LiterNet Agenda / Bogdan Borelliano: Horror Film: Running …

Any experience advertised as such excites/incites/excites. what or what Be so, sir! Tired of outdated forms, commercial cliches, habits or neuroses … and cinema, poor thing, feels stifling. If reality is hard to capture and fix in cognition and collective memory super saturated, Sometimes it’s a little arched, and lately – fickle in its pretensions What is it Make up for the rush to novelty at all costs…we renew. Or at least we try, comrades. And if the relevant news is difficult to approach or digest … well, if it tastes or Changed (let’s say no more!) The audience is looking Breaking news And other cheap feelings that We Invited disintegration of interest and We Invited It numbs, relatively, the superficial, the fun, and a little content-requirement (gently said), you say it commoner’s flute What did you do… this Situation: you take it after a cherry tree or a bell, through ragweed and other flowering herbs, you bang your head against the walls … and also strike the hour of death, to bring out the damn thing there: not just what Unavailable Never seen in Paris or Berio, not to mention the ruminant generation popcorn (That’s not hard, given the near-generalized ignorance that haunts a culture diamond Based on Mall), but also easy to understand by the same audience.

And in the cinema, investment financing depends on the attractive power of the future product: goal, influence, marketing – the latter is not necessarily honest, only for effect. Or, Sacred Experience has the knack of bringing… the gift (in our case, the money from the National Film Center). The simpler the technical formula (shooting locations, cast, costumes), the easier it is to fill in the financial corrections. In the end – one of two: it either “goes out”, then it’s good. or “doesn’t work” and we stay with the innovative experience, searching for new forms of expression, while striving against routine (ie, “old-fashioned”, outdated, dusty, etc. films). And how those attempts to break the mouth of a fair pass, often, as if Will be Done, the place is left open to free spirits, who continue to research…research…and innovate again.

In the case of this product with Ceaușescu-n Queue, the buildings were (as Ms. Lavinia Petya, a specialist in history psychology, happily said) “on the edge of a knife.” The idea of ​​mixing a documentary with some novels is tempting. Especially since in the past few years, more and more documentaries are using actors and theater beautifully, even if they are not always compatible with the documentary. The audience should be drawn to the historical theme, i.e. “serious”, and then sprinkled with taste enhancers. (This is how we see Napoleon, Queen Victoria or even Jesus Christ, first of all charismatic and beautiful, and only then be credible.) The reverse recipe is also not neglected: the last Elvis He imagines with self-confidence, but intervenes in the speech with enough documentary elements that explain the character and his era, while respecting tradition.

After a gruesome success at the end of “The Abominable Ceaușescu and His Wicked Wife”, signed by Sergiu Nicolaescu (Scratch), the character’s approach was left more to historians – some more serious, others more… interested in private pensions or limited press channels. At school, textbooks are avoided, pudibond nationalists To approach Scorniceștean. He does, however, with exaggeration Social mediaWhere you don’t get tired of deceptive, false and incompetent advertising From Glorified, with Burebista, Decebalus, Mircea the Great, Stephen the Greatest and Saint, not to mention the famous Boboli of the immortal Coruț.

Thus, the legendary character grows and swells in the uneducated imagination of the population thirsty for it Super heros, But it is indifferent and even hostile often to historical truth. As Professor Dumitru Boron said, we don’t just live in the era Postmodernism , but really After the fact.

On these two coordinates (destruction and falsehood sanctioned democratically, through the faith and will of the majority) Sebastian Mihelescu builds his bold cinematic approach. “I have sought to find out how these young people understand the truth of Nicolae Ceausescu,” And the Justify the director’s animated intentions. Yes … an interesting curiosity. Although the task of sociologists and historians will primarily be to observe and possibly identify these acts of cognition and understanding. Youth.. which youth? Selected sample on what criteria? a Pour first in one Second, we get to the core of the totally unrestrained (of the generation) terrible performers Self) who were asked to do only what they feel and how they feel. The erotic pretext – deciphering the character of Ceaușescu through the prism of some biographical data that is presented to them so and so It would predispose to the epistemological process of information, evaluation (perhaps comprehension – but I have major reservations here) and the formation of an opinion about myth in the multilateral process of enlightenment. A group of immature but playful young men, who are not at all bound on any personal responsibility, but even prone to frolic, are called to perform (please, word comes…). Expressing opinions (national sport by the way) amuses them and gives them courage. They laugh relaxed and so happy that they have become not only movie actors but also character(s) who have something to say. How do I do it and what are the results…? They do it on a level that’s perhaps amusing, but – for someone like me – they worry about the stupid conclusions they’ve reached without caring. Enjoy freedom of expression in this (let them Let’s say) the creative lab highlights some qualities (some humour, apathy, a playful spirit – even if they’ve never heard of such a thing, I’m convinced) among others in generations: superficiality, imitation, infatuation, ignorance; Spilled mixture can be on screen tragic. Actually funny a Primarily, then dramatically…and so on, if you think about perspective. Freedom of expression – the most precious gift Romanians received after December 22, 1989 – today, through their unfettered words and behavior, constitute serious causes for concern. The director was interested in knowing how his clients saw him, pseudo artists Sometimes, the legendary and hero nea Nicu? Discover. We are with him. And the news does not bring optimism at all (but not at all!). exactly the contrary.

release in the arealaissez faire, laissez passer‘, The new heroes show us how any of them can be a new Ceaușescu. It’s the only illustration that we Film processing. The choppy mosaic recipe reminds us in some way take off / take off The movie Milos Foreman exposed America. ask him In front of the mirror in the late 1960s (No that they then thought or I was offended and today the same America … as it is; what do you mean by that Takes to caution). Even here too. Reminder (for public intellectuals) in Reconstruction To Pintilie (a movie that was also made at the end of the 1960s) brings a dash of continuity…just upside down. Because Pintilie succeeded in discrediting and blaming communist education with the cinema used as a propaganda hammer. Here, the vector itself is turned upside down: the heroes of the story were not just imagined, but released. They no longer need a screenwriter to tell them n . mode In the words of anomalous concepts of art theory that passed under the cover of the militia: “Mi I do what it was. exactly! Yes, do not pretend! Did you break the glass? break glass Did you break the soda? break it accompany me! “.No restrictions or inhibitions, vortex of certainty fillers, heroes who play subordinate Ceaușescu extracts the same follies from the well of personal thought: “The director’s role is the audience in front of the screen.” Also the university mrs. Lavinia Petya, from Takes Even sympathetically, he told me that in the “nature” shown and without makeup, their level would still be above average, for most students What’s Next Obtaining diplomas from national universities.

Of course, the high audience – invited to the official premiere, which filled the hall at the Museum of the Roman Peasant – and moviegoers – also had a great time; But laughter still explodes at the famous and frivolous clichés with plm or “that” a sit me I, more stubborn, think he must be anxious. Because Mihăilescu’s attempt – is very long, in terms of duration, which allowed repetition without anything in favor of the film, which And the The length of the medium feature would have been sufficient – it highlighted the disturbing possibility of flattery and imitating Ceausescu. This is no laughing matter! It’s terrible.

Director: Sebastian Mihailescu with: Denis Duma, Dan Hodechi, Ionui Amador Mutoi, Mario Sandrino Rodolescu, Mihai Topalov, Christiana Alexandra George, Christina Barancia, Aline Elie Gregor, Zhang Florin Quan

Leave a Comment