This year sees the release of two films based on the Utya island attack but what can a film based on real events tell us that documentary footage or eyewitness testimony cannot?
The question of how to approach human suffering on camera has confounded film-makers for decades. Theres no blueprint when it comes to turning news stories into cinema, and while the likes of Schindlers List and 12 Years a Slave have been praised for providing insight into historical atrocities, in recent years, attention has turned to events that are fresh in our collective memory.
In many cases, this means acts of terrorism. The events of 9/11 became the narrative of United 93 and World Trade Center in 2006, while the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing inspired Patriots Day (2016) and Stronger (2017). Its human nature to want to make order out of chaos, and these films speak to a collective yearning for answers and understanding in the aftermath of tragedy. Yet the question remains: are films based on real-life terrorist attacks opportunistic?
This year sees the release of two films which centre on the 2011 attack in Norway by rightwing extremist Anders Behring Breivik, which left 77 people dead, 55 of whom were teenagers. Erik Poppes UtyaJuly 22 debuted at the Berlin film festival in February, while Paul Greengrasss 22 July will be screened at the Venice film festival this week. Poppe worked closely with survivors from Utya island, using their testimonies to create a real-time, single-take thriller in which Breivik is a shadowy figure in the films periphery. Meanwhile, Greengrasss film focuses only in part on Breiviks actions, with most of his attention dedicated to the aftermath, including coverage of the trial of Breivik, the response from Norways prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, and the difficult recovery of one Utya survivor, 18-year-old Viljar Hanssen.
As writer and philosopher Susan Sontag stated in her 2003 essay Regarding the Pain of Others, One can feel obliged to look at photographs that record great cruelties and crimes. One should feel obliged to think about what it means to look at them, about the capacity actually to assimilate what they show. We could see these films in a similar manner to watch them is to view the real-life events at a distance, but to be jolted by our voyeurism. The events of 22 July 2011 will still be fresh in the memory of many, given the media coverage that surrounded both the attack and Breiviks trial.
Internet access has created an inescapable news cycle, and for many, particularly those living in Europe, the Norway attack was a particularly shocking incident. It has taken seven years for these twin feature films to materialise, which could be seen as a cynical attempt at turning human suffering into box office returns. Questions arise around the ethics of this particular docudrama style of film-making what can a film based on real events tell us that documentary footage or eyewitness testimony cannot?