The cinematic exploration of war in Facing Darkness [1]

A particularly insightful line that encapsulates the essence of the wars can be found in the Japanese animated fantasy film Howl’s Moving Castle [j. ハウルの動く城] (2004). In contrast to the novel by Diane Wynne Jones (1986), which served as a pretext for Hayao Miyazaki’s directorial vision, the film is deeply characterized by a dynamic anti-war ethic. Astonished by his role in the social order, the main character Howl emphasizes the demonic-destructive power of wars [2]. In his prophetic – and I dare say universal vision of and emphasis on war’s total disintegration of (the ideal of) humanity, the wizard says: “After the war, they won’t recall they ever were human”.

What then connects the aforementioned Japanese animated film and the documentary Facing Darkness (2023) by director Jean-Gabriel Périot [3]. Aren’t they essentially different artistic practices, genres, poetics? How do I bring the contexts of East Asia and Europe to the same level? Why would I insist on it? In addition to these 110 reasons, other arguments should be considered. The initial motivation stems from a personal perspective determined by a moment that unfolded years ago, when I first encountered Miyazaki’s world. After the war, in butchered Bosnia and in my hometown of Sarajevo, during the years of survival that still smelled of the wartime destruction of Yugoslavia, we were in the patching up and unearthing of war traumas. A decade after the war ended, I found myself reflecting on the course of my university studies, centered on the books I had absorbed during the war. This literature had served as an intangible, protective barrier. Following an extensive period of research on the war, it has become evident according to my memory, that the afternoon in question, in which I watched Howl’s Moving Castle, I assume on the broken Federal television (as broken as Bosnia and Herzegovina) [4], had a formative effect on me. In the realm of reception, the Japanese cartoon unknowingly influenced my emphasis on scientific responsibility and the integration of my ethics with war traumas. These factors have also influenced my approach to writing this article. While the aforementioned considerations significantly contribute to the context of the article, they merely serve only as a preliminary indication of the persistent link that I advocate and seek to delineate.

The artistic and historical depiction of the war in Bosnia remains a subject of considerable interest and research. This stance aligns with the perspective articulated by Susan Sontag (2003), who observed that the siege of Sarajevo, through the prism of war reports, the power of the media, and the cameras, became the first war that entered a million living rooms around the world. Thus, Sontag underscores the transformative potency of scenes and photographs, “in shaping what catastrophes and crises we pay attention to, what we care about, and ultimately what evaluations are attached to these conflicts” (Sontag, 2003, p. 104). A significant corpus of film footage disseminated to living rooms includes recordings that were utilized by Jean-Gabriel Périot in the creation of his cinematic work.

Facing Darkness (2023) film poster is used with permission and courtesy of director Jean-Gabriel Périot. 

The documentary Facing Darkness is defined as both a war and a post-war film. The film focuses thematically on the social role of the war documentary genre. Within the film’s artistic organization, which includes six cameras and six film gazes, the post-war segment represents a subsequent dialogue with participants of the first part of the film, thirty years later. 

In the initial segment of Facing Darkness, in addition to thoughtfully assembling the narrative of his comprehension of the siege of Sarajevo, the director confronts the challenge of articulating to a broad audience the common characteristics of wars. By employing original video footage from besieged Sarajevo, the director constructs a new narrative structure, thereby actualizing historical events. At the same time, his procedure should generally be understood as a “discussion about ideological construction buried in representations of historical constructions as simple as the oppositions“ (Godmilow & Shapiro, 1997, p. 80-101). The painful omnibus, which is the first part of the film, also functions as a “literal” quote in the weaving of the narrative about the war. Périot identifies with the optics of the original filmographers of the war, including Nedim Alikadić, Smail Kapetanović, Dino Mustafić, Nebojša Šerić-Shoba, and Srđan Vuletić [5]. Utilizing the cinematic collages of five war witnesses – as a projection of the real space and time of war – he devised a unique solution that interweaves the elements of reality, documentary, and drama. This is guided by the presentation of the event, which consequently validates its immediate historicity and authenticity.

The phenomenon of dehumanization that the protagonist Howl from Miyazaki’s film described has been captured in its most brutal form in the Facing Darkness. The anthological minute, authored and filmed by Srđan Vuletić and skillfully integrated into Périot’s narrative, serves as a testimony to the bloodiness of the war in Bosnia. Simultaneously, it draws a parallel between the Japanese city of Hiroshima and the besieged Sarajevo. In his theory on war films, Imamura Taihei asserts that the medium of film is capable of conveying meanings that words alone cannot express. In this regard, the combination of art and social practices oriented towards consciousness – both in Vuletić’s, and in the context of Périot’s film work at the level of “expression is possible” (Nornes, 2003, p. 99). This short film, positioned among the footage and words written on two yellow-stale papers (1. S a r a j e v o, / 47 years, 6 months, 17 days / after Hiroshima. / 2. t h e   e n d), utilizes a direct approach and the vitality of its own media in order to visualise the extent of the violent destruction of humanity. At the level of the opposition of the cadres, the transition is characterized by a shift from the winter idyll, with its ominous emptiness and the deadness, into striking images of the horror of bloody, massacred, and dead bodies. Vuletić’s artistic sensibility is based on a brilliant technique that, despite its horror, remains uncensored, even by the director of the film Facing Darkness.

This skill is evident in the use of war-related symptoms to foster protest and raise awareness, thereby evoking the principles of cinéma vérité and the cathartic impact of blood cinema. The correlation between the Hiroshima and Sarajevo experiences, as perceived through the lens of film optics, can be attributed to the notion of the universality of war’s destructive nature. This notion transcends historical temporality, extending to the time measured by human lives. However, this assumption prompts significant questions. Primarily, do scenes of butchery merely function as war footage or reports, or can their aestheticization influence a shift in the viewer’s consciousness? It has been noted, to paraphrase Susan Sontag, that audiences often accept violent death rather than reflect on its wrongness.

Film as art and ethical engagement

The complicated distinction between documentary film and art is often reduced to the philosophy of aestheticization, where art is seen as a mere manifestation of fullness and purity. Jean-Paul Sartre highlighted the controversial topic of “aesthetic purism“, asserting that any engagement kills literature, i.e. “that engagement is harmful to the art of writing“ (Sartre, 1949, p. 26). In his book What is Literature?, Sartre argues that art does not become devalued by engagement. He suggests furthermore, that a “work of art is a value because it is an appeal“ (Ibid, p. 49). The concept of ethical engagement in a work of art includes the author’s approach: the utilization of the medium of art, the intention to provoke a reader’s/viewer’s response and action, as well as to propose ideas for philosophical and social change. In the concrete, for Sartre, “the engaged writer knows that words are action. He knows that to reveal is to change and that one can reveal only by planning to change. He has given up the impossible dream of giving an impartial picture of Society and the human condition” (Sartre, 1949, p. 23). This finding in the domain of literature is compatible with the field of film, particularly regarding the relationships and ideological or political issues that have become subjects of inquiry. The result of the complex relationship between aesthetics and engagement is the reduction of documentary to an uncritical record, leading to the detachment of the work from its artistic character and the silencing of the creative process. This assumption disregards the significance of innovation in the manner of expression of authors in that genre, their knowledge, the problems they address, and also the observation that an apparently passive recording of the world “passes through the consciousness of the person recording it” (Taihei & Baskett, 2010, p. 52–59). Moreover in such deliberations, it is crucial to consider Anna Fischel’s statement, which pertains to the subjective nature of the relationship between the author and the subjects depicted in the film. The resources of the filmmaker’s subjectivity are grounded in knowledge and experiences that emerge from the basic task of the film, which is to investigate “the ethical and ideological issues“ (Fischel, 1989, p. 35–40). In addition to confirming the concepts and development of war documentary filmmaking, the film that is the subject of this short article – Facing Darkness – demonstrates a significant link between aesthetics and engagement. The film’s genesis can be traced back to Jean-Gabriel Périot’s knowledge in history and ability to develop the portrayals of ongoing events, his research on the subject of besieged Sarajevo, and an innovative approach that incorporates interviews with five authors (of the original footage from the first part of the film) in the second part of the film. This particular strategy emphasizes a convergence with the film’s narrative framework, thereby underscoring the director’s effectiveness in exploiting the medium of film for the reconstruction of the recordings of the war, but also to portray its historical context. For the participants, who filmed the war, Alikadić, Kapetanović, Mustafić, Šerić, and Vuletić, the interview serves as a medium to facilitate the process of trauma witnessing.

In order to comprehend the process of making the film Facing Darkness, one must reconstruct the model the director utilizes to explore his own poetics of documentary. In the context of artistic representations of the phenomenon of war, the visual aesthetic choices and ethical dilemmas implicated in the technique of “telling a ‘true story’“ (Godmilow & Shapiro, 1997, p. 80–101) are of particular significance. Despite the evident differences, the cinematic narrative of the war is comparable to the literary one. I draw this parallel in light of my prior research, a series of articles, and a doctoral dissertation on the literature of war by post-Yugoslav women authors. The focal point of this research is the inquiry into a feminist perspective that offers a critique of the culture of war and is initiated by an ethical vision of engagement. This approach is supported by a careful analysis of the philosophical foundations of ethical principles of resistance to war and militarism. At the same time, I place the emphasis on the preservation of humanism, empathy, and the building of pacifism. The act of ethical engagement, in addition to dictating the framework of the work through which it is realized, is directly addressed to the readers, or, in this case, the viewing audience. Given the high degree of engagement I identified in Jean-Gabriel Périot’s film, the trajectory of my research points towards the transformation of the literary point of view into a cinematic gaze. The aspiration is to reach the aforementioned translation, as film production is viewed as “a useful political record“, thereby inspiring a collective rethinking of the challenge of responsible filmmaking, as defined by Anne-Louise Shapiro. She uses this term to describe films, especially documentaries, which she points out “should always be good art, good education of the mind“ (Godmilow & Shapiro, 1997, p. 80–101). Consequently, it can be stated that the film under consideration, directed by Périot, is of an anti-war genre, characterized by its ability to provoke contemplation, stimulate emotional responses, and encompass artistic elements. It is important to note that the film was notably well shot and directed.

The act of aestheticizing war violence can be considered a formidable challenge for any author who strives to capture and present the multifaceted nature of traumatic history. Therefore, the role of the camera, that is, the various cameras that constitute the film, becomes integral to Facing Darkness, as the film engages with war filmographers/cameramen in the midst of the siege of Sarajevo. In this sense, Imamura Taihei’s specific condition—which Nornes (2003) has noted is essential for the job of a documentary filmmaker—becomes particularly salient: namely, the state of being prepared. In considering this film, it is important to recognize the willingness of five participants to assume a considerable risk, with potentially fatal consequences, in order to capture scenes and create their own existence in the chaos of war. This bold approach serves to convey engaged messages to the audience. In the final form, which frequently incorporates this “spontaneous discovery“, Périot expresses a documentary commitment to create his own way of telling and portraying this story. In the documentary Facing Darkness, the camera becomes a powerful weapon, as Imamura Taihei brilliantly emphasizes in his work – the camera is compared to a “Japanese sword ready to be deployed at an instant“ (Nornes, 2003, p. 105). This power of the camera has been noted in past wars by observers who reviewed their own videos and films from a distance. Nebojša Šerić-Shoba, one of the participants, uses the camera to experiment and create his own philosophy of surviving the war, which also includes parody, as well as pessimism. But despite different limitations, according to Šerić, the filming process tries to “retain some slices of the time and space“. Similarly, Nedim Alikadić, the other participant in the film, described the camera as a pen, with which, albeit in an amateurish manner, he wrote down his own and other people’s stories, to “keep a record of time“. Smail Kapetanović, a third participant, discussed the role of the cameraman, stating that the camera served as a mode of survival and a medium for conveying appeals for help and messages to future generations, “to learn from our mistakes“. 

Film still from Facing Darkness is used with permission and courtesy of director Jean-Gabriel Périot.

Following a period of dialogue with the videos of war witnesses, Périot translated the knowledge, experiences, and attitudes of the participants who appear in Facing Darkness into his film. This process enabled the communication of the war and its cinematic representations to a contemporary audience. The bonus material of the documentary contains an interview with Dino Mustafić, a renowned contemporary director who, in addition to his responsibility for filming the war, offers an interpretation of the benefits of horror. He argues that, “as an artist, in this condensed time you had have matured as if you have spent years or decades practicing and mastering your skills“. Proof of such a skill that emerged from the war are the films made by both directors, Vuletić and Mustafić. This recording functions as a material form of war memory, to which all the participants of the film Facing Darkness refer. According to Srđan Vuletić, (in bonus video of the film) this recording enables that “genuine voice to be heard“. The act of filming the horrors of war, as articulated by Imamura Taihei, functions as a form of pacification activity. In addition, the text and the film operate with the effect of producing a state of shock that has the “ethical task of shaking the consciousness of readers“ and the viewing audience and with intimacy [and uncensored immediacy] (Omeragić, 2023, p. 100). In general terms, the objective of the appeal is dual: first, to provoke an anti-war and emotional reaction in the minds of viewers; and second, to educate them through shock and confrontation with the horror of war, by their “tools with which to articulate a critique applicable to all kinds of social and historical situations“ (Godmilow & Shapiro, 1997, p. 80-101). In a similar way, Srđan Vuletić emphasizes the significance of optimism that the film in general evokes.

In addressing the audience, Facing Darkness makes an authentic humanist appeal, encouraging reflection on and affirmation of the idea of resistance to the horrors of war through the art of survival. On the other hand, this documentary is also characterized by substantial, sharp criticism. Despite its brutal moments, the atmosphere of the film is marked by ideological subtlety, suggesting a condemnation of the social reality dictated by controversial, nationalist ideologies that not only pervade but also mechanize the actions of local and international social systems. 

Should art be blind to war? Can we survive on the hope that ultimately art will contribute to the development of consciousness and thereby prevent wars, and also to commit to justice (e.g. the utilization of recordings from the Bosnian War that were employed during the trials at the Hague Tribunal)? Susan Sontag has observed the satiation that comes from the repetition of horrific photographs from the Bosnian war, resulting in the posture of changing the television channel. In relation to the phenomenon of avoidance of the uncomfortable news on the wars, perhaps the only certain future is this attitude of switching the channel. The future of those more than 110 worlds that we do not see, about whom we are silent because evil does not come for us yet… Watch Périot’s documentary Facing Darkness.

Akimoto, D. (2014). “Howl’s Moving Castle in the War on Terror“. Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies 14(2), n.p. Available online: https://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/ejcjs/vol14/iss2/akimoto.html (Access: 02/19/2025)  

Cavallaro, D., 2014. The Late Works of Hayao Miyazaki: A Critical Study, 2004-2013. McFarland.  

Fischel, A. (1999). “Engagement and documentary“. Jump Cut 34, 35-40. https://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC34folder/DocyEngagemtFischel.html (Access: 02/19/2025) 

Godmilow, J., & Shapiro, A. L. (1997). “How Real Is the Reality in Documentary Film?“History and Theory 36(4), 80-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/0018-2656.00032 

Taihei, I. & Baskett, M. (2010). “A Theory of Film Documentary“. Review of Japanese Culture and Society 22, 52-59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42800640  

Murakami, T. (Ed.). (2005). Little Boy: the Arts of Japan’s Exploding Subculture. New York: Yale University Press & Japan Society.  

Nornes, Abé Mark (2003). “Stylish Charms: When Hard Style Becomes Hard Reality Book Title: Japanese Documentary Film“. In Japanese Documentary Film: The Meiji Era through Hiroshima (pp. 93-120). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  

Omeragić, M. (2023). “Post/jugoslavenska antiratna ženska proza“ [Post-Yugoslav antiwar women’s prose]. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade. Available online: https://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/21842 (Access: 02/25/2025)  

RULAC: Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts. Available online: Geneva Academy: https://www.rulac.org/ (Access: 02/19/2025)  

Sartre, J. P. (1949). What is Literature? Trans. Bernard Frechtman. Philosophical Library: New York.  

Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the Pain of Others. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York.

Films: