I remember a peculiar leitmotif of my childhood: adults around me were always comparing everything to how

things used to be "before". This "before" was something I missed, and everybody was happy I did, but the
curious child I used to be was a bit envious - what is this mysterious thing you all experienced and I didn't? It took
me quite a while to understand what this "before" meant, and an even longer while to understand that you don't
learn about the past you didn't experience from history books - you learn it from its traces, entwined with your
very own "nowadays" like invisible tentacles wrapped around value systems, attitudes and everyday social
interaction. So it happens that when a major bubble of quality and glory occurs in the film industry of my nation,
this "before" is somehow at the center of it all, even films discussing the present bearing a bit of its burden on
their characters' shoulders.

What happens to a nation when its individuals are under surveillance, not only by the state but also by eachother?
When several generations live with the idea of a common enemy out there, a vaguely defined "them" watching
over, people learn that the only way ahead is united. United in living and dying, in learning, in working and
playing, in feeling and thinking. These are things that cannot be shot down and burried as easily as a dictator. The
main weapon of communism was the collectivisation of mind and soul - independent thinking is dangerous, and
even decades later, it is not hard to notice how individualism and independence of ideas are rarely promoted in
Romanian society. Keep your head low and go with the crowd. Be nice to people, you never know when it's
going to turn out useful. And above all, keep close to your family: they're the only ones on your side.

It is about time to make a small clarification. I loathe generalizing passionately, so keep in mind that I do not write
these lines trying to say something about all the 21 milion Romanians as a whole - obviously I have not met and
got to know them all. However, living here all my life of 23 years I believe I can say what is characteristic to the
majority. Now back to business.

There is an interesting paradox in the Romanian psyche - after decades of living with the fear that your neighbour
may report you to the secret police, this crowd mentality got flavoured with a fear of strangers and a tendency to
sweep the dirt under the rug. Be cheerful, don't let them see you have problems - they will want to know the
details. They will celebrate your misery. They will use it against you somehow. Despite our inclination towards
community, we have a peculiar habit of never really connecting with that community - there is this sort of
paranoia about others knowing or seeing too much that somehow still persists. Just try photographing people in
a public space and see what happens. So it happens that our society is somehow scarred by the battle between
two strong contradicting tendencies, and this is not a very healthy thing to live with. However, you cannot
squeeze an entire nation on a therapist's couch, but you can invite them all in cinemas.

The Communist regime in Romania ended in 1989, but only in the years 2000 did the film industry catch up and
started digging up its cinematic potential. When a country wakes up from the communist coma, where all art
must keep its head low, eventually wise and talented individuals will emerge and get their hands dirty to speak
about the issues that matter - there is no such thing as a "new wave", which implies an organised group with a
common goal and set of values, the recent glory years of Romanian cinema were only a matter of time. Stylistical
similarities? Yes, but that's an entirely different discussion.

(comments on common stylistical aspects, starting from the film that started it all, Stuff and Dough)


(some comments about the financing system)




But enough about the bad things, back to the good ones. In spite of all the obstacles, Romanian cinema had a
blast in recent years, and its high time is hopefully not over yet. Like all sincere and necessary art coming from

1
within, it started getting noticed, it startled and awed festivals, critics and international audiences, all culminating
with Cristian Mungiu's Palme d'Or for 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days in 2007.

Trapped in a fishbowl: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

I have watched this film at least 8 times and it never ceases to make my stomach cringe with fear and tension,
even when I almost know its narrative by heart. If it wasn't obvious, this was a compliment.

Many have stated this film is a masterpiece in speaking about our national history. It is. But the main glitch for me
is that this film is about anything but history. If art at its best has the power to make a statement about human life
and soul, then political cinema at its best reflects how politics shapes the individual, and this is very much the
case here. Communism is nothing but background noise in 432, leaving room for the gut-wrenching drama of one
individual trapped in a series of grim circumstances, but most importantly, for an A-class portrait of a society
where personal space is a rare find. The common story of an illegal abortion is nothing but a pretext here, far
from the mediocre aim of simply portraying an era or making an ethical comment: Mungiu aims a lot higher,
armed with that special fine sense for the psychology of his peers.

The director's second feature takes off in a crowded student dorm, introducing his two charcters already
smothered by their environment, even before the quiet hell of what they are about to do breaks loose in a hotel
room. It is no accident that the first frame of the film shows two little goldfish in a glass bowl - as the camera
withdraws, we discover the two real "fishes", preparing to leave the tense air of their shared bedroom. The fight
for privacy (screams out) throughout the entire film - every scene, every minor character is masterfully crafted into
giving a sense of constant surveillance, of someone sneaking in curious about wht you are doing.

For the first part of the film, we follow the young Otilia running around with preparations. What is about to
happen is no business for the tight space of the student dorm. We watch her dodge a series of inquisitive hotel
clerks, trained to always ask for details and scan their client from head to toes to Even Adi, her boyfriend, wants
to know what she is up to, and takes it very personally when she refuses to share her plans, especially when those
plans might make her miss his mother's birthday party. This is no place for keeping secrets, we are warned.
Skipping a social occasion for taking care of private business is the ultimate sin.



(his third feature Beyond the Hills - groupthink and the small isolated community)

(remembering the past through the entire neighbourghood's eyes - 12:08 East of Bucharest)

(present time: the devil is in the details of family ties - A Film for Friends, Everybody in our Family & Tuesday after
Christmas)

However, the film fails to capture how his relationship with Raluca offers that much-needed breath of fresh air. Is it
a plain faux pas, or something deeper? The childish kink of the opening sequence or the sneaky encounter in her
mother's appartment are far from enough to suggest how otherworldly beautiful and freeing Paul's affair is. But
perhaps this is exactly the point: for a man like him, smothered by utter dullness in work and family life, even the
rare glimpse of beauty is banal.

(Aurora - the outcast fighting for personal space; comments on Puiu's previous film The Death of Mr. Lzrescu)

(the nicer side, warmth and willingness to help but reluctance towards strangers in a small community - Morgen)



To mainstream or not to mainstream: how not to become the elitist douche

2
It's no news that the Romanian audience suffers from a chronic lack of interest, even ostility I might say, towards
Romanian films. (some statistics + info about cinemas)

There is a wide-spread mentality that going to the cinema is purely entertainment, Heavens forbid that you watch
a film that will actually make you use your brain. Ready-made plots, shallow characters and prediclable twists and
turns are the prefered junk food, and sophisticated meals are for snobs. The problem is actually that Romanian
art films reflect reality a bit too well, and this is precisely the reality that the average Joe is running away when
entering a cinema: the average Joe doesn't want a therapy session, but a blue pill of escapism served with
stunning CGI and comfy Hollywood happy endings (we do like to sweep the dirt under the rug, remember?), a
break from all the stress and worries.

This issue is quite divisive. On the one hand, one can very easily become an elitist douche and say that an
uneducated audience does not deserve the art of its own country (and being this elitist douche is extremely
tempting from time to time when you live in a society with the moral values of a five year old). On the other hand,
one cannot expect an entire nation to become cultured and interested in high-brow art the next day after
decades of anti-intellectualist brainwashing, especially when the economy and politics and all the other grown-
ups' stuff are (still) just getting back on their democratic feet and earning a living rarely leaves time for anything
else. However, things are beginning to change, and there is some hope for the younger generation, which seems
at least curious about the art scene, learning, downloading, watching, reading, feeding themselves with the seeds
of a potential utopian arthouse-hungry society.

There is another very important aspect: cinema did emerge as an art form from entertainment and cheap thrills
for the crowds, and everybody needs a bit of junk food from time to time. Romanian film industry cannot sustain
itself by making nothing but art films that only critics and film students want to watch. It is always easier to blame
it on the dumb masses than to admit you cannot create an engaging piece that people actually want to watch.
There have been films that absolutely had to be made the way they were made, bravo to the authors, but this
country badly needs quality mainstream films that have the power to fill up cinemas and raise money.

Being a film student myself, I notice how often wannabe filmmakers fall into the trap of trying to run before they
can walk, aiming straight for Cannes with obscure deadpan "arthouse" and unmotivated formal gimmicks like the
shaky handheld camerawork instead of learning the basics of getting a story through to the viewer, and then
blame it on the viewer if he or she gets bored or simply does not get the idea, playing the misunderstood genius
card. Sure, one can easily dismiss the issue, thinking that such nobodies will likely never make another film after
graduation and no one will remember them in ten years time, but the problem is that it is not uncommon to see
this attitude encouraged within the national film school. The real fear is that they will actually get to make
another film after graduation. And then another one. And then another one. And the Romanian cinema of the
future will consist of cheap imitations with no real flesh and blood underneath the formal wrapper and no power
to attract any ticket payers but no festival appraisal either.

However, the future may or may not be so grim. Several recent films have made small steps towards quality
mainstream, slowly maganing to pull Romanian cinema out of the let's-make-a-film-about-communism-and-shoot-
it-Dogma-style limbo.

(short comments on the meager attempts to make mainstream film in Romania - Hello! How are You? + 1 or 2
other titles)