WHYISHAVINGANATIONALCINEMANECESSARY?

ROMANIANNATIONALCINEMAANDITSAUDIENCE.

WrittenbyDanielOvidiuZimcea

DissertationsubmittedfortheBA(Hons)FilmandTelevisionProduction.

UniversityofWestminster

8thFebruary2010

2

Contents

1. NationalCinema ..........................................p.3

2. TheEffectsofPoliticsonCinema ..............................p.10

3. HollywoodandGlobalization ..............................p.15

4. RomanianCinemaanditsAudience ..............................p.17

5. CriticsandCriticism ..........................................p.24

Bibliography .................................................p.31

ElectronicSources ...........................................p.32

Filmography .................................................p.33

Primarymaterial ..........................................p.35

Personalcommunications ....................................p.36

3

1.NationalCinema

Inordertounderstandwhatacountry’snationalcinemais,wemustfirst

understandhowthetermnationalisused,whatitscontextcanbeandits

importanceinusewhenreferringtofilmasamediumandindustry.Tobeabletodo

thatweneedtofirstdefinethewordnation,whichisanothertermthatiscasually

usedindiscussionsandneverreallycontested.Whatdoesnationimply?What

makesanation?Whydoesnationalidentityevenmatterindiscussingcinema?All

thesequestionsneedtobeansweredbeforegoingaheadinexploringRomania’s

cinemaoutput,becausewemustunderstandtheunitofmeasurebeforegettingto

seethebiggerpicture,sothatweknowwhattomakeofit.Thisbiggerpictureis

somethingthatmayrequireagoodoraverageknowledgeofthehistory,geography,

folkloreandcustomsofthecountryinquestion.Understandingthesenotionswill

helpinfindingtheimportanceofhavinganationalcinemaandhowthese–national

–filmsfindtheirwayontoscreens,howtheyfindtheiraudiences,and,perhapsjust

asimportant,howtheaudiencesfindthemandhowlong‐termrelationshipscanbe

createdbetweenfilmmakers,theirworkandtheiraudience.

Romaniahasalwaysbeenafragmentedcountryinsomeways.Itsover

twentymillionpeopleareinlargeproportionRomanians,withovertenpercentof

thepopulationconsistingofHungarians,RomaniorRomano,Ukrainians,Germans,

Russiansandothers.Itspeoplehavebeenforlongbeensplitupregionallyandits

territoriesclaimedbytheformerUSSR,BulgariaorHungary.Asanexample,the

RepublicofMoldovawaspartofRomaniabutwastakenundertheUSSRafterthe

secondworldwar.Thepeopletherespeakthesametongueandhaveverymuchthe

samecultureasitsotherhalf,aterritorywithintoday’sNorth‐EasternRomaniathat

iscalledMoldova.Thecountry–Romania–initscurrentformisdividedintoregions

thathavetheirownregionaldialectandspecificculture.Besidesthesedifferences,

whichmaynotmatterasmuch,asitmostlyappliestotheruralcountryside,

Romaniahashadahistoryofinternaldisputesthathaverootsinthediversityin

ethnicityincertainareas–especiallyTransylvania,whichisoccupiedbyboth

RomaniansandHungariansalike,asthisareawasonceapartofHungary.Insome

4

ways,itsjourneythroughhistoryresemblesthatofformerlyneighboringYugoslavia,

whichwassplitupintosmallercountriesalthoughthepeopleinhabitingallofthem

speakverymuchthesametongue.“BenedictAndersonputsitquiteaptlywhen,in

offeringhisdefinitionofnation,hesaysitisanimaginedpoliticalcommunity–and

imaginedasbothinherentlylimitedandsovereign”1andifweweretotakethatinto

account,thewordprovidesuswithavagueunderstandingofwheretheideaof

nationalidentitycomesfrom.Thereforeanationisreallynothingmorethanamoral

conventionthatderivesfromadesire–ormaybejustcircumstances–forunification

inacertainpeoplethatdescendfromthesameorasimilarculture,thatsharea

historyand–sometimes,notalways–evenageography.Andculturecomesfrom–

orgrowsinto–agroupofpeoplethatgrowintotheirownlimitsanddevelopa

certainlikenessthatiscommontothemand,possibly,themalone.Anationisaware

ofitself,curiouslyenough,asthetermoccursalmostnaturallyinallsortsoftexts

andeverydayusage.

Whentalkingaboutfilm,nationalidentityissomethingthatisnotoften

understoodandisoftenoverlookedbybothnationalandinternationalaudiences.Of

course,toacinemagoerthatdoesnotfollowthecinematographicoutputofcertain

countriesor–forexample–foranAmericancinemagoeritmaynotberelevantto

knowwherecertainorallfilmsaremade.Understandingthelocationsusedand

sometimes,byassociation,thefilm’sculturalbackgroundbecomesunessential

althoughoftenthefilm’sessenceandmessagecanrelyonthispriorknowledgeon

theaudience’spart.AsDavidBordwellwroteinanessaycalled‘DoingFilmHistory’

“intheearlyeraofcinema,filmscirculatedfreelyamongcountries,andviewers

oftendidnotknowthenationalityofafilmtheywereseeing”2.Afterabouttwenty

yearsfromthebirthofcinema,whenglobalizationwascomingintoplay,decisive

factorssuchas“warandnationalismblockedcertainfilmsfromcirculating.Atthe

sametime,thegrowthofparticularfilmindustries,notablyHollywood,dependedon

accesstoothermarkets,sothedegreetowhichfilmscouldcirculateboostedsome

1SusanHayward,FrenchNationalCinema(Routledge,1993),p.12DavidBordwell,‘DoingFilmHistory’,http://davidbordwell.net,2ndFebruary2010

5

nations’outputandhinderedthatofothers.Inaddition,thecirculationofU.S.films

abroadservedtospreadAmericanculturalvalues,whichinturncreatedboth

admirationandhostility”3.Thiswillbefurtheraddressedlateroninaseparate

section.Whatisrelevantfromhiswritingisthatinthisprocesswhichstartedinthe

relativelyearlydaysofcinema,filmwassplitintotwo:themainstream,globalized,

Hollywood‐influencedoutputandthenationalcinemasthat,foraudiencesnotfrom

thesamecountryasthefilmsinquestion,wereusuallypartofundergroundart

housecinemas.Thereareexceptions,ofcourse,representedbyfairlyregular

appearancesintothemainstreambyvariousFrench,BritishandSpanish

productions.

Forsomeonethatdoesnotfeelaninterestforthecountryinquestion,it

becamesufficienttogroupcountriesbasedoneitherthefactthattheybelongtoa

certainregion–likeEastEurope,theBalkansorAsiaandsoon,creatingasumof

nationalcinemasbasedonstereotypicalplaces,charactersandaction,sometimes

simplyreferredtousingtherathernewtermworldcinema–orthattheysharethe

samecultureorhavethesameorsimilarlanguages–Chinesecinema,Latincinema.

Thiscanoftenbeaproblemeventhoughithelpsinunderstandingnationalcinema

better.Ifthemoviegoersdonotknowmuchaboutthespecificculturesthatare

broughttothemonscreen,itisverylikelythattheywillhaveaverylimited

understandingofthefilm,itspurposeandmessage.Anexampleofthisisthefilm

Amintiridinepocadeaur/MemoriesfromtheGoldenAge(Romania,2009,dir.

HannoHöfer,RăzvanMărculescu,CristianMungiu,ConstantinPopescu,Ioana

Uricariu)whichwasscreenedinLondonattheBarbicanaspartofaneventthat

celebratedtwentyyearssincethefalloftheBerlinwall.Afterthefilm,atalkwitha

questionandanswersessionwasheldwithoneoftheleadactorsinthefilm,Vlad

Ivanov,hostedbyartandfilmcriticBenLewis4who,becauseofhisoccupation,has

hadtostudyRomanianaswellasEastEuropeanfilmsandknowsquitealotabout

3DavidBordwell,‘DoingFilmHistory’,http://davidbordwell.net,2ndFebruary20104BarbicanCentreWebsite,barbicanconferences.co.uk/film/event‐detail.asp?ID=9984,7thFebruary2010

6

EastEuropeanculture.Itwasfairlyobviousfromthereactionsandthequestions

asked–whywasthatfunny?–thatmostofthepeopleintheaudiencethatwere

notRomaniandidnotreallyunderstandmostofthecomedyandsomeofthedrama

aswell.Thatmayhavesomethingtodowiththewaythefilmwassubtitled,butit

wasobviouslynotjustthat.

Thewaycomedyworksisdifferentfromculturetoculture.Andsometimes,

what’scomedyforsomepeople–onacultural,country‐widelevel–isnotcomedy

forotherpeople.AnexamplewouldbetakenfromanarticlewrittenbyAnthony

OliverScottforTheNewYorkTimes,wherethewritermentionsascreeningfor4

luni,3săptămâniși2zile/4Months,3Weeksand2Days(Romania,2007,dir.

CristianMungiu)duringwhichthedirector,CristianMungiu,waspresentoutsidethe

theatredoors,listeningwithinteresttowhattheaudience’sreactionswere.Aftera

whilehesaidthattherewerealotofRomaniansatthescreeningthatnightand

whenthewriteraskedwhyhesaidthat,Mungiureplied“they’relaughing–they

alwaysdo”5.Ofcourse,evenbyRomanianstandards,thefilmisdefinitelynota

comedy.WhatwasfunnyfortheRomanianmembersoftheaudiencewasactually

thefactthatthefilm’srepresentationoftheperiodwassoaccuratetowhatthose

dayswerereallyliketothecommoncitizen.Afterthefilm,intheQ&Asession,a

womanannouncedthat“thatwasexactlylike[her]dormroomatuniversity”and

anotheraskedaboutwheretheygotcertainobsoletebrandsthatwould

automaticallylinktotheCeaușescu‐leadcommunistera.Sothisis,inaway,

situationalcomedy,it’sacertainsurprisetofindingthingsinthefilmthatthe

audiencehasforgotten.Buttheresultingcomedymomentsareduetotheexact

differenceinculture,which,inthiscaseandmanyothers,translatesintofamiliarity

towardscertaincustomsandbrandswhichhavemadetheirwayintonational

patrimony,intofolklore,whichtheinternationalmembersoftheaudience,of

course,didnotunderstand.Thatisnotnecessarilyaproblemhowever,asthiscan

5AnthonyOliverScott,NewYorkTimes,‘NewWaveontheBlackSea’,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20Romanian‐t.html,7thFebruary2010

7

alsobepartoftheappealofwatchingforeignfilms,eventhoughthesefilmstendto

bemoreintellectuallydemandingratherthanentertainingjustforthesakeof

entertainment,asmentionedbefore,whichmaycontributetothelowaudiences

abroad.Thereasonthatthesefilmsaremadeandappreciated–evenifitisona

lowerscale–isthattheaudiencegetstoexperiencedifferentcultures,different

waysoflife,differentmentalitiesinacountryoftheirchoiceinthetimeoftheir

choice.Thathasalwaysbeenoneofthemainattractionsofcinemaandthistypeof

cinemawillalwayshaveitsaudience,albeitasmallone.

“ThoughaLumièrebrothers’screeningtookplaceinBucharestin1896,

Romaniancinemadevelopmentwasslowandsporadic.(…)Romaniancinemawon

itsfirstinternationalaccolade(firstprizeatVenice)withȚaraMoților/Landofthe

Motzi(Romania,1938,dir.PaulCălinescu)”6.Thischapterandthenextaimtofind

outhowcinemabecamesomethingthatcanbeartheattributenationalintheearly

daysandwhatRomaniannationalcinemawasandistoday.Asthetermnationalcan

bedefinedbycomparisonwithothernations’cultures,Romaniannationalcinema

willbecontrastedwithFrenchnationalcinema,asRomania’snationalcinema–even

now,aftergainingsomerecognition–reliesheavilyonFrenchfilmmakingandits

successwithFrenchcriticsandaudiences.Thiscanbeseenintherecentsuccessof

filmmakerssuchasCristiPuiu,CristianMungiuandCristianNemescu,allthree

winnersofimportantawardsatthehighlyregardedCannesInternationalFilm

Festival,thusbringingRomaniancinematotheforeground,intotheeyeofthe

mediaand,perhapsmoreimportantly,thepossibilitiesofdistributingtheirfilmsto

newaudiencesworldwide.

WheninvestigatingRomaniannationalcinema,afewbasic,naturaland

importantquestionsfirstcametomindthatwouldtrytoclarifywhatisnational

aboutfilmingeneralandwhencinemabecomesnational.Discussingwhenthis

identificationofafilmhavingacertainnationalitycomestoplaceisvitaltorealizing

6R.Taylor,TheBFICompaniontoEasternEuropeanandRussianCinema(BritishFilmInstitute,2000),p.198

8

whetherthereisacaseofacountryevenhavingacinemaofitsown.Whatifthe

filmisself‐fundedoritsbudgetcomesfromotherprivatemeans?Whatifsomeof

thecrewarenotthesamenationality?Whatifthelanguageisnotonetobespoken

inthatcountry?Andwhatifthefilmmakersareofacertainnationalityandyetthey

makefilmsincountriesotherthantheirown?Thenationalityofafilmcan

sometimesbedeterminedbythenationalityofitscrewandcast,theoriginsofthe

film’sfinancingandbythelanguageorlanguagesthatarespokenthroughout.These

issues,however,aretobeanalyzedlater.TheissueofRomaniabelonging–not

reallygeographicallybutmorally–totheBalkansisalsosomethingthatneeds

clarification.BecauseoftheproximityincultureandgeographytoSerbia–former

Yugoslavia–andBulgaria,Hungaryandevencountriesthatwerepartoftheformer

USSRlikeUkraineandtheRepublicofMoldova,Romaniaisoftenconfusedbyan

internationalaudiencewiththesecountries.Forthoseunfamiliarwiththelanguage,

Romanianwillsound–dependingontheactorsandtheircharacters–abitlike

Russian,Italian,Polishandsoon.Thecultureandpeoplemaysharesimilarcustoms

andtemperaments,butthedifferenceswillnotalwaysbecleartogeneralaudiences

otherthanthecountries’inquestion.

Alsoimportantinfindingoutwhatnationalcinemasrepresenttotheir

correspondingcountriesandwhyorifitisimportanttohaveanationalcinemais

howthefilmindustryisstructured.Itisimportanttofindoutwhatmakesthis

structureandrelationshipbetweenthefilmmakers’work,theaudienceormarket

andgovernment’ssupportwork.InRomania,filmmakingiscurrentlyaidedbythe

existenceoftheCentrulNationalalCinematografiei/NationalCinemaCentrewhich

hasexistedunderthenameofOficiulNationalalCinematografiei/TheNational

CinemaOfficesincethe1stofSeptember19387,fouryearsaftertheNationalCinema

FundLawhasbeenpassedonthe9thofJuly19348.Sometimeafterthesecond

worldwarended,whenRomaniaturnedcommunist,theMinisterofArtsand

InformationsignedandstartedapplyingaDecreewhichnationalizedthecinema

7CentrulNaționalalCinematografiei,http://cncinema.abt.ro,6thFebruary20108ibid.

9

industryandregulatedthecommerceofcinematicproducts.Thisiswhenthe

country’slongperiodofsocialistcinematographybegan,whichissomethingthatis

againdebatablebecausesocialistcinemameantRomaniawasgoingtobethrownin

withtheothersocialistcountriesintheUSSRblock.Thiswasnotanissueof

geography,itwasmoresoanalignmentofsimilarcultures,whichfurtherblurredthe

boundariesbetweenwhatanationisandhowtoseparatethese–again,tothe

internationaleye–increasinglysimilarcountries.

Unsurprisingly,audiencesforRomaniancinemaweremuchlargerinthe

communistperiodwhichmeansthattherewasaratherstableinternalmarketthat

workedinbothprovidingandcreatingdemand.Thatmeansthatnationalcinema

wasinsomewayssuccessful,unlikeitseemstobenowadaysafterthefallofthe

communistregimeinDecember1989,so,starting1990.Beforethatyear,therewas

littleimportfromwesterncinemascomparedtonowadayswhenthesituationis

almostoppositetothatofthedictatorshipperiods,because,withtheriseof

capitalismandrapidglobalization,Romaniannationalfilmseemstobemoreand

moreneglected,perhaps–andthismaybeabitmuch–oppressedbythehugeforce

thatisHollywood.Financingforfilmsmadebeforethe1990scamefromastate

subsidysystemsetupbythecommunistparty,whichwas–after1990–adaptedby

theNationalCinemaCentretoservesubmittedprojectsthatcanbeapprovedand

supportedthroughayearlycontest,whichisnowadaysoftencontestedbyfilm

makersandcriticsalike.TostartanarticleontheCentre–provocativelyentitled

‘BoilingPoints–CNC2006’–AlexLeoȘerban,ahighlyregardedcontemporaryfilm

critic,wrotethat“CristiPuiudidnotkeephiscalmandsaidthathedoesnotneed

theCentre’smoney.It’shisright.But,atthesametime,it’sourrighttosaythathis

absencefromtheCentre’swinninglistisabsurdanditconflictswithcommonsense.

It’sourdutytoprotestthattrashwillcontinuetobemadefromCNCmoney.”9So,as

always,thereisaneedforproblemsolvinginregardstohowcinemaworks.And

possiblesolutionswillbepresentedanddiscussedlaterinaseparatesection.

9Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.52

10

2.TheEffectsofPoliticsonCinema

Aninterestingandrathercommonlyknownfactisthatnationalism–perhaps

morespecificallyandrelevantlyultra‐nationalism,so,Fascism,Nazismandthelike–

cameintoplayinboththewaytheworldseesitselfand,consequently,artafterthe

twoworldwars.Nationalismis,putrathersimply,areactiontotheeffectsof

globalization,whichisagainsomethingthathasbeenhappeningat–forsomemore

nationalistpeople–anincreasinglyalarmingrateinthe19thcentury.So,theseare

allfairlynewideasthathavecomeintorecognitionataroundthesametimethatthe

photographicand,later,cinematicartsappeared.Whenthenewartstartedtaking

itsplaceintheglobalizationprocess,theRussians,GermansandItaliansmore

noticeablysawitspotentialandbeganusingthemtocreatenationalistfilm.Which

meansthattheyfoundoneoremoreimportantaspectsofcinemathatleadtothe

apparitionofadifferentkindofcinemathatwouldberecognizedasnationalcinema:

theaudienceforit–orthemas,obviously,therearemorethanjustone–would

oftenbeahome,national,audienceand–veryimportant–itcoulduniteapeople

throughuseoftheircommoncultureandideals.Thus,thenewmediumbecameone

ofthemainmeansofinfluencingpeopleintobelievingtheidealistviewsofthe

government,turningnationsintoproductionmachines,intoarmiesandsoon.Asit

iswellknownallofthisleadtotwolongworldwidewars–nottheapparitionof

cinema,ofcourse,butthisattitudeandtherapidspreadofnewideologiesthrough

themedia.Theoutcomeofthesewarswouldchangeinternationalrelationsand

worldorderforever.Hollywoodiswhereitistoday–atthetopofthe‘filmchain’–

almostasadirectresultofthewars.DuetothefactthattheUnitedStates

participatedinthewarslargelyonforeignsoil,itseconomywasnotasdeeply

affectedastherestoftheworld’shas.Duetotheseeconomicalproblems,theworld

cinemawasnowunderminedandforcedtoremainunderthereignofHollywood,

whichwasactuallyforalongtimenowaleadingforceinthisparticularfield.

Therefore,globalizationcouldnotbestoppedandtherewouldalwaysbesomekind

oftension–onbothacreativeandaneconomiclevel–betweennationalcinemas

worldwideandthemeltingpotthatisHollywood.

11

Asmentionedbefore,thefactthatRomaniaturnedcommunistafterthe

secondworldwaraffectedcinema,ascommunismoranydictatorshipdidanywhere

elsereally.Itaffecteditinbothgoodandbadways.Politicstendstoaffecta

people’smentalityandtoleranceinoftenunexpectedways.What’sinterestingis

thatduringorafterroughtimessomeofthebestartcomesthroughandthese

strugglesareactuallybeneficialtocreation.Anexamplewouldbeformer

Yugoslavia’scinemaoutputafterthesecondworldwarandafterperiodsoftension

insidethecountry.FilmsandfilmmakerssuchasKototamopeva/Who’sThat

SingingOverThere?(Yugoslavia,1980,dir.SlobodanŠijan),Podzemlje/

Underground(France/FederalRepublicofYugoslavia/Germany,1995,dir.Emir

Kusturica)andLepaselalepagore/PrettyVillage,PrettyFlame(FederalRepbulicof

Yugoslavia,1996,dir.SrđanDragojević)areproofofjustthat.Romaniawas

characterizedbythreedictatorships,asMarianȚuțuiwroteinhisOrientExpress–

Filmulromânescșifilmulbalcanic/OrientExpress–RomanianFilmandBalkanFilm:

“thepersonaldictatorshipofKingCarolthesecond(1937‐1940),thatofMarshalIon

Antonescu(1940‐1944)andthatofNicolaeCeaușescu(1965‐1989),whowas,

starting1967,PresidentoftheStateCouncilandasof1974,Presidentelect”10,until

hewasbeheadedinDecember1989,immediatelyaftertheRevolution.Allinall,that

makes52yearsofdictatorship.Itwasn’talwaysasharshasitissaid,butfreedomof

expressionwas,indeed,heavilyaffectedforabouthalfacentury.Andthearts,

especiallycinemawhichwasstillarelativelynewartthathaditsgoldenageduring

thoseyearsinthewesternworld,werecrippledandchallengedinsuchwaysthata

lotofthetimeRomaniaseemedabsentfromthecorrespondingscenes.

Afewfilmsdidindeedmakeittointernationalfilmfestivalsandcinemas,

especiallytheCannesInternationalFilmFestivalortheMoscowInternationalFilm

Festival.Thesamefilmwouldnotbesuccessfulinbothplaceshowever.Cannes

caredaboutandrewardedvisionwhileinMoscownationalistexpressionswere

moreimportant.FilmsandfilmmakerssuchasPădureaspânzuraților/Forestofthe

10MarianȚutui,OrientExpress.Filmulromânescșifilmulbalcanic(NoiMediaPrint,2009),p.213

12

Hanged(Romania,1964,dir.LiviuCiulei),Reconstituirea/TheReenactment

(Romania,1968,dir.LucianPintilie)andMihaiViteazul/MichaeltheBrave(Romania

/France/Italy,1970,dir.SergiuNicolaescu)–whichistheonethatmadeittothe

MoscowFestivalandwasalsonominatedforthe‘GoldenPrize’–camethrough.The

Reenactmentisaspecialcasethatwillbefurtheraddressedandreferencedlateras

itisaspecialcaseinRomaniancinema,especiallyforthetimethatitwasmade.It

wasreleasedduringthecommunistyears,in1968,andranalmostincomplete

secrecyforaboutamonthinacinemawithouthavingapremiereortheadvertising

thatfilmslikeSergiuNicolaescu’snationalistepicswouldhavebecauseofthem

beingapprovedbytheparty.TheReenactmentwasoneofthefewfilmsthat

attackedthedictatorshipinarelativelydirectwaythatwereactuallymadeinthe

countryduringthosetimes.ItwasfilmedinSinaia,Prahova,inthemountainsideof

Romania.ThefilmwasbasedonanovelwrittenbyHoriaPătrașcu,whowasactually

partoftheinitialcrewthatweresupposedtomaketheeducationalvideoaround

whichthefilm’sstoryrevolves11.

Filmslikethisoneweresimplynotmakingittothesurface–theywerenot

shown–iftheyweremade,becauseofthetightnoosetheauthoritieswerekeeping

onpeoplethattriedtoexpressthemselves,tohaveavoice.TheReenactmentis

probablythebestexamplethereisofthat.Itwasbannedbythedictatorshipalmost

immediatelybecauseitsaccuracyindepictingthesystem’sfaultsand,“onanartistic

level,objectivitywasalreadyasignofdissidence”12.Thefilmwasfinancedand

distributedbyFilmstudioBucurești,whichistheproductioncompanythatalso

helpedmakehisdebutfilm,Duminicălaorașase/SundayatSix(Romania,1965,dir.

LucianPintilie).Thedecisiontodebutwiththisfilmwhichisknowntobeoneofthe

partyapprovedfilms,isoneofthecompromisesthathehadtomakeatthetime.

Whatisinterestingaboutthefilmisthatthis“impeccableandrevolutionaryfilm–

forthelittlehistorythatRomanianfilmmakinghas–isthatitisatthesametime

conformist,falseandfullofliesasfarasitscontentgoes:asortof–keeping11InformațiaClujNr.37,‘HoriaPãtrascu:ÎnReconstituireaamdattotceampututcaprozator’,http://informatia.dntcj.ro/1999Sep14,25thJanuary201012Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.13

13

proportionsinmind–DasDokumentvomReichsparteitag1934/TriumphoftheWill

(Germany,1935,dir.LeniRiefenstahl),thepronazidocumentary.However,hehad

thisgreatideatoputhimoffthesuspicionthathewasacommunisthimself:hetells

thestoryoftheoutlawsfromthe1930sinNouvelleVaguestyle.Itwasasifhewas

deliveringhismembershipcardbacktothecommunistpartywrappedinstylish,

capitalistpaper”13.Itwasoftenthat,inordertomakethefilmstheywantedto

make,filmmakershadtogoabroad.Țuțuiwrotethat“evidently,thefilmsthat

showedthetruefaceofdictatorshipweremadeabroadandwithoutmakingexplicit

referencestotheregimeinthemaker’scountryoforigin,theyusedallegoryand

satire–likeCroaziera/TheCruise(1981,dir.MirceaDaneliuc)orConcurs/Contest

(1982,dir.DanPița)andFalezedenisip/SandCliffs(1983,dir.DanPița)–orwere

madeafterthefalloftherespectivedictatorshipsundertheconditionsofthe

removalofcensorship”.Evenso,filmsmadeabroadhadshort‐livedsuccess,ifthey

did,becauseoftheproblemsdiscussedbeforeregardingthefilmsnothavingan

audiencethatcanrelatetowhattheywereseeing,withthenecessaryknowledge

aboutRomania’sculturalheritageand,ofcourse,theydidn’tmaketheirwaytotheir

designatedaudiencesbackhome.

InawaythissocalledisolationproducedsomeofthebestcinemaRomania

haseverseen,because,ofcourse,therewaslittletonoimportfromwestern

cinemas.Televisionpracticallydidn’texistandtheradiothatpeoplewereactually

listeningto,RadioFreeEurope,wassupposedtostayunderground.Allofthismeant

thatwhateverwasproducedbetweenitsborders–eventhoughitmayhavebeen

nationalistandnationalismisn’tsomethingthatallpeoplewouldlike–hadsomeof

thehighestaudiencenumbersever,andthat’sinpartbecauseofthisextensiveuse

ofcinemaasameanstodisplaypropagandaorevencounterpropaganda,whichwas

neverasexplicitasitmayhavebeeninneighboringcountriessuchasHungaryor,at

thetime,formerYugoslavia.Itwasalwayssubtle.Orrather,almostalwaysassome,

shallwesay,morerebelliousfilmsweremadewithamoredirectmessageaimed

straightattheheartofthesystem.Suchafilmwastheaforementioned

13Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom2009),p.347

14

Reenactment.Asfarasnationalistepicsgo,SergiuNicolaescuwastheaudiences’

andtheparty’sfavouritedirector.Hedirected,besidestheacclaimedMichaelthe

Brave,otherbest‐sellinghistoricepicssuchasDacii/Lesguerriers(Romania/

France,1967,dir.SergiuNicolaescu)orcomediessuchasNeaMărinmiliardar/

UncleMarin,theBillionaire(Romania,1981,dir.SergiuNicolaescu).Accordingtoan

alltime‘Top10’basedonfiguresreleasedbytheNationalCinematographyCentre

thatwaspublishedinAugust2005bytheRomaniannewspaperCotidianul,Uncle

Marin,theBillionaire,MichaeltheBraveandDaciioccupythe1st,3rdand4thspot14.

SomeoftheothertopgrossingfilmsincludedareColumna/TheColumn(Romania/

WestGermany,1968,dir.MirceaDrăgan)andȘtefancelMare/StephentheGreat

(Romania,1974,dir.MirceaDrăgan),bothfilmsthatromanticizethecountry’sgreat

leadersandbattlesofthepast.Theotherfilmsareaudience‐friendlycomedies,love

storiesorfilmsbasedonpopularnovels,almostalldonewiththesupportofthe

partyandthestate.

Becauseofthedifficultyofmakingthefilmsthattheywantedtomake,some

filmmakersandartistsmanagedtoescape–orwereexiled–tocountrieslikeFrance

ortheUnitedStates.FilmmakerssuchasRaduMihăileanu,directorofVa,viset

deveins/Go,See,andBecome(France/Belgium/Israel/Italy,2005,dir.Radu

Mihăileanu)andoftherecentLeConcert(France/Romania/Italy/Belgium,2009,

dir.RaduMihăileanu)–whoemigratedasastudentbecauseofthelimited

opportunitiesinsidethecountry–orLucianPintilie,whowasdeniedworkbythe

CommunistpartyaftermakingTheReenactmentandhadtoemigratetoFrance.

PintiliecamebacktodirectDecetragclopotele,Mitică?/WhyAretheBellsRinging,

Mitica?(Romania,1981,dir.LucianPintilie),whichwasagainbannedandonly

releasednineyearslater,in1990,withthefallofthedictatorship.Asarather

unrelatedobservationthatlinkstotheideasofwhatnationalisthatwerediscussed

before,itmayberelevanttopointoutthatLucianPintilie–whoisconsideredoneof

thebestRomaniandirectorsofourtimeduetothenotorietyofanddespiteofhis

stilldifficulttofind,stillunreleasedfilms–wasborninTarutyne,Budjak.Thecity

14AndreiGorzo,Bunul,răulșiurîtulîncinema(Polirom,2009),p.31

15

usedtobepartofRomaniaandhasbecomepartofUkraineafterthesecondworld

warasaresultofthefragmentationoftheRomaniancountryasaresultofits

participationinthefirstandsecondworldwars15.

3.HollywoodandGlobalization

Forquitealongtimenow,Hollywoodhasundeniablyleadthefilmindustry

notjustintheUnitedStatesorNorthAmerica,butonaworldwidescale.Afterthe

firstandsecondworldwars,theAmericanfilmproduction–togetherwiththe

country’seconomy–didalmosttheexactoppositeofwhattherestoftheworldwas

doing.Itflourishedanddominatedcinemasandaudienceseverywhere.Ofcourse,

notinstantly,butbecauseoftheUnitedStates’participationinthewar,itwasnotas

hardtorecoverfromlossasitwas–andinsomecasesstillis–inothercountries

aroundtheworld.Becauseofthisrapidrecoveryandgrowth,itisnormalthatits

influencehasbeenfeltinfilmsmadeinjustaboutanycountrythathasacinema.An

interestingthingthatonemaycomeacrossincasualdiscussionsaboutfilmsisthatif

afilmbecomessuccessfulnowadays,itcanseenasaHollywood‐influencedmake,

eitherrespectingaHollywoodtypeofcharacterdevelopmentorstory,employing

ready‐setaestheticsandtimingsthathavebeenstandardizedandperfectedfor

almost80yearsnowbytheLosAngelesbasedfilmmakingcommunity–or,perhaps

moreappropriately,industry.Ifnotthat,thefilmwillatleastbecomparedtoa

Hollywoodfilmbecausethesestandardsaresoeasytoaccept.Nowadays,the

audiencesare–tosomedegree–trainedinHollywoodfilmsothatwhentheysee

somethingthatmovesawayfromthatitcaneitherfeellikeabad,maybedisastrous

filmorafresh,good,maybeamazingone.Everythingthat’snotmadeinHollywood

isjudgedinrelationtoHollywood.Itbroughttheaudienceincreasinglyperfected

filmsmadetofixedmouldsforgenreandNationalcinemaseemstotrytomove

awayfromthat.

15Bărbulescu,Mihaietal,IstoriaRomâniei(Corint,2007),p.77

16

Takingallthisintoconsideration,itwassomewhatnormalforaspiringfilm

makersinRomaniatowanttoachievethesamekindofeffectontheirhome

audiences–and,ifpossible,notonlythat.Thisisactuallyhowglobalizationworks,

andthiswassomethingthatwasespeciallysupportedduringcommunism,whenfilm

wasmoreofautensilforthepowerhungrycommunist–orinothercountries’cases

fascist,Nazi–leadersratherthananartmediumtobeappreciatedbyfansofart.So

thesupportingcommunistpartysimplyhadtostepintohelpcreateandrunthis

mini‐industryinRomania,usingsovietideasandAmerican,hollywoodiantechniques.

FilmstudioBucurestiandRomaniaFilmproducedSergiuNicolaescu’sepicsand,

surprisinglyenough,bothofLucianPintilie’sfirstfilms–SundayatSixandThe

Reenactment–beforethedifferencesbetweenhisbeliefsandthehigherauthorities’

kickedinandhelosttheirsupport,whichwillbefurtherdiscussedlater.Whatis

interestingaboutthatperiodisthat,comparedtoothercountriesthatwererunbya

dictatorship–likeKorea,whichCeaușescuwasveryinspiredbyduringhisvisitin

1971,afterwhichhetriedtobringthesamehardshipmodelbacktohisowncountry

–Romaniawasinsomewaysmoreliberal,whichallowedforthiskindofcross‐over

inidealismtohappen.Romania’sleaderthen,NicolaeCeaușescu,wasrather

respectedbytheAmericanpresidentRichardNixon16andhadagenerallymuchmore

laid‐backimageabroadcomparedtoothercommunistleadersbecauseofhisofficial

visitstothewesternworld,inwhichhecameacrossasasomewhatgoodleaderand

thatwassometimesseenandfeltinsidethecountry–forexample,peoplewould,

duringlessdifficultperiods,trademusicfromthewestorsuchthingslikepirateand

originalmerchandisewassold.

SergiuNicolaescuwasperhapsthemostprominentfilmmakerofthattime,

makingthecrowdpleasingfilmsthatwereMichaeltheBrave,TheDacians,etc–the

twoexamplesareactuallythefilmsthat“helpedinspireanewemotionalRomanian

16TIMEMagazine,‘RUMANIA:EnfantTerrible’,http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907041,00.html,20thDecember2009

17

nationalism”17–thatgainedhimandRomaniancinemasomerecognitionabroad,

mostespeciallyinthedictatorialcircuit.HeisoneofthefewRomaniandirectorsthat

havemadeepicfilmsdepictingwarsandbattlesandheroicfiguresofthepast,which

iswheretheaforementionednationalismcomesintoplay.Itisdebatedwhetherhe

is,infact,worthyofsuchacclaimasfilmmakersLucianPintilie,MirceaDaneliucand

LiviuCiuleiwereandstillaremuchmorefavouredbythecritics18andinternational

festivals.ThethreehaveallwonrecognitionandawardsattheCannesFilmFestival.

4.RomanianCinemaanditsAudience

Intoday’sRomania,Communismisoftentimesaccusedofcripplingmany

attemptsatartisticmanifestationsthroughtheinceptionofcensorshipandthrough

TheSecuritate’svigilenteyes,thenthecountry’ssecretservicewhichwasfounded

August30th1948withtheaidoftheSovietNarodnyyKomissariatVnutrennikhDel,

commonlyabbreviatedNKVD,whichwasthepublicandsecretpoliceorganization

underStalin.Supposedly,the“firstpoliticalfilmmadewithoutbeinginfluencedby

ideologiesandcensorship”19wasonlymadein1993bythesameSergiuNicolaescu.

BeforetheCeaușescu‐ledregimewasbeheadedonthe25thofDecember1989,film

hadadifferentpathtofollowunderthepresidentandthecommunistparty’srule,

whichmadeitdifficultforartisticexpressiontoflourish.Filmwasfoundtobeavery

influentialmeansofpropagandabythepartyandit’sbeenobviousforquitesome

timewiththeapparitionandeffectivenessoffilmssuchasBattleshipPotemkin

(SovietUnion,1925,dir.SergeiM.Eisenstein)forexample,andcommunistsbelieved

thattheideasandmessagesofthecountrywereconsideredfarmoreimportant

thantheartist’s,sotheyputtogetheracensorshipsystemtofilterrebelliousor

wrongmessages.Manyimprovisationsandsacrificeshadtobemadeinordertoget

17RichardTaylor,TheBFICampaniontoEasternEuropeanandRussianCinema(BritishFilmInstitute,2000),p.16918A.L.Șerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.6719ibid.,p.219

18

anymessageacrosstotheviewerswithoutitfirstbeingdetectedbythissystem.

Censorshipwasusedinadifferentwaythen:whateverdidnotrespecttheparty’s

interestsandwastryingtomoveawayfromtheformulaicapproachwascutoutor

modifiedsothatitcorrespondedtothenewbeliefsystem.Useofmetaphorand

foreigntermswasnotuncommonfortheartisticworldbackthenand,usually,such

languagewouldgopasttheunder‐readmembersofthecensorshipsystem.A

fortunatereleaseistheaforementionedTheReenactment,adramathatquite

openlydiscussesthemisuseofpowerandincompetencethatwasmadeduringthe

daysoftheRomanianliberalizationandseparationfromthepoliticsoftheEastern

CommunistBloc.Itwasplayed,astheactorGeorgeMihăiță–thatplayedtheroleof

Vuică–recalls,intheLuceafărulTheatreand“itwasbroughtinthroughtheback

doorofthetheatrewhereitscreenedforaboutamonthwithnoquestionsasked

andafterthatitwastakenoffjustasunnoticedbyauthorities.However,someone

fromtheaudiencesaidthisfilmshouldbelockedinaroomandthekeythrown,so

thenhowcouldoneexpectthisfilmtohavehadarealpremiere?”20

Theaudienceswerealwaysthere,too,readytohearwhatevertheirgreat

leadershadtosharewiththem.ThefilmsofcommunistRomaniaweremade–or

ratherremade,withthefilmmaker’sopinionsometimesalteredtomeetthe

Securitate’srecipe–intoeducationalvideos,aspropaganda,alwaysbendingtothe

rules,thatis,ifthefilmmakerwasn’talreadyacommunisthimself.Examplesof

suchfilmscanbethefilmsofSergiuNicolaescu,oneoftheformerfavouritesofthe

NationalCinemaCentre.FilmssuchasMichaeltheBraveand,curiouslyenough,the

aforementionedpost‐communistuncensoredOglinda/TheMirror(Romania,1993,

dir.SergiuNicolaescu)bothspeakofgreatleadersinthecountry’spast,humanizing

themjustenoughfortheaudiencetounderstandthemandglorifyingthemabove

whatanyhistorybookwouldtellreaders.OglindaisaboutMarshalIonVictor

Antonescu,aRomaniansoldier,authoritarianpoliticianandwarcriminalduring

WorldWarIandWorldWarII.InAlexLeoȘerban’swords,thefilmisa“falsehistoric

20SilviaKerim,FormulaAS,‘Galeriavedetelor’,http://www.formula‐as.ro/1998/332/galeria‐vedetelor‐21/galeria‐vedetelor‐112,7thFebruary2010

19

frescothattriestorehabilitateacontroversialfigure;Oglindaletseveryonedown,

exceptfortheMarshal”21.Filmslikethesetriedtorestoretheimageofthecountry’s

leadersandpast,sometimestryingtoohardtomakethemappealtotheaudience,

tryingtohumanizethem.

Audienceswerequitehighbackinthosedaysbecausecinemawasmoreof

anescapefromtherealworldthanitistodayand,almostironically,thefilmsmade

thenweremuchmoreappreciatedaswellbyitsdestinedaudience,andsomeof

themaretothisday,butbyfewernumbersthathaveremainedfaithfultotheir

country’sfilmoutput.Audiencesintoday’sRomaniaaremuchsmallerforRomanian‐

madefilms,andsomeofthereasonshavesomethingtodowiththesocalledNew

Wave,whichlargelyconsistsofneorealistfilm,criticallyspeaking.LeoȘerbanwrote

inhis4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc/4Decades,3Yearsand2Months

ofRomanianFilmthathe“didn’tseethisso‐calledNewWavecoming”;hedoesn’t

“callitanewwave,butneorealism”22.Now,itisimportanttomentionwhatthis

neorealismreallyis,asneorealismissomethingthatcanberelatedtothemore

knownItalianNeorealismthatwasactuallyinfluencedbytheFrenchNewWave,

Communismandhumanism.Becauseofthetopicsthattheydiscuss,thefilmsofthe

RomanianNewWavewouldbetterfitintothesocialrealistsphereastheyexplore

anddisplaystoriesinanaturalisticway,tryingtoemphasizecontentwithout

resortingtostylisticmeansthatwoulddistractfromthestory.Thistranslatesinto

longshots,fixedcamerapositionsandperformancebasedfilmmaking.Thissetof

characteristicsthatunifiesRomania’smorerecentfilmsisonlynowcominginto

usagebecauseofthelongperiodofdictatorshipwhichdeniedartiststoexperiment

withintheperiodsofcinemathatwesterncountrieswouldgothrough.Soitisjust

nowthattheRomanianfilmmakerscangrowupandtrytocatchupwithallofthose

phasesandtellalloftheiruntoldstories.

21Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom2009),p.22122ibid.,p.55

20

AftertheeventssurroundingDecember1989,filmmakersandartists,in

general,becameobsessedwiththethemeofrevolution,rebellion,difficulttimes

andthe–perhapsoverwhelming–ideaofgoingfromcommunismtodemocracy.

Also,mostofthefilmsmadeinthelasttwentyyearshaveaveryminimalistfeelto

them–partiallybecausethebudgetallowsjustthat–andspeakofindividual

experiencesratherthantryingtoglorifyanationaleventastheydidbeforethefall

oftheregime.FilmssuchasHîrtiavafialbastra/ThePaperWillBeBlue(Romania,

2006,dir.RaduMuntean),Afostsaun‐afost?/12:08EastofBucharest(Romania,

2006,dir.CorneliuPorumboiu)orthehighlyregarded4luni,3săptămâniși2zile/4

Months,3Weeksand2Days(Romania,2007,dir.CristianMungiu)alltellstoriesof

insignificantpeopleandallofthemwereunexpectedlywellreceivedby

internationalaudiences.BackinRomaniahowever,AndreiGorzo,ayoungcriticborn

in1978,wrotethat“nomatterhowmanyawardstheywin,therealismofsomeof

ourbestdirectorsdoesn’tstandachanceagainsttheaudience’sgreatresistance.

ForumdiscussionsonRomanianneorealismarefullofstatementssuchasIdon’t

wanttogotothecinematoseereallife;Ihaveenoughreallifetherestofmy

time”23.Tothatstatementtheauthorcould’veaddedtheinternationalaudiencesas

well,becausecinemaiswidelyseenasaformofentertainment,notnecessarily

enlightenment.AnexamplefromAmericancinemawouldbethemixedreception

thatDarrenAronofsky’sTheFountain(USA,2006,dir.DarrenAronofsky)received

comparedtohisother,moreentertainingwork.Butthisfilmbelongstoacrossingof

genresthathasyettoappearinRomaniancinema:sci‐fi/fantasy.

Whilefilmsweremadeabouttheregimebefore’89,nonewereableto

discussitasfreelyastheywereaftertherevolution,likeCorneliuPorumboiu’s12:08

EastofBucharest.Andso,thisrapidlybecamethedominantthemeoratleast

subthemeinmostifnotallRomanianfilmsmadeafter1990.Theproblem–ifitcan

becalledso–seenthroughanaveragecinema‐goer’seyesisthatthechoiceoffilms

hasnowwidened,withmostofthefilmscomingfromHollywood,and,betweena

Hollywood–orofcourseother–blockbusterandaRomanian–sometimeshighly

23AndreiGorzo,Bunul,răulșiurâtulîncinema(Polirom,2009),p.95

21

regardedandawarded–neorealistfilm,whenplanninganightout,thechoiceis

almostalwaystheblockbuster.Theproblemwithneorealismseenthroughthe

audience’seyes,mostofwhichhaveexperiencedthecommunistera,isthatthe

situationsportrayedinthesefilmsarefartoobanalcomparedtowhatstories

circulatedbackintheday–before1989–andthey’resometimestoodepressingto

experienceagain.Somost,ifnotallthefilmsmadeafter1989,weretoonaturalistic

andtooaccuratetobearbyitsdestinedviewers.Gorzocontinuesfromhisprevious

statementabouttheaudience’sresistanceanddiscusseswhatartcandoforthe

viewer,sayingthat“tobeconnectedatthesametimeandinrealtimetothebrains

andnervesofeveryoneinvolvedinarathernormalsituation,whichinthecaseofa

filmwouldbesomesortofcrisissituation,isnotjustarevelatoryexperience,itis

alsoonemorepassionatethananyescape–liketheexperiencesgatheredfroma

sci‐fi/fantasyfilm–andthat’swhatRomanianneorealistcinemaisallabout”24.

ThatissomethingthatcanbeexperiencedintheachinglylongMoarteadomnului

Lăzărescu/TheDeathofMr.Lăzărescu(Romania,2006,dir.CristiPuiu),wherewe

canunderstandhowthesituationissomethingthatthepeopleinmedicalcarego

througheverydaybutatthesametimewearebecomingincreasinglyworriedand

annoyedwiththeirignorancetothepatient’sissues,withoutevenmentioningthe

factthatheisanoldmanaswellandinneedforevenmoreattention–theones

thatdon’tscreamaretheonesachingmost,toparaphraseDrKevinMackway‐Jones

inadebateabouttheinternationallyadoptedrulesoftheManchesterTriageGroup

thatweremadetodeterminethepriority,sowhoneedshelpmosturgentlywhen

comingintoahospital,basedonasetofsimplequestions–whichthecharacters

violatealmostcompletely.Andtoday’sRomaniancinema–inthesameway–does

notscream,yetithasprovedefficientinaffectingaudiencesthatarenotfamiliar

withthetopicsdiscussedinthementionedfilms.

WhattheRomanianNewWavedid,ultimately,bestisthatitbroughtthis

newinterestbackintheBalkansandpointeditattheformercommunistcountry

thatpreviouslyhadnocinemafortheinternationalaudiences.Theproblemnowis

24AndreiGorzo,Bunul,răulșiurâtulîncinema(Polirom,2009),p.96

22

thatitneedstofindabalancebetweenaudiencesathomeandaudiencesabroad.

Which,amongstotherthings,meansthatmorecinemas–buildings,screens–need

toberestored,builtorreorganized,becausethe“approximately30functional

cinemasfor22millionpopulation”25willnotcopewiththedemand,ifsuchan

unexpectedthingshouldhappenbetweenitsborders,andwillonlyhelpthe

audiencedistanceitselffromgoingtoseefilmsincinemas,thusincreasingpiracy

anddecreasingproductionleavinglittleheadroomforexperimentation,suchas

delvingintoothergenresasdiscussedbefore.AlexLeoȘerbanwrotethatthereisa

“needtocomeupwithanewkindofcinema–asanattitude–somewhatsocial–

thematically–andquitepoor–expressively–soakindofeconomiccinema,inall

sensesoftheterm[and]nomatterwhattheaudience–thatfeelsquitealienatedby

thebrutalrealismofthesefilms–thinks,Romanianfilmcan’tbeanythingelsebut

minimalistic.Anyotherformulaisescapist”26.

Somethingthathashappenedinnearlyallcountriesthathavebeenreleased

fromtheruleofoppressivegovernmentswasnowhappeningthereaswell.ANew

Waveofreleasedpressureandtensioncomingoutofthepeoplethathavebeen

throughtheregimewasemerging.Somestartedmakingmusic,sometheatre,some

filmandsometriedtoforget.Sothisnewcinemahadtofindanewaudience–andit

did–inwesternterritorieswhere,throughscreeningsatfestivalssuchasthehighly

regardedCannesInternationalFilmFestivalandwinningawardsandtheeverlasting

battlewithcritics,itmadeitswayintoreleasesinwesterncinemas.Yearafteryear,

starting2006whendirectorCristiPuiuandhisTheDeathofMr.Lăzărescureceived

the‘UnCertainRegardAward’attheCannesFestival,filmscomingoutofRomania

wouldmaketheirwayintoFrench,British,Italian,Americanaswellasother

cinemas,keepinginterestaliveforthebleak,minimalist,depressiveandinexpensive

neorealistfilm.LeoȘerbansaysthat“ifweweretolookbackatwherethis

originates,wewillmeetthesameCristiPuiuattheCannesFilmFestivalin2001with

hisdebutMarfașibanii/StuffandDough(Romania,2001,dir.CristiPuiu).Hedidn’t

25Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom2009),p.18526ibid.,p.137

23

receiveanythingtocomeintothespotlight,butbothhimandhisfilmwereverywell

receivedbyaudiences–asusual,betterinternationallythaninhisowncountry”27.

Thefilmmakerhasalsohadatremendousamountofmisfortuneconsideringhis

film’sdistributioninRomaniaandevenabroadastheNationalCouncilof

Cinematographydidnotseethefilminthesamewayorthedirector’sabilityto

resurrectthecountry’sstagnationincinemaandwereactuallyirritatedbyhim.

It’sworthmentioningthattheestablishment’sfavouritedirectoruntil

recently,SergiuNicolaescu,directorofMichaeltheBrave,oneoftheformer

communistcountry’sbiggestboxofficesuccesses,bringingasmuchas13.330.000

peopleincinemas28,whilehisTheDaciansbrought13.112.000peopleintoseeit29–

inthecountryalone–isstillgettingfundingnowadayswhichheusestomake

mediocre,uninterestingfilms.AsAlexLeoȘerbanputit,trashkeepsgettingfunded,

whilepromisingfilmmakersarewaitinginlinefortheirfirstchanceatdoing

somethingwiththeirtalent.OrasAndreiGorzowroteatthestartofhisreviewfor

Nicolaescu’slatestfilm,“SergiuNicolaescuisnotanactorandheisnotadirector–

SergiuNicolaescuisachild”onlytoendthesamereviewbysayingthat“the

prominenceofhispersonalityinourcinematographyisthejokethatasaderaisstill

playingonouraudiences”30.Ofcourse,itisarguablethat,ifNicolaescumanagedto

bringsuchgreatboxofficeresultsbefore,thenhemustcontinuedoingwhatever

he’sdoingbecauseitworks.Theproblemisitwasworkingandithasstopped

workingforalongwhilenow.Somethinghappenedtothatformulaforsuccessand

it’scalledthefalloftheironcurtain.Afterthefallofthecommunistregime,

Romaniancinemahadtochangequitedramatically.Asmentionedbefore,alotof

Hollywoodimportstartedcirculating,andtheyearlyproductionofRomanianfeature

filmshasdecreasedquitedramatically,withlessthantenmadeeveryyear,witha

27Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.5628AndreiGorzo,Bunul,răulșiurâtulîncinema(Polirom,2009),p.4429ibid.,p.4330ibid.,p.87

24

recordninefilmsreleasedin2002,“record,obviously,ifcomparedtotheyears2001

or2000…”31

5.CriticsandCriticism

Cinemawouldnotbeasimportantasitistodayifitweren’tforpeoplethat

loveit,butalso,forpeoplethatopposeitinonewayoranother.Peoplethatcriticize

it,thatconstantlytrytodefinethatwhichisgoodandthatwhichisbad,tryingto

defineandalsoinflictgoodtasteonaudiencesand,moreimportantly,onfilm

makers.OneofthereasonswhytheRomanianfilmoutputissolowinbothquantity

and–sometimes–qualitymaybethattherearenotenoughgoodordedicated

criticstofightoffthebadcontent.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthefilmsarebad.It

simplymeansthatthereisnotenoughpublishedworkinjournals,magazinesand

papersthatwouldcreatethenecessaryhypesothatanaudiencewouldbemade

intowantingtogoseethefewfilmsthataremade–andthatprovetobegood

everynowandthen,justasitisthecasewithcinemaanywherereally.Arather

unrelatedexampleofwhatcriticismdoes,eventhoughitdoesnotcomefroma

professionalfilmcritic’spointofview,iswhathappenedwhenMungiu’s4Months,3

Weeksand2DayswasreleasedinRomania.TheOrthodoxchurchblamedthefilm

anditsmakersofmakingabortionseemlikeitisagoodoracceptablething.Because

oftheoppositionandnegativereviewsgivenbythechurch,peopleobviouslydidthe

exactoppositeofwhattheyweretoldwenttoseethefilm.Asit’stoowellknown,

badpublicityisstillpublicity.Anaturalcuriositythatwillitchpeoplemakingthem

wanttofindoutwhatthebadthingaboutthefilmisorjusthowbadthefilmreally

islikeandtomakeuptheirownmindaboutitcomestolifewhensuchremarksare

made.Whilethefilmstilldividedtheaudienceintopeoplethatlike–orratherlove–

itorhateit,thatissomethingthathappenswithmostfilms.Sothefactthatthere

werelargeraudiencesandthecriticismthatitreceivedwasquiteabrupt–shouldbe

31Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.33

25

readasexigent,harshanddivisive–didnotchangethefactthatpeoplehave

differenttastes.Thissimplymadeevenmorepeoplegoseethefilmwithadifferent,

initial,pointofview,withasetofvaluesthattheyheardoforreadfromreviews

thatwereeitherpositiveornegative.Thentheywenttothecinematoseeand

reviewforthemselves.

Thisattitudedoesnotonlyhelpthefilmmakers,butitalsohelpstheindustry

finditswaytotheheartsoftheaudiencemembers,ithelpsunderstandthemarket.

Ofcourse,takingthisinterdependenceintoaccount,thismeansthatRomanian

cinemawould–throughthis–becomemorecommercialperhaps,especiallyifitwill

againadoptthisHollywoodsystemthathasbeenmentionedbefore.However,

nationalcinemaisnotnecessarilysomethingthatneedstobecommercial,looking

tocomeoutoftheartfilmgroup,whichincontrasttriestochallengethemindsof

itsaudience.Ofcourseitneedstosell,otherwiseitwouldnotexistoritwoulddie

out,butitdoesnotneedtosellout.Agoodexampleofsellingoutwouldbeanyof

theDraculafilms.Thesehorrorfilms–orcomediesinsomecases–areusually

Hollywoodmade.Thesubject,however,issomethingthatcomesoutofRomanian

folkloreand,interestinglyenough,thissubjecthasperhapstoorarelybeentouched

byRomanianfilmmakers.Togobacktothemainidea,itisessentiallythewaythat

thestoriesaretoldthatwouldhavetochangeintomoreaccessibleformatsthat

morepeoplewouldrelateto–so,Hollywoodformats.

ThisiswhatSergiuNicolaescu’sfilmsdid.Filmsmadeinhisperiod,beforethe

1990s,hadsuchhighaudiencesnotjustbecauseofthereasonsmentionedbefore,

butalsobecauseofthefactthatthemarketresearchwasdone.Thefilmsweremade

forpeasants,forageneralaudience,forcrowds,notforindividuals.Insomeways,

becauseofthis,itcanbesaidthatallcommercialcinemaiscommunist,toreturnto

politics,andthatnationalcinemaiscapitalist.Ofcoursetherearealotof

contradictionsthatcomewiththatstatement,buttheideaisthatfilmmakingisin

essenceacapitalistpractice.Thepeoplethatmakefilmsmakemoney–sometimes.

Themoremoneycomesin,themoreproductionandthebiggertheindustry,dueto

reinvestingintothepractice.Whichisessentiallywhatcommunismdidandwhyit

26

wasflawed,althoughitmaysoundlikeaproductivesystem.Thegeneralideawas

thateveryoneisequal,thatweshouldallbethesame–inthesamewayan

audiencememberisnotreallyanindividual,butanumbertohowmarketresearch

works.Thatmeantthesamejobsforeveryone,thesameincomeforeveryonewhich

issimilarinsomewaytotheideaofgenrerecipes:ifitdoesthesamethingsthelast

successfulfilmdid,itwillbringinthesameprofit.Butabalancecan’tbeobtained

thatway.Thehigherauthoritywouldalwayshavemorebenefits–abetterjob,a

betterincome–whichisthewaythatcapitalistsystemisstructured.Whyisthis

investigationrelevant?Becausenationalcinemaismeanttobemadeforindividuals,

forsmalleraudiences,forintellectualaudiences.Thefilmsthatusuallymakea

nationalcinematackledifficultsubjects,asis–andwasalways–thecasewith

RomanianNewWavecinemathathasbeenmadeinrecentyears.Thisescapefrom

thecorporate,formulaicandcrowdpleasingfilm–romanticcomedies,horrorfilms

etc–isverymuchneeded.Asisacinemathatexperimentswithstorytellingand

audiences.Thatis,inpart,howtheFrenchNewWave,theItalianneorealistfilmand

Britishsocialrealismcametobeandallofthesewaveshaveaninfluenceon

commercialfilm.NationalcinemaisneededbyHollywood,inconclusion,because

thatiswhereitdrawsitsformulasandthatiswherethefilmmakersandtalentthat

contributetoitoftencomefrom:nationalcinemas,worldcinema.

Writingonanonlinefilmdiscussionforum,Alex.LeoSerbangavefour

suggestions,whichareexplainedinmoredetailbelow–suggestionsthathedoesnot

fullyagreewithinretrospect32–onhowtoimproveRomania’snationalfilm

production.Hepointedoutthat:

1.Filmsshouldonlybemadebydirectorsofupto35yearsofage–

withtheexceptionofNaeCaranfil.Thereasonisthattheaudience

thatstillgoestothecinemathesedaysisayoungone,soitmustbe

thetargetaudienceand,inconsequence,thedirectorshavetobeon

thesamepageastheiraudience.

32Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.93

27

2.TheAmericantestscreeningsystemshouldbeimplemented,which

meansthatthefilm,oncecompleted,wouldbeshowntoadiverse

audiencethatwouldsharetheirthoughtsonit.

3.Theproducerhastobeaproducerandnotthedirector’scatereror

handyman.Thiswouldmeanthat,oncethefilmiscompletedandhas

haditstestscreenings,hewouldneedtohavethegutstocutinto

livingflesh.Whateverhedoesnotagreewith,heneedstomakesure

istakencareofbeforethefilmisreleased.

4.Thedirectorandscreenwritershouldbetwodifferentpeople.

Thereshouldperhapsbeateamofscreenwritersthatwouldhavethe

possibilitytochangethefilminasubstantialwayasthefilmisbeing

made.

Theproblemwiththesesuggestionsisthattheymoveawayfromwhatnational

cinemais–andperhaps,shouldbe–andtheypointtoamuchmorecommercial

terrainthat,admittedly,Romaniamightneedtoatleasttryoutbutfortheway

cinemaworksinrecentyears,especiallyinRomania,itwouldnotbeofverymuch

helpascinema‐goingaudiencescontinuetobesmallerandsmaller.Thelownumber

incinemascreensinRomaniathathasbeentalkedaboutbeforeisduetopeople’s

disinterestingoingtothecinemaastheratingsystemisnotrespectedandit’smuch

easiertowatchfilmsinyourownhome,withouthavingchildreninthesameroom

withyouwatchingfilmsthatshouldnotbeseenbytheiragegroup,gigglingaway

andmakingamockeryofthings33.Thisissomethingthatisageneralcomplaintthat

resonatesinthegeneralpress,onlineforumsandevenwithfilmmakersthemselves,

becausetheratingsystem–althoughcriticizeditself–isnotreallyrespectedinthe

country.Thatmaynotbeoneofthemainreasonswhythisishappening,butitis

oneofthereasonsthatmakesgoingtothecinemaseemlikemoreofataskthan

somethingpeoplewouldwanttodowiththeirsparetime.Thisgoeshandinhand

withtheincreaseinpiracy,becausetheaudiencesarenotreallylostasithasbeen

said.Peopledowatchfilms.Theyjustdon’twatchtheminthecinemaanymore,they33ThisissomethingthatIhavereadinvarioussourcesandthathasoccurredinvariousdiscussionscarried,whichmaynothavethesameformastheonegivenhere,butcarriesthesamemessage.

28

wouldratherdownloadthefilmsontotheircomputerandwatchthemathomewith

anatmosphereanddegreeofcomfortthatisentirelyuptothem.Andbesides,“even

thekindoffilmsthatdon’thavemuchdemandcirculatewithoutanyproblemonthe

internet,sotherestillisademand.”34Thequestionthatwouldfollowthiscomment

is:willtherecontinuetobeasatisfactorysupplyovertimeifthiscontinuesto

happen,takingintoconsiderationthealreadylowbudgetsforRomaniancinemaand

thejust‐as‐lownumberoffilmsbeingmadeeveryyear?

Anotherreasonwhynationalcinemaisandwillcontinuetobeimportantis

thatitinvolvesamechanismofpromotingone’sownindividualpersonalityand

beliefsinthecontextofthecultureofacountryand,inaway,filteringbyahome

audienceforfurtherdistribution.Thatmaynotbeaccurateenoughhowever.If,for

example,thereisasetoftenfilmsmadeonayearlybasis,allfilmswouldcompete

againsteachotherinattractinglargeraudiencesandcriticsontheirside,butnot

necessarilyforthepurposeofmoneymaking,whichmaynotworkifthesupplyissue

mentionedearlierwouldbecomeaproblem.Iftheyfailtodoso,theremustbe

someonetostopthemfromsucceedinganyfurtherortocorrect,topunishtheir

incompetenceandthatiswherethefilmcriticcomesin.Thatcorrectionsuggested

byreviewsandlowaudienceswillleadtoself‐educationforthenextbatchoffilms.

Everybadfilmexperienceisalessonnotjustforthepeopleinvolvedinthemaking

ofthefilminquestion,butalsoforthecompetingfilms,theirmakersandthe

audience.Buttheremustalwaysbesomeonetopunctuatethefailuresrecognizedin

thefilm.There’safunnysayingthatcirculatesinartisticcommunities–andnotonly

–inRomaniathatpunctuatesthisneedforcriticsandcriticismwell:“Romaniansare

bornunhappy,theycriticizetheirwholelifeandtheydon’tdieuntiltheymake

everyonearoundthemasmiserableastheyare.”

Romaniahasaproblemwhenfilmcriticismcomesintoquestion.Ofcourse

therearefilmcritics,buttherearefewtonomeansofgettingtheirmessageacross

toalargeraudience.Thereiscurrentlynofilmjournalthatwouldbeavailabletothe

34AndreiGorzo,Bunul,răulșiurâtulîncinema(Polirom,2009),p.33

29

generalpublicandveryfewdedicatedmagazines.Oneofthebestpost‐communist

culturemagazine–perhaps–entitledRe:publikceasedtobereleasedcountry‐wide

afterappearingonamonthlybasisforafewyears.Evenduringtheyearsthatit

wouldbeavailable,itwouldbeverydifficulttofind.Ifitwassuccessfulatanypoint,

itmusthavebeeninthecapital,Bucharest,becausedistributionceasedforother

cities35.Alotofmagazineshaveafilmsectioninwhichcriticscanpostreviews,but

thatmaynotbeenoughtostimulatelargerpossibleaudiences.AlexLeoSerbanhas

recentlyreleasedafewbooks,sodidAndreiGorzoandTudorCaranfil–whichisone

ofRomania’smostappreciatedfilmcriticsofourtimeandbeforethefallofthe

dictatorship.Toputthingsinarelativelysimplemanner,booksdon’tgetreadas

muchnowadays.It’snotnewsandiftheydo,they’renotfilmcritics’books.What’s

interestingisthatthenumberofwritersandpublicationsonRomaniancinemaboth

insideandoutsidethecountryisalwaysproportionaltothesizeoftheindustry.And

thatmakesperfectsense,becauseofthingsdiscussedbefore,butalsobecauseif

thereissomethingtowriteabout,itwillbewrittenaboutandifnot,thenitwillnot.

AlexLeoSerbanwrotethat“Romaniancinemahasbeen–andI’mafraidit

stillis–undertheunfortunateinfluenceofTarkovskystylesovietcinema,producing

thesamekindsofdirectorshauntedbychimerasthatshowadislikingtostory,

intrigue,dramaticstructure.Acertainpartoffilmcriticismthatfavourspoetryand

symbolsencouragedthemdespitesomeappearances.Anyway,thetargetaudience

thatdislikedmediocreAmericanfilms–becausethosepeopledon’twastetime,they

tellstoriesprofessionally–wasontheirside.Andtheresultisacinemathatdoesn’t

exist.Theonlythingsthatexistaregoodintentions,but,aswe’veseen,theytendto

becometear‐jerkingcataclysmsandhyper‐thesisexperiments.Ornoteventhat…”36

Romaniannationalcinema,althoughdysfunctionalintermsofdiscoveringor

exploitingitspotentialcommercialvaluehasalwayshaditsuses.Itdoesn’tmatterif

itsinfluencesareunfortunateorconstructive,thefilmsmadewerealwaysofsome

interesttoasmallgroupofpeople.Tellingstoriesorexpressingstrugglethrough

35Rekino,http://rekino.ro,6thFebruary201036Alex.LeoȘerban,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009),p.21

30

thesefilmswasperhapsjustasimportantascreatingsocialistrealismandnationalist

epics.TheyallrepresentaRomaniannationalconscienceandarerelicsfromtimes

past.Perhapshavinganationalcinemaisjustasimportantaskeepingadiaryor

makingaphotoalbumofyourlifetostackontopofyourparents’andgrandparents’

albums.Itisevidencethatthenationexistsorexisted.

[10108WORDS]

31

Bibiliography

Bărbulescu,Mihaietal,IstoriaRomâniei(Corint,2007)

Bratu,Lucian,Drumulspreartăalcineamatorului(EdituraMeridiane,1990)Caranfil,Tudor,Istoriacinematografieiîncapodopere.Vîrstelepeliculei.VolumulI.DelaStropitorulstropitlaRapacitatea(1895‐1924)(Polirom2009)Cook,Pam,TheCinemaBook(BritishFilmInstitute,2007)Fulger,Mihai,'Noulval'încinematografiaromâneasca(EdituraART,2006)Gorzo,Andrei,Bunul,răulșiurâtulîncinema(Polirom,2009)Hayward,Susan,FrenchNationalCinema(Routledge,1993)Mackway‐Jones,Kevinetal,EmergencyTriage(Blackwell,2006)Sava,Valerian,Istoriacriticăafilmuluiromânesccontemporan(EdituraMeridiane,1999)Secolul21,Filmul(UniuneaScriitorilordinRomânia,2001)Șerban,Alex.Leo,Decevedemfilme.EtinArcadiaCinema(Polirom,2006)Șerban,Alex.Leo,4decenii,3aniși2lunicufilmulromânesc(Polirom,2009)Taylor,Richard,TheBFICompaniontoEasternEuropeanandRussianCinema(BritishFilmInstitute,2000)Țutui,Marian,FrațiiManakiașiimagineaBalcanilor(NoiMediaPrint,2009)Țutui,Marian,OrientExpress.Filmulromânescșifilmulbalcanic(NoiMediaPrint,2009)

32

Electronicsources

AnthonyOliverScott,NewYorkTimes,‘NewWaveontheBlackSea’,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20Romanian‐t.html,7thFebruary2010

BarbicanCentreWebsite,barbicanconferences.co.uk/film/event‐detail.asp?ID=9984,7thFebruary2010

CentrulNaționalalCinematografiei,http://cncinema.abt.ro,6thFebruary2010Cinemagia,http://cinemagia.ro,25thJanuary2010DavidBordwell,‘DoingFilmHistory’,http://davidbordwell.net,2ndFebruary2010IMDb,http://imdb.com,7thFebruary2010InformațiaClujNr.37,‘HoriaPãtrascu:ÎnReconstituireaamdattotceampututcaprozator’,http://informatia.dntcj.ro/1999Sep14,25thJanuary2010

Rekino,http://rekino.ro,6thFebruary2010

SilviaKerim,FormulaAS,‘Galeriavedetelor’,http://www.formula‐as.ro/1998/332/galeria‐vedetelor‐21/galeria‐vedetelor‐112,7thFebruary2010

TIMEMagazine,‘RUMANIA:EnfantTerrible’,http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907041,00.html,20thDecember2009.

33

Filmography

4luni,3săptămâniși2zile/4Months,3Weeksand2Days(Romania,2007,dir.CristianMungiu)Afostsaun‐afost?/12:08EastofBucharest(Romania,2006,dir.CorneliuPorumboiu)AmintiridinEpocadeAur/MemoriesfromtheGoldenAge(Romania,2009,dir.HannoHöfer,RăzvanMărculescu,CristianMungiu,ConstantinPopescu,IoanaUricariu)BattleshipPotemkin(SovietUnion,1925,dir.SergeiM.Eisenstein)Columna/TheColumn(Romania/WestGermany,1968,dir.MirceaDrăgan)Concurs/Contest(Romania,1982,dir.DanPița)Croaziera/TheCruise(Romania,1981,dir.MirceaDaneliuc)Dacii/Lesguerriers(Romania/France,1967,dir.SergiuNicolaescu)DasDokumentvomReichsparteitag1934/TriumphoftheWill(Germany,1935,dir.LeniRiefenstahl)Decetragclopotele,Mitică?/WhyAretheBellsRinging,Mitica?(Romania,1981,dir.LucianPintilie)Duminicălaorașase/SundayatSix(Romania,1965,dir.LucianPintilie)Falezedenisip/SandCliffs(Romania,1983,dir.DanPița)TheFountain(USA,2006,dir.DarrenAronofsky)Hîrtiavafialbastră/ThePaperWillBeBlue(Romania,2006,dir.RaduMuntean)Kototamopeva/Who'sSingingOverThere?(Yugoslavia,1980,dir.SlobodanŠijan)LeConcert/TheConcert(France/Romania/Italy/Belgium,2009,dir.RaduMihăileanu)Lepaselalepagore/PrettyVillage,PrettyFlame(FederalRepublicofYugoslavia,1996,dir.SrđanDragojević)Marfașibanii/StuffandDough(Romania,2001,dir.CristiPuiu)

34

MihaiViteazul/MichaeltheBrave(Romania/France/Italy,1970,dir.SergiuNicolaescu)MoarteadomnuluiLăzărescu/TheDeathofMr.Lazarescu(Romania,2006,dir.CristiPuiu)NeaMărinmiliardar/UncleMarin,theBillionaire(Romania,1981,dir.SergiuNicolaescu)Oglinda/TheMirror(Romania,1993,dir.SergiuNicolaescu)Pădureaspânzuraților/ForestoftheHanged(Romania,1964,dir.LiviuCiulei)Podzemlje/Underground(France/FederalRepublicofYugoslavia/Germany,1995,dir.EmirKusturica)Reconstituirea/TheReenactment(Romania,1968,dir.LucianPintilie)Ștefancelmare/StephentheGreat(Romania,1974,dir.MirceaDrăgan)ȚaraMoților/LandoftheMotzi(Romania,1938,dir.PaulCălinescu)Va,visetdeveins/Go,See,andBecome(France/Belgium/Israel/Italy,2005,dir.RaduMihăileanu)

35

Personalcommunications

CeaușuAlex,15thNovember2009,WhichfilmsmadeduringcommunismarestillrelevanttodayandhowdotheyrelatetothefilmsoftheNewWave?Danciu,Bogdan,21stJanuary2010,HowdoesCorneliuPorumboiuavoidgenrefilms?Iovan,Alex,21stSeptember2009,WhyisTheNewWaverelevanttoRomanianaudiences?Păroiu,Diana,2ndDecember2009,Nationalcinema:Screening12:08EastofBucharesttoaBritishaudience