Navalny director Daniel Roher: I don’t think I’ve come to terms with how extraordinary this is

Director Daniel Roher tells Esther McCarthy that he still hasn’t come to terms with how extraordinary his documentary on Alexei Navalny is and what it means for his life

Wed, 20 Apr, 2022 - 20:00

Esther N McCarthy

Alexei Navalny is a Russian opposition leader who was hospitalised in 2020 after being poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. After partly recovering, he returned to Russia but was imprisoned.

Featuring astonishing scenes and reveals, the documentary Navalny sees him joining filmmakers and investigative journalists to examine the circumstances of his poisoning with a lethal nerve agent. Daniel Roher is the director on the project.

Esther McCarthy: What is your memory of your first contact with Alexei Navalny?

Daniel Roher: Well, I was riding on the miraculous coattails of [journalist] Christo Grozev. Christo is this modern-day Sherlock Holmes, or Bulgarian nerd with a laptop, who is a super genius. He speaks 10 languages and he spends his free time as a hobby solving Russian state crimes.

When he reached out to Alexei Navalny and said: ‘Alexei, I might have a lead in who tried to poison you’, Navalny was all ears.

I said to Christo, who’s making that film? A week later, Christo, myself, and one of the producers of the film Odessa Rae were driving across Germany to go and meet with Alexei.

That first meeting was positive. I was able to pitch him on why a documentary was necessary and important, and how it was different from his own YouTube channel and social media outlets.

Navalny already has a wide audience on social media. How would the film differentiate from that exposure?

It speaks to the nature of non-fiction filmmaking and documentary filmmaking and the vitality of it. YouTube videos, Instagram posts, Twitter feeds are for right now. I think they’re more akin or adjacent to broadcast news. A documentary film, it’s like on a time delay, it goes out in a year or two years.

I think Alexei Navalny was able to envision a potential future where he went back to Russia, where maybe he was in jail. He needed some sort of vehicle that would remind the world of his plight, of his story.

I think that was the first thing that was important to him about a documentary, that [it] was able to communicate.

The second thing is the emotional connection of a film. The language of cinema is the language of emotion and feeling. A good film will stay with an audience member for days, weeks, months, decades... but a YouTube piece is more about exposition. Alexei understood the importance of the emotional connection.

Did you have any misgivings about security or safety by getting on board this film?

No. When you’re standing next to someone like Alexei Navalny, when you’re working in close proximity to him and his staff, you can’t help but feel brave. Their courage proliferates, their courage wafts through the set and encompasses all of us and you can’t help but feel their courage.

We were aware of what was coming down the pike; we were aware that these Kremlin guys and their propagandists are keen to try and destroy character. We understand the risks, and the work and the truth is more important.

There is one truly shocking scene midway through the film when Navalny receives detailed information about the attempt on his life. When did it dawn on you what was unfolding?

It’s important to be mindful that I don’t speak a word of Russian and so I’m sitting there with my camera, having very low expectations that we’ll capture anything that morning. We certainly didn’t have expectations. We were probably two hours into the morning. We had done several of these phone calls and nothing was manifesting that was positive. The last phone call Alexei was going to do, I saw [journalist] Maria Pevchickh’s jaw unhinge and hit the floor. You didn’t have to speak a word of Russian to understand fully what was transpiring.

I remember just sitting there with my camera, making sure I had enough battery, making sure there was enough space on the hard drives, and making sure that I just kept shooting.

What do you think is at the core of his political motivations and desires?

Alexei’s political motivations to me are quite clear. He wants to run for the presidency in a free and fair democratic election and usher in a new age of Russian history and politics that is not corrupted by authoritarianism or Stalinism. He wants to be the first democratically elected president of the Russian Federation. I think that’s what’s guiding him.

I think he has an alternate vision of what his country can be and what he aspires for his country’s future. I think that’s the vision that Alexei has, and that’s why he’s imprisoned, and that’s what he’s fighting for.

Did you find him open in speaking about his nationalist past?

The quality that I was most impressed by is his willingness to communicate, to have dialogue, to answer questions, to engage in debate. When it came time to ask him questions that were challenging or taboo or a bit uncomfortable, I just had to be mindful that here’s a man who’s seeking the highest office of the biggest country in the world and he must be able to stand up to a challenging line of questioning. From my perspective, they are vital and necessary to dig into, they’re important. And ultimately, when pushed, he’s willing to engage. I think that that comes through in the film.

Are you finding people are astonished by some of the footage?

Just imagine what it was like to make the thing. I don’t think I’ve still come to terms with how extraordinary this is and what it means for my life and all of these things. I’m just trying to enjoy the journey and engage with people, especially Russian people, who were moved by the film. That matters a great deal to all of us.