The Trial: The State of Russia vs Oleg Sentsov
Dir. Askold Kurov, Estonia/Poland/Czech Republic, 70 minutes, 2017
At the 2017 Berlinale
So many enemies, so little time, if you are the president of Russia. So much time, if you happen to get on the wrong side of this man. That translates to twenty years in prison, for the gamer turned filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, whom Putin accused of terrorism. There was never much evidence that Sentsov masterminded a plot to bomb Soviet Era monuments in Crimea after the Russians seized that territory. He’s now in prison, serving twenty years in Yakutsk.
Sentsov and the plot to put him away are the subjects of The Trial: The State of Russia vs Oleg Sentsov. It’s funny, until it isn’t. Here’s a version of my review that ran in Screen yesterday at the Berlinale.
Just as The Trial premieres in Berlin, the critical journalist Vladimir Kara–Murza is suffering from organ failure, a result of poisoning. Note that poisoning of critics has become a standard way of silencing opposition in Russia.
Vladimir Putin is undergoing a media makeover thanks to his admirer, Donald Trump. For skeptics on Trump’s esteem for the Russian leader, The Trial: the State of Russia vs. Oleg Sentsov offers a grim picture of Kremlin justice, no less scathing given its minimal budget.
Putin’s role in framing Sentsov, a video gamer turned filmmaker, in an alleged terrorist plot, comes as the Russian president is all over the news. This opportune moment could make The Trial a natural television doc, if it can find outlets before Putin is eclipsed by next season’s media-savvy dictator. The doc is likely to play all over Europe except Russia, where it could be a black market hit. Expect renewed demand for Sentsov’s feature, Gamer (2011).
In North America, where Sentsov’s case has gotten less attention than in Europe, the film could be welcomed by anti-Russian conservatives, who already represent a rift in the Trump camp.
Ashkold Kurov, a friend of Sentsov who shot the film’s original footage himself, scrutinizes the filmmaker’s alleged crimes, and finds no evidence for charges that Sentsov conspired to bomb Soviet-era monuments in Crimea in 2014.
Sentsov, a Russian citizen of Ukraine who made no secret of his opposition to the invasion and annexation of Crimea, was implicated in a plot that seems to have originated with the Russian FSB, the current iteration of the KGB. Several witnesses testified against him after being tortured by the police, who may also have paid them. Sentsov, who describes his own ghastly torture, never confessed to anything. He is serving a 20-year term in Siberia.
The FSB’s maneuverings to implicate critics in major crimes have been explored in Alexander Nekrasov’s docs – Disbelief (2004), about a tragic Moscow bombing, and Rebellion (2007), about the poisoning in London of Alexander Litvinenko, an FSB officer turned independent journalist. Putin’s judicial persecution of a wealthy potential rival is explored in the doc Khodorkovsky (2011) by Cyril Tuschi.
Yet The Trial takes its own approach to exposing the Kremlin’s war on critics of its Crimea grab. Rather than deliver secret documents or anonymous testimony, it relies on sources that are available to the public, like Sentsov’s court appearances, which are the only times that he can be filmed. A gifted orator, the wry and confident Sentsov gives a speech at his sentencing that is an aria of truth. No wonder officials aren’t rushing to free him.
Putin is caught on camera addressing the Sentsov case when he’s asked at a press event whether Sentsov and others might be exchanged for captured Russian soldiers in Crimea, where Putin insists there aren’t any Russian troops. It’s a Trumpian moment when the Russian leader equivocates, saying that he never said that Russians in the Crimea weren’t “engaged in particular matters, in dealing with particular issues, even military ones….but this doesn’t mean that the regular Russian army is there.”
Putin demurs strategically again at what looks like a gathering of artists, where the director Alexander Sokurov pleads with him to release Sentsov. Putin explains to Sokurov, who calls for defending Sentsov’s freedom of expression, that Sentsov was not acting as an artist when he planned acts of terrorism.
So far, appeals from Wim Wenders and Agnieska Holland have gotten no farther with Moscow.
Saying that The Trial is bare-boned or that its charges of terrorism are Kafkaesque is like saying that Russian winters are cold. This is not a film that you watch for the style, unless bluntness is your aesthetic. But the details in this intrigue are fascinating. Sentsov’s sister, who won’t defend him (and isn’t interviewed), is married to an FSB officer, and their son is in the FSB. When police raid Sentsov’s office, they find two films in his collection of 500 that deal with fascism, proof for the regime that he’s masterminding plots by Ukrainian nationalists. Preposterous amateurish and unconvincing FSB footage of bomb-making by Sentsov’s alleged co-conspirators attempts to make the same point.
Behind the Sentsov case is Russia’s illegal seizure of Crimea. Sentsov may be long out of prison and the subject of sequels before anything changes there.
Views expressed on this blog, which is hosted on BlouinArtinfo.com but produced independently of it, do not necessarily reflect the views of BlouinArtinfo.com.