Wednesday, October 17, 2007

"On the Circuit": 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days

By Keith Uhlich

Screened at the 45th New York Film Festival.

[Editor's Note: "On The Circuit" is a joint production of The House Next Door and Zoom In Online. For news, events, training, and other points of interest to the creative community, please visit Zoom In Online by clicking here.]

It's easy to see why so many are impressed by 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days, Romanian writer/director Cristian Mungiu's much-lauded Cannes prizewinner. In telling the period tale of Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) and her pregnant friend Gabita (Laura Vasiliu), two women seeking a clandestine and illegal abortion during the twilight years of the oppressive Nicolae Ceausescu regime, Mungiu and cinematographer Oleg Mutu offer up an immediately riveting extended take aesthetic (single shots -- both static and tracking -- held long past the emotional breaking point) that makes the proceedings unfold like a controlled, virtually real-time nightmare. Mungiu's technical choices (the film takes place over the course of a single day and grippingly feels it) and the fierce commitment of his cast are so impressive in the moment that they near-completely obscure the hollowness at the film's center; if we were to measure movies solely by immediate experience, 4 months would be, most decidedly, a masterpiece.

Yet retrospect forces a more temperate and considered view, for 4 months' heavily practiced mise en scène (by Mungiu's own admission it was repeatedly drilled and rehearsed -- as it turns out, to within an inch of its life) finally emphasizes a deep disconnect between form and meaning. The technique is precise, the significance muddled. At worst, the film comes off as a depressive, roller-coaster advertisement of olden times (call it Eastern bloc chic), one that no doubt appeals to the prides and prejudices of a Western audience longing for a nouvelle vague to call their own. That the present claims for a Romanian New Wave are most often based on the lone (and very deserving) merits of three exports (The Death of Mr. Lazarescu; 12:08 East of Bucharest; and 4 months) speaks to a particularly officious kind of ignorance -- that we'd wish this country's cinema to come to us so easily pre-packaged and categorized, freeing us of the necessary burden of personal inquiry and introspection, suggests that the lessons of the Cold War past (and many more pasts beside) have yet to take collective root.

Such is the often large gap that separates intention from action (not to mention personal reaction): as I was to learn in a very rewarding interview I conducted with Mungiu, he views 4 months as a more implicit reflection of his twenties, an allegory for a generation of Romanians who came of age during the last years of Communism. This is most apparent during a brilliantly executed dinner scene where Otilia, centered in the frame, sits silently for almost ten minutes as her boyfriend's family converses around her. The topics range from mundane, everyday chit-chat to heated political discourse, yet Mungiu forces us to focus on Otilia whose near-inscrutable reactions (so subtle they barely register as even a twitch) are clearly meant to play as a profound summation of character and milieu.

Yet despite Mungiu's intimate knowledge of time and place, his work here comes off as chilly and hermetic, unenlightening beyond the film's admittedly strong and effective surface. The deal-breaker is 4 months' final scene, in which Otilia and Gabita meet in a hotel restaurant and agree to never again speak of the day's events. The sudden attempt at reflective moral quandary (as if the final scene of Pauline at the Beach was somehow appended to the climactic reel of United 93) makes for an ill fit with the incident-obsessed, experiential narrative that precedes it. Moreso, I just don't buy the film's pervasive mood of miserabilism -- there's little resonant sense of Otilia and Gabita's lives outside this day, and so they come off as constructs in decided lack of a soul, prey to the agonized whims and notions of Mungiu's historical fiction. Strange to long for the humorous undercurrents of the no less despondent Lazarescu and Bucharest, but perhaps making sense of the red specter requires just such a penetrating mix of solemnity and absurdity.
___________________________________________
Keith Uhlich is co-editor of The House Next Door and a contributor to various print and online publications.

15 comments:

nathaniel said...

Also, maybe people might want to take a look at something like Pintilie's The Oak for valuable contrast and enlargement of thematic accomplishment. In fact, I don't understand why all this recent emphasis on Romania has not brought appreciation of Pintilie's collective accomplishments more to the surface.

alsolikelife said...

Keith, as you probably know, I found this to be a very powerful film, arguably my favorite that I saw at TIFF (and NYFF by proxy). The overall impression I get from reading your review is that you find the film overly calculated and consisting more of dramatically dour posturing than substance. Funnily enough, when it came to MR. LAZARESCU a friend of mine had the same disbelieving criticism of that film, finding it ruthlessly misanthropic, incredulous to the possibility that hospitals could be so inhumane to a patient. Well guess what...

Getting back to the film in question, I found it to be powerfully committed to its characters and the world it represents, a Kafka-esque communist culture whose numbing bureaucracies with everyone meddling in everyone else's affairs can still be found in countries in the former Soviet bloc, China, etc. Perhaps compared to the Dardennes brothers (whose in-the-moment aesthetic this film resembles to some extent), Mingiu lacks soul or a hint of transcendence offered to his characters, but I think he earns that worldview, because it is rooted in something genuine. I'd argue that there's a difference between stark realism and wallowing miserablism, and Mingiu shades towards the former.

I think this line deserves some unpacking: "At worst, the film comes off as a depressive, roller-coaster advertisement of olden times (call it Eastern bloc chic), one that no doubt appeals to the prides and prejudices of a Western audience longing for a nouvelle vague to call their own." Far be it for me to declare a major artistic movement on the strength of three films (and I wasn't particularly impressed by the overly static, one-joke nature of 12:08 EAST OF BUCHAREST), but my love of this film has no relation with an urge to stake a claim for a cinematic vanguard. It's just a damn good movie. Besides the mumblecore people seem to have taken the lead on hyping that effort, at least for this year.

I think this film leaves you with a lot to think about, particularly in regard to the plasticity of human values -- the cost in time, money and personal dignity that one little procedure demands of two women -- you may compare it unfavorably to Pauline at the Beach tagged by United 93, but to me it was like an Abbas Kiarostami abortion movie shot by the Dardennes, though in the place of transcendence, there is a poignant sense of inner transformation, bitter but resilient. (The film's battered but unbeaten sense of feminism probably has more in common with mid-80s James Cameron than anyone I can think of.) And like a great Kiarostami movie, you can glean a wealth of incidental information from the prattling dialogues detailing the way people lived at this particular time and place; this I think is what will prevail beyond the suspense plot over repeat viewings.

Anonymous said...

sadly, keith's review does not accept the terms of the film as valid, instead he contrives a set of values and arbitrary notions and applies them to the film. i doubt you'll see this comment keith, but if you do, please consider reading Swift's Essay on Criticism. it's a great reminder of the critic's role and obligations. Swift was a brilliant writer, his insights are as applicable today as they were in the 18th century when he wrote them.

Keith Uhlich said...

I think you mean Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism", yes Anonymous?

Accessible here at Project Gutenberg.

Anonymous said...

yes, pope's i wrote Swift to see if anyone would notice and correct. a lame ploy, but i'm busy writing a script for my next film. my previous one was well reviewed but that is all i will say about it.

Anonymous said...

no word on whether you've gotten around to Pope's essay. do you consider it a worthwhile use of time? something you might benefit from periodically revisiting? just curious, not busting nuts. i have several things i revisit periodically.

Keith Uhlich said...

no word on whether you've gotten around to Pope's essay. do you consider it a worthwhile use of time?

Absolutely.

something you might benefit from periodically revisiting?

Time will tell...

Keith Uhlich said...

And one clarification in light of alsolikelife's response: I'm not in any way incredulous to the possibility that the Ceaucescu regime was oppressive and hellish. No doubt it was -- more than my imaginings of the period could possibly conceive.

My point is that I personally don't buy Mungiu's own depiction of that period -- and I do think "buy" is a key term here, and not just because Mungiu has a background in advertising. 4 Months, to my eyes, is selling a vision of depression (physical, emotional, political, etc) that feels entirely false to me, calculated and punishing, at worst exploiting a dark period in world history for crude effect: from hereon in, I'm no longer being facetious when I say 4 Months strikes me as the "art-house" version of Cloverfield.

Finally, as regards my view of a critic's role and obligation: he must first and foremost be himself; must express his opinion with intelligence, insight and passion; must stand by that opinion even in the face of an (often anonymously rendered) contrarian maelstrom; must acknowledge that each piece, far from being definitive, merely marks a moment in his own ever-evolving development; must humbly submit (as I do implicitly in all my pieces, and explicitly here) that one's thoughts and opinions mutate and change over time; and must allow all others, from all walks of life -- within certain individually set, case-by-case limits -- to have their say as well (I have no provenance over any consciousness but my own).

Steven Boone said...

Keith, I am always suspect of filmmakers who cut their teeth selling Coca-Cola or whatever, but the issue of whether Mungiu was being true to life under Ceaucescu didn't trouble me in watching this film. I was too busy marvelling at how accurate it is to the sensation of starving in the midst of plenty. Trust me, I know all about that there. The surreality when the only noise louder than your stomach growling is the laughter and cheer of others close by, living it up. I just want to see/make a movie that captures the romance and adventure of this life as well. It's not all abortions and bad times down here.

Marmorosblanc said...

Keith,

May I inquire: on what grounds you profess your disbelief regarding Mungiu's vision on the last years of Ceausescu's regime? I was living in Romania during those times, and although I was only 12 in 1989, when Ceausescu was ousted, I have strong and horrendous recollections of that period. While watching the film with my wife, we were both struck (and appalled) by the precise realism of the interpersonal and societal dynamics portrayed in 432. To me, and, I'm positive, to many Romanians who lived through the terminal stage of the communist regime in Romania, the movie's atmosphere is not over-calculated but utterly and unbearably realistic - photographically so.

Anonymous said...

I second marmorosblanc's remarks (and question - which, by the way, is left unanswered for some time). I am also a Romanian, and i was the same age as the movie's two main characters around the time when the action happens. The movie doesn't exaggerate at all; that depression that you're not... buying is entirely accurate (in all of its instances).
Perhaps the critic's greatest asset is the thorough understanding of the subject he is on about.

Anonymous said...

Keith wrote: Finally, as regards my view of a critic's role and obligation: he must first and foremost be himself;

Well Keith, you managed to be yourself in this piece; narrow minded, nay, ignorant as marmorosblank points out... except he is nicer to you than I can be. It is your kind of ignorance disguised as "intellectual objectivity" that makes regimes like Ceausescu's (and Hitler's or Lenin/Stalin's too) come about and survive. No more and no less.

John S said...

I agree with you about 432 and Cloverfield, although my first thought was that 432 was a tony zombie movie. And what of it?

Are you saying that you don't think Cloverfield is a historically accurate portrait of the way many New Yorkers feel today and of the lives they lead? Because it was certainly intended to be one, allegorically, and I think that it's successful - up to and including our ambivalence toward the characters' deaths.

For that matter, has it occurred to you that, like many recent "historical" films, 432 is also partially intended as an allegory about how we live today? Like a George Romero zombie movie, its true subject is a world without cartoon oppression, but with equal amounts of cruelty and indifference. In that sense, I think 432 is an accurate portrayal of the present-day West. I know the movie painfully reminded me of a lot of interactions I have with people on the sreets of Oregon every day.

rob humanick said...

This is technically very late, but I digress...

Christ, it doesn't matter who you are, an online critic or Steven Spielberg: touch on an issue -- or rather, as regards movies, a singular representation of or idea about an issue -- and you're going to have monkeys climbing down your throat accusing you of ignorance and malice towards whatever group feels they have been slighted.

If Keith thinks a representation is false, he's speaking (at least, from my perspective) in emotional terms, how it relates to the viewer (i.e. him) and what it imparts.

In layman's terms, how I've always taken this particular kind of disapproval - be it Kieth's reviews of United 93, Cloverfield or 4,3,2 - is that simply recreating depression or terror is by no means understanding it or coming to terms with it. If you disagree, go into the hows and whys; don't fucking accuse the man of supporting evil (I'm talking to you, Mr. anonymous 3/03/2008 11:27 AM). I believe film to be a medium capable of great change, but as regards comments like this -- it's. A. Film. If Keith came out and said, "Oh, I'm sure the Holocaust wasn't all that bad," then you could get your panties in a bundle. Cloverfield, too, may be a perfect representation of what NYC life is like today. That doesn't mean he - a city resident since well before 9/11 - has to bow down and worship it for successful mimicry.

As it is now, it's a personal response to a film, so will you all please shut up until - to quote one such irritant - you have a more "thorough understanding of the subject [you are] on about."

rob humanick said...

Now for my own thoughts.

Finally watched this last night. I too prefer LAZARESCU at this point, but I was impressed - to a point. Those long shots and performances are amazing, but I too had the sense that it was all for show, even if not deliberately. I sense a similarity between Keith's feelings on this film and CHILDREN OF MEN, another film I respect without finding myself able to love. 4,3,2 never implicated me as much as I'd have liked (all those hanging shots that watch the characters go off into the distance seem deliberately distancing, though I'm not sure such is a wise decision here), never made the displays more than just that. Does that acknowledge human suffering in a very real and potent way? Absolutely. But anyone can do that -- even if Mungi deserves applause for his craft and mastery. My favorite scene is that excruciating dinner sequence; the sex-as-money exchange just felt phony - as if this wannabe friendly guy about trust and helping the girls out would just whip it out in place of the remaining doe.

Ironically (I think), I wish more of the film had the tone of the final scene, especially the fourth-wall break before cutting to black. Something about that stare was devastating, and this is a film I absolutely want to revisit if only to better articulate what I feel is missing from it.

Now, I'm going to go make a film about how much it sucks to live in America right now, and then insult anyone who thinks my representations are in any way inaccurate. After all, it's that kind of intellectual objectivity that allows dictators like Dubya Junior to come about and survive...