Netflix had bet heavily upon independent productions - and it has been a case of success. Subject to Winter on Fire, it was not different. It is a beautiful production, with an exuberant photography, which reveals how much the State acts within a dubious play of representant and opressor of the people.
The documentary have as subject the insatisfaction of Ukraine's population regarded to the politics of the President Viktor Yanukovich, who had promised an enlargement of relations with European Union, nevertheless, it was with Putin that the mandatary had become best friend forever. Old fissures over the society emerged out of this problematic, such as the question of identity and the feeling of belonging to a comunity.
The main vilain of the movie is the repression of the Police State against the democratic resilience of win the authoritarismo -- even at the cost of lives. It is salutary to notice the popular mobilisation around an "effort of war" to keep the Square of Liberty occupied until the befall of the President. It is also interesting to notice how the violence scalated, beginning with the repression of a pacific protest of huge proportions to the edge of a civil war.
The Ocidental contemporary Police State is not an Ukraine novelty, being present in several other countries of Europe, in United States (consigned as anti-terrorism politics and spying), as to the Brazil, as we can see on the seletivity of the media and the repressive organs against the demonstrations pro-Dilma, when compared to those against. The most emblematic cases is the reintegration of the students occupation without juridic basement, the anti-terrorism acts which can frame the social protests as crimes of terrorism, as to the spanking of teachers and repression of Unions which fight for better salaries,as we can see in the states governed by Beto Richa (PSDB-PR) and Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB-SP). All these attitudes contrasts with the demagogy of the "stormtroopers" whose take selfies with the protesters and salute them, when the demonstration is against Labour Party (PT).
Although Winter On Fire being touching, we shall undo some unilateral concepts which may rise by watching this movie. The question of Ukraine is far more complex than the production suggests. At the first place, considering the country as a whole, it is not a consense the alignment of the country with the Europe, as to the sense of belonging to the Community. Oriental Ukraine is constituted mostly of ethnic Russians; secondly, some groups were so resilient with the idea of europeanism that sometimes leads to chauvinism, which is the nest of xenophobia, at the long term. According to the Financial Times, 55% of the Euromaidans were from the ocidental portion of the country, and only 21% from east (the rest is from the centre). This is influenced greatly by the geographic location of the capital, although the ethnic and ideologic alignment of the east is very relevant. The frontiers between these two worlds - East and West - make Ukraine have airs of a buffer state, with a nationally partially artificial, of high instability and without an homogenic social identity.
Yanukovich had an impeachment controverse and summary, juridically speaking. Perhaps the biggest basement that could take off the mandatary would be its crimes against humanity; however, the prompt delivery of the national interests, without a conversation to the East Side of the Force, enraged the other part of population. As a consequence, Russia quietly annexed Crimea - her intentions was to foreclose the advance of NATO to her zone of influence, revealing a bipolarisation still existent between the two main nuclear states, and guarantee the control over the naval bases on Sebastopol. The territory was subject to great disputes between Russia and the West in the past, being stage of the bloody War of Crimea (1863). During the government of Stalin, the territory belonged to Russia; however, Kruschev, by starting the de-stalinisation, had the "brillant" idea of annexed to the Ukraine, as a declared reparation of Holodomor, which stressed the two countries after the debâcle of USSR.
After the befall of the president Yanukovich, the interine Alexander Turchnov did not have a moderate profile of the East-West conflict, but aligned completely with Europe. He comitted the same mistake of his predecesor, but having another portion of population as victim: he elaborated authoritative measures, constrained the Russian as official language, persecuted minorities, which fed up protests in Luhansk and Donetsk (second bigger city of Ukraine), inspired on #maidan. The police repression and the resignation of the pro-russians gave room to a escalation of violence, culminating in a horrible civil war, which still endures. The West accuses Putin of support the separatists with missiles, armament and soldiers; Russia denies and accuses the West of ingerency.
Nothing excuses Yanukovich from his crimes against homeland and humanity. His government killed innocent people in cold blood, and make use of a disproportional violence. But we cannot simplify the subject: the supporters of Yanukovich were in the East, and this were not taking into account during the movie, creating a false sense of "unanimity" around the claims of the people of Kiev. Making this exception, the documentary is awesome and unfortunately gives us a feelin' of threat agaisnt democracy and peace, as to some sense of impotency.
Mello-Oliveira's Grade: 8,5
Click on an advertisement to support this blog. Thank you!
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário