For some filmmakers, documentaries are an opportunity to take a subject that they find fascinating and explore it to either entertain or inform, if not both. For others, it’s an opportunity to learn more about a particular topic that they believe should be seen by a wider audience. Then there are those filmmakers who see documentary storytelling as a social responsibility, they must bring these stories to broader audiences as a matter of urgency. Mstyslav Chernov is one such director, and with 20 Days in Mariupol, he makes one of the most essential films of the past year. Told from his perspective as a journalist living in the city of Mariupol in the southern part of Ukraine, we follow him and his team as they accompany paramedics and soldiers through the city during the first twenty days following Russia’s invasion. For nearly three weeks, the director is one of many people who stays behind in the city – he has the opportunity to escape before the exit routes are closed, but he chooses to risk his life by staying in a city that is under attack. His aim was simple: capture the atrocities being committed by Russia, which was almost immediately established as not merely military operations, but rather a full-blown attack on civilians, who we see bear the brunt of the violence, being killed en masse by bombs and gunfire designed to weaken the city. One of the most harrowing documentaries of the 21st century, and a film that captures aspects of human suffering that many of us may not be able to comprehend had we not seen it shown vividly on screen, 20 Days in Mariupol is a truly disturbing but deeply essential work that comes at a moment when we all need to look within ourselves and consider our understanding of humanity, which has never felt more heartbreakingly bleak as it does here.

It’s likely that we all remember where we were on that day in February when we first received word that Russia had invaded Ukraine – it was not the first instance of hostility between the two countries, which have a storied history going back decades, and in recent years there had been a rise in tensions and violence. Yet, there was something very different about this particular event – suddenly, it wasn’t just a conflict between two countries, but a major global crisis that had several countries scrambling to express support for one side or the other, becoming a significant international situation, which even stirred conversation about this potentially laying the groundwork for what could become the Third World War. Like any event such as this, none of us quite knew what to make of it – even watching it from the other side of the world, we could feel the tensions and rising terror, and it seemed like something that was far more serious than anything we had seen before. This is the precise reason behind a film like 20 Days in Mariupol being incredibly effective – this is not just a feature-length editorial that covers the subject, but rather a glimpse into the lives of those impacted by this war. The director is not interested in political posturing, outside of objectively remarking on the actions taken by the Russian government in these attacks. His focus is not to create a situation where he is spending time exploring the history of the tensions between Russia and Ukraine, nor is he particularly interested in debating the political aspects of this war. Those elements, while important, can be found elsewhere, and probably be explored with more nuance by those who did not have a firsthand account of these atrocities, and can explore them without the burden of having to relive the trauma. Chernov’s decision to make a film about these attacks leads to one of the most haunting and harrowing depictions of war we have ever seen, and it would be impossible to overlook some of these moments that populate the film, which aims to be an objective glimpse into the formative days of this crisis.

Without any question, 20 Days in Mariupol is not a film for the faint of heart. Unlike many documentary filmmakers, Chernov was not driven to capture this footage for the sake of turning it into a film. Instead, all of these images come from his work as a photojournalist and are essentially the photographs and videos he captured while in Mariupol during those crucial three weeks that the film covers. Only after the fact did this film come about, which is particularly notable considering how he was not driven by any overarching artistic endeavour of narrative, but simply impelled to capture the chaos surrounding him over these early days of the war. The results are some of the most brutal, unforgiving images ever captured on screen. We live in an era where news publications are allowed to show us more than they were able to in the past, but even with this in place, 20 Days in Mariupol contains some truly unsettling imagery. Sadly, the worst moments are not necessarily the videos of buildings being annihilated during airstrikes or the puddles of blood collected on the floors of hospitals, but rather the people who occupy the frames – elderly women lying on the floor, praying for their lives to be spared, parents cradle the corpses of their children that we killed simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the faces of these civilians who are at a loss for why they have to endure this suffering leaves an indelible impression. Many films can provoke tears, but it takes a very intense one to incite genuine sobs and silent screams of terror as we witness these atrocities being committed – and it is the knowledge that this film only contains a tiny fragment of the lives that were lost or impacted by the war that leaves the most harrowing scar on our psyche. There are scenes in 20 Days in Mariupol that will never leave the viewer’s mind, and we can only hope whoever decides to step into this film will be mentally and emotionally capable of handling these images. Yet, even the bravest of souls will only know for sure whether or not they have the capacity to absorb this disturbing content once we have witnessed them, which can make even the strongest of viewers crumble into an absolute emotional wreck.

Yet, despite the countless disturbing moments that sit at the heart of the film,  20 Days in Mariupol was not designed to lack purpose or simply be shocking for the sake of stirring a reaction. Chernov is a smart filmmaker with a clear understanding of how to navigate the material in such a way that he isn’t only capturing the lives of the victims of this war, but also doing something constructive with the material he amasses over those weeks working alongside these doctors. Despite the bleak outlook and rampant destruction we find throughout the film, 20 Days in Mariupol is a film about hope. We may remember the scenes of violence and destruction the moment, but it’s the quieter moments that leave the biggest impression, such as a baby turtle being rescued from the wreckage since “he deserves to survive as well”, as his owner proclaims. There is a compassion to this film, which comes from both the director, who has a genuine empathy for these people, as well as the subjects, who risk their safety and psychological health to tell their story. Ultimately, a film like 20 Days in Mariupol is never going to be pleasant to watch, but as viewers, we have the moral duty to hear their stories, and if we can even feel a sliver of their pain and despair, we will be able to empathize with what they are aiming to achieve when speaking to a journalist, who play a vital role in society but are usually viewed as opportunistic vultures hoping to get content. Chernov is a very empathetic filmmaker, and he never feels like he intends to exploit these people. Instead, what he hopes to achieve is a film that offers some degree of optimism – the situation in Mariupol, like the rest of Ukraine, is far from ideal. As a city, it is a shell of what it once was, the only present occupants being those who cannot escape for one reason or another – yet, there isn’t any doubt that once the war is over, the resilience and ironclad will of these people, both those who fled and those who stayed behind will help their society rebuild itself. It will take time and it may not be the same as it was before, but nothing is quite as unbreakable as the human spirit, which pulsates throughout this film with such intensity and genuine compassion.

A good documentary makes the viewer want to revisit it or recommend it to those who they believe would benefit from seeing this subject explored. 20 Days in Mariupol is the rare film that I doubt anyone would ever intend to revisit – it is simply too daunting and disturbing to ever experience for a second time. Some films are not made to be watched multiple times, and this is the perfect example of how an exceptional piece of art can also be deeply and profoundly unpleasant, enough to make the viewer want to both praise and criticize it for how it handles the material. This is not an easy film – in fact, I would advocate against anyone who is even vaguely sensitive to disturbing content or who doesn’t wish to have certain images imprinted onto their memory to steer clear away from this film. This isn’t the kind of documentary designed to inform in the traditional sense – there is a lot of existing content that captures the situation in Ukraine in detail that doesn’t contain some truly unsettling images. However, for anyone who is curious about witnessing a small fragment of the atrocities being committed in the country, taken from someone with more firsthand experience than we perhaps thought possible, then 20 Days in Mariupol is worthwhile. It is harsh and unsettling, and it never abates, only becoming worse as time progresses. Yet, there is still a pulse of hope that we find beneath the proverbial rubble – and it’s this element that prevents the film from being entirely daunting since it does show that there is a chance to rebuild. It will take time, and a lot of people will suffer before it becomes a reality, but the human soul will never truly be broken, and as long as people are willing to fight for a cause, evil will never entirely triumph.