Orange Revolution (Director: Steve York, USA, 2006): Coming straight from a screening of How It’s Done to this film already had me feeling wary of the folksy populism of Ukrainian presidential candidates Viktor Yuschenko and Viktor Yanukovych. The interesting thing about this film is how at the beginning it seemed like it was going to be a Yuschenko hagiography, broadcasting footage of early rallies from the presidential campaign of 2004. A smiling Yuschenko serves food and talks about raising pensions, and the crowds go wild. It becomes apparent later that this archival footage, not shot by the American filmmakers, is almost incidental. As is Yuschenko, despite his obvious charisma and the sympathy he receives after he is poisoned in an assassination attempt during the campaign.
The real story of the film is how a young population, hungry for change, defies a corrupt regime and brings down a powerful government. The Orange Revolution refers to the peaceful occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square for several weeks in November and December of 2004. Crowds approaching a million people camped out, singing and chanting, clad in orange scarves and hats, and waving orange banners, the colour of Yuschenko’s political party.
Almost unbelievably, the occupation, in response to a rigged election that declared Yanukovych the winner, succeeds in getting the electoral commission to set aside the vote. After parliament quickly passes some electoral reform laws, the election is re-held on December 26th, and Yuschenko prevails with more than 52% of the vote (to Yanukovych’s 44%). That all this happened in a few short weeks and without any bloodshed is almost miraculous.
The film does a good job of keeping us in the moment, with intertitles declaring each day of the vigil. But it seems almost overwhelmingly one-sided. There is a lot of input from journalists, but also from most of Yuschenko’s advisors, and the President himself. It would have been interesting to hear from the other side, who were simply painted as villains and left out. It was clear to most people in the West during the crisis that Yuschenko was backed by the U.S. and that Yanukovych had close ties to Russia. There were even rumours that much of the grassroots organization for the Orange Revolution was supported in some way by the U.S., either directly through the State Department or through NGOs like the National Democratic Institute. In a film made by an American director, not to address these questions seems like a significant omission.
As well, I think the film could have done a better job setting the stage as to why people were so willing to risk everything for change. What was life in Ukraine like before, and what is it like now? The point was made that in terms of press freedom, things are improving, but I wanted to know more about the environment from which this “people power” movement sprung.
I liked that the film ends with an update telling us that Yuschenko’s coalition disintegrated soon after the Orange Revolution’s success, and that Yanukovych was elected Prime Minister, thus ensuring the power struggle will continue. Democracy is messy, and because the film was so uplifting and focussed on the giddiness of achieving one goal, it needed to be brought back to earth a little bit.
And just to be cynical, why all the press attention to this disputed election and not the one closer to home in Mexico? In July 2006, socialist Andrés Manuel López Obrador disputed the presidential election results, in which he narrowly lost to conservative Felipe Calderón Hinojosa. Obrador’s supporters held similar rallies and challenged the results in court. It took two months for the results to be ratified, and the controversy has led to calls for electoral reform. And I haven’t even mentioned the U.S. elections of 2000 and 2004. Is it just me, or is this happening a little too often?
(8/10)
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }