CPH:DOX’s competitors Emil Langballe and Lukasz Konopa on their Theatre of Violence

Danish filmmaker Emil Langballe who presented no less than two films in competition at CPH:DOX 2019 -Q’s Barbershop at Nordic:Dox and A Married Couple at Next:Wave is back in the main competition with Theatre of Violence. The film is co-directed by Lukasz Konopa, whose short film After won the Vision du Réel Young Audience Jury Award and was nominated for the SXSW Grand Jury Award.

Theatre of Violence follows the trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague of Dominic Ongwen, a former Ugandan child soldier who fought for the anti-government faction, Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and its controversial Christian fundamentalist leader Joseph Kony.

In December 2022, Ongwen was found guilty of 61 of 70 counts of crimes against humanity, from mutilation, torture, murder, slavery, pillage, recruitment of child soldiers to rape. But according to Ongwen, he was not a perpetrator but a victim, abducted at the age of 9 by the LRA, brainwashed, manipulated and threatened into following the orders of Kony who is still at large.

Beyond the trial itself, Langballe and Konopa offer a nuanced portrayal of the complex contemporary political scene in Uganda through the film’s main protagonist - Ongwen’s defence lawyer Krispus Ayena and his team.

The film was produced by seasoned doc professional Helle Faber of Made in Copenhagen (The Chocolate War, Putin’s Kiss), in co-production with Corso Film, support from the Danish Film Institute, Film Fyn, DR, ZDF/Arte, Film und Mediestiftung NRW, Eurimages, Nordisk film & TV Fond, Danida, The Media Programme’s Creative Europe, RTS, SVT and VGTV.

Dogwoof handles world sales.

Lukasz and Emil, first of all, how did you decide to collaborate on this film?
Lukasz Konopa: Emil and I studied together at the UK’s National Film and Television School. This is my first feature-length documentary, and for Emil and I, this is our first completed project together.

Emil Langballe: Yes we were selected for CPH:DOX’s CPH:LAB which facilitates collaborations. We got money to do a short together which isn’t finished yet. Then we both heard about Ongwen’s trial which triggered our interest.
It was crucial to be two directors on this film - as it was such a big, complex project that could go in many different directions artistically. Also, being two sets of eyes and ears to shoot on the ground and deal with many people from different cultures, speaking different languages, was absolutely necessary.

Emil you had made the short film Beach Boy set in Kenya, but what knowledge did you both have of Uganda?
EL: At the time, about seven years ago, we were actually both working in Uganda on different projects. Lukasz was teaching at a film school, and I was working as a cameraman for various TV documentary productions. Then individually we heard about this case.

Dominic Ongwen had just surrendered and was facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC). I remember when we were in Uganda, it seemed that many people - especially in the Northern part - were angry with the ICC, which they accused of being bias and a tool of Western imperialism. Then when peace was signed in 2008 between President Museveni’s government and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), many LRA rebels were granted clemency. But Ongwen was the only one tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity among the five LRA commanders, as the leader Joseph Kony is still at large, and three others are dead. A lot of Ugandans felt this was unfair.

What really intrigued you about Dominic Ongwen’s case?
EL: Initially, we wanted to explore with Ongwen the dual aspect of victim and executioner, and how this is dealt with in a court case. His story was quite exceptional. He had been kidnapped aged 9 by the LRA, forced to witness and commit violent rituals. He had spent his formative years in this closed society, rising within the military ranks. What was his place in our society? That aspect fascinated us.

LK: We didn’t want our film to give a black and white image of the situation in Uganda. We wanted to give the full picture, and let the audience decide for themselves. Just like Emil, my vision of the ICC was of an exemplary institution, so I was also surprised that their handling of the case was encountered with so much criticism locally. Our understanding of the LRA also evolved during our filming. We found out that it really started as a social and political uprising against the government, that later evolved into a brutal sect.

How did you come up with the idea of following his defence lawyer Krispus Ayena?
EL: From the beginning we knew we wouldn’t have access to Ongwen as he sits in prison, so we needed someone else who would tell his story.

LK: We just googled the phone number of the ICC and actually one of the lawyers Tom Obhof was passing by the reception and they gave him our phone call. That was our initial contact with the defence team. We then had meetings with Tom, Krispus, and it took a while to get full access.

EL: It took actually over a year to get access to the ICC itself and to be allowed to film there. It was a very delicate process.

Did you have point persons on the ground, experts who guided you and gave you inside information, besides Ayena?
EL: Yes we collaborated with an investigator on the ground who grew up there and worked as a field researcher. We also consulted academics who guided us so that we would be on the right track.

LK: We also had a journalist from Uganda whom I had met while doing workshops there. She became part of our team.

How would you both describe Ayena, who is a shrewd defence lawyer and observer of the effect of colonialism on contemporary Uganda?
EL: Immediately when we met, we were fascinated by his charisma, sense of storytelling, curiosity and knowledge. He is also very generous. He used to be a politician and is now a devoted lawyer. He believes strongly that every accused person has a right to a good defence. Then of course, he is annoyed by the political situation in Uganda and has used the film as a platform to speak out against the current regime. He said he wants to ‘educate’ the West and white people about the reality in Uganda.

LK: Krispus was indeed a perfect guide. He is from the Northern region in Uganda where LRA was active, and members of his family were abducted and never returned. Nevertheless, he agreed to handle Ongwen’ s case, which brought much criticism from his peers.

Ayena is your guide who takes you to the most remote places in Northern Uganda to speak to witnesses -including former abducted child soldiers, Joseph Kony’s wife and chilling spiritual guide among others. But as the trial was on-going you had to remain unbiased, also on an ethical standpoint. It must have been a delicate exercise, that you solved in the editing room…
LK: For me it was clear from the inception that the trial was the spine of the film. Another layer was the investigation that Krispus was doing in Uganda, to gather witnesses for the trial. We went six times to Uganda and between each trip, we had months of editing and continued to research at the same time. So the film was shaping as we were progressing with the filming, which took six years to put together.

EL: We had a list of people whom we felt would be crucial for the film. But it was a matter of who could contribute to this complex multi-layered story that would encapsulate all the aspects of the case. Many witnesses on the prosecution side, like victims of sexual abuse, were anonymous so we couldn’t include them.

On the defence side, we basically followed Krispus in his search for witnesses. He would flag to us, when he was about to interview someone particularly interesting, like Kony’s spiritual advisor who also gave testimony in court. But sometimes, he wouldn’t tell us who we were going to meet, like Kony’s wife, who was a soldier in the LRA, and a cousin to Ongwen. We never really knew if the people we were meeting would be relevant or not. It was nevertheless, always a fascinating journey with Krispus.

LK: Among the people that we were really keen to meet among witnesses, was the man who was abducted by the LRA with Ongwen as a child. He knew of Ongwen’s life before his abduction, which was important to document.

You have a lot of footage from the courtroom and trial itself. How much material did you have to go through in the editing room?
EL: Between the shooting, we would read a lot of transcripts from the court room, to narrow down the images and information that we wanted to keep for the final film. We had hundreds and hundreds of hours of material we had access to from the courtroom cameras. We then assembled that material with our own original footage.

LK The court transcript was just growing and growing while we were filming. We had like 30,000 pages just of transcript! So between shooting, we were trying to identify interesting stories and witnesses.

EL: We simply couldn’t follow everything on the trial. Many people were involved, on both sides of the defence and prosecution, and the ICC employees, working full time on the case. We were just the two of us and had to make choice to decide which stories were most relevant for the film.

Were you surprised by the outcome of the trial?
EL: For us, as we spoke to the prosecution as well, it didn’t come as a huge surprise. But Krispus was quite surprised. He felt the sentence was way too harsh. When we spoke to people in Uganda, especially in the Northern part who considered Ongwen as a victim, they couldn’t understand how he could get 25 years in jail and why the ICC didn’t consider his full upbringing.

LK: The ICC probably operates based on a Western understanding of justice. Ongwen was perceived as fully responsible for his crimes committed as an adult, although he was abducted as a child and indoctrinated. For Krispus it was hard to accept. He asks legitimate questions such as how come Ongwen suddenly stopped being a victim when he turned 18 and an adult fully responsible of his acts in the eyes of the law? What type of moral compass can a person who grew up within such a violent context really have?

EL: Yes as Lukasz says, Krispus sees justice in a different perhaps more holistic way, where rehabilitation is possible.

Overall, what were the biggest challenges with this film?
LK: The editing, trying to make sense through the huge material from the courtroom and our own filming, to then narrow it down to make a film that people would watch with interest.

How was your relationship with your producer Helle Faber?
EL: We came to Helle when we had the first call with the ICC. She was immediately interested and supported us all the way.

LK: During those six years, we did have moments of doubt. But Helle pushed us in a positive way.

Are you looking forward to showing the film in competition at CPH:DOX?
EL: It is an honour to be selected for CPH:DOX, which is one of our favourite festivals that shows strong, boundary-pushing docs. Krispus will also be at the premiere to answer questions.

Are you working on something else?
EL: We have projects that we’re working on individually, but who knows, we might do more films together.

LK: First we need to show this film to an audience, before starting a new major project together.