"California dreamin' (nesfarsit)"

[Airlight]

Doua ore si douazeci de minute.

[StefanDo]

durata de pe pagina filmului e verificata la distribuitor: 155 de minute

[Airlight]

Ati pus si genericul, shefu'...

[M0n0]

Eu o am asa...
CD1 - 1:16
CD2 - 1:19
Da, is piratate, e un dvd-scr.
Includ genericul de final si in cd-u 2 mai se mai repeta cateva minute din primu...
Si al meu are si traducere in engleza...imi place ca si atunci cand vb aia in engleza tot se traduce...tot in engleza...
Cred ca e scr pentru award consideration...cred.

[Airlight]

iesi afara.

[Proletar]

iesi afara.

?

[klein]

vazut California Dreamin. excelent. 9/10.mi-a placut foarte mult. Chiar m-a surprins. nu ma asteptam sa fie atat de bun. am apreciat ca nu a ramas in zona caricaturii, ca a avut profunzime si ca nu a mizat numai pe tragi-comicul peisajului romanesc. au fost momente in care am ras cu lacrimi. spre exemplu la scena cu organizarea sarbatorii satului. (m-am gandit la scurtul lui Hano Hoffer, evident) dar mi dar mi-a placut ca nu s-a limitat numai la genul asta de abordari. foarte inteligent gandit momentul dicursului lui Assante in fata taranilor pe care ii indeamna la revolta. superba povestea de dragoste. un pic cliseizata, dar merge, pica foarte bine, echilibreaza realismul care domina filmul. unele personaje mi s-au parut prea caricaturale: profa de spaniola, spre exepmlu. jucata cam fals. liceenii aia nu prea aratau ca de la tara. destul de citadini in limbaj si referinte culturale. Cu toate astea, detaliile respective nu strica impresia generala asupra filmului.pacat ca nu mai putem vedea si altele.

[PoliFanAthic]

Imi place sa-mi placa filme romanesti. E si normal, nu?

Nu am nici profunzimea, nici minutiozitatea altora de pe aici, nu imi place sa caut si sa descos detalii care nu ies din tiparul obisnuitului.

In acest context, California Dreamin' m-a dezamagit putin; adica mi s-a parut prea lung, taraganat, iar cei cu care am vizionat filmul (straini de origine) au fost de aceeasi parere - ca se putea taia, pe ici, pe colo. De inteles cu totul, considerand circumstantele.

Si asa insa, imi vine greu sa raman profund uimit de potretele autentice facute tarii noastre si oamenilor care o poplueaza. Dintre toate personajele schitate (nu ca ai putea face personaje adevarata din astfel de figuri), doar Doiaru m-a interesat catusi de putin, iar tocmai povestea lui a fost marginalizata in favoarea unor romante ce mi s-au parut neinteresante; adica povesti despre fete si armata am mai vazut, chiar de aceasta se vrea mai deosebita, printr-o maturitata abrupt descoperita. In consecinta, nici personajul Mariei Dinulescu nu m-a interesat in mod aparte, precum nu m-au interesat nici relatiile iscate de acest personaj (raportul dintre ea si Andrei mi-a adus aminte de "Povestea de la Scara C").

Finalul filmului m-a dezamagit cel mai mult, atat de haotic si nesatisfacator mi s-a parut. Parca ultimul sfert de ora/ultima jumatate de ora a fost rupta din alt film, o cadere intr-un absurd ce nu i se potrivea acestei povesti. O solutie ieftina pentru o problema complexa, cumva.

Pur si simplu am simtit ca filmul ma pierde, dupa o ora si putin. Tensiunea nu era canalizata, povestea rupandu-se dinlauntrul ei. Stiu ca suna ca si cum nu mi-ar fi placut deloc filmul si ca poate nu sunt constient de ce inseamna faptul ca el este nefinalizat, dar in realitate sunt nesatisfacut tocmai pentru ca au fost multe momente bune, o prima ora complet deosebita, care apoi...m-a pierdut.

[preda porter]

am vazut filmul a doua oara la cluj...si am avut aceiasi senzatie ca si la proiectia de la bucuresti. ca e un film foarte misto. iar imaginea lui liviu marghidan e super !

[Carmine Galante]

Well, am vazut si eu filmu' asta care nu prea mi-a placut. Nu pot sa zic ca e prost da' nici extraordinar. Nemescu simte nevoia sa-ti scoata ochii cu chestii de genu' sexy club rendez-vous, cersetori in statie de ratb, babe cu galeata pe margine de santz, procesiunea mortuara cu caruta, jeg, maidane, carucioare cu rulmenti de aveam in copilarie, tractoare ruginite, soldati (ai nostri) jerpeliti si peste toate astea turnul Eiffel si Dallasul din Slobozia, copiate de miliardarul de carton Ilie Alexandru. In orice caz acest California Dreamin' nu te face sa te simti bine ca traiesti in tara asta sau ca esti ruman.
Elvisul giganez (Nicky Valoare) loveste din nou, ca si in Marinela de la p7 -
pentru Stana, i love u printeso !
Bref, filmul lui Nemescu e un fel de melanj intre Ajutoare umanitare al lui Hanno Hoffer cu un Gadjo Dilo nereusit din care am aflat ca femeia romana e curva cu C si ca barbatul roman e betiv, lash si prost.
In final taranii se linseaza ca in Senatorul Melcilor iar Doicaru e casapit ca Tanase Scatiu, cu singura diferenta ca mai da si el.

Intreaga poveste pare sa reediteze, la nivel simbolic, "marea putere" a SUA de a elibera pe ORICINE de sub tiranie, sau, macar de a profita de situatie si, sub acest pretext, sa-si vada interesul, la fel ca in Irak, de altfel....

Mda, nota asta adulatoare la adresa americanilor am observato si eu. Ce lasa americanii in urma ? Un sat de prosti care se omoara intre ei si bineinteles focuri de artificii. Irak my ass. Ma indoiesc ca in conditii normale armata SUA ar calatori intr-o Romania rurala cu un personal CFR tras de o locomotiva diesel, asa cum ma indoiesc si de puterea unui amarat de sef de gara de la Capalnita.
Singurul lucru care mai salveaza ceva e chiar sfarsitul atipic pentru un film romanesc, numa' Pintilie crapa capul cu ciocanul protagonistului in final.
5/10

[Alex Leo Serban]

mda, nimic nou p frontu d buftea...

'california...'poate fi vazut (si) k un 'concentrat d romania', k atare 'clisheele' stiute isi gasesc perfect locul. cum ar fi fost k nemescu & voican sa NU includa multe din lucrurile p kre l vdm cu okiu liber? sa 'decupeze' din realitate tot ceea c nu evok 'zgomotul & furia' (& mizeria & duioshia & ridicolul & umorul absurd, grotesc & enorm) kre n definesc - via caragiale & cioran??
pai e simplu: ar fi fost o 'imagine' falsificata! (asta apropo si d acei 2 neuroni singuratici kre au scris in 'rom libera' d cj cea mai idioata 'cronik' la '432' - cf careia filmu ar fi 'dspr' o 'partida d sex in 3' iar mungiu s-ar face 'vinovat' d perpetuarea 'clisheelor' dspr ro lui ceausescu pt k arata... cozi!!)
cre k filmul lui nemescu trebuie asezat NU doar in siajul lui hanno h si al sau (tot mai invocat!) 'ajutoare umanitare' sau 'senatorul melcilor' (astea ar fi referintele la indemina), ci mai ales al 'balantei' lui pintilie - mai precis, al replicii antologice a lui rebengiuc d acolo: 'al mai prost om din lume e americanu!', hahaha!! din ac pdv, finalul lui nemescu (deci nu epilogul!) este exemplar, pt k el precipita - tragic & in toate sensurile vbului 'a precipita'- toate directiile povestii: dupa c au fost 'arestati' in 'gara noastra mik' d ambitzul unui shef local, americanii pleak neintelegind - d fapt - nimik din 'realitatea romaneask' (decit faptu k sintem ospitalieri, iubaretzi & cu mega-orgoliu national + clisheele aferente), iar urgia lasata in urma e luata drept... foc d artificii sarbatoresc! in orice caz, intensitatea acelei explozii din final mi-a adus aminte si d ac moment din 'balanta' in kre nela & mitik sint prinshi la mijloc d manevrele cazone in timp c tocmai s induioshau d inocentza unor vitzei...

reproduc mai jos txtu scris pt 'european alternatives' - o revista f prestigioasa kre s va lansa la londra p 27 iunie; voi fi prezent acolo pt a vbi dspr (noul) cinema ro
n-am stiut unde sa pun ac contributie si mi s-a parut excesiv sa fac un topic special dspr asta, asha k o postez aici; as aprecia k moderatorii sa cenzureze orice invectiva a numitului carmine, kre ar deturna discutia inspre vesnice rafuieli personale...


Stuff & Dough
Alex. Leo Serban

When talking about Romanian Cinema, one should bear in mind a few things:
1. There is no “Romanian School of Cinema”, just some film school;
2. There are no “waves” (old or new), just individuals;
3. There are not many big prizes, just a few (but the situation is changing);
4. There is no money (except for – generally - inept films…)

The “History of Romanian Cinema” would never make a feature – a short, rather. OK, film dictionaries say it all started in 1911 and on a grand scale (the film was called “The War of Independence”, no less), but who are we fooling?!... Only the day before yesterday (that is two years ago, when Cristi Puiu won the “Un certain regard” in Cannes with “The Death of Mr Lazarescu”), we were not even “on the map” – as Peter Greenaway so gracefully put it when invited by the “Anonimul” Independent Film Festival in the Danube Delta: “Romanian cinema does not exist”, he solemnly stated. Well, thank you, Mr Greenaway, but here is some news for you: now it does! It is even a red, pulsating dot on the map of world cinema.
It happened so fast most Romanians are still bewildered. So, here is a short summing up: in 2006, Corneliu Porumboiu won the Golden Camera with his irresistible “12.08 East of Bucharest” in 2006. This year, it was a double win: Cristian Mungiu with “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” (Palme d’Or) and late Cristian Nemescu with “California Dreamin’ (endless)” (the “Un certain regard” main prize). Apart from these, we have to go back as early as 1957 (yes, that’s 50 years ago!) to mention another Palme d’Or (in the shorts competition): Ion Popescu Gopo’s animation “Short History”. In 1965, Liviu Ciulei won the Best Director’s Prize in Cannes with his adaptation of Liviu Rebreanu’s classic novel “The Forest of the Hanged”. And in 2004, Catalin Mitulescu also won the Palme d’Or for his short “Trafic”. These successes are even more surprising since the Romanian participation in Cannes (Venice or Berlin…) was scarce: Lucian Pintilie – the most influential Romanian filmmaker, to whom most young directors owe a huge debt – was present (unfortunately) out of competition with his energy-filled “The Oak” (back in 1991) and in competition with his two subsequent efforts (“An Unforgettable Summer” and “Too Late”) – which didn’t win the favours of the jury… What proved to be “too late” for the unofficially recognized “dean” of Romanian cinema was too early for aspiring directors: the late 90s were more or less lost for them.
But then, immediately after, tiny lights seemed to blink at the end of the tunnel. Films made on a shoe-string or very limited budget (Cristi Puiu’s “Stuff & Dough” in 2001 and Cristian Mungiu’s “Occident” in 2002) were shown in the “Director’s Fortnight” in Cannes and received critical acolades. The former – constantly derailed during its production and very badly distributed locally – was never let to become a hit, whereas the latter opened in Romania to wide public success. These two titles mirror – as in a fable – the two facets of current Romanian cinema. It is torn, symbolically and effectively, between the need for commercial success and the necessity of finding a specific, hopefully personal, way of telling stories. As many of those who work in this business know, this can never be easy.

Puiu (now 40) and Mungiu (39) are highly illustrative for a possible definition of young Romanian cinema, not only because of their – by now – high-profiled authority, but because they represent two stimulative models of serious dedication to the art of filmmaking.
Significantly enough, both come from artistic and intellectual areas which were not cinematic per se from the start: Puiu studied fine arts before taking up film courses (in Switzerland) and Mungiu was a student in British and American literatures before going to film school (in Romania). Both took some time (four years in Puiu’s case and five in Mungiu’s) before directing their second feature. And both share the same patient, unwavering and uncompromising attitude to filmmaking. But there are differences too: Puiu’s scripts were written in collaboration with writer Razvan Radulescu; Mungiu’s are all his own. Puiu’s style is easily recognizable in both “Stuff & Dough” and “The Death of Mr Lazarescu”, whereas Mungiu makes a clear break between “Occident” and “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days”. Quite frankly, someone who saw his grim, almost clinical dissection of “solidarity” in Communist times (in what is now commonly referred to as “432”) would never suspect he is also the author of lighthearted, albeit dramatic, 3-part post-Communist fable in comedic mode that is “Occident”… It is not only his style which changed (needless to say, for the better!); it is his whole conception of cinema.
His debut still bore the marks of Nae Caranfil’s highly entertaining and seminal first feature “E pericoloso sporgersi” (one of the few box-office hits from the early 90s): the same 3-part structure – in which one story is perceived from three points of view -, the same light tone and the same soft look at “grand issues” (from politics to economic to social and family issues) which seems to be shared by many Romanian directors of the same generation (Nae Caranfil is 46 now). Mungiu’s treatment of story – which moved from the late-Communist time of Caranfil’s film to the early years of Capitalist Romania – made justice to the popular call for good comedies: his dialogues sparkled with wit and instant quotes, some visual jokes were quite clever and his twisting & turning of material proved pretty deft. But the acting, although above average, was not even and seemed to rely too heavily - at times – on some actors’ charisma or star-power. The highlights of that, first, feature were the script and the soundtrack (the leitmotif of the highly popular pioneer song “Noi in anul 2000/Cind nu vom mai fi copii…”/”In the year 2000,/When we won’t be kids anymore…” was a hoot among that generation!); but he’s come a long way since then…

Cristi Puiu seems to be responsible for this change, just like Nae Caranfil seemed to “inspire” Mungiu for his first feature. (Interesting trivia: Alexandru Papadopol – who played the main part in Puiu’s “Stuff & Dough” – was the star of “Occident”; but Papadopol (who was good enough in “Occident”) didn’t make his comeback in “432”, his “image” – apparently – hopelessly associated with his many turns in too-many soaps on TV… But then again, who could he have played?!) Puiu – with his ferocious, yet humane eye for the sordid details of post-Communist life in Bucharest – stands tall in all possible discussions about the re-invention of Romanian cinema after 2000.
This re-invention sparkled the imagination of numerous film critics, most of them referring to it as “the New Wave”. It seemed handy enough to coin a term which has already earned its coat of arms c/o French cinema; but apart from that, and the relative value of labelling the “Nouvelle Vague” to young Romanian cinema, it doesn’t mean much.
First, because there was no manifesto, no programme and no theoretical background. The Romanian “New Wave” is not the work of film critics or theoreticians exasperated with the state of Romanian filmmaking, who set out to make a revolution by seizing cameras, dollys etc. and taking to the streets to capture “life”… (I’m not saying this exasperation does not exist; I’m just saying it didn’t go that far - fortunately!) The critics, for the most part, were quick enough to salute this radical change in subject-matter and style – but then again, it would be inaccurate to point out to (only) one trend in young Romanian cinema: if Puiu definitely put his mark on this cinema with his vibrant mix of handheld, cine-verite “slice of life” drama with Cassavetes flavour, there are few similitudes between this harrowing minimalism and Radu Muntean’s more detached, less congestive brand of same (in his haunting, truth-perfect “The Paper Will Be Blue”, a chilling re-enactment of individual drama during the revolution) or Mungiu’s own brand in “432” – emotionally precise, flat-out suspenseful and “classically” controlled. True, the oft-invoked “minimalism” is pretty much in-your-face, but is it really only an aesthetic choice, or (just as much) the “natural” result of working on a low budget? (“432” started out on a tight 590.000 euros! Would his film have looked different if he benefitted from a higher budget? – I asked Mungiu during his first press conference in Bucharest after the award. “No”, he replied dryly; it is just that more money would have gone to the people who worked on the film – and who were underpaid…)
Not everybody is “in the minimalist mode”, though: in June, at the “Transilvania” International Film Festival, Nae Caranfil premiered his ambitious, sprawling period-piece “The Rest is Silence” – a project long in the making (some 10 years) and which already boasts the legend of being “the most expensive Romanian film ever made”! It is so atypical – and atopical: the story of the making of that first Romanian film, 1911’s “The War of Independence” – that many were taken aback… Is Caranfil really “twisting the neck of rhetoric” – the rhetoric of current Romanian cinema – or is he deluding himself? Will crafting a 2 hours-long film, that is programmatically “old fashioned”, pay off? For now, the strategy didn’t pay: the film was rejected at Cannes. It may be that only time will tell, “the rest is silence”…
But neither is Cristian Nemescu’s first – and, unfortunately, last: the director was killed in a taxi crash in August, age 27, together with his sound designer Andrei Toncu – feature, “California Dreamin’ (endless)”, in tune with the said minimalism: unique among his peers for his fresh and playful combination of comedy, drama and teenage fantasies, Nemescu left a body of some 5 shorts and one – this - unfinished feature; he may have found his style in this unprecedented (for Romanian cinema) brand of solid script, good acting, cine-verite and childlike daydreaming – a sort of “magical neorealism”; sadly, time will not tell how he would have evolved…
Close – to a certain extent – to Nemescu’s vision (pruder about the sex, though!) is Catalin Mitulescu’s coproduction (with France) “How I Spent the End of the World”, which premiered at the “Un certain regard” last year. Meant to earn him a bit prize in Cannes – in view of its comparatively big budget and over-ambitious scope: a depiction of the last year of Ceausescu’s reign as seen by a young boy, in a “Good-bye, Lenin” meets Kusturica style -, it only won a prize for lead actress Dorotheea Petre; the “challenger” – who went on to get all the main prizes at every festival in was screened at! – was none other than newcomer Corneliu Porumboiu with his “goofy” dramedy “12.08 East of Bucharest”. Weary of waiting for money from the always-unreliable CNC (National Centre for Cinema), Porumboiu produced the film himself. It proved to be a hit anywhere else – except Romania!

So, what is really the matter with the Romanian public? Why are all the good films produced now – they are not many! – lost on them?
The answer is manyfold. It has to do with money, yes (people prefer to stay at home and watch TV, because it’s cheaper; most films can now be downloaded “freely” from the Internet; and the state of most cinemas is dismal…), but is has a lot to do – also – with the fact that this particular brand of realism (minimalist or otherwise) is keeping them off… Hopelessly formatted by years of American blockbusters, this public would – perhaps – make it to the nearest cinema (if any…), but what it hopes to find there is the same kind of “escapist” production (such as (romantic) comedies, (SF/historical) adventure movies, thrillers etc.) that he or she would enjoy at home. They don’t seem to be interested in cinema as such, but rather by what French critic Serge Daney used to call “objective mythologies”: those planetary stories which capture the “Zeitgeist” and keep everybody tuned up in the comfort of collective wavelength… Yes, I’m talking about movies such as “The Da Vinci Code”; but even that one only managed to attract some 150.000 viewers (Porumboiu’s film made 15.000 entries, which is a proud 10%!)…

As I use to say (half jokingly), Romanian cinema doesn’t need to be lobbied abroad anymore: it needs to be lobbied inside Romania! Maybe Mungiu’s Palme d’Or - which made many Romanians proud to be Romanians – will change that, but for the wrong reasons: it spells out “success story”. The fact that is cinema rather than football or fashion is secondary.
[/i]

[marx]

OK, film dictionaries say it all started in 1911 and on a grand scale (the film was called “The War of Independence”, no less), but who are we fooling?!...

kiar asa, pe cine vrei sa pacalesti?

1. Filmul se numeste "Independenta Romaniei" si nu "Razboiul de Independenta"
2. a fost realizat in 1912, nu in 1911
3. orice dictionar specifica titlul altui PRIM film de fictiune, mai bine ar fi sa te conformezi si tu...

[Alex Leo Serban]

peanuts...

din motive retorice am "comprimat" primul film ro ('amor fatal' din 1911, TOT al lui gr brezeanu!) cu 'independenta ro' (kre este acreditat k 'primul lungmetraj ro'), al carui titlu a trebuit 'explicitat' pt straini: aveam d ales intre 'romania's independence' (kre nu e prea clar, in sensu k nu s stie dspr c 'independence' ar fi vba), 'romania's war of independence' (kre e prea lung) si asta - la kre m-am oprit.

dar ma intereseaza mai putin remarci tipice d soarece d bibliotek si mai mult opinia cuiva kre e-n stare sa get the bigger picture...

[europe_east]

mi-a placut textul, un fel de scurta istorie a cinema-ului recent in RO. desi imi imaginez ca pentru un strain (fie el si cinefil de meserie) toate datele si titlurile ar fi probabil prea mult... mi-a placut insa mai ales ultimul paragraf despre paradoxul lipsei de succes in Ro a filmelor premiate afara. mi-ar fi placut sa citesc mai multe speculatii despre despre chestia asta, plus si niste premonitii despre viitor...

[Alex Leo Serban]

mi-a placut textul, un fel de scurta istorie a cinema-ului recent in RO. desi imi imaginez ca pentru un strain (fie el si cinefil de meserie) toate datele si titlurile ar fi probabil prea mult... mi-a placut insa mai ales ultimul paragraf despre paradoxul lipsei de succes in Ro a filmelor premiate afara. mi-ar fi placut sa citesc mai multe speculatii despre despre chestia asta, plus si niste premonitii despre viitor...

thx europe, yr appreciation really means a lot to me! :love:
'dspr kestia asta' (i. e. insuccesul d public al filmelor 'noului val') m-am tot pronuntat cu diverse prilejuri (in mass-media), asha k mi-a fost tirsha sa ma repet... plus k nu vroiam k txtu sa fie too money-oriented, publicatia fiind mai curind intelectuala.
in privinta 'premonitiilor' c sa zic... ma feresc d ele k dracu d tamiie! tinind cont d c (nu) se-ntimpla in zona cine-administratiei ro (cnc & such), cre k orice predictie e nu un 'walking', ci de-a dreptu un 'running on thin ice!! sincer kiar nu stiu...
adik nici makr nu stiu cum va merge 'restu e tacere' al lui nae c cva imi spune k va merge mai prost k 'filantropik' si k - desi m-as bucura enorm sa fie nominalizat la oscarurile straine - povestea propriu-zisa mi s pare prea complicata pt americani... in plus (asta apropo d publicu autohton) nu e kiar ceea c am crezut - adik un film k o shampanie, bubbling with entertainment -, ci un film f trist, sumbru, aproape funebru (2 inmormintari si o ardere d vie in meniu!); cre k - dk va fi apreciat d masse - filmu lui nae va fi apreciat for the wrong reasons...

ps rog moderatorii, dk considera k ac subiect nu-si are locu aici, sa-i gaseask locu in alta parte; msi

[klein]

si mie mi-a placut textul. in plus e bine scris.
cred ca e un discurs necesar, ca trebuie explicat lumii situatia cinematografiei de la noi. cred ca si scrisul e o modaliate de a aduce in prim planul preocuparilor culturale europene filmul romanesc. si poate cu ocazia acestor premii sa iasa la rampa si crictica, cercetarea si istoria filmului nostru. am remarcat ca de la Lazarescu incoace, multi dintre prietenii mei francezi imi cer filme romanesti. nu conteaza ce, romanesti sa fie. , iar altii vor sa stie cat mai multe despre trecutul productiei de la noi, ba chiar ma roaga sa subtitrez filmele care sunt in versiune originala. sper sa nu deraieze in zona creepy. o sa incerc sa evit promovarea Comisarilor
ps: ar trebui sa fim mutati de aici cu subiectul

[klein]

aa! si mai voiam sa spun ca dupa mine, inceputul acestui fals val e marcat de scurt metrajele alea difuzate acum ..??. ani la Dakino. (adica eu le-am vazut acolo). cred ca unele aparusera inaintea lui "marfa si banii". se simtea de atunci un alt fel de a face cinema.

[StefanDo]

rog moderatorii, dk considera k ac subiect nu-si are locu aici, sa-i gaseask locu in alta parte; msi

isi are si nu-si are locul aici, dar eu unul nu vreau sa fac topic despre Restul e tacere, pentru ca NU mi-a placut filmul

[klein]

cre k filmul lui nemescu trebuie asezat NU doar in siajul lui hanno h si al sau (tot mai invocat!) 'ajutoare umanitare' sau 'senatorul melcilor' (astea ar fi referintele la indemina), ci mai ales al 'balantei' lui pintilie - mai precis, al replicii antologice a lui rebengiuc d acolo: 'al mai prost om din lume e americanu!', hahaha!! din ac pdv, finalul lui nemescu (deci nu epilogul!) este exemplar, pt k el precipita - tragic & in toate sensurile vbului 'a precipita'- toate directiile povestii: dupa c au fost 'arestati' in 'gara noastra mik' d ambitzul unui shef local, americanii pleak neintelegind - d fapt - nimik din 'realitatea romaneask' (decit faptu k sintem ospitalieri, iubaretzi & cu mega-orgoliu national + clisheele aferente), iar urgia lasata in urma e luata drept... foc d artificii sarbatoresc! in orice caz, intensitatea acelei explozii din final mi-a adus aminte si d ac moment din 'balanta' in kre nela & mitik sint prinshi la mijloc d manevrele cazone in timp c tocmai s induioshau d inocentza unor vitzei...

california dreamin-balanta :ce asociere neasteptata!? recunosc ca nu vedeam deloc apropierea intre cele 2. dar nici daca ma gandesc mai mult nu o vad. nu cred ca replica lui rebengiuc spune ceva despre americani, de fapt nu are nici o legatura cu americanii. iar daca americanii nu au inteles mare lucru din realitatile romanesti, cred ca asta spune mai mult despre noi decat despre ei. sau poate nu am inteles eu in ce sens merge apropierea

[gionloc]

adik nici makr nu stiu cum va merge 'restu e tacere' al lui nae c cva imi spune k va merge mai prost k 'filantropik' si k - desi m-as bucura enorm sa fie nominalizat la oscarurile straine - povestea propriu-zisa mi s pare prea complicata pt americani... in plus (asta apropo d publicu autohton) nu e kiar ceea c am crezut - adik un film k o shampanie, bubbling with entertainment -, ci un film f trist, sumbru, aproape funebru (2 inmormintari si o ardere d vie in meniu!); cre k - dk va fi apreciat d masse - filmu lui nae va fi apreciat for the wrong reasons...

textul e bun!
are un bun echilibru intre partea informativa si cea de opinie (critica), e fluid, fara ''valuri'', astfel ca e facila sorbirea lui. de unde si placerea

eu nu is de acord cu als in ceea ce priveste 'restu e tacere'. filmul nu e deloc trist, sumbru.. are note tragice, vezi iesirea Aristitei in fata aparatului de filmat - insa rostul lor e de a scoate spectatorul din cursul comic al povestii, findca, pina la urma, comicul primeaza.
iar scenele tragice au magia inscrisa in gena.

e un comic aparent ieftin pentru contemporaneitate, uneori gagurile se apropie mult de cele din Stan si Bran ca factura - filmarile cu multi figuranti la Independenta Romaniei, de ex., alteori dialogurile pot parea un pic fortate - pina la urma inmormintarile sint doar prilej de birfa, scene din care pot reiesi caracterizari de situatie ale personajelor implicate in istoria de pe ecran... alteori, insa, scenele is pure farime a la Caragiale - generalii veniti sa conduca trupele in reconstituirea luptei, iar acolo ramine doar bucuria de a urmari ecranul.

scena arderii nu face decit sa inchege o realitate determinista, unde totul isi are o ras-plata... poate fi o moralizare subreda, insa, pentru mine, ea este motivata: 'Restul e tacere' e un film facut in zilele noastre, cu mijloacele actuale (de unde si somptuozitatea imaginii! ), insa alcatuirea, scenele aparent frinte, ne-legate, sint specifice unui cinema contemporan epocii despre care filmul vorbeste...

nu imi imaginez ca va prinde cu discursul despre cinema, dar poate ca va cistiga cu verva comica. insa, fiind un proiect realizat la granita dintre teatru (dialoguri, prestatii) si film (punerea in imagini), trebuie ca spectatorul sa intre rapid in conventiile povestii, altfel va pierde tot farmecul!