Patricio Henriquez is a documentary filmmaker of Chilean descent. After Augusto Pinochet's coup d'etat in 1973, he left his native country and moved to Montreal, where he resumed his profession as a director for television. He directed his first feature film in 1980, before moving to Quebec, where he is now based. His most recent documentary Uyghurs: Prisoners of the Absurd was recently selected for the best feature-length documentary category at the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam 2014, and tells the relatively unknown story of a group of innocent Uyghur refugees who were imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay in the chaos of the war on terror, short after 9/11.
(Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group from Eastern and Central Asia. Primarily, Uyghurs live in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in the People's Republic of China, where they are officially recognized as one of the 56 ethnic minorities. When the region was first incorporated into China, they became a persecuted minority in their own country, causing many Uyghurs to seek sanctuary in neighbouring countries. The group of Uyghurs that was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay was part of a small band of refugees in Pakistan who were sold to the US under the pretence of being terrorists.)
What is the idea behind your film?
Well, the idea was quite simple: to find a good story to tell, which is any filmmaker's intention. I was making another film about torture called Under The Hood, and whilst researching I heard about the first group that was ever released from Guantomo Bay under the Bush administration in 2006, which were the Uyghurs. This was the first time I'd heard the word “Uyghur” and I was immediately struck by the story. People that were taken from Guantanomo Bay to Albania? Why? So started to read – for several reasons – but didn't end up using the story in Under The Hood. However, after that I continued to read.
Was it difficult to find information on the story?
No, the information was there. The hardest part was to get into contact with the victims and to gain their trust. They lived very far away in different countries, and after all, why would they trust me? They've been so betrayed in their lifetime! These people don't trust people easily, and in their place I'd be the same.
First we tried to reach them through their lawyers. The lawyers agreed to help us, but the Uyghurs didn't accept this. Then one lawyer suggested we contact them through their Uyghur interpreter, who is featured a lot in the film and who stood by them during their years of captivity. She agreed to help us, and so we managed to get into contact with them. She was the key person.
I read a great quote from her about how she felt that she connected with you right away. Seeing as you left Chile to find a different life somewhere else, she felt that you would understand the Uyghurs' story.
I didn't know that! But of course when I met her I told her who I was and I showed her some of my films. It was great, because I wouldn't be here right now without her.
What do you hope the film will achieve?
At the beginning I just wanted to show the absurdity it all; of Guantanomo Bay. Of course I'm against all these harsh things people do in the name of the war on terror. I can understand that the US needs to be protected after 9/11, but it's clear that they have made mistakes in this war. The Uyghurs, for instance, weren't captured in conflict, but were sold to the US. The US didn't know who were being sold to them – they didn't have the resources to find out who these people were – so they just kept them away from America. They didn't even have translators, so Guantanomo Bay functioned as a 'safe place' to keep people at bay.
An “out of sight, out of mind” idea.
Yes. And even when they finally got translators and realised that these people were innocent, they still kept them there! Then over the years more and more people got involved. For instance their lawyer, who went to Guantanomo to defend them, even though Dick Cheney and others were saying that the place contained the absolute worst people of the world... All the elements for a good story are there.
Of course I am against Guantanomo Bay, but in the first place I wanted to tell a good story. I do, of course, get labelled as someone who makes very dark films about human rights and dramatic issues. People say I'm a political filmmaker, but I prefer just be be called a filmmaker. I'm not an activist or a historian, I'm just someone who wants to make films. Cinema is my thing!
These are simply the stories that end up appealing to you.
Yeah! I do have a lot of ideas, but I can't make a film about every one of them. The scenario of the film already needs to exist in reality. A friend of mine always says a film's story develops in 10 stages. The first stage is when the story is just out there without anyone paying attention to it. This was definitely the case with Uyghurs.
The structure of your film is very chronological and factual. It makes a point of having the audience understand exactly what was happening at what time, but it is also a very moving film. Was it your intention for your audience to be so emotionally invested in the story?
No, actually. I was very surprised during the premiere in Montreal to see many people crying as they left the cinema. In the case of this film I thought I was rather addressing the minds of the audience, so this reaction did surprise me. And a lot of people have since told me that the film is moving. Of course this makes me very happy, but I didn't expect it. You can never plan how people will receive your film.
Was it hard to make a film which sheds the American government in such a bad light?
Well, American society, to me, is something very rich and complex. I guess I could have reasons to hate America, because I'm from Chile – they helped make a coup d'etat in Chile – but I don't. I think the Uyghurs' lawyer is the best example of why I don't. He works for a big company, yet he chose to campaign for these innocent people. So yeah, some people put a label on me saying I'm anti-American, but that's not true! I'm showing American citizens who made decisions. I don't feel like I'm making an anti-American film.
Some people are against this kind of film, because they say it encourages more terrorism against America. I guess you could say that, but then again, I haven't created the problem. I'm just showing it. And secondly, when you show the good people of America, such as lawyer and the judge, I hope to send out the message that the situation is never black and white. I hope to reflect on the variety in a society. And I hope if anyone ever has the will to do something wrong against American society, that this will show them otherwise.
It's always good to show both sides of things. Huge mistakes have been made leading up to, and during, the War on Terror. As it says at the start of your film: the US bombed the Uyghur village under the suspicion it was a 'breeding place for terrorists'.
The question as to what generates violence; maybe this could be a subject for another film. In the 60's and 70's, for instance, the US supported some of the worst dictators in South America. If you go to Latin America today, you will often encounter an anti-American attitude. I think that methods such as torture are the most effective fuel to ignite terrorism, because what happens when you see your family members tortured and raped in front of you?
It encourages the principle of an 'eye for an eye'.
Yes. In the beginning you only had a small amount of people who organised 9/11, but now there are so many!
When you first moved to Canada you started off in television and made a transition into film. What would you say are the main differences between the two media?
Time. There's a lot of things, but the primary thing is time, because in TV you have earlier deadlines. In TV you'd have 3 weeks to make something you're happy with, but for this film we had around 22 weeks. This gives you far more time to meet people, time to shoot, time to edit... And the film can be longer too.
In film you can start the process in a completely different way to how it ends up, but in TV you need to catch it at the beginning. And also if you're broadcasted by a network that pauses the film for advertisements, you need to create some kind of structure that works around the ads and still holds people's attention.
Of course it is changing now, because everyone can now decide for themselves when they watch programmes. Nowadays you can save shows and watch them later, but when I started out in the business this wasn't the case. You needed to catch people in the moment, or otherwise people wouldn't keep watching. I was happy to leave television, although I did learn a lot from working in and by watching television. When we make films for TV, we are still making cinema.
(Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group from Eastern and Central Asia. Primarily, Uyghurs live in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in the People's Republic of China, where they are officially recognized as one of the 56 ethnic minorities. When the region was first incorporated into China, they became a persecuted minority in their own country, causing many Uyghurs to seek sanctuary in neighbouring countries. The group of Uyghurs that was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay was part of a small band of refugees in Pakistan who were sold to the US under the pretence of being terrorists.)
What is the idea behind your film?
Well, the idea was quite simple: to find a good story to tell, which is any filmmaker's intention. I was making another film about torture called Under The Hood, and whilst researching I heard about the first group that was ever released from Guantomo Bay under the Bush administration in 2006, which were the Uyghurs. This was the first time I'd heard the word “Uyghur” and I was immediately struck by the story. People that were taken from Guantanomo Bay to Albania? Why? So started to read – for several reasons – but didn't end up using the story in Under The Hood. However, after that I continued to read.
Was it difficult to find information on the story?
No, the information was there. The hardest part was to get into contact with the victims and to gain their trust. They lived very far away in different countries, and after all, why would they trust me? They've been so betrayed in their lifetime! These people don't trust people easily, and in their place I'd be the same.
First we tried to reach them through their lawyers. The lawyers agreed to help us, but the Uyghurs didn't accept this. Then one lawyer suggested we contact them through their Uyghur interpreter, who is featured a lot in the film and who stood by them during their years of captivity. She agreed to help us, and so we managed to get into contact with them. She was the key person.
I read a great quote from her about how she felt that she connected with you right away. Seeing as you left Chile to find a different life somewhere else, she felt that you would understand the Uyghurs' story.
I didn't know that! But of course when I met her I told her who I was and I showed her some of my films. It was great, because I wouldn't be here right now without her.
What do you hope the film will achieve?
At the beginning I just wanted to show the absurdity it all; of Guantanomo Bay. Of course I'm against all these harsh things people do in the name of the war on terror. I can understand that the US needs to be protected after 9/11, but it's clear that they have made mistakes in this war. The Uyghurs, for instance, weren't captured in conflict, but were sold to the US. The US didn't know who were being sold to them – they didn't have the resources to find out who these people were – so they just kept them away from America. They didn't even have translators, so Guantanomo Bay functioned as a 'safe place' to keep people at bay.
An “out of sight, out of mind” idea.
Yes. And even when they finally got translators and realised that these people were innocent, they still kept them there! Then over the years more and more people got involved. For instance their lawyer, who went to Guantanomo to defend them, even though Dick Cheney and others were saying that the place contained the absolute worst people of the world... All the elements for a good story are there.
Of course I am against Guantanomo Bay, but in the first place I wanted to tell a good story. I do, of course, get labelled as someone who makes very dark films about human rights and dramatic issues. People say I'm a political filmmaker, but I prefer just be be called a filmmaker. I'm not an activist or a historian, I'm just someone who wants to make films. Cinema is my thing!
These are simply the stories that end up appealing to you.
Yeah! I do have a lot of ideas, but I can't make a film about every one of them. The scenario of the film already needs to exist in reality. A friend of mine always says a film's story develops in 10 stages. The first stage is when the story is just out there without anyone paying attention to it. This was definitely the case with Uyghurs.
The structure of your film is very chronological and factual. It makes a point of having the audience understand exactly what was happening at what time, but it is also a very moving film. Was it your intention for your audience to be so emotionally invested in the story?
No, actually. I was very surprised during the premiere in Montreal to see many people crying as they left the cinema. In the case of this film I thought I was rather addressing the minds of the audience, so this reaction did surprise me. And a lot of people have since told me that the film is moving. Of course this makes me very happy, but I didn't expect it. You can never plan how people will receive your film.
Was it hard to make a film which sheds the American government in such a bad light?
Well, American society, to me, is something very rich and complex. I guess I could have reasons to hate America, because I'm from Chile – they helped make a coup d'etat in Chile – but I don't. I think the Uyghurs' lawyer is the best example of why I don't. He works for a big company, yet he chose to campaign for these innocent people. So yeah, some people put a label on me saying I'm anti-American, but that's not true! I'm showing American citizens who made decisions. I don't feel like I'm making an anti-American film.
Some people are against this kind of film, because they say it encourages more terrorism against America. I guess you could say that, but then again, I haven't created the problem. I'm just showing it. And secondly, when you show the good people of America, such as lawyer and the judge, I hope to send out the message that the situation is never black and white. I hope to reflect on the variety in a society. And I hope if anyone ever has the will to do something wrong against American society, that this will show them otherwise.
It's always good to show both sides of things. Huge mistakes have been made leading up to, and during, the War on Terror. As it says at the start of your film: the US bombed the Uyghur village under the suspicion it was a 'breeding place for terrorists'.
The question as to what generates violence; maybe this could be a subject for another film. In the 60's and 70's, for instance, the US supported some of the worst dictators in South America. If you go to Latin America today, you will often encounter an anti-American attitude. I think that methods such as torture are the most effective fuel to ignite terrorism, because what happens when you see your family members tortured and raped in front of you?
It encourages the principle of an 'eye for an eye'.
Yes. In the beginning you only had a small amount of people who organised 9/11, but now there are so many!
When you first moved to Canada you started off in television and made a transition into film. What would you say are the main differences between the two media?
Time. There's a lot of things, but the primary thing is time, because in TV you have earlier deadlines. In TV you'd have 3 weeks to make something you're happy with, but for this film we had around 22 weeks. This gives you far more time to meet people, time to shoot, time to edit... And the film can be longer too.
In film you can start the process in a completely different way to how it ends up, but in TV you need to catch it at the beginning. And also if you're broadcasted by a network that pauses the film for advertisements, you need to create some kind of structure that works around the ads and still holds people's attention.
Of course it is changing now, because everyone can now decide for themselves when they watch programmes. Nowadays you can save shows and watch them later, but when I started out in the business this wasn't the case. You needed to catch people in the moment, or otherwise people wouldn't keep watching. I was happy to leave television, although I did learn a lot from working in and by watching television. When we make films for TV, we are still making cinema.
