist" and that Trofimova absolved the soldiers of moral responsibility for war crimes such as rape, looting, and murder by presenting them as "blind kittens", and "helpless to intervene". Garner termed this an "alarming reiteration of the 'just following orders' narratives" that surrounded the Holocaust.

Trofimova, during the interviews, described that “getting to the places where others couldn’t” was a matter of her pride and professionalism, and that many war journalists work without official permissions from the sides involved in wars. She reminded that the standards and expectations are different for war journalists, in comparison with journalists covering civil matter. For example, when she was filming for her ISIS-related films, the had to work on the territory of four different states, which were unfriendly to each other and safety became a higher priority over permissions. .

References

EVS-VR (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)