The documentary was originally intended to be a half hour short, profiling a 27-year old video journalist (or VJ) known as Joshua who worked behind Burmas barbed-wire veil of silence and against the strict media embargo enforced by its military government (which came to power after a coup in 1962). Using a pseudonym to protect his identity, Joshua coordinated illicit on-the-ground coverage for the Democratic Voice of Burma, a non-profit news organization based in Norway. However, when Burmas ruling junta abruptly ceased subsidies on fuel, which caused the price to skyrocket, destabilizing an economy that was already among the worlds poorest, Joshua and stergaards project took on a far greater significance.
Thousands of the countrys Buddhist monks took to the streets in the latter part of 2007, leading what developed into widespread protests against the intransigent regime. Armed with their wits and hand held video cameras, Joshua and his crew of VJs documented the saffron uprising and the Burmese governments brutal retaliation to it from the front lines. It was the first time in a generation that the people had dared challenge their leaders, but this was very different to the last uprising in 1988. Footage captured by Joshua and his team was beamed around the world. Vivid images of soldiers viciously beating monks in the street in broad daylight were broadcast via all the major new networks, putting Burma albeit briefly at the top of the United Nations political agenda. With no room for deniability, Burmas military leaders were shamed into making concessions. And then the worlds attention moved on.
Fast-forward to 2010, with promises broken and hard fought concessions reneged on, it might be easy for Joshua and his fellow Burmese citizens to feel despondent. However, with Burma VJ, a documentary that combines original footage with dramatic recreations, Joshua and stergaard hope to raise awareness for the ongoing plight of the Burmese people. At the start of this month their cause was given a massive boost with an Academy Award nomination for their film in the category for Best Documentary feature.
SuicideGirls caught up with stergaard, a Danish filmmaker who was previously best known for Tintin and Me (a 2003 documentary about comics writer and artist Herg). Over coffee we talked about Burma VJ's dramatic journey from the impoverished streets of Burma to Hollywoods glittering Kodak Theater, and what the films Oscar nomination means for a new generation of citizen journalists and for those fighting oppression around the globe.
Nicole Powers: How did this group of underground reporters come to your attention? Did you discover them while visiting Burma?
Anders stergaard: I was coming totally from the outside. There was a Danish producer who kept talking about Burma, that we should do something about it years ago. I had practically no clue about the country, to my embarrassment, but I was also intrigued by the fact I knew so little. Which has an actual explanation; the country's been closed for 50 years almost.
Out of that simple curiosity we started discussing how to go about it. We realized if we went in ourselves in the traditional way it would end up being a film about the crew itself somehow. Because it would be about all the difficulties, the people we couldn't film and the places we couldn't go.
We were looking for some other approach. Realizing that there were people inside, citizen reporters making their own stories was extremely intriguing because they could go places I could never go. And their own story, of course, would tell us a lot about life in Burma.
NP: So you did this project without ever having to go to Burma?
A: I never went - well later on I did. As we prepared for the film we approached the Democratic Voice of Burma, the people who organize it in Oslo. They sent us to Bangkok to meet several reporters who came out for camera training. That's where I found Joshua, the protagonist in the film. But that was well before the uprising. The idea was to base the film on their footage, on their experience, and their point of view. To work with them as subjects who are looking at the world. On the narration [we'd planned that they'd] explain how they perceive the world, the country as they shot it. That was the nature of the original project and then it developed into a major political thing because of the uprising.
NP: So these citizen journalists would upload footage and send it to you via the internet?
A: Basically, yeah.
NP: Did you then call them and debrief them as you went along.
A: No. As a matter of fact I left them pretty much to themselves at the time of the uprising. There was no way I could interfere. They were too busy and under too much pressure safety-wise, security-wise, so I couldn't interfere with their work at the time. I just sat waiting until the whole thing had settled and then we collected their footage and put together a film.
NP: The film features the footage that was shown by news organizations such as the BBC around the globe. Did you assist in getting that footage to the various news outlets?
A: No. I didn't have a direct role as an activist or partisan as such. They were such skillful people at what they were doing that I didn't have to do that. I could basically just sit back and wait for the material to turn up some months later. It was quite deliberate in retrospect, [given] the chaos of the time. It was a good thing for the film that we didn't rush about and get in the way.
NP: Or put them in danger.
A: Which we would have done if we'd have stayed at the safe house where Joshua was based in the film. We would have jeopardized his safety.
NP: This hands off style of documentary making, that alone is quite revolutionary.
A: Maybe so. It's an alliance if you like between what they do and what I do, and that's how we perceived it all the way through.
NP: And it was someone in Oslo that put you in touch with Joshua?
A: Yes, the editors at the Democratic Voice of Burma. That is where they're based.
NP: As the uprising was going on, what were your personal thoughts?
A: Well I was following the mood swings, if you like. It seemed to be very optimistic, a very hopeful thing at the beginning. We were [hoping] like everybody else that they would get something out of this, that this would lead to some change, which it didn't of course. We were just going through everything they were going through, the hope and the despair.
NP: You get the feeling from the film that they were so busy capturing footage that there was little time for them to react to what was happening at the time.
A: Oh no, they were certainly distraught about what they were witnessing. It was just as emotional for them as anyone else that was there. But I don't think they had that much time to discuss it at the time. I think somehow the film turned out to be a little bit of therapy for them because they had a chance to live out all the things that they were going through emotionally in the dialog.
The thread of the film is actually all these cell phone conversations, that's actually what builds the dramatic structure of the film. That was reenacted by the protagonists half a year later. It was based on the conversations they would have had at the time but were obviously not recorded, they didn't have the resources. And it was also a safety issue too, to record stuff like that. So that was self-constructed I would say. I just asked them to quite simply ad-lib: "You're on this and that date and this is the situation, you're calling each other, what are you saying?" They had an amazing ability to go back to those situations and those feeling they had at the time.
NP: But there are some moments when there's genuine panic in their voices, when they're on their phones on camera at the time,.
A: There are bits of authentic original [cell phone conversation] footage also.
NP: Like when Joshua has to hide his camera in a bag, and all you see is a virtually black screen, but you can still hear him talking on the phone.
A: There are several situations like that, authentic bits which inspired us to extend the cell phone element into a full dramatic structure. So some of the [cell phone audio] moments are very real and from the moment it happened.
NP: Can you talk about how they were actually getting the footage out of the country?
A: The [military government] soon realized that it was major problem for them, that [the citizen journalists] were uploading material on the internet. Then [the military government] closed it down, so [the citizen journalists] had to resort to satellite uploads. There were lots of people trying to report and communicate with the outside world, but only these guys had the resources like the satellite phones to actually keep the whole thing alive.
NP: Was that kind of equipment getting air-dropped in?
A: I can't go into details about how they got it installed, but they had it in place.
NP: Once you got hold of the footage and started putting the film together, did you meet up with Joshua and the other reporters again?
A: Yes, I met with all of them -- well not all of them but a bunch of them -- about half a year later in Thailand. That's where we sat down and relived the whole thing in cell phone conversations or the reenacted scenes in the safe house where Joshua is running about trying to keep track of his colleagues. All that stuff was done later on.
NP: When the footage reached the outside world, it did bring about some change, but obviously ultimately not as much as they'd hoped. The United Nations did get involved, but nothing really has been resolved.
A: Well there are many levels to it, because for the country it was a tragedy, but for what they were doing it was a huge breakthrough. It was a triumph that they were able to live up to the occasion, to supply the world with footage. I mean you're talking about twelve people with no formal journalistic education, no resources at all -- they would move about on buses or just on their bare feet. Just the logistics of being in the right place at the right time, and getting the material delivered, and getting it uploaded, and getting it to the outside world was a massive achievement given the circumstances. So for them, these young guys, it was a triumph, a victory that they were able to do that.
NP: I guess the victory was twofold. It was amazing that the demonstrators were even able to openly protest in the streets because that was the first time that had happened in a generation, and then to be able record it and show it to the world so there's no level of deniability...
A: Exactly. Even for the country it was very hopeful in a way. For example they were quite worried about the next generation, the 20-somethings; Would they have forgotten all about politics because they didn't experience the last uprising in '88? They only knew the regime's reality. There was a general worry that the whole tradition of '88 would be totally forgotten. This was to prove that they can be politicized as well, that they will also understand that this is worth pursuing.
NP: That's interesting, that idea of multiple generations who have only known life under a dictatorship, who have never experienced first hand the freedoms that they're missing.
A: Sure. But it does suggest that the need for freedom to express yourself and all those things are so instinctive that anyone will pick it up at some point sooner or later. That's at least the notion I get out of this.
NP: These reporters come from a generation who had been powerless. Just the act of defiance, of recording the events must have been empowering.
A: Absolutely, and I think that's how it felt for them. They really could do something, even if they couldn't change the regime, they could make a difference. They could tell the generals if they kill people we will put you on TV. And there's lots of assessments that that actually made a difference, that that brought the death toll down from what it would have been. Compare, in '88 there were thousands of people killed, but the fact that this was televised so thoroughly might have made the whole thing less violent than it would have been otherwise.
NP: I guess we'll never know how many people were saved by the citizen reporters' actions, but it's a profound thought.
A: It's legitimate speculation.
NP: Have you heard much from the members of Joshua's reporting network since?
A: We've been constantly in touch with Joshua [who now lives in exile in Thailand]. He's actually been traveling with the film. Because he was in exile he was able to come along. We've been here, and we've been to Canada with him, and he keeps us updated. Out of the original group, three have gone to prison. One has actually been released not more than two months ago. But then, on the other hand, somebody who worked later on, on another thing, has just got 20-years so they're still being very heavily pursued. It's maybe even more difficult than it was before to do what they've been doing.
NP: Has Joshua spoken to the press in person? Do you still have to keep his identity secret?
A: Yes, we have to go about that all the time, he can't make public appearances as such. We have to make interviews without his face shown, we had to go through all those precautions.
NP: So what's next for Joshua and for you.
A: Well Joshua is quite simply rebuilding the network, with his role in the organization to recruit new people. They've managed to get 80 new reporters, which is quite impressive considering the risks that these people are going to take.
NP: I understand when Joshua first picked up his camera, his original goal was just to document everyday life in Burma; He had no idea that he'd be shooting, and making, history.
A: No, he couldn't imagine how far it could be taken...I think he was always aware that what he was doing was a political thing, it's just that he didn't realize that it could have the effect it could, that it could have the impact that it could. I guess that's what he learned -- his colleagues as well -- that this is really a political factor. And the awareness of what media means, of what documentation means, that fact they could put the issue on the world agenda in a whole different way because we have this footage to explain what's going on. Suddenly Burma is a tangible thing. It wasn't before. It was quite abstract, something you had to try to imagine, now you can see what it's all about.
NP: And Joshua has also inspired a wave of activist citizen journalists around the world.
A: Yes. That's the good news.
NP: So what's been happening with this documentary?
A: It's been traveling for a year now. It's been all over the place. We've been very busy trying to take a grass roots approach to distribution to have screenings everywhere possible. We sent the DVDs to anybody for free who would have some kind of serious purpose with it, be it a university screening in Malaysia, or a Burma committee in Sweden, or even private people who are just keen to show it to their neighbors. We've had hundreds and hundreds of screenings in this way, and we very much believe in that kind of approach.
NP: If people reading this want to arrange a screening, how do they go about it?
A: They should just get in touch with the Magic Hour Films company in Copenhagen who will send them a DVD.
NP: How are you funding that?
A: Well, it is an expense, but on the other hand sending a DVD is a relatively cheap thing to do which has promotional value. Seen from our perspective, it seems to be worthwhile to do that...It's intriguing that you can reach people so cheaply these days, that you can think about distribution in a new way.
And we didn't have a dilemma between the political interests and the commercial interests. That would have been unbearable, to go make this film and then try to be restrictive about the rights, denying its natural life as a political statement. Of course we've been looking at ways of combining this and making that best of both interests.
NP: You have some big new regarding the Academy Award nomination. When did you first hear about it?
A: Oh, the very second [the list] was released. I was calling in to the production company office to follow the whole thing live. We had Danish television there and it was a big deal -- just the prospect of a nomination.
NP: What does this mean for the film? Obviously even the nomination will bring more attention to Burma VJ?
A: It'll prolong the lifespan of the film. A documentary often dies out in the course of a year, something like that. This will bring it a second life, bring it to new audiences who may be wary of the documentary genre. The Oscar [nomination] may communicate that this is a film that works as a movie, and will entertain and involve you. But what is interesting is the aspect of how it boosts morale inside the country.
NP: I was going to bring that up. I mean this is a huge deal for Burma, for Joshua and for citizen journalism in general.
A: Absolutely. The Burmese people, that's what they're telling me all the time. The film, obviously you can't see it on state television, but it's out there on the black market, it's going from hand to hand. It's being copied and lots of people have seen it -- everybody is following this. For them it's a big deal to have their country involved in an Oscar nomination. It has so many emotional aspects because they are so damn scared of being forgotten by the rest of the world.
NP: I assume you've spoken with Joshua since the announcement. What was his reaction?
A: He's so excited, of course, as everybody else. I think he tries to stay cool in a sense that he wants to look after his day-to-day business and not get too involved in the glamour. But he is excited, clearly excited. That's the wonderful thing about this project, that we are all on the same side. I don't need to have a guilt trip about being here because I know it means something to the people involved.
NP: Will Joshua be able to make it out for the ceremony?
A: Possibly not. He has endless visa and passport problems. That's not so easy. It's not something we can count on unfortunately. But since he's in Thailand, he will at least follow us minute by minute.
NP: Well I'll keep everything crossed for you, and just wanted to say congratulations.
A: Thank you very much.
Go to BurmaVJMovie.com for more info on the film and for details of upcoming screenings.