U Are The Universe (4½ Stars)

This is the first film in the Stuttgart Weird Weekender Festival.

It's a relatively new film festival. It started last year as a spinoff of the monthly Weird Wednesday event. The Weird Wednesdays started ten years ago, showing mostly cult horror films. Mostly. There have been a few films that I wouldn't call weird, but as they say, weirdness is in the eye of the beholder. Recently the frequency has increased to two Wednesdays a month, one of which is a newly released low budget film. The festival is showing almost exclusively new low budget films.

Unlike the Fantasy Film Festival, which takes place simultaneously in several German cities, the Weird Weekender is a purely Stuttgart event.

Due to its niche appeal, the festival takes place in a relatively small theatre, which only has 102 seats. Here's the festival team. Judging by the abundance of bald heads in the audience, the team members are younger than the viewers. They held to the Weird Wednesday tradition of starting films late. There was a delay of 35 minutes. The German audience waited patiently. In England we would have been stamping our feet and jeering.

The opening film is "U Are The Universe", a Ukrainian science fiction film made in 2023. I don't approve of the title, but I'll let it pass, because the "U" is probably a reference to Ukraine. A Ukrainian astronaut called Andrukha has the job of delivering nuclear waste material to Jupiter's moon Callisto. It means a lot of solitude. Two years there, two years back. He's accompanied by a friendly floating robot called Max.

Max gives Andrukha the news that the Earth has exploded, making him the last human in the universe. There's no explanation why the Earth exploded. Maybe a Fascist dictator like Putin was tossing nuclear bombs around. The spaceship has enough food left for 16 months. Just when Andrukha is getting used to being the last man alive, he receives a message from a French woman called Catherine who's on a space station orbiting Saturn. He decides to travel to her. After all, the human race has to survive, doesn't it?

So the film is a love story set in space.

After the film there was a question and answer session with the director Pavlo Ostrikov by video link from Kyiv. Many of the questions dealt with his problems making a film in a country at war. For him the main problem was the money. Putin's invasion of Ukraine has caused massive inflation, and the film's production had to be paid in Euros. The film's budget lay beneath a million Euros, which might not seem much to us, but for him it was an enormous fortune.

He named "2001: A Space Odyssey" as his inspiration, but I saw more of "Dark Star" in it. He said that it's the first science fiction film made in Ukraine since it became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991.

While I was waiting, one of my friends said that the Weird Weekender wouldn't be a festival, it would be a trashtival. That's unfair. The only thing trashy about "U Are The Universe" is its title.

Winter on Fire (4 Stars)

This documentary about the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine is available exclusively on Netflix, but I was lucky to see it at a special screening at the Aston University Students Union in Birmingham. It was organised by a group of Hong Kong students who see parallels between the Euromaidan protests and the current protests in Hong Kong.

The film follows the 94 days of protests from 21st November 2013 to 23rd February 2014. The people of Ukraine were unhappy that their president was about to sign an agreement linking Ukraine's economy to that of Russia and its allies. They thought of themselves as a European state, so they wanted to join the EU. After a series of large peaceful protests, centred around Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kiev, the police began to brutally attack the protesters. The more the police brutality increased, the more people joined the protest.

The documentary presents the events in strict chronological order, both the victories and the tragedies. The only criticism that can be made about the film is that it's one-sided, not showing the views of those who opposed the protests.

I remember reading about the Euromaidan protests in the news as they took place, but I wasn't aware how brutally they had been suppressed. The documentary opened to my eyes to the full scope of what happened in that three month period. It was a case of people rebelling against Communism, or rather against the vestiges of Communism left in place after Ukraine became independent in 1991. This is a dilemma for Communist leaders and idealists, who see Communism as the ultimate goal of suppressed peoples. That might be the case in an ideal world with ideal Communist structures, but in practise Communism has become just another form of suppressing the people. Russia's leader Vladimir Putin is a Communist in name only. His policies are those of nationalism and fascism, following the same paths as Adolf Hitler in the pre-war 1930's.

---

Does the Ukraine crisis of 2013 have parallels with the problems in Hong Kong today? Yes, I can see parallels, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they're the same problems. Ukraine was (and still is) in a unique position as a country on the border between Europe and Asia. It wasn't just a question of democracy and Communism, the people were asking themselves whether they wanted to be a western or an eastern state. The Hong Kong protesters have no wish to detach themselves from China, they just want the freedom to express themselves within the parameters of the UK Handover Agreement.

The protesters in Hong Kong have five demands, of which four are clear and the fifth has been repeatedly rephrased over the last few months.

1. There should be no extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China.

That was forbidden in the UK Handover Agreement. The legal systems of mainland China and Hong Kong should remain distinct.

2. There should be an investigation into police brutality.

Until now the Hong Kong government has said it will investigate police brutality, but nothing seems to have been done.

3. The protests should not be classed as riots.

There is a heavy penalty for rioting in Hong Kong. Calling the protests riots makes the prosecution of participants unavoidable.

4. Protesters should not be prosecuted.

This is connected to the fourth demand.

5. The electoral system should be reformed.

This is the bottom line of several different versions of the fifth demand. Sometimes the emphasis of this demand is on the removal of corruption in government. Sometimes this demand asks for the removal of unelected officials in government. The latter is a difficult demand to implement, because the Hong Kong electoral system was laid down in the Handover Agreement.

The current Hong Kong protests are very small, compared to those in Ukraine. The Ukrainian president fled the country as a result of the protests. Nothing like that will happen as a result of the Hong Kong protests. The protests would have to take place simultaneously in Beijing and other large cities to have the slightest chance of overthrowing the government. The best the localised Hong Kong protests can hope to achieve is to maintain the status quo.

The problem is that the Handover Agreement only specifies the "One Country, Two Systems" for a limited length of time, namely 50 years. After 2047 the Chinese government can legally abolish the special status of Hong Kong and fully incorporate it into the People's Republic of China. That might seem a long way off, but it's within the lifetime of the students I met today. To be honest, I didn't expect the Chinese government to honour the agreement as long as it has, 22 years so far. After all, what could the UK do if China declares the deal invalid? The UK can't take Hong Kong back. All the UK can do is complain to the United Nations, a powerless institution which writes pieces of paper that everyone ignores.

---

The meeting in the Student Union today wasn't as big as I had expected. There were only a dozen young Chinese people in attendance, and I was the only non-Chinese visitor. Shortly before the film began, another group of Chinese people arrived, slightly older than the students, dressed in smart clothes. It was obvious that they wanted to disrupt the meeting. They refused to sit, and they tried to ask questions out of turn. They were taking photographs of the attendees, despite being asked to refrain from taking photos.

I hoped to talk to members of the second group after the film, but they evidently grew bored and left before it was time to ask questions. A lively discussion would have made things clearer to an outsider like me. I have an open mind, and I want to hear both sides of the story. If any of those present today have found my blog post, please write your thoughts in the comments box in as much detail as possible. I look forward to hearing from you.

Crimea, as it was (4 Stars)

This is a documentary about the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea in 2014. It tells of the events in February and March from the perspective of the armed forces stationed in Crimea. Most of the documentary is made up of amateur videos made by military personnel at the time. Some interviews are added which were recorded in 2015.

The documentary sets out to answer two questions: What happened? Why did it happen? I feel that it successfully answers the first question, but after watching the documentary I know even less about why it happened than before.

Ever since Ukraine became independent in 1991 Russian seamen were stationed in Crimea. It was part of the independence agreement that Russia could continue to keep its Black Sea fleet stationed in Crimea, particularly in Sevastopol. The port of Sevastopol was shared equally by the Russian and Ukrainian navies. They were friends with one another, especially at officer level. They used to eat and drink together.

The first sign of something unusual was in late February. A large number of Russian army conscripts, mostly from Chechnya, arrived in Crimea. The Ukrainians asked them what they were supposed to be doing, and they said they didn't know; they assumed it would only be for a few days. Shortly afterwards swarms of helicopters arrived from Russia carrying men and military equipment. The Ukrainians were suspicious, but still accepted it as normal.

The third stage was the presence of heavily armed masked men in informal uniforms. They looked like soldiers, but they had no recognisable military insignia. They pretended to be Ukrainians, but they spoke no Ukrainian, only Russian. They took up positions blocking Ukrainian military bases. With the help of photos taken when they were unmasked they were later identified as the 45th Guards, a special forces unit stationed in Moscow.

In interviews Vladimir Putin gave answers in which he contradicted himself. At first he said that there were no Russian troops in Crimea; it was solely loyal Crimeans who were defending their country against western influence. In later interviews he said that some Russian soldiers had voluntarily travelled to Crimea to help their brothers. This was a ridiculous claim that nobody believed. If a soldier left his unit and travelled to another country for a long period of time he would be treated as a deserter. If he took a helicopter with him he would be pursued and killed by his unit. Putin is often referred to as the Prince of Lies, but he's an unskilled liar who makes random statements without considering how infeasible they are.

Putin should also pay more attention to his body language. Looking down or closing your eyes when answering a question is clear proof of lying.

The Ukrainian air force in Crimea realised that they had no chance of success against the overwhelming Russian forces. They flew as many planes as they could into mainland Ukraine. They destroyed the aircraft that they couldn't save to prevent them falling into Russian hands. With the navy it was different. Only a few ships could escape. The majority were trapped in the harbour at Sevastopol. A Russian warship floated sideways and blocked the entrance to the harbour. It claimed to have broken down and was waiting for repairs. Lying must be a common Russian trait. Russian tugboats were blocking the Ukrainian ships individually. After a few days they began to ram the Ukrainian ships.

Now comes the part that I don't understand. The Crimean navy captains wanted to fight back against the Russians, but they needed an order from their superiors. They contacted their superiors in mainland Ukraine and they were told to wait. This went on for days. Then the captains asked if they were allowed to act under their own discretion. No answer.

Eventually Russian officers boarded the ships. They offered the Crimean captains and other leading officers a deal. They said that they could join the Russian navy. They would retain the same rank and receive a pay rise. The Russians lied to them, of course. They told them that their colleagues had already accepted the deal, which was untrue. They wanted to isolate the Crimean officers. A few of them accepted the Russian offer, but most refused to betray their country.

Another method of persuasion was fake phone calls. The officers received calls from women claiming to be their wives begging them to accept the Russian offers. The wives also received fake calls from men claiming to be their husbands. Russia has an intelligence department with voice experts trained to make fake phone calls.

In the end the takeover was very peaceful. Only three soldiers died in the conflict. The armed forces on the front lines were eager to engage in combat, but they weren't allowed to. They wanted to die fighting rather than surrender, but they had to sit passively while the Russians took over. Why did it happen? That's a mystery.

After the annexation the Crimean armed forces who remained loyal relocated to mainland Ukraine. There are Crimean units in Ukraine which are training for the day when they can strike back against the Russians.

On March 16th a referendum was held whether Crimea should join Russia. The official result was that 97% of the population wanted to become Russians. Russia should have said that the result was 55%. People might have believed that. 97% is a very implausible lie. Independent experts estimate that the support for Russia was between 10% and 15%. The trouble is that the population of Crimea is living in fear. There are Russian soldiers in the streets in all the big cities. If anyone is asked if he supports Russia he's too scared to speak the truth. It sounds like a trap, so people either lie or refuse to answer. That's understandable. The punishment for saying that Crimea shouldn't belong to Russia is a six month prison sentence.

However, there's a way to judge the real support for the Russian occupation. After March 16th 2014 the Ukrainian citizens in Crimea were told that they could apply for Russian citizenship. Since then only 50,000 people have accepted this offer. That's less than 3% of the population. The vast majority of the Crimeans want to remain Ukrainian. However, they're still being forced to be Russian against their will. Teenage boys are conscripted into the Russian army, even if they're Ukrainian citizens. Babies born in Crimea are given Russian nationality on their birth certificates, even if both parents are Ukrainian.

Many Crimeans have moved to mainland Ukraine, especially business owners. One of the first things that the Russian occupying forces did was to take control of all businesses, large and small, which belonged to Ukrainians. No financial compensation was paid. Many Russians have been encouraged to move from Russia to Crimea, but this hasn't worked out very well so far. Wages in Crimea are less than half the level they are in Russia, but food costs three times as much.

This documentary is in the public domain and can be watched on YouTube. Click here to watch it.