Gray smoke interferes with a mood cloud covering, while dozens of dark Ukrainian citizens watch the sky and folded arms. The optical opening of “Mileitantropos” can be directed by Yelizaveta Smith, Alina Gorlova and Simon Mozovyi, the opening scene of the Hollywood disaster movie, albeit one of the most horizontal and dangerous species. Moments later, we are at the visual reference train station and keys: the homogeneous masses from KVIV to Vienna are evacuated with their bags and children. We are creating a heart attack, perhaps. Then, close to, the bulldozer revolves around the rubble, and a look is taken into a family image in the debris, which is a decorative symbol of what was lost.
“Militantropos” seems to be well aware of how visual warfares have been borrowed or allocated by the cinema, and we shave their films again, and we face the source pictures. The physiology that gives the film is defined by its title, which was formulated by this film and through this film, on the screen as “a person who has been adopted by humans when the state of war enters.” These textual reflections are periodically returning and are part of a toolbox of technologies that adjust this document with an official experimental work, despite the theme of torn lines from the lines that may lead to the expectation of more standard issue.
He wrote with Maksym Nakonechnyi, the director of the dark drama “Butterfly Vision”, “Militantropos” again and again the effect of war on children. The bubble that any of the parents try to adopt for their child is always temporary, because the illusion that the world is mostly a benign or even magical place – but whether this dismantling is a gradual oriental part of growth or the rapid and brutal result of events that exceed the parents ’control of the homeland here with the busy feeling.
A school where children were forced to stay, with artwork on the walls – some of them are the drawings of ordinary children and others that depict bombings – give a prominent sense of the place to the terrible childhood that Ukrainian youth bear. The interest of this anthropological film in how people are formed through continuous indulgence in a state of war is at the same time that he feels personally and is transferred to a feeling of analytical removal. This may be partial as a result of its guidance by a group: There is likely a balance and care here as a result of cooperation and conversation between three managers known as Tabor Collective.
One imagines that some of these talks should guarantee the ethics of aesthetic war. It is definitely a relevant discussion point here. Are the beautiful pictures of an ugly risk give a kind of exemption for this ugliness? It is a very specific version of the old debate about whether the cinema tends to the magic of what it depicts. In the case of “Militantropos”, it is very important to photograph: people who live in the reality of war over a long period of time have the right to discover beauty where they find it. Hope stems in unlikely places, including a garden of cherry flowers that fill the screen at the end of the documentary.
Despite its aesthetic virtues, “Militantropos” ultimately embodies the softness of military participation: the gray without blood and silent, the painting that wears all life and humanity. It is important, when guns and bombs explode, the documentary avoids the language of cinema: filmmakers do not make a slow shot of the man who dies. You cannot always know what happened, and there are no devices on the screen to help us direct us in the task. There may not be important, because the feeling of intermittent destruction is meaningless remains clear throughout the “Militantropos”.