Pussy Riot: A Punk Prayer is
a documentary about the imprisonment and trial of three members of the feminist
activist group Pussy Riot, who performed a satirical punk song about Putin and
the church on the altar of Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral.
On 21 February 2012, Nadezhda
(Nadya) Tolokonnikova, Maria (Masha) Alyokhina and Ekaterina (Katya)
Samutsevich were arrested for performing a ‘punk prayer’ on the altar of the
church. Their actions outraged Orthodox believers and the state threw its weight
behind the church. They were tried for the crime of religious hatred rather
than political agitation, which was their intention. The documentary, and the
three members of Pussy Riot, suggest that the trial of intentionally
misrepresenting their actions as religious rather than political in nature. The
documentary also includes interviews with people who feel offended by Pussy
Riot’s actions and with members of Pussy Riot still in hiding.
The documentary was funded in
part by HBO and BBC and this is where the problems first become apparent. The
documentary retells the story, albeit somewhat choppily at the beginning of the
film, and offered a range of opinions. As a result, it is a balanced
documentary rather than an activist film – one made about Pussy Riot but not by
Pussy Riot. This ‘balance’ ultimately deflates any sense of what Pussy Riot
either stands for or has achieved by its actions.
The documentary does not go into
any depth, preferring to baldly tell the story, making it as enlightening as
television news. Members of Pussy Riot are interviewed but they are not asked
about what they stand for. This say that they don’t like Putin and that they
dislike the close relationship between church and state but they don’t go into
any more depth. Most people would agree that Putin is a problematic leader and
that close links between church and state are hardly beneficial in this day and
age. As a result, the documentary, unlike the clearly brave and committed
members of Pussy Riot, never takes any big risks. We only briefly hear of Pussy
Riot’s other complaints, usually in the lyrics of their songs – which include
references to Putin’s repressive anti-gay laws and sexism. Instead of
addressing Pussy Riot’s potentially divisive political rhetoric, this HBO-BBC
production prefers to play it safe and emphasise Russia’s unfair and
questionable legal system. It does not dare say anything that might offend
anybody and effectively silences Pussy Riot itself.
For example, although Pussy Riot
claimed that causing religious offence was never the objective – only ‘culture
shock’ – the documentary spends quite a lot of time interviewing religious
people who were hurt by their performance. It
even takes a look back to the 1920s and 1930s when the anti-religious
Bolsheviks and Communists attacked the church, culminating in the demolition of
the Cathedral. Instead of sticking with Pussy Riot and its objectives, the
documentary justifies the shortsighted outcry of the Orthodox Church by
referring back to seventy years of religious oppression. The end result is that
the Pussy Riot performance looks misjudged and the perpetrators slightly
unfocused. Because we are not told what they want, we don’t really understand
their motives, other than as peaceful protests and shock tactics. Of course,
the documentary shows a lot of delusional religious figures (one who oddly translates
‘pussy riot’ as ‘deranged vaginas’). Of course, it does represent the
patriarchal if sexist as well as the fundamentalist strains within the Orthodox
Church but the documentary is so balanced that both sides ultimately appear to
be problematic. Complexities are mentioned but not addressed, leaving a shallow
documentary that refers to real events and consequences but doesn’t dare look
at motives or ideology.
A more brave and, hence, more
rousing film would lay bare the problems with Russia and Pussy Riot’s agenda
and plans for the future. It would not be so worried about taking its whole
audience with it, just as long as it is an accurate representation of what
Pussy Riot stands for. We don’t know what they really want other than a more
liberal society. Their more extreme cries “Death to sexists” and so on make
sense more as typical lyrics to punk songs than as legitimate objectives.
Instead the documentary sentimentalises the struggle for justice after the deed
is done. During the trial, we see flashbacks of each of the three women
detailing their childhoods and political awakening. Ultimately, unlike the
agit-prop that the activists themselves use, this documentary relies instead on
drama and an underdog storyline.
Although this approach may move
more people to sympathize with Pussy Riot, it also means that we never get a
sense of Pussy Riot as a valid and radical revolutionary force. They don’t seem
to have clear demands and the Cathedral stunt seems to have been badly
thought-out. The three women apologize for having caused offence but surely
they would have known that people would be offended, since they were occupying
(for so brief and innocuous a time) an altar that people do hold sacred. Hence,
their martyrdom – and the documentary does paint this as a martyrdom of sorts –
is less to do with the great leaps forward that Pussy Riot has achieved and
more to do with the unjust and extreme response of the Russian legal system. In
the end, it is hard to imagine a member of Pussy Riot appreciating this
documentary, particularly since it represents Nadya, Masha and Katya not as
heroes but as victims. Bland and ineffectual, the documentary rouses not our
inner-activist, merely our inner fellow traveller.
Mike Lerner and Maxim Pozdorovkin are trying to make a
political documentary that will raise awareness of both Pussy Riot and their
imprisonment, which is at one point compared with the Stalinist show trials.
However, by employing a Hollywood language – that of audience-friendly
emotional connections, a kind-of happy ending (though one that awkwardly speaks
of the group’s lack of solidarity) and a sentimental streak, Pussy Riot: A Punk
Prayer is far from radical, rousing or brave. It is a tame, balanced work
when it should be angry and polemical. Other than as a means to raise awareness
of the group, it is pretty ineffective.
No comments:
Post a Comment