Taking place between April and November 2022, Rule of Two Walls is a record of events experienced by artists who remained in Ukraine despite the Russian invasion. Musicians, filmmakers and street artists are among the subjects of the documentary who mainly show resistance. There is definitely some anger and sadness too but for most part they just desire to continue and carry on with their ordinary lives. Against popular belief about war documentaries, Rule of Two Walls is more concerned with art than an ongoing invasion. It takes after the thinking of its subjects as it strides ahead.
This title refers to when people began sleeping in hallways instead of going to official shelters so that if there was a bomb blast then two walls would be there already between you and an explosion because many had stopped going to official shelters. This involves striking a balance between ensuring one’s safety while making sure that life continues within their homes like those portrayed in this film. To many viewers, it may seem counter-intuitive not to do everything possible to stay safe, which for many means fleeing the country. However, over the course of Rule of Two Walls’ short runtime, these decisions start to make sense.
Firstly, watching this doc makes us deeply uncomfortable. Cutting back and forth between an art installation where attendants are chatting away sipping wine and burning bodies sets up tension and doubt. How can anyone care about art when that is happening right next door? Are we supposed to be celebrating or condemning this as callous? But no immediate answers are forthcoming.
Another aspect of Rule of Two Walls’ style that stands out is how often we aren’t told what we’re seeing at all. The narration comes from people talking about themselves and art’s role in their lives during wartime situations especially considering the conflict itself has no relation whatsoever with them personally (like them or other things). As such the gory pictures could be seen without any context at all like someone whose home has been torn apart or someone whose life has been taken away. Furthermore, this also implies that while the most pressing concerns of the war may be overlooked, art seems to be given much more attention and discussed widely.
We can turn our critical eyes on ourselves and our own behavior quite easily. We’ve always looked to art for solace, escape or even reason when confronted with something terrifying but it’s not always appropriate to do so. The first act of this documentary presents an ambiguous view of the role of art in conflict. On one hand, this raises interesting questions and invites introspection, but on the other hand it may not serve as a good document for its purpose. Perhaps they intended to make a small bait and switch here but if not then we are slightly led astray at first glance.
Towards the middle, nonetheless, a thesis of the documentary starts to emerge clearly based on one interview that is particularly interesting. A mysterious artist talked to the filmmakers about art, religion and culture in an interesting and easily understandable way. That is why she sums up Putin’s war against Ukraine so well when she says “when Putin says we have no culture he means we have no nation” because “Culture is an action and product of a people”. She also notes:
Watch free movies on Fmovies
