The 2018 presidential elections in Zimbabwe, fought between former vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa and Nelson Chamisa, were a dismal affair rife with election fraud, according to Camilla Nielsson’s President. Screened at Sundance Film Festival and following the direct cinema’s method, it is a film with no scripts or journalistic agenda: the scenes were made as they happen, as events unfold. We had the pleasure of talking with Camilla Nielsson, after the premiere screening at Sundance.
UniversalCinema Magazine (UM): Can you tell me a little bit about your source of inspiration in making the film ‘President’?
Camilla Nielsson (CN): Well, I made another film in Zimbabwe, in 2014, called ‘Democrats’, where I followed the country’s attempt at writing a democratic constitution while Mugabe was still in power. That film was banned by Mugabe’s censorship board. We challenged the ban in the Zimbabwean courts, and after a two-and-a-half-year process, we happily ended with the ban being lifted by the Zimbabwean government after Mugabe had fallen in the military coup in November 17, 2017. So, when I flew back to Zimbabwe for the first time in January 2018 to present our case in the courts, we had a celebration dinner after the win. One of the participants or protagonists from my first film, ‘Democrats’, suggested that I come back and do a follow-up film. This time under very different circumstances, we thought because it was a newborn democracy and there was a new leadership under Mnangagwa, and a presidential election was also coming up during that period. So, I accepted the invitation to make the sequel film titled ‘President’.
(UM): I really like the level of access to the information that you had to make the film. How did you manage to develop the trust for making the film?
(CN): The fact that we had spent about three years in Zimbabwe from 2010 to 2013, filming ‘Democrats’ and the fact that the protagonist of that film invited us back to do the sequel, meant that the access to the information was already not an issue. I think working in Zimbabwe for three years and filming with the leadership of the opposition body, meant that we could continue to build on the level trust of the first film’s access of information and transfer it to the second film. They were also very happy with the result. The film ’Democrats’ was both successful in terms of audience and awards, and it was also very well received as a film in Zimbabwe, relating to their constitution-making process. As a result, we had a lot of trust within us in carefully curating the information, that we basically started rolling on day one. I think from the first shooting day of the film ‘President’, there are scenes we filmed that are in the final film. So, the access was not an issue, because we already had the trust from having worked there before.
(UM): You had lots of interesting scenes in the film. How many days of shooting you had for this whole project? And how you decide to pick the scenes from the footage you had filmed?
(CN): Principal photography began on July 1, and we finished on September 1. It’s a three-month shoot, which is not a long time for me to be filming. During the start of filming, we started rolling four weeks between the period of election day to the final verdict came in the constitutional court case. Because the election process was so eventful in tragic ways, we filmed for 10 to 12 hours a day. So, we had a lot of footage, even though the shooting period for the “President” was only three months. Whereas, my first film made in Zimbabwe, ‘Democrats’ was filmed over three years. By comparison, both films had different processes of filming. I think in terms of choosing the scenes and the selections, it’s a very natural story. It’s a story about a presidential election gone wrong. For me, it was very important to stay on the plot to focus on the election process and not go into the psychology of the characters or the childhood of the characters, but trusting the process of what happens in that election.
This was the first presidential elections without Mugabe on the ballot since the country became independent in 1980. We felt that process was important enough to stay focused on for the film. And from that decision, the structure of the film, which is chronological, pretty much wrote for itself. I should say, though, that we have a lot of heartfelt scenes or a lot of lovely material that we couldn’t fit in the film. I think it’s already quite long, running two hours and 10 minutes. I think, in a way, the structure and the selection of material kind of gave itself strictly to the plot-driven narrative about the election.
(UM): Was there any issue that jeopardized your security when shooting this film?
(CN): Yes, of course. After the ban of the first film was listed, me and my cameraman, Henrik, were quite known in Zimbabwe, due to both the first film and also the court case being widely publicized. Some of the same people that we had fought in court over the banning of our film ‘Democrats’ was still there in power, and one of them was Mugabe’s former spokesperson. We had a bit of a battle with the Ministry of Information in order to obtain a film permit, so it took some time before they decided to give us another film permit. And in fact, they didn’t give it to us until about 4 weeks before the election date. So that was a bit of a challenge.
Also, having gone through the process in the courts with the film ‘Democrats’, and that film being quite controversial within the ruling party in Zimbabwe, we were pretty free to roam around and film whatever we like. However, our proximity to opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa, and other leading members of the opposition, were in constant danger, because it is a military dictatorship. They do not like dissenting voices, and Chamisa is constantly under threat. And so, our proximity to our main character was under threat as well.
We were harassed quite a bit in terms of showing our documentations, and being excluded from certain press conferences. But I think that’s to be expected. Once you have spoken up like we did in our ‘Democrats’ film against an authoritarian in Zimbabwe, I think you are on their radar, and it makes your work more difficult. But I should also say that we have a lot of support from local filmmakers and journalists and from members of the opposition party. So, we found a way to navigate through this in a way that itis still possible to make the film.
(UM): Being a foreigner filming in Zimbabwe about the election, how was the general public’s reaction?
(CN): Well, like I mentioned earlier, the idea to make the film ‘President’ came from the Zimbabwean leaders in the opposition party. It was not my idea to make this sequel or to make this film. It came as a result of having my first film, ’Democrats’, highlighting about the constitution-making process. When that film was banned, some of the lawyers who were part of writing the country’s new democratic constitution suggested that we challenge that ban in the Zimbabwean courts and where I worked together with the local Zimbabwean people and the Zimbabwean lawyers for two-and-a-half years to unban the movie. When we won that court case, I flew down to appear in court, and also to celebrate with those Zimbabwean opposition leaders and lawyers. In that sense, it wasn’t really an issue where I came from for making this film. I also think that everyone involved in this project is very much aware that a local filmmaker could be in serious trouble if they made this type of film. In a way, you can say that we use the fact that I’m a foreigner, and we use that as an agent in the process because the Zimbabwean government would have hit much harder on a local filmmaker. So, in a way, it’s a unique position to be displaying the political context in which the stories are told. And I think if you’ve seen this film, you can imagine how hard it would be for local Zimbabwean filmmakers, to make this kind of film and still be safe in the country.
(UM): In a way, you did your best to remain neutral as possible in the whole filming process. So, your approach was mostly to represent the document that you saw, kind of like the genre of direct cinema?
(CN): Well, that means my style of storytelling is observational cinema, or direct cinema. I never made a film with an interview because it’s not the way I tell stories. And it’s not a particular choice for Zimbabwe to portray it as an observational film, thought that’s how I like to tell stories as I was trained in this style of filming. I’m very inspired by people like Frederick Wiseman and Albert Maysles, and their whole school of filmmaking. For me, it’s never been a stylistic consideration or choice. I don’t judge in advance what kind of story or what kind of film I want to make. I arrive on set and we roll cameras as much as we can. So, there’s no scripts or journalistic agenda in that sense before we begin. We just film scenes as they happen, as events unfold. And then, we construct the story and the narrative when we’re back in the editing room.
(UM): In terms of cast and crew, did you use the local people or it was mostly from foreigners?
(CN): The main crew was me and my director of photography, Henrik Gibson. He controlled the camera, while I did sound and directing. We did not have lighting people or extra crew. It’s a very small crew that moves and operates unobtrusively as we can. But of course, for us to be able to move around in the proximity of opposition leader while under constant threat and to be able to navigate in a climate like the Zimbabwean locals, we needed help from a lot of people, even those who are not making films. They were helping us in many other ways, in terms of keeping us safe, locating our protagonist and their whereabouts, and finding out what’s on the program for the day. We were driving around with opposition leader who was under constant threat, so we had to navigate the political reality that there isn’t in Zimbabwe. And to do that, we had a huge network of local authorities and local people who have known us for years, who helped us navigate in this high-risk environment.
(UM): In terms of funding, what type of financial support did you receive given its low budget production?
(CN): The film is funded by broadcasters and various films, including the Danish Film Institute, the BBC, the Norwegian Film Institute The film was funded enough that cannot have any financial gain or involvement in the production budget of the film, as that would be considered propaganda.
(UM): Yes, that totally makes sense. You mentioned that you needed authorization for filmmaking. Can you explain more about how this process works in Zimbabwe?
(CN): We legally obtained a general license to make a documentary film from the Ministry of Information. I think they charged us $1,000 to $2,000. Once you have that, you don’t need special permits in filming in the streets or places, however there are certain places of course that you cannot film like in any other country. But again, we are very much assisted by local people in and out in Zimbabwe. Also, I spent three years in Zimbabwe filming my first film so I have some experience in how to navigate a production like this on the ground.
(UM): What are your thoughts about your experience of this year’s Sundance Film Festival, especially the virtual one?
(CN): The Sundance Film Festival has done an amazing job in reinventing the festival through an entirely new digital platform. I think it’s not an easy job for the film festival, especially festivals like Sundance and other documentary film festivals. It’s very much about being there and meeting your colleagues, meeting your friend, and exchanging ideas with other filmmakers, and enjoying each other’s company besides having the screenings. The Sundance Film Festival has done just a really wonderful job in operating a festival under very, very unique conditions.
Generally, I was able to attend a Sundance Film Festival each year. I think there were about five thousand tickets available for the two screenings of ‘President’, which was more than you would have at a regular, physical screening. We didn’t have the money to travel to Park City and buy the festival package, so we had a chance to join Sundance and watch a lot of wonderful films. With the COVID-19 epidemic, it could not have been presented in a better way. Although as a filmmaker, I would have liked to have the audience see my film on a big screen. ’President’ is filmed by my cameraman, who has a very beautiful eye, and I’ve seen his work making the film on the big screen. And it’s a much better experience than on a small computer screen or TV screen or however the audience has seen the film. However, Tabitha Jackson, the new director of the Sundance Film Festival, did his very best in the COVID-19 situation and has reinvented this whole platform of being a fully digital experience, which has been quite amazing. I do hope that my film could be shown in a proper cinema one day so I could meet the audience and feel the audience like you do when you watch at home with your family and friends. It’s kind of a weird feeling as a director that you don’t really know your audience’s response. And that’s what I miss very much.