astept d la cei kre au citit &
inteles ideile articolului meu sa-mi impartaseask opiniile lor; in the meantime, imi face o deosebita placere sa postez interviul kre mi s-a luat & kre va aparea la ny, in preajma marii retrospective a filmului ro d la lincoln center... :happy:
1. Is the explosion of high quality and brutally honest Romanian cinema a
surprising and previously unpredictable phenomenon or is it a movement that has been evolving slowly since before the 1989 revolution?
Whenever i am asked to describe the evolution of the
Romanian cinema after 1990 i find it useful to
separate it in 2 distinctive moments: from 1990 to
2001 and from 2001 to the present. Why 2001 (the first
year of the 21st century, by the way)? Because that
year, Cristi Puiu made his discreetly-released, but
groundbreaking, time-changing debut with 'Stuff &
Dough' (hence, my joke about dividing Romanian cinema
between an era BCP (= before Cristi Puiu) and AM (Anno
Mungii)!
). Up to that moment, Romanian cinema had
been struggling, fiercely, to find its voice, only to
find that that particular voice was too shrill -
honestly hysterical (about the state of things in
Romanian society), but aesthetically loud...
The 'minimalists' sort of lowered the volume to the
minimum; their films (almost as inspired by real life
as those before them, but fortunately devoid of the
flawed, flamboyant rhetoric which accompanied those)
cut to the core - both ethically & stylistically. The
'quest for Truth' had finally found its way - to put
it in the bombastic, BCP-style. Or (in the minimalist
mode): Yes, it was surprising. Yes, it was
unpredictable. And no one saw it coming.
>
2. What does this film festival say about how far Romania has come in
confronting the ghosts of its past? Is it painful, therapeutic, or comical
(or a combination) for Romanians to see their Communist past relived on the screen?
I guess it's definitely painful, it should be
therapeutical and, come to think of it, it is (not) so
comical. The Romanians do NOT want to 'see their
Communist past' on the screen; they would rather see
ANY other past than theirs relived on the big screen,
in big historical epic movies... Putting these two
moments of Romanian cinema face to face (although back
to back is more appropriate) is something
unprecedented - a useful experiment in collective
therapy (& hopefully, exorcism). My guess is the
Romanian expats will hype the films from THEIR past &
deride those from a present which is no longer theirs.
'Confronting the ghosts' is a tough job which requires
guts - and it takes a long time to find ALL the ghosts
and bring them alive on the screen. And then at the
end of the day, many people might not even want to
confront them: they have their own 'skeletons in the
cupboard' rattling up there - why would they like to
hear them rattle 'minimalistically' on the soundtrack
of some dark, desperate movie?!
>
3. How do Romanians react to the recent positive attention and acclaim given to their country's new status as a powerhouse film culture and one that is redefining cinema? How has the attention helped the country?
I think they tend to see it more in terms of image -
hence, a PR thing. Mungiu's Palme d'Or spelled out
'success' in capital letters, but it was irrelevant
that that success happened in cinema rather than in
soccer or fashion... They don't care much about
cinema; and some - prone to 'ghosts of the past'
whispering that 'everything is arranged in high
places' (the conspiracy theories are a Romanian
'specialty') - will go to great lengths explaining
that this unprecedented success is the result of our
EU accession!! The conspiracy theorists have an answer
to everything, don't they?
>
4. What has the traditional role of cinema been in Romanian society, say,
before 1989? And what is its role today? How has the filmmaker's relationship with his audience changed over the decades?
It was a popular art, to be sure - but definitely
relegated by the cultural establishment towards the
margin. It was also a powerful tool of propaganda
(even comedies were being ideological back then!) and,
whether people were aware of that or not, they still
enjoyed going to the movies to watch those historical
action flicks directed by Sergiu Nicolaescu - the
Romanian Cecil B. De Mille who occasionally played in
his own films...
I think movies, as collective entertainment, take a
break in Romania nowadays. The audience has become the
audienceS - 'target-groups' with specific needs, likes
& dislikes. The young (the most mobile age-group in
moviegoing) are engaged in a lot of 'occupational
piracy', downloading freely from the internet, the
middle-aged are too busy & too tired to go out & see a
movie, while the elderly are too poor, so they prefer
to stay at home in front of their tvs. They would
still make it to the cinemas, provided they saw the
same kind of mindless entertainment they get on tv -
on the big screen! They have been, i'm afraid,
hopelessly formatted by Hollywood movies & Hollywood
movies seen on tv. And the 'minimalists' (who are, in
fact, bona fide 'neorealists'!) don't make things easy
for them - with their gloomy mix of angst, poverty &
sadness. They 'portray the truth', but people don't
want truth, they want entertainment. These films
alienate them.
>
5. How were the films for this festival chosen? What common thread do they all share? What cultural and political statements are being made by their collective screening?
These are questions for Richard Pena, i think...?
But i would like to add, nevertheless, that i find his
selection extremely well-balanced, subtly
encompassing, bold and nuanced at the same time. It's
an unprecedented showcase of style and substance, for
which lauds are obligatory. Plus - it's a critic's
choice, so it's bound to be very good!
>
6. What do you hope that the festival will achieve with its American
audience?
The ultimate proof that Romanian cinema existed before
Cristi Puiu & Co.