Go backBack to selection

“I Filmed It, and I Posted It. Now, Watch”: David Borenstein on His Sundance-Debuting Mr. Nobody Against Putin

Mr. Nobody Against Putin

David Borenstein’s Sundance-premiering Mr. Nobody Against Putin stars Pavel “Pasha” Talankin (also credited as co-director), an “unlikely hero” in an even more unlikely collaboration. A jokey primary school teacher in his Ural Mountains hometown of Karabash (which has the dubious distinction of being one of the most polluted cities on the planet), Pasha spends many days mentoring the kids who use the thirty-something’s open door office as a hangout/safe haven. That is, when he’s not documenting their young lives as the school’s videographer.

Which is why things get rather complicated for this pro-democracy, but non-activist, educator. For once Putin decides to launch his “special military operation” life is turned upside down in this toxic mining town a world away, over a thousand miles from cosmopolitan Moscow — especially when a new “patriotic education” is mandated, swapping out the usual subjects for revisionist history, the singing of the State Anthem of the Russian Federation, and marching drills. All of which must be filmed by the school’s videographer, of course, as both proof of adherence and ammunition in the Kremlin’s propaganda war.

Which is how Pasha found himself with a trove of truly remarkable footage, equal parts absurd and terrifying. And then he made the momentous decision to keep covertly shooting while smuggling it all out to an expat American filmmaker he just happened to get connected with online (after he’d pitched a Russian reality tv show seeking accounts of how the war had impacted everyday citizens) — a filmmaker who, in turn, shaped the story while gaining even more insight into his accidental protagonist through an exhausting, two years-plus of chatting over encrypted phone calls. Indeed, as Pasha succinctly puts it in his co-director’s statement, “Everyone was exhausted, but the orders kept coming: film it, post it. ‘Film it and post it.’ Well, I filmed it, and I posted it. Now, watch.”

Filmmaker reached out to the award-winning, Copenhagen-based journalist and filmmaker (2016’s Dream Empire, last year’s Can’t Feel Nothing) a few weeks prior to the doc’s January 25th Sundance debut.

Filmmaker: Pasha was documenting in a (toxic) industrial town, far away from cosmopolitan Moscow, which I’m guessing might have allowed him to go under the radar of authorities. So do you think the anonymity of Karabash might have provided a sort of protection that allowed for this collaboration?

Borenstein: Filming in Karabash provided Pasha with a level of cover that wouldn’t have been possible in a big city like Moscow. In a small town like Karabash, everyone — from local authorities to school staff and security forces — has grown up together, creating a more relaxed and familiar environment compared to larger cities.

Pasha also had a long-standing reputation as the school videographer, often wandering around town filming unusual projects. People were already accustomed to seeing him with a camera, so his activities didn’t raise much suspicion.

On top of that, it seemed unimaginable to most locals that Pasha could be involved in a project of this scale. Now that he’s outside of Russia, he has openly shared his involvement with some people back home. But many people simply didn’t believe him, especially at first. It’s really hard for Pasha’s neighbors to wrap their heads around what he’s done.

Filmmaker: It appears that another camera (or cameras) might have been filming Pasha at times, which made me wonder if any uncredited crew were involved in the production. Were there others aware of the risks he was taking?

Borenstein: In our film credits we acknowledge the anonymous people who helped make this film, but couldn’t be named because of security reasons. I can’t say much more than that.

Filmmaker: Did the fact that participants had signed off (or had to sign off) on Pasha shooting them for the propaganda videos negate the need for you to secure their agreement to appear in the film? How exactly did this work?

Borenstein: During the filming process, no one featured in the documentary was aware that we were making this film. We deliberately chose not to inform them at the time to prioritize their safety. Recently, Pasha spoke with some of his former students and shared information about the documentary. They expressed their trust in him and conveyed that they were comfortable with their inclusion. However, we made the decision not to disclose the project to other teachers or individuals, again out of concern for their safety.

Filmmaker: Has Pasha’s family or friends and colleagues faced repercussions for his actions? Does he expect them to?

Borenstein: Thankfully, Pasha’s family hasn’t faced any repercussions, and we don’t anticipate them encountering any significant pushback. A significant portion of the project’s budget was allocated to security measures, including extensive research and consultations on this very issue. In fact, we didn’t even begin work on the project until we were confident that the risk was minimal.

Filmmaker: Finally, what are the pros and cons of being an American documentary filmmaker based in Europe and specifically Copenhagen with its thriving industry?

Borenstein: As an American, the Danish film industry feels really egalitarian and transparent when it comes to funding. There’s strong financial support for independent filmmakers, and the broader social system makes it more accessible for people from different class backgrounds and life experiences to become filmmakers. I think this is a major reason the Scandinavian industry often punches above its weight.

Denmark is also a small, outward-looking country with a history tied to the sea. It seems easier here to get funders and audiences excited about stories from other parts of the world, which I deeply value.

That said, the strength of the Scandinavian system can also make it slower to embrace new ways of doing things. I know that in the US, small, scrappy documentary teams often get creative with financing and distribution, finding new approaches to keep things going. Here, the system’s strength and stability means people have to hustle a lot less. This is both a privilege and a bit of a disadvantage — it takes away some of that pressure to innovate.

© 2025 Filmmaker Magazine. All Rights Reserved. A Publication of The Gotham