A small world of bourgeois intrigues and frivolities lived with intensity by its own protagonists: Pampon's lover, Didina is in love with the barber Nae, who is Mitza's lover, while she is ...
See full summary »
A description of Romania before Ceausescu's downfall, through the story of Nela. Daughter of a former colonel of the Securitate, the romanian political police. She refused to become as her ... See full summary »
The Bucharest's suburb, a torrid summer day. Norica, a waitress and Mitu, a swineherd, meet and tease each other and starts a beverage competition. Their relationship is not just a ... See full summary »
In 1911-12, the Romanian movie director Grigore Brezianu and the financial tycoon Leon Popescu made together the 2 hours long movie "Romania's Independence" - an as faithful as possible ... See full summary »
Marius Florea Vizante,
Romania in the 1920's. Marie-Thérèse Von Debretsy refuses the advances of her husband's commanding officer. As a result, the cosmopolitan family is reassigned to a dark and dangerous ... See full summary »
Kristin Scott Thomas,
The hero is a retired army officer in the period of transition in Romania from the Communist rule to democracy. As many aged people during these times he loses a lot in position and ... See full summary »
The film is an adaptation of a novel by Marin Preda, a controversial novelist who died during the Communist rule soon after the book was published. It tells the story of an intellectual, ... See full summary »
A small world of bourgeois intrigues and frivolities lived with intensity by its own protagonists: Pampon's lover, Didina is in love with the barber Nae, who is Mitza's lover, while she is Cracanel's lover. One letter starts the ball rolling and ugly characters start revealing themselves in a burlesque-like fashion. Written by
The basic value of this movie is rather conjectural than intrinsic. It acquired a mythical subversive quality, simply because the communist censorship of Romania brutally and unfairly banned it (going to such lenghts as even locking all the copies into a safe, where they stayed until the 1989 Revolution). In truth, the movie had nothing subversive, being only too brutal, misanthropic, naturalist and frivolous for the communists' taste. Pintilie's main (and childish!) mistake was to bring to open an essential dimension of Caragiale's satire that consisted in SUBTLETY. The great playwright's pieces seem to depict a vaudeville-like reality, in an innocuous and harmless comedy style - being based, in truth, on a very profound critical vision to the most essential vices and fallacies of human nature. Tempted by a shallow ambition to shock the sanctimonious communist censors, Pintilie raised this implicit element to a violently explicit level. Well, what he sought, he got! At a professional level, the movie is extremely in-equal, combining a really valuable stage heritage (powerful characters, exquisite performances, atrocious humor), with a totally amateurish movie-directing. Without any legitimate reason, it compiles onto the main play's storyline several other alien subjects from various short stories, thus becoming chaotic, messy and over-the-top. The mise-en-scene is usually skillfully conducted (Pintilie being a good theater director), but compromised by too many awkwardly framed and timed shots. Towards the end, everything becomes redundant, over-lenghtened and boring... And the final shot is a complete failure: without any aesthetic justification, Pintilie takes an auctorial distance, including in the picture his own camera-crew (only as a cheap and tacky trick), and himself, with the parting-shot: "Let them die stupid!" Such an attitude towards his own characters, by turning the critical distance into petty wickedness, is intolerably unprofessional.
9 of 31 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?