Few
weeks ago while doing my research I found out a very interesting research that
concerns the portrayal of Ukrainians in the US media. "56 years, 89 titles and a single story about Ukraine" is a collection of episodes from US movies
where words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian" were mentioned. The
author of this research just tells that the image of Ukraine in American movies
is highly stereotyped, but he doesn't go into details. So, I did it. Using this
material, I tried to analyse these scenes in order to see what image of Ukraine
Hollywood propose to its viewer. So, here is what I found.
First of
all, American filmmakers associate Ukraine with corruption and gangsterism. In
these movies Ukrainians often are shown as ignorant criminals or prostitutes
who don’t respect law.
Heroes of
analysed movies often refer to Ukraine while making some negative comments or mockery
comparisons. For example, a sarcastic phrase said by the hero in the moment of
irritation "Where are we? In Ukraine!?"
Ukrainian
emigrant in America is usually depicted as a person who loves his or her
country, but had to leave it because there is no opportunity to make a decent
living. However, as movies show, life is not going to be easier in the USA.
Most of Ukrainians who had a good career back home, now have to work as maid, housekeeper,
cleaner, waiter or salesperson. Moreover, they often are humiliated and
are not held in respect by their boss.
Nevertheless,
there were also some positive stereotypes. For example, beautiful landscapes,
fertile land and people occupied in farming and agriculture.
Also I really
like the fact that a few movies emphasized the difference between Ukrainians
and Russians, telling that they are not the same, not even the similar people.
For decades
Hollywood has been using the stereotypical image of Ukraine as a country of
Chornobyl, a land of corruption and crime, a place with no opportunities and no
future. And I’m not saying that all
these things are not true. Yes, we do have a lot of problems and some of them
are mentioned in these movies. But the thing is that these problems do not
define us. Ukraine is such a big, beautiful and diverse country. It is much
more than all these stereotypes and clichés.
The author
of this collection ends his work with a very good question asking "Maybe
it is just the right time to rethink Ukraine?" Well, I think the answer is
obvious.
Three days ago, on Friday, November 21st Ukraine commemorated the one year anniversary of Euromaidan. At that day BBC Ukraine published a list of the documentaries about the Revolution of Dignity. And I was really surprised to find out that one of these movies was made by Americans.
"Maidan Massacre" is a documentary directed by John Hoffmann. It is an investigation of the shootings that took place on 20th of February in Kyiv in result of which near 100 people died. So, I started to watch this documentary, full of expectations that if it is made by Americans, it must be good. I hoped that the movie will be direct and will show all the crimes of President Yanukovych and his people.
On the very first seconds of the movie, when the map of Ukraine appeared, I started doubting the objective views of John Hofmann. The thing is that the map lacked Crimea which is de jure Ukrainian land. However, for some reason Hoffmann chose to join the peninsula to Russia.
Second thing that compels my attention was the episode from Russian news. Why the director decided to place it in the film? Can't he pick some episodes made by European or American journalists who are definitely more trustworthy than their Russian colleagues?
What's more, while showing the beginning of the protest the author doesn't tell a word about events of the 30th of November. At that night many innocent unarmed students were brutally beaten on the Independence Square, also called Maidan. It was a turning point in the development of Revolution. Tens, and then hundreds thousands of people came on the Maidan not because of the EU integration, but because they wanted to show their protest against the arbitrariness of the government.
Also, the movie pays no attention to all the crimes of Yanukovych government. Instead, it tells how more and more aggressive protestors became without mentioning the reasons for such behaviour. So, it creates the impression that demonstrators were some frivolous people who just didn't like their President anymore and decided to organise a political upheaval.
Moreover, John Hoffmann claims that protestors were well-armed. If "well-armed" means wooden shields and sticks, stones and Molotov cocktails, than he is right. But how these can be compared to the professional weapon policemen had? Of course, "Maidan Massacre" promotes a message that policeman didn't have firearms, that they would not have shot unless there was a threat to their life, that their commander would dismiss them for using arms. However, former Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaliy Zakcharchenko admitted that policemen were allowed to use weapon against the protesters. And they definitely used it.
Nevertheless, it's the soldiers who were under the pressure, as the movie says. During one of the episodes Ben Tisa, an express witness consultant and law enforcement instructor, gives his arguments in support of policemen. He claims that policemen's task is to protect people, not to kill them. It is a correct statement, but unfortunately it doesn't appeal to the Ukrainian reality. There are a lot of videos
and photographs that shows how officers shot at protesters
and beat them with sticks. Policemen even shot at journalists and medical workers and eventually killed at least 2 of them. These facts are known to the Western press, but for some reason the author of the movie didn't include it in his documentary.
The movie mentions that on both sides were dead people, but doesn't give precise numbers. Maybe, they decided not to mention it because there were almost 100 protesters killed and 16 policemen. It doesn't look logical to me that demonstrators (who as the documentary says, could be the one to blame in shootings) would accidentally kill so many of their people.
The
documentary ends with a speech of Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs. She expresses the US support for Ukrainian
people and their disgust for the actions of Ukrainian government. Victoria Nuland adds that she witnessed
how the government used bulldozers and tear gas against the people who were holding
each other’s hands and together prayed for peace. These last minutes of "Maidan
Massacre" are very ironic because the speech that praises Ukrainian people
and their peaceful fight for freedom is accompanied by the video fragments of
aggressive behaviour of the protestors against policemen.
Taking all these into consideration, I can say that either John Hoffmann knows close to nothing about real events that happened on Maidan or he has read too much of the Russian propagandistic press. Or maybe he wanted to express his dissatisfaction with American government and its action in support of Ukrainian demonstrators.
Frankly
speaking, I had to watch the movie twice because after the first viewing I was
very indignant over the way the documentary presents such a tragic day in my
country's history. So, next day I watched it one more time doing my best to be
objective. However, hard as I try I could never agree to the author position. I
feel very sorry that many foreigners have already watched "Maidan
Massacre" and got the wrong impression of these events.
So, just in
case you are interested in the subject of Euromaidan and want to know more
about it I'd like to recommend you a few documentaries made by Ukrainian
filmmakers. These films are in Ukrainian, but all of them have English
subtitles:
"The Celestial Hundred. The winter, that changed us" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_je1B9s4H4
"The Female Faces of Revolution" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2liRXURTrYg
Starting my
research on the subject of Ukraine and its people in American media I had
already realized that it won't be an easy search. I knew that my beloved Motherland was
rarely mentioned in American media before the Ukrainian crises. So, I was
really surprised to find a Hollywood movie that is set in Ukraine.
"Everything
is Illuminated" is an adaptation of the autobiographical novel with the
same title written by Johnathan Foer. It is directed by Liev Schreiber and
starring Elijah Wood and Eugene Hutz. "Everything is Illuminated"
tells a story of a young Jewish American who comes to Ukraine in order to find
the woman who saved his grandfather during World War II.
Although the movie is mostly about the Jewish
people and the protagonist isn't Ukrainian himself, it introduces Ukraine to a viewer. So, after watching "Everything is Illuminated" an average
American who knows almost nothing about Ukraine would be able to imagine what
Ukraine looks like and what kind of people live there. Unfortunately, this image
is not going to be the positive one.
I think that the movie deserves a title of ‘a collection of stereotypes about Ukraine'. It
shows Ukraine as a country with a lot of dilapidated buildings, very poor
tourist infrastructure and high crime level.
The reasons of such a miserable conditions of life become clear when the viewer acquainted himself with the
Ukrainian people. At this point scenarists of the movie surpassed themselves
in following the preconceptions and not referring to the historical truth. For
example, while history tells that Ukrainians risked their lives hiding the
Jewish people from Nazists during the World War II, in the movie they are
represented as an anti-Semites.
What's
more, Ukrainians that are depicted in the film not only hate Jews, but they
also don't like their fellow countrymen. People from the Western Ukraine are
very aggressive towards people from Kyiv and Odessa or towards any Russian-speaking
person in general.
In
addition, it appears that Ukrainians eat enormous amount
of meat, think about vegetarians as a crazy people, don't familiar with the
concept of political correctness and always wait for perfect moment to steal something
from the foreigners. And how could I possibly live all these years among such a terrible people without noticing it?!
During the
whole film viewer may notice the only one good thing about Ukraine. It is a
large number of beautiful Ukrainian landscapes. All these sunflower fields,
forest roads and country views look so gorgeous that it's impossible not to
fall in love with them. However, all these stunning views are not really Ukrainian.
Actually, they were filmed in Czech Republic.
Sadly as it may be, I must admit that the movie made its contribution to the development of the stereotypical image of Ukraine. Nevertheless, I still
hope that one day Hollywood will make the movie that will represent my
Motherland not as the poor and uncivilized country inhabited by uneducated
racists, but will show Ukraine as it really is.
