NEW YORK – Oles Yanchuk, director of the renowned National Film Studios named after Oleksander Dovzhenko in Kyiv, screened his newest film, “Secret Diary of Symon Petliura,” at the Ukrainian National Home in New York City on October 6. The film’s co-producer, Askold Lozynskyj, Film Committee head of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, introduced the viewing, stressing the importance of the topics raised by this movie.
Mr. Yanchuk is well-known for his string of historical films: “Famine 33” (1991), “Assassination” (1995), “Undefeated” (2001), “Company of Heroes” (2004) and “Metropolitan Andrey” (2008). All his movies broach subjects once considered taboo under the Soviets, who manipulated educational materials and fabricated propaganda to bury the truth. Consequently, generations in Ukraine either grew up ignorant of their history or simply accepted Kremlin-spawned disinformation.
(The effectiveness of this propaganda was still evident on September 6, when red paint was splattered over “Secret Diary” posters outside a Zaporizhia movie house, and leaflets were scattered proclaiming “Petliura – Persecutor of Jewish People.”)
The plot
On May 25, 1926, at 2:15 p.m., immigrant Jewish watchmaker, anarchist, and former Red Guard soldier Sholem (Samuyil) Schwartzbard approached Symon Petliura on Rue Racine in Paris, asking him in Ukrainian, “Are you Mr. Petliura?” Schwartzbard then pulled out a pistol and shot him seven times, murdering the de facto prime minister of the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) in exile. Although Schwartzbard readily admitted to the crime, it took 17 months of “investigation” to finally bring his case to trial.
Filming bombardment of trenches.
Virtually every major newspaper in the world sent correspondents to Paris. Four hundred people packed the auditorium at the Palais de Justice, prompting the presiding judge to request additional police protection. Passions were volatile, particularly in light of four other high-profile political assassinations committed in Paris during the previous decade. Each of these assassins had been acquitted, despite confessing to the deed.
The defense strategy was to attack Petliura by attempting to demonstrate his involvement with anti-Jewish pogroms. On October 26, 1927, the French jury pronounced Schwarzbard not guilty. Historians still disagree about many aspects of this trial and the events leading up to it.
Controversies surrounding Petliura
Certainly, the figure of Symon Petliura has been buffeted in every direction by parties concerned. Ukrainians consider him a national martyr who fought on multiple fronts against Poles, Russian Whites and Reds, and Bolsheviks, and who faced difficult choices during the maelstrom of the 1918-1921 power vacuum.
For Jews, the assassin became a warrior poet-avenger. Taking their cue from Schwarzbard’s acquittal as a “political assassination,” Jews painted Petliura as an “anti-Semite” responsible for Jewish pogroms, which they claimed were committed by his troops. Several cities in Israel even named streets after him, including Jerusalem and Beersheba.
But there were credible and forceful rebuttals to anti-Semitic allegations against Petliura. In fact, it was Petliura who introduced and supervised capital punishment for those committing anti-Jewish violence. He also appointed Jews to high positions in the Ukrainian government, and even initiated a Jewish military force to specifically protect Jewish settlements.
And it was not only Ukrainians who disputed the allegations made against Petliura.
Symon Petliura (Serhiy Frolov) and his daughter Lesia (Viktoria Yanchuk).
Writing in the May 31, 1926, issue of the Yiddish-language Der Morgen Zshurnal, Avrom Revutsky, head of the UNR’s Ministry of Jewish Affairs, explained why false rumors spread about Petliura: “In the primitive Jewish folk consciousness a very definite idea of the just recently assassinated Petliura has formed. Under this name the people imagine a terrible, wild rider on a white horse, with blood-filled eyes, a thick Cossack moustache and an inhuman cruel face, who rides into a Jewish village at the head of bloodied pogromchiks and slaughters every Jew that comes in his way with animal delight.”
In 2016, editor David Engel published “The Assassination of Symon Petliura and the Trial of Sholem Schwarzbard, 1926-1927.” More than two-thirds of his book consists of documents about the background leading to the trial and its aftermath. Mr. Engel concluded that there was not a single piece of evidence to prove Petliura’s guilt.
Soviet myth-making
The web of history was obviously “of a more mingled yarn,” as Shakespeare put it – but it would take decades for all the hidden strands to come to light.
In 1918-1919 France cautiously supported Ukraine’s struggles for independence, for a time even posting troops in Odesa. Then, Petliura, the cultured, educated leader of that country, was unexpectedly gunned down – and in Paris, no less. France was already agitated by debates concerning immigrants and lingering anxieties over the Dreyfus affair, when a French Jewish officer had been unjustly accused of passing military secrets to the Germans in 1894.
Nonetheless, from the beginning, Petliura’s lawyers and Ukrainians insisted on his innocence and cited Soviet involvement. There was ample cause for such assertions.
Rue Racine as seen in “Secret Diary,” constructed on the largest film pavilion in Europe – at the National Film Studios named after Oleksander Dovzhenko in Kyiv.
At that time, Petliura was more of an enemy for the Bolsheviks than even Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa. But Petliura was no “traitor,” so another smear had to be found. Labeling Petliura an “anti-Semite” (like later labeling Stepan Bandera a “fascist”) was convenient for the Soviets, who played upon the rising influence of global Zionism. In each case, Moscow’s end goal was to ensure no one would ever dare defend Ukraine.
Then, in a startling revelation, former KGB and SMERSH agent Peter Deriabin, who defected to the United States in 1954, confirmed that Schwarzbard had indeed been a Soviet NKVD agent, and had acted on orders of the Soviet ambassador to France, Christian Rakovsky. Deriabin also revealed that GPU agent Mikhail Volodin had arrived in Paris in early 1925 to “handle” Schwartzbard during those final months.
Still, in the July 1969 issue of the Jewish Studies Journal, author Zosa Szajkowski advised that any “accusation” that Schwartzbard was a Bolshevik agent “can only make the realization of a Ukrainian-Jewish rapprochement more difficult.”
Meanwhile, unseen behind the curtains, inexorable geopolitical forces were prevailing. One especially revealing and chilling scene in “Secret Diary” shows Soviet Ambassador Rakovsky at a polite dinner chat with his outmatched French counterpart, spelling out why France could not risk conflict with Moscow, and “suggesting” an acquittal for Schwarzbard.
A film for new generations
As director and co-scriptwriter, Mr. Yanchuk thus faced the daunting challenge of doing justice to such a mountain of nuanced material in one feature film. He related to this author that he never intended to produce an austere historical documentary, nor a Hollywood-type art-film. He has, in fact, always aimed his films at Ukrainians in Ukraine, so that new generations would begin to understand the past and ask questions. Mr. Yanchuk informed me that “Secret Diary” will be required viewing for every school in Ukraine.
Because Petliura was a journalist and editor, Mr. Yanchuk decided on a creative fiction: to format this film around “entries” in his protagonist’s diary – a series of flashbacks to key events leading up to his exile in France. (The movie also incorporates riveting black-and-white film clips actually photographed by a French correspondent during the battles for Kyiv in 1919.)
Mr. Yanchuk told me his film had remained in planning and pre-production for almost a decade. Expert historians were consulted, and “Secret Diary” went through numerous screenplay versions. Meanwhile, Mr. Yanchuk carefully read through the original trial archives in Paris; many of these authentic court testimonies found their way into the final script.
Careful attention to authenticity was devoted to the film’s set design and early 20th century costumes, and to the battle scenes with their period weaponry and uniforms.
When the actual murder location proved impractical as a filming venue, a faithful copy of two complete Parisian streets was constructed on the huge pavilion stage of the Dovzhenko Film Studios. (According to Mr. Yanchuk, this film pavilion in Kyiv is the largest in Europe.) Additional interior footage of the actual Paris restaurant and hotel were integrated into the final cut.
The budget for “Secret Diary” was 48 million hrv (about $1.7 million U.S.). The Ukrainian government contributed half of the funds, with the remainder coming from the Dovzhenko Film Studio. Ten percent of the total was raised by the global Ukrainian diaspora.
Cast and characters
As in all his other films, Mr. Yanchuk tried to not only find the best actors possible, but also actors who most closely resemble the historical persons they play. (A prime example is actor Hryhorii Hladiy, almost a mirror image of Roman Shukhevych in “Undefeated.”) For “Secret Diary,” the director was faced with a handful of candidates to play Petliura before finally deciding on Serhiy Frolov.
Other important historical personages are presented on screen: Ukrainian historian and statesman Mykhailo Hrushevsky (played by Bohdan Beniuk), the socialist Volodymyr Vynnychenko (Yevhen Nyshchuk), Polish First Marshal Jozef Pilsudski (Serhiy Kucherenko), Petliura’s wife Olha (Irma Vitovska), and daughter Lesia (Viktoria Yanchuk – the director’s daughter).
The most memorable performance, however, is registered by the late Oleh Trepovsky in his final role as Schwarzbard. The wild-eyed fanaticism and volatility of this “poet-avenger” is eerily rendered by this fine actor. To the ominous ticking of a clock in his store, Mr. Trepowsky conveys Schwarzbard’s palpable nervousness and suspicion at his first encounter with the Soviet agent Volodin.
During the trial (which spans almost one-third of the film), Schwarzbard stands unwavering – even while listening to Jewish “eyewitnesses” testify they never actually saw the pogroms or Petliura’s involvement. Mr. Trepovsky ultimately shows Schwarzbard as a drunken, delusional soul in South Africa, abandoned by the Kremlin once he was no longer useful.
Schwartzbard actually died in Cape Town in 1938. (Incidentally, The Ukrainian Weekly had reported on October 6, 1933, that while Schwartzbard was embarked on an American speaking tour, he was brought to Hollywood “where he may take a role in a film which will include a scene portraying the assassination.”)
Memorable scenes
Ultimately, the most powerful scenes in “Secret Diary” are those which truly involve the audience emotionally, scenes in which the director is able to develop multiple meanings and ambiguity.
Mr. Yanchuk chillingly portrays a meeting when Petliura seems to hesitate over having his officer and friend tried and executed for insubordination – the headstrong Commander of the Zaporozhian Corps, Petro Bolbochan. (This has a disturbing ending, when the head of the execution squad carries out the sentence because Bolbochan’s riflemen refuse to shoot their former commander.)
Later, a proud Ukrainian peasant farmer refuses to ally himself with Petliura after he gave away his land to Poland in exchange for Polish military aid. The farmer proudly declares: “I am Danylo Ratushnyi. This is my land, it was my father Ratushnyi’s and my grandfather Ratushnyi’s land. It will always remain our land!” (This role of Danylo Ratushnyi was played by his real-life grandson, Mykhajlo Ratushnyi.)
Towards the conclusion of the film, we are left with a final haunting composition: following the verdict, Petliura’s wife and daughter sit stunned and mute in their seats, long after everyone has departed the empty courtroom.
One can only regret that more characters were not as well-scripted and fleshed out as Schwarzbard and the scenes listed above. But unfortunately, by the end of the film, Petliura remains an enigma; we are still in the dark about any deep passions and conflicts that motivated this granite-faced protagonist. Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko come across as almost one-sided caricatures. What was needed was less complexity of facts and more complexity of characters.
Yet overall, Mr. Yanchuk’s “Secret Diary” is still an entertaining, informative and much-needed film that dramatizes many truths long censored, and as such, it is an important film that deserves to be viewed – and not only once.
(Note: Another parallel movie is “Kruty 1918” by director Oles Shapariev about the Spartan-like stand of 400 Ukrainian students against 4,000 Bolsheviks near Kyiv in 1918. That release is planned for December of this year.)