Latest news with #RussiansatWar
Canada Standard
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Canada Standard
Cancellations at Canadian film festivals raise questions about accountability
Film festivals are unique cultural institutions, spaces to see diverse films by local and global filmmakers and an important market for distributors. These films are often difficult to see, or even know about, outside of festival circuits. Festivals are also answerable to funders and to different stakeholders' interests. Cancellations of planned films raise questions about festivals' roles and accountability to community groups who find certain films objectionable, the wider public, politicians, festival sponsors, audiences, filmmakers and the films themselves. In September 2024, The Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) faced a backlash from pro-Ukrainian groups - and former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent - when the documentary Russians at War was included in the program. Read more: 'Russians at War' documentary: From the Crimean to the Iraq War, soldier images pose questions about propaganda The Ukrainian Canadian Congress and other advocates called on TIFF to cancel the film, directed by Russian Canadian Anastasia Trofimova, which they accused of being Russian propaganda. TIFF did cancel festival screenings after it was "made aware of significant threats to festival operations and public safety," but once the festival was over, showed Russians at the TIFF Lightbox Theatre. In November, the Montreal International Documentary Festival (RIDM) cancelled the Canadian premiere of Rule of Stone , directed by Israeli Canadian director Danae Elon. As a film and media professor, I supervised Elon's research for the film while she pursued a master's degree at Queen's University. RIDM acknowledged Elon's "personal commitment to criticizing and questioning the state of Israel" through her story about the stone that, by Israeli law, has to be used on the exterior of every new building in Jerusalem. In the film, Elon examines how, in post-1967 Jerusalem, "architecture and stone are the main weapons in a silent, but extraordinarily effective colonization and dispossession process" of Palestinians. As a documentarist and a researcher in Israeli and Palestinian media representations of fighters, I have analyzed both films and followed the controversies. Each focuses on contemporary political issues relevant to our understanding of current affairs. While the reasons for the cancellations are different, in both cases the festivals responded to pressures from community groups, placing the public right to a robust debate at the festival and beyond as secondary. Director Anastasia Trifamova embedded herself in a Russian supply unit, and later a medical team, eventually making her way to the front lines in occupied Ukraine. Trifamova comes across as a naive filmmaker, using an observational, non-judgmental form of filmmaking common in 21st-century war documentaries, as seen in films like Armadillo and Restrepo (respectively following Danish and U.S. troops in Afghanistan). As noted by TIFF, Russians was "an official Canada-France co-production with funding from several Canadian agencies," and Trifamova said she did not seek or receive official permission from the Russian army to film. The film documents the machination of war, where soldiers are both perpetrators of violence and its victims. It humanizes the soldiers, which understandably can be upsetting to Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian publics. But should emotions of one group, outraged and incensed as they may be, prevent the public from having the difficult conversations promoted by the film? Early in the film, Trifamova confronts the soldiers about why they are fighting and they respond with Russian propaganda (fighting Nazism, defending the borders). Later, soldiers approach Trifamova - on camera - to express doubts about the justification of the war and their presence in Ukraine. The film provides an unflattering view of Russia's attack on Ukraine, emphasizing the futility of the war and the incredible toll on soldiers and civilians (including some Ukrainian civilians). Russian troops appear untrained and poorly equipped to fight in chaotically managed battles. Like Armadillo and Restrepo , Russians at War represents the soldiers without judgment and contributes to necessary conversations about war. In my analysis, while Trifamova refrains - in her sporadic voice-over - from condemning the war outright, it is difficult to read the film as Russian propaganda. While TIFF cited security concerns as the reason for cancellation, security was in place for another film that attracted controversy, Bliss . A cancellation from such an established festival likely has an effect on how a film is able to circulate. For example, TVO, one of the funders of Russians at War , cancelled its scheduled broadcast days after the TIFF cancellation. Rule of Stone , as noted by RDIM, "critically examines the colonialist project of East Jerusalem following its conquest by Israeli forces in 1967." The title references a colonial bylaw to clad building with stone, first introduced by the British, which still exists today. The film, which examines architecture's role in creating modern Jerusalem, is led by Elon's voice-over. It mixes her memories of growing up in 1970s Jerusalem and her reckoning with the "frenzy of building," which included projects by architect Moshe Safdie, a citizen of Israel, Canada and the United States. Elon recounts that her father, journalist and author Amos Elon, was a close friend of Safdie, as well as legendary Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kolek. Safdie is among the Israeli architects, architectural historians and planners who Elon interviews. The expansion of Jewish neighbourhoods is contrasted with the restrictions on and disposession of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Multiple scenes show the demolition of Palestinian homes or the aftermath. In intervwoven segments, Izzat Ziadah, a Palestinian stonemason who lives in a stone quarry, gives a tour of what is left of his destroyed home. Viewers hear how the planning, expansion and building of Jewish neighbourhoods, post-1967, were designed to evoke biblical times. As architectural historian Zvi Efrat notes, the new neighbourhoods look like, or attempt to look like, they were there forever. As reported by La Presse , the RIDM cancellation came after the festival received information about the documentary's partial Israeli financing, something that "embarrassed" them with some of the festival's partners. Funding for the development of the film came from the Makor Foundation for Israeli Films, which receives support from Israel's Ministry of Culture and Sport. Two organizations, the Palestinian Film Institute and Regards Palestiniens, opposed the film's showing on the basis of their commitment to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). In the organizations' logic, Israel state funding means a film should be subject to boycott as "PACBI specifically targets Israeli institutional funding in the arts which serves to culturally whitewash and legitimize the Israeli state." In my view, this position differs from the PACBI guidelines, which state: "As a general overriding rule, Israeli cultural institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights, whether through their silence or actual involvement in justifying, whitewashing or otherwise deliberately diverting attention from Israel's violations of international law and human rights." Makor should be exempted since it regularly funds films that draw attention to Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights. In 2024 alone, the list includes The Governor , The Village League and Death in Um al hiran . RIDM's website does not disclose support for a boycott. In the end, RIDM announced that Elon withdrew her film. She stated: "Screening my film at RIDM does not serve the long-term purpose of the festival, nor is it possible now to address the nuances in our common fight for justice for Palestine. I am deeply saddened and distressed by [what] has brought it to this point." To date, the film has not found a cinema in Montreal willing to screen it. The two festivals' mission statements promise high-quality films that transform or renew audiences' relationships to the world. It is clear why programmers chose both films, since they're cinematically innovative and provoke important conversations. However, both festivals silenced these films and signalled to other filmmakers that these festivals are not brave spaces to have difficult and necessary conversations.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Belgian film festival cancels screening of 'Russians at War' documentary after Ukraine's appeal
The Docville Film Festival in Leuven canceled the screening of the controversial "Russians at War" documentary after an intervention of the Ukrainian Embassy, Ukraine's Foreign Ministry announced on March 31. Canadian-Russian director Anastasia Trofimova's documentary has faced criticism for what many perceive as an attempt to whitewash Russian soldiers involved in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. The embassy appealed to the Belgian federal government, the Flemish government, the local authorities of Leuven, the management of the Docville festival, and the Catholic University of Leuven to cancel the screening of the film. The movie portrays Russian soldiers in Ukraine as ordinary people, never shows or mentions the war crimes committed by them in Ukraine, and subtly questions the truthfulness of Ukrainian testimonies of them. Earlier in her career, Trofimova worked for Russia Today (RT), a Kremlin-backed propaganda outlet. The movie's past screenings have sparked protests in Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands. Read also: 'Outright propaganda' — Dutch university to screen 'Russians at War' and host panel with controversial director We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Outright propaganda' — Dutch university to screen 'Russians at War' and host panel with controversial director
A Dutch university is to screen the controversial documentary "Russians at War" and a panel discussion with its director, despite Ukrainian calls for it be be canceled because it "whitewashes… murder, rape, and torture." Canadian-Russian director Anastasia Trofimova's documentary has been criticized for what many perceive as an attempt to whitewash Russian soldiers involved in Russia's war against Ukraine, sparking protests against its past screenings in Canada and Australia. Leiden University in the Hague will screen the film on March 26 as part of its Fireside Peace Chats, an initiative of a Leiden University College staff member in collaboration with "several external partners." It will be followed by a panel discussion with Trofimova and academic staff members. Ukraine's Embassy in the Netherlands on March 25 published a statement calling for the screening to be canceled. It said the film is "whitewashing Russian soldiers and absolving them of responsibility for murder, rape, torture, looting, forced deportation of children, and destruction of Ukrainian cities." "'Russians at War' documentary is a piece of Russian outright propaganda that intentionally distorts the reality of the ongoing genocidal Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, thereby misleading viewers and promoting (the) toxic narratives of (the) Kremlin," it added. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in October 2024 began investigating Trofimova, the film's director, on charges of justifying and recognizing the legitimacy of Russia's aggression against Ukraine and illegally crossing Ukraine's internationally recognized borders when filming in the Russian-occupied territories. Student groups who spoke to the Kyiv Independent also expressed outrage at the screening, saying the film "misrepresents the reality of Russia's war against Ukraine, downplays Russian war crimes, and silences Ukrainian voices," and that the event should be canceled. "We are deeply outraged that Leiden University, a leading academic institution in the Netherlands, is providing a platform (for the film)," Anna Mamedova, a Leiden University alumna, and co-founder of the ABBA Student Association, a group that represents students from Ukraine as well as several Baltic and Eastern European countries. Leiden University has so far refused to cancel the event, arguing it is a "a bastion of freedom" and "a fervent advocate of open, critical debate where different opinions and convictions are engaged with." "It has chosen to overlook the fact that this film was produced in illegally occupied Ukrainian territories without authorization, violating international law." "We choose to engage with extremely difficult topics rather than closing our eyes, in order to better understand humanity and the world. We will provide a critical context to this film, where there is room for debate, discussion, and criticism," the university said on March 25. Mamedova said the ABBA Organisation had contacted the university expressing its concerns. "It has chosen to overlook the fact that this film was produced in illegally occupied Ukrainian territories without authorization, violating international law. It is particularly shameful that this occurs in The Hague — the City of Peace and Justice," Mamedova said. In response, the university acknowledged "the immense suffering" caused by Russian aggression and assured that it takes academic integrity seriously, Mamedova said. ABBA is organizing a protest in response to the film screening in front of the university building 30 minutes before it starts and a combat casualty care workshop featuring Ukrainian combat medic Anastasia Mutsey, which will also take place at Leiden University at the time the screening begins. Protests against the film's screening were held in several countries, including Canada and Australia. Earlier in her career, Trofimova worked for Russia Today (RT), a Kremlin-backed propaganda outlet. Read also: Is 'Russians at War' propaganda? We asked 7 people in film who saw it We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
CBC
06-02-2025
- Entertainment
- CBC
Lost (and gained) in translation: why subtitles in movies matter
This is part of a new film column from Rachel Ho looking at Canadian cinema from a new point of view. Debuting this column last month with an examination of the discourse around a film as complex and politically charged as Russians at War instigated a multitude of questions and opinions from readers, colleagues, and of course, from the interview subjects themselves. Those critical of the documentary labelled it an act of Russian propaganda, while its defenders levied accusations of knee-jerk censorship, declaring that the film deserved to be seen by audiences everywhere. But across all of the various issues I discussed with Anastasia Trofimova and Natalie Semotiuk, one point of contention raised a particular flag of interest with me. In criticizing the film, Semotiuk asserted that derogatory slurs towards Ukrainians were used by Russian soldiers in the film and their translation into English via subtitling failed to encompass their pejorative nature. In response, Trofimova (the film's director) stated her team had in fact provided a direct and literal translation of the words Semotiuk took issue with. To be clear, I don't seek in the slightest to re-litigate this specific issue; however, it did send me down a rabbit hole of thought regarding the power of translation, particularly in movies. As Canadian film increasingly extends itself beyond the French and English languages — case in point: the last three films submitted to the Academy for Best International Feature consideration were spoken mainly in Mandarin, Kurdish and Arabic, and Persian — Canadian film-goers will become increasingly reliant on the work of translators. For non-fictional work (such as Russians at War), the need for accurate subtitles becomes a matter of objective truth and fact. For fictional work (such as Canada's most recent submission to the Academy, Universal Language), it becomes a matter of relaying the thematic nuances held within a filmmaker's dialogue. To consider this topic further, I contacted Soo Min Park, an interpreter and translator based in Vancouver who provided the English and Korean subtitles for Johnny Ma's film The Mother and the Bear. I had already met her at last year's Toronto International Film Festival, where she served as interpreter during an interview I conducted with that film's two Korean leads, Kim Ho-jung and Lee Won-jae. "A film is a piece of art and its ultimate goal is to connect with the audience," says Park. A significant challenge of the job, she says, happens when a direct translation doesn't quite work with another language's culture. "A piece of dialogue in English not only needs to make sense when translated into Korean, but also [within the] Korean cultural context, so that the targeted audience can connect with the film." Language is fickle. Words can appear perfectly innocent without the proper context. An example Park uses is the Korean word 양키, or directly translated in English: "Yankee." For certain generations, 양키 is used to refer to Americans in a negative light, or express anti-American sentiments. According to Park, it's not as readily used today in a serious manner, although young Koreans have generously utilized the term when online gaming, pwning Americans halfway around the world. Translating 양키 in English, though, can prove challenging as "Yankee" doesn't necessarily read offensive, even within America itself (save for calling a Southerner a Yankee, of course, but that's for another day). Park says, if she were to translate 양키 into English with the intent of showing it as an offensive term, she would add a word like "f--king" before "Yankee" to preserve that intention, even if "f--king" wasn't said in Korean. "Subtitles are there to bridge two cultures in two languages," says Park. When working with Ma on The Mother and the Bear, Park would present the filmmaker with several options, "even if [the word] means slightly different things," she says. The two would work together to pick the one that best fit into the context of the scene and the natural flow of the dialogue. A timely example of the importance of translation is Matthew Rankin's Universal Language, a film told in French and Persian. Universal Language (or Une langue universelle in French and Avaz boughalamoune in romanized Persian, which translates in English as "Lovesong for a Turkey") has become an early front-runner for one of my favourite films of 2025, in large part because of the beautiful script by Rankin, Ila Firouzabadi and Pirouz Nemati. The film demonstrates linguistic — and absurdist — poetry in motion with lines like, "My son choked to death in a marshmallow-eating contest." Rather densely, I've never truly considered the power and responsibility translators bear. Especially in comedies, where jokes can rely heavily on wordplay or specific cultural references, finding words and phrases that both contain literal accuracy and properly reflect intention requires a deft understanding of language and culture in multiples. The results can be the discovery of new cultural quirks, or perhaps an entirely different turn of phrase emerges that contains humour or poignancy not found in the source language but carries the same spirit. I can't speak to what was said in Persian or how the French translation would read, but objectively in English, choking to death in a marshmallow-eating contest is the epitome of tragicomedy. Films are a visual medium at the end of the day, but so much of our joy and appreciation of the form comes from the words spoken between characters as well as the descriptions and observations made in voice-overs. As Canadian film continues to culturally, and therefore linguistically, evolve, and accessibility to films from around the world increases, people like Park will play a greater role in the filmmaking process — effectively becoming a part of the storytelling process. Even within the English language, words gain and lose meaning depending on who says them, where they say them and how they say them. It's a fine balance to be found by audiences and translators — to demand accuracy and embrace subjectivity, as the writer E.B. White so eloquently demonstrates: To foreigners, a Yankee is an American. To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner. To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner. To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast. And to cinephiles and Broadway frequenters, Damn Yankees
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Protest planned against 'Russians at War' documentary screenings in Australia
Members of the Ukrainian diaspora in Australia are set to protest the screening of the controversial "Russians at War" documentary at the Antenna Documentary Film Festival in Sydney, Australia on Feb. 6. Canadian-Russian director Anastasia Trofimova's documentary Russians at War has faced criticism for what many perceive as an attempt to whitewash Russian soldiers involved in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. The documentary has been criticized for lacking a concrete counter-narrative to Russian propaganda, failing to address documented Russian war crimes, and does not offer a definitive critique of Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime. Earlier in her career, Trofimova worked for Russia Today (RT), a Kremlin-backed propaganda outlet. The Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organizations' (AFUO) planned rally comes as controversy continues to follow the film, after initially appearing on the official list of screenings at the prestigious Venice and Toronto film festivals. Following protest across different cities since the film first raised controversy in September 2024, organizers at various international film festivals have pulled the film from various festivals' schedule. Despite the anticipated protest, the Antenna Film Festival, which is scheduled to begin screening the film on Feb. 10, has not removed its scheduled screening from the festival's . "The Ukrainian community has come together with strength and focus to stop this russian propaganda being screened in Australia," the AFUO said in a statement. "This film is not an independent exposé — it is a carefully controlled narrative that serves the interests of the Russian state." In the most prominent case, the Toronto International Film Festival decided to from the schedule, citing security concerns, but later decided to for the film after the end of the festival in September, drawing widespread criticism. Controversy further spread as it was revealed the Russians at War film received 340,000 Canadian dollars from the Canada Media Fund. On Oct. 7, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) began investigating Trofimova on the charges of justifying and recognizing the legitimacy of Russia's aggression against Ukraine and illegally crossing Ukraine's internationally recognized borders when filming in the Russian-occupied territories. Read also: Is 'Russians at War' propaganda? We asked 7 people in film who saw it We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
