For American filmmaker Steve York, documenting opposition movements and nonviolent resistance has become somewhat of a specialty over the past decade and a half. 2008’s Cairo Human Rights Film Festival featured York’s “Bringing Down a Dictatorâ€, an account of the opposition that ousted Slobodan Milosevic. This year’s festival will showcase his most recent production, “Orange Revolution†which documents the non-violent conflict waged by Ukrainians in the aftermath of the 2004 elections. He spoke with Bikya Masr recently from the US. Bikya Masr: From where did the idea to make Orange Revolution come? Steve York: Over ten years ago, I realized that nonviolent civil resistance movements had been remarkably successful, but little was known about them, especially about how and why they succeed. At that time, I produced a three-hour series, “A Force More Powerful” for public television in the US. It's been translated into 14 languages and seen around the world. It was truly a neglected subject, and there were many misconceptions. In many parts of the world, there's a tendency to associate nonviolent struggle with moral, ethical, and spiritual concerns. In fact, the choice of civil resistance over armed struggle is usually strategic, and the techniques are pragmatic and strategic, not spiritual or ethical. Gandhi and Martin Luther King were certainly acting on principle, but they were both exceptionally capable political strategists. As I read their stories, these strategic skills were much more important than their “saintliness.” Historically, most people who use nonviolent methods would have chosen armed struggle if they'd had access to arms. That first series of films led naturally to “Bringing Down A Dictator” immediately afterward — about the defeat of Milosevic in Serbia, and not much later, “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine. These are all stories about popular, nonviolent civil resistance movements, but they are quite different from one another. Context and circumstance are important. Each story involves specific characters living in particular cultures and traditions. Their particularity gives these stories their texture; the films are human stories, not essays on abstract concepts. BM: Well, how was the Ukrainian “revolution†universal and how is it specific? SY:These events are unique. No other country has had an identical or even comparable experience. Ukraine's historical relationship with Russia is unique. Ukraine's evolution since the USSR disintegrated is unique. Ukraine's evolution since independence is different from that of other former Soviet republics. So this story is about a specific country and specific characters. I think audiences can look for larger lessons, themes that are universal, ideas that might be applied elsewhere. I think these lessons and themes exist in this story, and I've hinted at them in an earlier answer. But I don't want to tell audiences and viewers what they should take away from this film or story. It's much better for viewers to find these ideas for themselves. Since I became interested in this subject matter (civil resistance), I've met with activists and leaders of movements in many countries, previously or currently ruled by oppressive and authoritarian regimes. When first confronting the notion of nonviolent strategies, most of them shake their heads: ‘OK, it worked in Poland — or it worked in Chile and Ukraine, but it won't work here in our country. Our situation is unique. This nonviolent stuff won't work here.' Many African-American students in the 1950s said the same thing about nonviolent strategies when Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders first proposed them. Activists in Chile, South Africa, and dozens of other countries have been skeptical, at first, too. BM: How do you think your films are or could be relevant specifically to the Egyptian context? SY: I have visited Egypt many times, but not recently. For too long, human rights, civil rights, and political rights in Egypt did not receive the attention they urgently deserve. It was not enough that international organizations were saying the right things. Only the people themselves can create real change, although outside support can help. Awareness of human rights issues has grown quickly in Egypt — this film festival is an example, and not the most important example. You should ask Egyptian audiences whether and how Orange Revolution is relevant to them — if I had to guess, I'd say the main result is inspirational — “if they Ukrainians can do this, so can we.” It's not an instructional film. Very little of what the Ukrainian opposition did could be applied directly in Egypt. The idea that “together we are many – we cannot be defeated” is applicable in any country, and the slogan used in the Orange Revolution came from Latin American liberation movements. BM: Was your intention to create these films as works of activism? SY: Not at all. I'm a general interest filmmaker, with journalistic tendencies, addressing general audiences, on what I hope are important themes. Most of what I've done in the last 30 years (on this and many other subjects) has been used extensively in schools and universities, but I've been surprised how many activists have used these films about civil resistance. Of course I'm pleased that people find the films useful, but I didn't produce them with that in mind. Films which simply tell factual stories truthfully can be stronger than those which engaged in explicit advocacy. BM: What did you hope each would achieve? Do you see that they have yielded any of those outcomes? SY: With rare exceptions, I don't think documentary filmmakers set out to change the world. At best, my role is to find interesting and important stories and call attention to them, reaching out to the widest possible audience. That's why I work in video. Any audience can identify with the people in these struggles — in Ukraine and Serbia, Poland, Chile, and South Africa — all the elements are there: strong characters, high stakes, uncertainty and risk. But beyond the twists and turns of the stories, I think there's a message, essentially a “good news” message. This message says that military force is not the only way to fight. Civil resistance and nonviolent action are real options, available to anyone who wants to fight for rights or freedom. BM: On a technical note, I understand the film is without narration. So how does Orange Revolution cohere for the viewer? SY: I arrived in Kiev in late November, when the “revolution” had already taken hold. I'm still not sure that “revolution” is the correct word, but whatever was going on there, I could feel it and smell it, almost from the minute my flight landed in Kiev. This feeling was so strong, it seemed to me I should try to capture it as an experience, as lived by the people themselves. Within a few hours, I'd decided to make a film in which all voices were Ukrainian. A “voice of God” narration would have been wrong. Outside experts, political scientists or analysts would detract from the story. You can judge for yourself whether this was the right decision. BM
