This week the IFI Cinema in Dublin is showing “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days“, a Cannes acclaimed film by Romanian director Cristian Mungiu.
I saw the film myself, and while I liked it a lot, I can definitely say it is not for the faint hearted.
Not sure as well how much of the underlying drama can most westerners understand, as the whole movie is basically a snapshot of the life and drama of two student girls in the 1987 Romania, under communist rule. For the person unfamiliar with the Romanian background at the time, the movie will simply seem Kafkian and bleak, the atmosphere crowded, and some of the actions of the characters - insane or impossible to understand. The film does not give any explanation of the social background in those dark days, it has a story to tell, and the director does not want to draw a conclusion, leaving it to the viewer. However, no scene in the film is useless, everything is there for a reason. I think for a person who never experienced life under communism, the film might lose a lot of its value.
Some things - off the top of my head that I think one should know about before watching the movie:
- abortion (and contraception) were illegal in communist Romania - due to the grand plan of Ceasescu to increase the population
- good coffee, and foreign cigarettes were very hard to find, only available on the black market, and usually sold by foreigners living in the country, who were allowed to buy from certain shops that only sold goods in foreign currency, dedicated for tourists or foreign people. That explains the fact that Otilia (one of the main characters) is buying Assos cigarettes from a Palestinian student living in the same hostel (you can see the palestinian flag on the wall behind him in his room).
- because of the scarcity of these items (good coffee and cigarettes), they were commonly used as presents, ways to soften the mood of people you needed help from (bribes, to be blunt).
- communism tried to eliminate class distinctions. This led to opposite reactions from the people, who instead put a lot of emphasis on their social status (When Otilia goes to visit her boyfriend’s family, the host introduces all the guests to her, carefully mentioning the “title” of each - professor, doctor, and so on).
- sexual education was taboo and matters of sexuality were seldomly discussed, and using only carefully chosen, euphemistic language. This can be seen in the conversation between Otilia and her boyfriend, while in his room at his parents’ house.
I will stop here, hoping that the above was at least a bit useful for potential western viewers. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. If you have not seen the film, and are more a Cannes kind of person, than a Hollywood blockbuster type, go see it - I highly recommend it. This is a link to the trailer, if interested.
