12/09/2022 - VENICE 2022: Diving back into the footage first presented in Babi Yar. Context, the director showcases another moving documentary about Nazi atrocities in his native Ukraine

(© La Biennale di Venezia/Foto ASAC/G Zucchiatti)

The genocide of approximately 33,000 Jews and other minorities at the Babi Yar ravine was the shocking topic of Sergei Loznitsa’s prior documentary, Babi Yar. Context [+see also:
film review
trailer
interview: Sergei Loznitsa
film profile]. Now, out of competition at the Venice Film Festival, the Ukrainian director is expanding this historical gaze to show further never-before-seen footage of how the city of Kyiv sentenced 15 Nazis to their death. The moving witness accounts and the increasingly brutal recollections of the crimes committed make The Kiev Trial [+see also:
film review
trailer
interview: Sergei Loznitsa
film profile] highly emotional viewing.

Cineuropa: In 2021, you premiered Babi Yar. Context. Some of the footage from it is also shown in this movie. Is it a companion piece, or something you wanted to dive deeper into?
Sergei Loznitsa: This film is closely linked to Babi Yar. Context. During the Nazi occupation, not only were the Jewish population killed, but also Ukrainians. The reason why Babi Yar. Context was made first is because I found the footage when I was researching Babi Yar. This trial is very important for my city, even though most people don't even know that it took place.

What was so unique about this 1946 trial? Was it the location? The timing?
Trials were held in several cities all over the Soviet Union. They all had a specific purpose and ended with a public execution. Such an execution is a serious shock and represents a possibility for the authorities to make a statement. These trials were staged, also for the cameras. The outcome of the sentence was known long before. But what remains is this event, which still tells us a very clear story.

But there is a propaganda-like aspect to the footage, with the Soviets saying, “We persisted; we’re making the Germans pay.”
If we're talking about Stalin's goals, of course he wanted to blame the Germans. By doing this, he could cover up the crimes committed by the Soviet Union. For example, the centre of Kyiv was destroyed by mines that were planted by the Red Army. So why did Stalin decide not to make a film out of this unseen footage? Perhaps it was too honest. The real life that came through was too much.

When using footage that is political and ideologically charged, how do you make it educational, as opposed to reproducing its original intention?
I had three hours of footage and just removed half of it. First, I presented the executioners and the people who committed the crimes. The second part is just witnesses. The way I arranged it is that I showed the “lighter stuff” first before moving on to the more shocking content. That is how you can keep people’s attention. Because after some stories, you cannot listen to others any more. You have to prepare this, step by step. Then there is the dramaturgy of each trial: how it began, how it developed and how it ended with a sentence. I didn't think it would be possible to put anything else in, like showing the crime or the bodies. It was not necessary for me.

The German perpetrators argue that they didn’t see anything or were acting on the “orders of their superiors”. Was Hannah Arendt correct when she coined the term “the banality of evil”?
Every criminal, when they commit a crime, knows that they are committing a crime. And they also know that they will be punished. And they’re afraid of this punishment. Responses like “I didn't know” and “I wasn't there” don’t work, because it's a very primitive way of defending yourself. The fact that it was an industrial killing system doesn't absolve each individual participating. Genocide is a very complex situation and not a simple evil. So it's not banal.