That's why I maintain a list on the website of my supplier of rented DVDs, the online service zip.ca

I will link most of the movie titles in this blog to imdb.com, for your convenience.

Of course, that's where I get my art cinema from, and concert movies too. I've just had MORE (Pink Floyd), PERSONA (Ingmar Bergman) and Jim Jarmuch's YEAR OF THE HORSE (if you are into air-guitar stuff, get this. Forget Guitar Hero, get a friend and ride the Crazy Horse together).

Every once in a while I look back at the movies I rented in the last 3-4 months, and the feeling is good: they still do 5-star movies. On any scale you would think of, one can find a recently-produced movie to top it.

Here's a sample from my list, hopefully you'll say "Hey, I haven't seen this one, let's check Georgies taste"

I know, these are last year's movies, but I know some of you might have missed them.

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD ( 5 stars out of 5)

• hot, hot, hot sex scene opening the movie (Maria Tomei stars at the receiving end)
• great, rich, life-like acting from Philip Seymour Hoffman. As one comment on IMDB puts it, "severely flawed, broken, manic" I love his character, and his chemistry with Ethan Hawke.
• Sidney Lumet is like in his 80s. He directs the movie like a man who just got a transplant of corrida bull-cojones

EASTERN PROMISES (4/5)

• I thought I closed my catalogue of violent scenes in the movies when I saw "A History of Violence". Nothing would be better than Viggo there. Wrong! Watch Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises, being audited by Tchechen mafia while he is naked in a bath house.
• Speaking of "A History of Violence"... did you savor the sex scene on the stairs? Maria Bello delivers.

3:10 to YUMA (4/5)

• If you thought western movies are not about the hotties....well, that changed. Watch the girls, and then fall for the spell of the thickly-rich story.

432 (4 months, 3 weeks...) - Palme d'Or 2007

• The director is a Romanian guy my age, so his movie accurately depicts the hell I've escaped from. Bye bye Ceausescu, bye-bye Iliescu, bye-bye leftists, adios pro-life activists.

Here's some more from my recent rental history:

• The Darjeeling Limited (Wes Anderson, the guy who also directed Rushmore)
• The Worst Week Of My Life (top-Brit humor in this TV series)
• Good Night, and Good Luck (Clooney directs with style and love)

Any suggestions for a Sunday night movie on DVD?

M-am intrebat:

As fi avut curajul sa apelez la un necunoscut in cazul unui avort ilegal?

As fi putut sa risc si sa pierd atat de mult pentru a ajuta o prietena?

Filmul nu este despre avort. Nu pentru mine, in orice caz! Avortul face parte din poveste, e un motoras, dar nimic mai mult. Nu se discuta o problema morala, nu este nici pro-avort, nici contra-avort. E despre oameni in timpul comunismului, care fac si ei ce pot pentru a isi acorda iluzia unei libertati.

Cele doua fete lupta pentru dreptul de a-si continua viata asa cum isi doresc ele. In mod paradoxal, cea insarcinata, Gabita, este si cea care lupta cel mai putin pentru aceasta intrerupere de sarcina. Cea care isi da mai putin interesul. Cea care accepta sacrificii imense din partea prietenei ei si da la schimb un simplu “mersi”, in loc sa isi ceara iertare. Otilia cea curajoasa este un personaj diametral opus fata de naiva ei prietena.

Otilia este cea care preia initiativa, care umbla singura noaptea pe strazi cu un fetus in geanta, cea care face rezervare la hotel, se cearta cu receptionerele artagoase, cea care face rost de bani sau care ofera altceva in locul banilor-lipsa si cea care il aduce pe villain in scena.

Personajul negativ este Domnul Bebe (ce ironie a numelui!). Sau oare este personaj negativ? Stiu ca atunci cand a intrat in “scena” am simtit de la inceput ca il voi detesta. Dar oare un om care “faciliteaza” avorturile poate fi altfel decat transant, plin de tupeu, obsedat de detalii, suparat cand cerintele lui nu sunt indeplinite?

O spune DL Bebe (Vlad Ivanov) himself: “Pe mine ma aresteaza primul, eu o sa fiu condamnat pentru omor”. Atunci il putem condamna pe acest “adaptat “ la regim ca face tot ce poate pentru a-si salva propria piele? Daca ar fi vorba doar de aceasta dorinta de a nu fi arestat, atunci poate mi-ar putea fi chiar simpatic. Dar Vlad Ivanov il joaca intr-o asemenea maniera, incat simti ceva tarandu-ti-se sub piele. Eu una l-am vazut libidinos, schimbator, cu doua fete. Dar un personaj incredibil, jucat la perfectiune, care te face sa-l urasti cu pasiune.

Una din scenele cele mai interesante este cea de la o aniversare. Adi, iubitul Otiliei, un aparent “Fat-Frumos” care se pregateste sa fie medic, o santajeaza emotional pe fata sa vina la ziua mamei lui (jucata de minunata Luminita Gheorghiu din “Moartea Domnului Lazarescu”). Si sa-i cumpere si gladiole! Iar Otilia, fidela cuvantului dat, reuseste sa strecoare si aceasta petrecere in “programul” ei pentru acea seara.

Experienta se dovedeste a fi benefica pentru ea: ii deschide ochii, ii arata de fapt ce fel de relatie are. Atata timp cat ea apare la bairam fiind tulburata profund, iar el ii reproseaza ca a uitat gladiolele, puteti sa va dati si voi seama.

Scena banchetului este “graitoare” mai ales pentru ca toti am trait-o. Cand am mers la rubedenii in camere minuscule, inghesuiti in jurul unei mese, stand pe scaunele si taburete. Eu una simteam ca timpul se dilata in acele momente, ca este o suferinta mult prea mare de suportat: zgomotul, agitatia, discutiile politice... Iar o fata care traieste o trauma emotionala profunda, cu atat mai mult are o expresie de disperare absoluta.

Mie mi-a placut impartialitatea filmului, constructia asemanatoare cu un film documentar, mi-a placut ca Mungiu nu judeca pe nimeni, nu condamna, nu ridica in slavi. Eu am ales sa fiu de partea Otiliei si sa o dispretuiesc pe Gabita pentru slabiciunea ei. Otilia este genul de personaj care nu are cum sa nu te atinga. Filmul este construit in jurul ei.

In timpul scenelor filmate cu camera de mana, noaptea, prin Bucuresti, am avut senzatia ca ma aflu in spatele ei. Era intuneric, frig, camera tremura iar putinele luminite se vedeau slabe, in fata. Am avut senzatia ca nu am nicio scapare de acolo. Am avut senzatia ca nici ea nu are nicio scapare. Si poate asa si este. Sau a fost atunci.

As vrea sa mai vorbesc si despre controversele iscate pe marginea filmului.

Scena cu fetusul pe podeaua din baie nu mi s-a parut exagerata. Mi s-a parut integrata in contextul filmului ca intreg. Ma intreb de ce nu sar catolicii si atunci cand se sfarteca oameni in Saw?

Am mai citit un comunicat de presa al Asociatiei Provita Media care sustine ca “protejeaza” copiii. Folosind cuvinte “extrem de originale” (uratenie sufleteasca) si limbaj pompos, ei spun ca eroinele filmului “n-au nici o tresarire sufleteasca ce ar putea sa le opreasca de la avort. Pentru asta, ele sunt de acord sa se lase violate si nu se linistesc pana cand fatul de patru luni nu este scos afara din pantecele acelei tinere fete. Actiunea avortarii acestui copil, care se desfasoara de-a lungul întregului film, este redata ca o simpla operatie medicala. Autorii filmului, cu un cinism maxim, dau imaginea copilului ucis pe mozaicul unei bai de hotel, iar aruncarea lui la tomberon are încarcatura unui happy end.”

Puritanismul lives on, indoctrinarile la fel, exista oameni care inca mai au curajul sa vorbeasca despre valori morale in timp ce ei sunt cei mai mari ipocriti. As vrea sa le transmit ca filmul nu spune ca e bine sa avortezi, asta te lasa sa decizi singur, dupa vizionare.

Si as mai vrea sa-i intreb: ei considera ca un copil nascut in bratele unei tinere care nu are cu ce sa-l hraneasca, e data afara de la facultate, nu poate sa se angajeze si il creste intr-o camaruta undeva, pentru ca alta optiune nu are, ei considera ca acest copil ar creste normal si fericit???

Concluzie: Nu m-am dus sa il vad pentru Palmierul de Aur sau orice alta distinctie sau pentru ca au existat scene care au indignat Vaticanul. M-am dus fara sa citesc cronici in prealabil, fara sa am vreo asteptare, fie ea buna sau rea. Duceti-va si voi sa il vedeti si judecati singuri!

Despite being set during the 80's Cristian Mungiu's film has neither the comforting historical distance provided by Mike Leigh's Vera Drake or any overt moralising (on either side of the debate) to provide a barrier. Instead the film maker has opted for a straight-on portrayal of events that leaves (or even forces) the viewer to make up their own mind about the rights and wrongs of the situation.

As a piece of film making 432 is faultless. The direction and script favour a 'less is more' approach that manages to convey a sense of immediacy without simply turning the film into a docu-drama. In keeping with this aesthetic the performances are uniformly unfussy, not to mention excellent.

This is, in many senses, a difficult film. It's combination of a refusal to actively seek allegiances on either side of the emotive subject matter and it's cold, simple cinematography will leave many viewers feeling isolated and somewhat detached but, for myself, it is completely engaging and it's winning of the Palme D'or at Cannes 2007 is indicative of it's high quality.

Of course many people will give it a wide berth purely because of the uncomfortable subject matter. If this applies to you please still take note of the name Cristian Mungiu - this is a director to look out for in the future.

8/10

cast & crew info

trailer

He hablado con varias personas sobre el film. Incluso he leído algunas reseñas en Internet. En ambas situaciones he encontrado favoritismos hacia la historia que se desarrolla y la puesta en escena. Y seguramente tienen la razón, porque en cuestión de gustos todos la tenemos. Yo sólo sé que para mí resultó ser una película tediosa y aburrida.

A pesar de algunos momentos en que la película captaba mi atención por el contenido o el montaje, el film no logró impactarme ni generar esa magia necesaria como para engancharme de principio a fin. Así que sólo dejé que el tiempo pasara y esperé pacientemente que algo sucediera y cambiara el ritmo que llevaba. Al final nunca sucedió y me quedé con ganas de ver la película que proyectaron en la otra sala.

Aunque considero que tengo buen ojo para elegir las películas que veo no puedo negar que a veces se me vuelve miope y me pego unas equivocadas. Sin embargo, esas experiencias también le suman al gusto por el cine. En este arte, como creo que en todos, hay que conocer lo bueno y lo malo para exaltar aún más la belleza de los que la tienen. Al final es así como se crean los puntos de comparación, de lo contrario, sería imposible.

4 luni, 3 saptamini si 2 zile (Cuatro meses, tres semanas, dos días), Rumania, 2007. Dirección y guión: Cristian Mungiu. Producción: Oleg Mutu y Cristian Mungiu. Fotografía: Oleg Mutu. Montaje: Dana Bunescu. Diseño de producción: Mihaela Poenaru. Vestuario: Dana Istrate. Reparto: Anamaria Marinca, Laura Vasiliu, Vlad Ivanov, Alex Potocean, Luminita Gheorghiu, Adi Carauleanu, Madalina Ghitescu, Catalina Harabagiu, Sanziana Tarta, y Mihaela Alexandru.

rumania, fines de los 80. tras 4 meses, 3 semanas y 2 días de estúpida espera, gabita, una joven estudiante de tecnología,  aborta ilegalmente en estéril hotel tras experimentar un festival de horrores, que van desde un “abortero” pasado de verga (vlad ivanov) a una innumerable lista de trabas burocráticas que le impone la dictadura a cada aspecto de la vida cotidiana. la peor parte del viacrucis, sin embargo,  lo sufre su amiga otilia (anamaria marinca, intachable), quien además de pagar con “cuerpomático” parte del aborto de su amiga, debe de deshacerse del feto y cumplir con agobiantes deberes sociales clasemedieros frente a la familia de su machín novio.

4 meses 3 semanas y 2 días, de cristian mungiu, es una cinta notable en su exactitud narrativa; una morality tale ultra redonda donde todo es más complicado de lo que podría suponerse inicialmente:  la embarazada es una tipa que, sea por pendejez, sea para no asumir culpas, transfiere tardíamente la toma de decisiones de los procesos que implica su aborto a otilia; la disposición fraternal de otilia es harto cuestionable  en su martirio (¿acaso el ser cómplice de la pendejez de su amiga no justifica su incapacidad de luchar contra un sistema que se beneficia de  la complacencia dizque solidaria y la falta de ímpetu insurreccional?); el abortero “sr.” bebe  es un monstruo –el único personaje no pasivo de la cinta, todo un depredador--, pero una presencia  necesaria en la rumania de ceausescu donde el embarazo equivalía a la muerte social en términos de superación; la familia del novio es menos ilustrada y más calculadora de lo que se ve; la extrema vigilancia de la burocracia autoritaria termina por engendrar complejos laberintos donde la corrupción sirve como aceite para que fluya la maquinaria del país,  y  hasta la misma estructura narrativa, en apariencia simple, in your face  y “más real que la vida misma”, resulta ser un andamiaje  sumamente planificado  y ajeno a cualquier sentido de explotación (el logradísimo plano secuencia donde otilia soporta el agobio de fumarse la fiesta familiar, así como la angustiante secuencia nocturna para deshacerse del feto tienen que ser, forzosamente, fruto de numerosos ensayos) .

la cinta carece de epifanías inmersivas y genera distancia frente a cualquier enajenación sentimental, lo que redunda en que sea una cinta más admirable que disfrutable.  el film de mungiu -- junto con trabajos de los hermanos dardenne, su compatriota  cristi puiu (la muerte del sr. lazarescu) y hasta lilya 4ever, del sueco  lukas moodyson  --, es una de las expresiones más acabadas de un cine europeo directo de cámara en mano que se ha abocado a abordar con frialdad y distancia duras temáticas sociales en los últimos 10 años.  no sé si esta sea la clase de cine que celebraremos en las décadas por venir, en verdad no lo sé, pero hoy vale la pena dejarse llevar por  su influencia.  

p.d. y si no celebráramos este neorrealismo europeo posmo, por lo menos terminaremos por reconocer su importancia, así sea como mero estilo estético. acabo de ver, por ejemplo, la primera temporada de la muy recomendable the wire, un policial gringo que en más de una forma le debe mucho a esta clase de cine directo, frío, antimusical y no explotativo. y como the wire podría citar varias decenas de trabajos más de diversos géneros y nacionalidades.

p.d. 2 4 meses, 3 semanas y 2 días fue la película con mejor crítica del año pasado. se merece el apoyo. empero, me pregunto si a veces los críticos no deciden jugar a la segura votando por esta clase de trabajos a sabiendas de que hay un consenso en su irreprochabilidad,  que por películas más polémicas y jugadas (inland empire, there will be blood y hasta luz silenciosa, por mencionar tres que yo hubiera puesto antes que ésta entre lo mejor del año pasado).

Pick of the Week

4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days - The hugely acclaimed Cristian Mungiu humanist thriller about two girls seeking an abortion in communist Romania. A Palme D'Or winner and mini-masterpiece, this should be required watching for any film student or anyone put off by subtitles and tough subject matter. It's an intense watch but rewarding on any level you need.

Also Out

In The Valley of Elah - Paul Haggis' flawed but decent fist at exploring the difficulties of readjustment for homecoming Iraq soldiers in the US. The central performance from Tommy Lee Jones is great but again with Haggis the script is overwritten and loses its power due to stagy dialogue and a pretty awful turn from Charlize Theron.
Weeds: Season 3 - Mary Louise Parker shines as a suburban mom with a pot-dealing empire. She's the star and the beating heart of the series but most of the adult performances are strong even if the series as a whole never rises beyond being just 'good'.
The Hills: Season 1 - The Hills baffles me to my core. This is a show so post-modern that its almost post-post-modernist. Staged reality. It's hideous, vacuous, irratating and manipulative. But I love it.
The Savages - Mostly loved actorly drama starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney as grown-up kids dealing with the deterioration of their father.
Before The Devil Knows You're Dead - Another Philip Seymour Hoffman movie, this time an uneven film overall but still interesting for his performance and the quality of Sidney Lumet's direction.
Wristcutters: A Love Story - Awful, pretentious nonsense derived from a great concept: a purgatory for people who commit suicide. Only good when Tom Waits turns up for a cameo.
I'm a Cyborg - Oldboy director Park Chan-Wook makes a robot love story. Not seen it but his previous films are great so it's likely worth a look.
The Sun's Burial - Cult Japanese work from Nagisa Oshima that I'm really looking forward to checking out.
Alice in the Cities - Wim Wenders' breakthrough film. Another I'm anticipating greatly. You can check out my review of the film on Screenjabber.
Paul Verhoeven Collection - The early Dutch films of the provocative and wildly unpredictable director of Showgirls. Likely better than that makes it sound.
Over the Edge - Matt Dillon-starring late-70s exploration of teen dislocation in small town America.
He Was a Quiet Man - Christian Slater plays loner psycho turned hero who forms a relationship with a disabled Elisha Cuthbert. Could be awful but seems at least interesting.

Region 1

Rambo - Literally nothing else of note from the US so it's down to Sly Stallone to keep it going. This is a ridiculously violent 'exploration' of the human rights crisis in military-occupied Burma. It's watchable but I would not allow the kids anywhere near it.

Espiazione, con James McAvoy (che era bravo già lo avevo capito), e con Keira Knightley (che ha acquisito la personalità necessaria ad evitare che le ritocchino le tette digitalmente), propone molti temi: dalla innocenza dell'infanzia, le cotte adolescenziali, il rimorso, la guerra. Nel film non c'è un'espiazione vera e propria però le sequenze che raccontando gli orrori della seconda guerra mondiale sono come un gioello raro: tolgono il respiro.

Caramel di Nadine Labaki. Convivenza tra diverse culture, scontro tra nuove mode e tradizione, questi sono i temi trattati. Cinque amiche, un salone di bellezza. Ci puoi giurare che è un bel film, anche se apparentemente se non succede nulla. In realtà succede tutto: le protagoniste vivono la vita, quella di tutti i giorni.

Tre film che mi hanno emozionato molto per un post che vede la luce solo dopo aver riflettuto molto sul ruolo dei nuovi media.

Que una película trate el tema del aborto ilegal no es ninguna novedad y así es fácil que nos vengan a la memoria títulos como “Un asunto de mujeres” (1988) de Claude Chabrol o “El secreto de Vera Drake” (2004) de Mike Leigh. En ambas cintas el protagonismo de la historia recaía en las mujeres (Isabelle Huppert e Imelda Staunton respectivamente) que llevaban a cabo las interrupciones de embarazo. Tanto en un caso como en otro, la falta de dinero abocaba a dichas mujeres a esa práctica perseguida por la ley. Marie (Isabelle Huppert) mantenía a su familia en la difícil Francia ocupada de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y Vera (Imelda Staunton) aportaba unas libras extras para su modesta y humilde familia en el Londres de los años 50. Tal vez la diferencia entre ambas radique en el hecho de que Vera despertaba la ternura del espectador, mientras que la fría ambición de Marie conseguía todo lo contrario.

En “4 meses, 3 semanas y 2 días” (2007), Cristian Mungiu parece que también utiliza el tema del aborto ilegal, pero creo que sólo lo toma como pretexto para contarnos lo que es vivir bajo el yugo del miedo y de la falta de libertad de una dictadura. Además, introduce una novedad, puesto que el peso de la historia no descansará sobre quien practica el aborto o sobre la joven que no desea el embarazo, sino que lo hará sobre la amiga de esta última.

Otilia (una estupenda Anamaria Marinca) y Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) son dos jóvenes estudiantes universitarias que comparten habitación en una residencia de Bucarest. Gabita se ha quedado embarazada, pero abortar es ilegal en la comunista Rumanía de Ceaucescu. Una amiga común les recomienda los servicios del Sr. Bebe que, a cambio de una suma considerable de dinero, “solucionará” el problema de Gabita. Otilia reservará una habitación en un hotel, acabará de reunir el dinero, contactará con el Sr. Bebe y lo llevará hasta la habitación 206 donde Gabita les espera. A partir de aquí la vida de ambas jóvenes (sobre todo la de Otilia) dará un giro radical.

Mungiu no da concesiones de ningún tipo y nos muestra una historia dura (durísima) donde el espectador se verá asaltado por una serie de imágenes (creo que algunas de ellas son innesariamente atroces) ante las que es imposible no retorcerse en la silla. El aborto de Gabita no es lo más desolador que se narra en la película, lo terrible es el marco de opresión y terror que rodea a dicho acto.

Rodada en gran parte cámara en mano (por ello se le ha llegado a comparar con los hermanos Dardenne), la película tiene un cierto regusto documental que magnifica el realismo que se trasmite en cada fotograma. Tampoco se hace uso de ninguna BSO (si exceptuamos la música que suena durante la boda que se está celebrando en el hotel y que funciona a modo de contrapunto) y lo único que escuchamos es el sonido de la ciudad o el de la desesperación que destilan cada una de las palabras de sus protagonistas.

Bucarest aparece como una fría y gris ciudad en la que Otilia se enfrentará (sin paliativos) a la crueldad en todos sus aspectos y será ella (sin comerlo ni beberlo) la que acarreará con las consecuencias del embarazo no deseado de su amiga. No solamente deberá “contentar” a un Sr. Bebe que no está conforme con la cantidad de dinero que las jóvenes han conseguido, sino que también será la encargada de deshacerse del feto lo que la llevará a un angustioso periplo (que pone los pelos de punta a cualquiera) por las oscuras calles de la ciudad.

En esta línea es interesante destacar la excelente escena en la que Otilia debe dejar a Gabita en el hotel (a la espera de que las prácticas del Sr. Bebe causen efecto y con el miedo a una posible hemorragia) para acudir a la fiesta de cumpleaños de la madre de Adi (su novio) y donde su desolación contrasta con la alegría que reina en la casa.

Mungiu, además, consigue crear una constante tensión expectante en varios momentos del film con la que mantiene la atención del espectador y así, por ejemplo, durante los primeros 30 minutos de la película no tenemos ni idea de lo que va a suceder. Hábilmente el director emplea esos 30 minutos para mostrarnos esa Rumanía sumida en una feroz dictadura comunista en la que los coches son todos iguales, en la que las residencias de estudiantes más parecen un albergue para indigentes donde hay que recurrir al estraperlo para comprar una simple pastilla de jabón o un paquete de cigarrillos, en la que abortar un feto de cuatro meses está tipificado por la ley como un asesinato, en la que se vive codo a codo con el miedo.

A pesar de que existen algunos cabos sueltos (demasiado obvios para que sean errores del director) de los que no acabo de entender su finalidad, la premiadísima “4 meses, 3 semanas y 2 días” (Palma de Oro en Cannes 2007, Gran Premio FIPRESCI a la Mejor Película del año en el Festival de San Sebastián 2007 y Premios Europa a la Mejor Película y al Mejor Director 2007) es un film que vale muy mucho la pena no perderse.

Trailer

Para ver la ficha de la película pinchad aquí

Briony     

O Cinema na OCA volta às atividades nesta quarta-feira com o longa do diretor romeno Cristian Mungiu, 4 meses, 3 semanas e 2 dias. O drama de cores pálidas é mais um dos bons filmes que ficaram de fora das salas de cinema comerciais e será exibido pelo projeto no auditório da ADUFMAT hoje a partir das 19h, com entrada, claro, franca. Pra ver o trailer do filme que levou a Palma de Ouro no Festival de Cannes em 2007 dê o play na imagem acima ou clique aqui para ver no YouTube.

Ficha técnica: 4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile (4 meses, 3 semanas e 2 dias), 2007, Romênia. Roteiro e direção: Cristian Mungiu. Com Anamaria Marinca, Laura Vasiliu, Vlad Ivanov, Alexandro Potocean e Ion Sapdaru.

Para a semana que vem, o Cinema na OCA exibe Código Desconhecido - Relato Incompleto de Diversas Viagens do austríaco Michael Haneke. E fique ligado no www.cinemanaoca.blogspot.com que vem disponibilizando para download os filmes exibidos.

Ainda não metemos os pés (nem as mãos) em nenhuma das Lisbon Talks e pouco vimos desse herói independente chamado Novo Cinema Romeno. A escolha é muita, os filmes ainda mais, e por isso há que optar. São mesmo assim, os grandes festivais de cinema.

Mas para tomar o gosto a tudo, propomos para quarta-feira, às 17h00 no Maria Matos, a talk dedicada a’O Cinema Romeno e o Cinema Português. No dia seguinte, quinta-feira, às 15h45 no Cinema Londres, recomenda-se o conjunto de filmes Novo Cinema Romeno 4, com fitas de Cristian Mungiu (Paulistas’s Hand), autor do êxito Quatro Meses, Três Semanas e Dois Dias, Catalin Mitulesco (17 Minutes Late) e finalmente, de Cristi Puiu, Stuff and Dough, primeira longa deste realizador que ‘cometeu’ A Morte do Senhor Lazarescu, filme premiado no Indie em 2006.

ARGUMENTO

Dos estudiantes Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) y Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) son explotadas cruelmente cuando una de ellas aborta ilegalmente en Rumanía en el final de la era comunista.

PREMIOS

Ganador de la Palma de Oro de 2007. Premio a la mejor película europea (Premio del cine europeo) de 2007, además de otras 3 nominaciones.

Premios

Globos de Oro

The film '4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days' (4 luni, 3 săptămâni şi 2 zile) is a film created by Romanian film director Cristian Mungiu. The film, made in a very modern way (it represents a current actually, but I`m not going to write about this now) shows how during communist times a young girl wants to make an illegal abortion, as she was not allowed to do one legally. This was something very popular before the `89 revolution, people were actually forced to have babies, they had no means they could use in order not to have children.

The film hit it big at Cannes film festival (which is something like the European Oscars) and won the greatest award, the "Palme d`Or". After this, it has won award after award. It has recieved even a nomination at the Golden Globes, for best non- English language film, but it did not win. He almost made it up to the Oscars, but it was not ment to be.

It has become a world wide thing. Some cinemas were against the film, others promoted it even in schools, everybody has seen it everywhere. What makes it so big? Watch it and tell me.

I`ve seen it and I don`t know if I want to see it again.

In the wake of Juno, the evidently undeserving ‘underdog’ nominee for this year’s Best Picture, there is a little Romanian film that curiously didn’t even make it past the preliminary nominees for Best Foreign Picture. However, its important to point out that 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days did not go completely unnoticed. It took the Palme D’Or at last year’s Cannes Festival, Best Picture and Director at the European Film Awards and received critical acclaim in Toronto and Vancouver. But these ceremonial facts don’t say anything new about the differences between the American and European markets that most anyone hasn’t taken into account if not capitalized upon. But going beyond awards, there is something remarkable in the language used in the film that was created in and of a country whose film industry is still in its extremely formative years. 

While both the filmmaker and nearly every piece of press did not hesitant to reveal the major plot point around which the film builds its themes, its important to take into consideration a relatively uninformed American’s perspective upon entering the film. From the exposition and well into the rising action, the filmmakers refuse to give any hint or foreshadow into the concrete events which will unfold until its too late and the audience immediately realizes its too late to prepare themselves. The film successfully maintains its suspense and refuses to coddle the audience or provide consultative hints so that the viewer can feel rewarded or empowered when they guess the outcome. For empowerment couldn’t be a feeling more opposite to the film’s theme and the filmmaker lets the audience see this as well as feel it through the process.

While one might observe the binary of Otillia’s action based character to Gabita’s thought based, the former should not be irresponsibly seen as empowered in the typical sense. Otillia’s slight glances at the camera (namely at the end) suggest a relationship she wants to encourage between the actors and the viewers. What do you say to this atrocity? Does it need to be like this? And is it even possible to change the circumstances? These questions are only the beginning of what Cristian Mungiu, the writer and director, might be proposing. Returning to the Gabita’s antithesis to Otillia, she ineffectively, and perhaps reproachfully, attempts to ignore her problem by holding a menu in front the reminding dish served to her. This action serves as an extension of her methods to avoid the problem caused through giving into fear. The basic idea of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ contrasts with Otillia’s confrontational turn to the audience.

The director’s choice to maintain the longest shots possible becomes most evident during a dinner sequence that Otillia has been forced into by her significant other. The dinner becomes an aleatoric symphony of disembodied hands mingling with assortments of silverware, glassware and food dishes. A dark bottle of liquor centers the focus in a situation where the directors know he won’t be able the completely control the tempo and variety of hand-motion and prop-usage. Cristian strikes a balance between the ability to control a small aesthetical element and leave the rest to chance. But in contrast to the basic connotations of utilizing aesthetical “chance,” the sequence utilizes the static and unblinking camera to personify the restricted mentality and emotion that Otillia must be feeling within the her given dinner situation, within her situation as an accomplice and could even extend as far as to be commenting on her class and gender. Respectively, this camera choice allows the periphery characters large amounts of freedom in their form and hence aids their use as thematic extensions in relation to Otilla’s.

Rather than tying up loose ends in the falling action as many films tend to do, after the climax 4 Months does quite the opposite. The characters and hence the spectators are refused the chance to relax or reach a moment of clarity. Any glimmer of reflection is negated by the aggressive use of swampy shadows and chiaroscuro. Otillia roams through poorly lit back alley’s just as she mentally wades through her conscious that has been muddled by a difficult situation gone horribly wrong. Some might see the film as an “issue piece” but through this complacency in Otillia and her subsequent discourse with Gabita, Cristian avoids formulating an explicit opinion on what happens within the plot, but rather thinks his film “goes beyond that” as he stated at the Cannes Festival.

And indeed it isn’t an issue piece but a film about human relationships. This is more than evident in the long takes that let the actors develop a sometimes excruciatingly realistic relationship; two lovers silently wait in tears for an elevator letting them comment on the forced drama, ticket enforcement slightly scowls at Otillia’s attempt to outwit public transportation, a group of women talking around each other and indirectly about another’s comment in order to ignore their need to barter for essentials. These moments aren’t what “make” the film but rather what peppers it in a refreshingly non-cosmetic fashion that derives much from the likes of the Maysles, Von Triers, Cassavetes and other filmmakers who strive for that elusive “real.”

By no means is the film “fun” or “entertaining” in the standard sense and this is exactly the reason why it won’t be seen by more than 400,000 Americans and would likewise be impossible to make in the United States. But I’d rather take this last moment not to simply critique the American market or mind-set, for its more interesting to look at how the films of a country who has allegedly “thrived” on freedom for a countless number of years differ from the films of a country who’s people have been granted freedom only 20 years ago. Yes its only natural that a newly liberated country is going to take themselves a lot more seriously, but do we really need to be singing along to the Moldy Peaches over a glib and hip glance at teenage pregnancy in order to feel like we’re watching something relevant?

Showtimes:

Regency Rancho Niguel  1:15pm | 4:15 | 7:15 | 9:45

Art Theatre  7:00pm | 9:10

Laemmle Sunset 5  1:20pm | 4:10 | 7:00 | 9:50

Categorii cu cite 2 (doi) nominalizati, glume de doi bani, oficiali ritosi si discursuri previzibil-gaunoase asezonate cu greseli organizare care faceau ca mai fiecare al doilea vorbitor sa primeasca ceva muzica peste dinti inainte sa isi termine propozitia. Era greu sa nu vezi jena din ochii unora prezenti acolo.

Invocarea permanenta a lui Cristian Nemescu si prezenta in exces a lui Cristian Mungiu pe scena a facut ca totul sa aiba aspectul unei suse organizate de o baba spiritista si snoaba la Caminul Cultural din Oltenita.

De ce naiba or simti ei nevoia sa maimutareasca Cannes-ul si Oscarul intr-o tara in care se fac 'fo 6-7 filme anual, nu pricep.

"Premiile" aici.

Poques vegades m'he sentit tant malament després de veure una pel·lícula. Sí ja sé que no és la forma millor d'engrescar-vos a veure '4 mesos, 3 setmanes i 2 dies' però no us precipiteu en les conclusions.

'4-3-2' arriba després d'haver vist ja bona part de les superproduccions hollywoodianes aspirants a Òscars i que ens mostraven les millors interpretacions del 2007 acompanyades de la màgia del cinema, la fotografia, la música, els decorats...  '4-3-2' és en canvi una pel·lícula nua, cinema en estat pur, amb un pressupost baixíssim on el director, Cristian Mungiu, vol transmetre'ns un missatge i no li cal més artilugis que tres personatges per poder arribar a nosaltres. I de quina manera !

És aquesta una pel·lícula de por, d'angoixa.. molt més que 'REC', on se'ns mostra la terrible situació que es vivia a Romania al final dels 80's. Una por que la sents des del primer minut i que aconsegueix de forma brillant captivar-te en aquesta historia angoixant de la que no pots sortir ni molt després d'haver aparegut els títols de crèdit del final de la pel·lícula.

He passat mala nit. No he deixat de pensar amb la esperpèntica situació que l'il.luminat del Ceaucescu va provocar al que creia que era el país que li pertanyia. El seu decret 770 obligava a les famílies a tenir fills per 'obligació', arribant a declarar que 'l'embrió humà pertany a l'Estat'. En els tres anys següents a la posada en marxa del decret van néixer més de 2 milions de nens, molts d'elles van ser abandonats acabant en els malauradament coneguts orfandats de Ceaucescu, per no dir morts pels carrers de Bucarest.

L'avortament era per tant absolutament il·legal i perseguit pro-activament, encara avui Romania té la mortalitat infantil més alta d'Europa producte d'anys de falta d'educació social i sexual.

La pel·lícula tracta de la historia d'un avortament a l'entorn de repressió que hi havia al país. Les escenes i diàlegs tenen una força tan real, tan propera que et provoquen angoixa i ràbia creixent al llarg dels minuts, en bona part provocada per Anamaria Marinca que està absolutament fantàstica, capaç de transmetre a l'espectador els seus propis sentiments. Pateixes, penses i sents com ella...

La història és en essència senzilla i és el seu desenvolupament i la tètrica visió que càmera en mà ens dona el director el que la fa digna dels premis obtinguts (Palma d'Or a Cannes 2007). Escenes amb el desconegut que 'facilita l'avortament' o la festa d'aniversari de la família del novio de la Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) encara em fan efecte hores després d'haver-les vist. Realista i crua, amb tocs de marginalitat, però que no cau mai en el melodramatisme que històries com aquesta haguessin provocat en altres directors.

El poder-se apartar de la tendenciosa influència mediàtica sobre els ciutadans de l'Europa de l'est, rumans especialment, presentats a la societat com delinqüents i centre de protestes ciutadanes demanant la seva expulsió, i concedir el temps necessari per entendre una mica més el perquè una societat és com és, trobo que és necessari i convenient per la nostra salut mental.

És curiós com en aquests dies coincideix en cartellera amb una altra pel·lícula 'Juno' i és precisament aquest fet el que crea encara més distància de la que ja existeix entre les dues cintes, de temàtica al voltant de l'avortament però absolutament diferents en el seu missatge. Cal veure les dues per apreciar-les encara més.

Espero que us provoqui la mateixa remoguda cerebral i emocional que m'ha provocat. No us la perdeu (i ja posats si podeu fer doblet no us perdeu tampoc 'Juno').

Si us interessa saber més sobre l'etapa 'Ceaucescu' ací teniu alguns links:

Article 1  Article 2 Article 3 Article 4

Ainda numa Romênia comunista... duas estudantes diante de uma decisão: fazer um aborto. Apenas uma delas é que está com essa gravidez indesejada. Cabendo a outra, mais do que a companhia, ser cúmplice nesse ato.

Entre mentiras e omissões, o preço a ser pago é muito maior a essa amiga. E por que? Amizade acima do limite? E é isso que a mim, chamou mais atenção nesse filme: o valor de uma amizade. Otilia foi amiga a toda prova.

Ao longo do filme somos levados a sentir o seu drama. E em certos momentos, quase sem respirar, acompanhamos sua longa jornada noite adentro... Sem julgá-la, apenas querendo entendê-la; querendo ser-lhe solidária... Aquele preço... o porque de ter aceito... Méritos da jovem atriz; grandiosa a sua atuação!

Um dia pesado na vida de ambas, é o que temos nesse filme.

Gabitza é a jovem que precisa fazer o aborto. E por que? Ou, por que chegou até aí? Aqui, eu convidaria também os homens para assistirem esse filme. Se esse aborda um universo feminino, é algo que partiu dos dois sexos - a concepção. Se cabe o direito à mulher de fazer o aborto, é preciso que o homem veja o drama que uma transa sem sem pesar as conseqüências, acarretará. Para o homem, após o prazer do gozo... Pode partir para outra transa... Mas se nessa transa, geraram um novo ser... Cabe a mulher o peso maior. Sendo assim, abortar... Deveria lhe ser de direito. Mas... À penas, a serem pagas.

O filme traz à mesa de discussões, o aborto. Legítimo até pelo fato que atualmente ainda há muitas gravidez precoces. Cada vez mais, mais jovens se engravidam, por não se precaverem. Sendo assim, manter, ou trazer o tema do aborto, já merece meus aplausos. Nunca fiz, nem faria um aborto. Não julgo quem o faça; muito menos sem antes saber dos motivos. Que venham mais filmes levantando esse tema. Ainda mais, com um Papa tão reacionário, fechando a questão e ponto final.

Agora, como falei no início, o calvário maior foi para a amiga. Que após uma noite tenebrosa... Vejam a "preocupação" da Gabitza no final...

Àqueles que não gostam de filmes lentos, não irão apreciar esse. Mas perderão mais um belo filme. Pois esse, traz cenas onde as horas, parecem passar lentamente para a Otília, e de cá, suas angústias, fica em nós um querer que passem logo.

Eu gostei desse filme! Nota: 09.

Por: Valéria Miguez (LELLA).

4 Meses, 3 Semanas e 2 Dias (4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile). 2007. Romênia. Direção e Roteiro: Cristian Mungiu. Com: Anamaria Marinca (Otilia), Laura Vasilu (Gabita). Gênero: Drama. Duração: 113 minutos.

Unrated. In Theaters. Written and Directed by Cristian Mungiu. Starring Anamaria Marinca, Laura Vasiliu and Vlad Ivanov.

.

When a story, whether it is a film, a novel or even a television series is about something IMPORTANT, people tend to give it extra credit -- I am guilty of this as well, especially when it comes to war stories -- I mean, my favorite novel is All Quiet on the Western Front. This phenomenon makes sense -- a good story challenges the way we think and the way we perceive the world, or it exposes us to people, places and events we otherwise would never see or think about. This is why comedies never win Oscars and why the novels considered to be the greatest of all-time often deal with bleak and depressing subjects.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a film about something IMPORTANT -- abortion -- set in a time and place American audiences have no experience with -- 1980s Romania, still under Communist rule, and I think it has received way too much hype simply because it is tackling an IMPORTANT issue. Though it was the winner of the Palme D'Or at Cannes and many critics have been swooning over it, it just isn't a good or engaging movie. It's too bad, because the subject material has all the elements of what could have been a strong and powerful film but it just doesn't ever add up to anything.

The story takes place in one day, where Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) is desperately trying to help her friend Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) get an abortion, no easy task in a society where abortion is illegal and carries stiff penalties. They run into some obstacles and have to deal with a difficult doctor (Vlad Ivanov) who knows he carries all the leverage in the situation and takes advantage.

The writer/director Cristian Mungiu has said in interviews that he came up with the story and wrote down the synopsis in 10 minutes. It shows. The film is unfocused, with a lot of throwaway scenes and moments that never get addressed or expanded upon and that ultimately bring nothing to the table. They mention Gabita's dad and never show him or address it; there is a scene with the doctor visiting his mother that doesn't go anywhere -- there are other examples that are spoilers, but the storytelling is just sloppy. If you stripped out all the extraneous elements, you'd be left with a story that could have been told in about 45 minutes.

The direction has been praised, but I just don't see it -- scenes last far too long and with such a harrowing story there should have been more tense moments (judging by the trailer, you would think it was a thriller -- it is most definitely NOT) but it was pretty boring throughout. Marinca redeems some of the problems with the film -- she gives a really strong performance and develops her character further than how she was written. Vasiliu is really one-note and part of that is that her character is not really sketched out very well, which is a problem because we're supposed to believe that Otilia is going to these great lengths to help her friend but her friend is completely unsympathetic and worthless. Ivanov anchors by far the best scene in the film.

The trouble is, other than that scene and the lead-up, there isn't much else worthwhile going on in the movie. Just as an indication, I usually am not bored by movies, but I actually found myself checking my cell phone to see how much time was left. I'm sure there is a strong film to be made of this subject material, but 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is not it.

Grade: C-

.

Subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

.

<<HOME

Cristian Mungiu

Despite the rigidity of the direction, however, a great example of editing did come through and Sean Axmaker, in an interview with Mungiu on his blog, highlights it in a very interesting way.

There’s one scene in particular that stick out stylistically, with the two girls talking to Bebe in the hotel room, which is the only scene where you actually cut in the middle of a scene. You cut from the two-shot of Otilia and Bebe to a close-up of Gabita, where she realizes the gravity of the situation and what’s really at stake for Otilia and she tries, late as it is, to take the responsibility upon herself.

Honestly, you are the first person to identify something which is a mistake in the film. That was not supposed to be like that, I can’t claim that I have an explanation for this. It only happened because I changed the dialogue that Bebe had to say and I needed to have it off-camera, that’s all. I don’t have an explanation for this. It doesn’t make sense, it shouldn’t happen like this.

So, in order to solve a storytelling problem he chose to break his formalistic structure. That happens all the time. I don't think I've ever worked on a film where we could afford to be dogmatic and rigid in our structure (is that where they got the term Dogme for that filmmaking manifesto?) (and that's a joke, by the way)

However, the next question and answer is particularly revealing.

I feel that, because it’s the only time you cut in the middle of a scene, and it abruptly jumps into a big close-up, it brings the scene to her in a very powerful way.

This is why I hope that this is why I decided that I will change the dialogue and go for this, but this is not what triggered the decision. What I wanted to do was to make sure that I never make a formal decision belonging to me as an author and not divide from what the characters do in the shot. If you watch the film from this perspective, you will see that there is no pan in the film unless there is a line by some other character or there is a movement in the shot triggering the camera into a specific direction. We were very much following what was happening in the scene, except in this scene.

In other words, despite his claim that he would never make a formalistic decision separate from what the characters would do, if it wasn't for the fact that he had to cut to her in order to change the dialogue, he would have blown off the possibility of emphasizing her emotion in that moment.

I understand that there are many ways of emphasizing character and plot moments beside editing. In fact, my upcoming book, THE LEAN FORWARD MOMENT, is all about that. So I don't think that he needed to make a cut all of the time. But this is a perfect example of form leading function, and it seems wrong in my mind. It also drives home, perhaps, why I didn't respond to the film -- since the decisions seems to be based on form rather than the individual storytelling needs of a moment.

Mungiu talks about a score of interesting topics, besides 4 MONTHS specifically and the artistic choices he made (like never mentioning Communism per se). He talked for a long time about the system of funding movies in Romania, which is still state-run to a significant extent. As he also notes though, domestic private funding is basically nil since the Romanian box office has collapsed to 1/10 of what it had been because the country has so few theaters now. A thriving artistic culture, which includes a domestic movie industry, is part of the national common good and thus a legitimate thing for the state to support if private means do not. Mungiu tells of how he had to take 4 MONTHS on something like an old-style traveling road show, from town to town and village to village, for his film to be seen in much of Romania (a film about that will be an extra on the DVD, he promises).

He also notes that he was born in 1968, two years after abortion was made illegal, and part of the "Baby Boom" that took place in Romania in the first several years of abortion's illegality. He says matter-of-factly that he was "not a planned child," and this was something many Romanians of his generational cohort knew since this was something "our parents wouldn't hide from us." But most importantly, he says, "it's not that our parents wouldn't love us or that my parents wouldn't love me." Exactly. The very notion that Parenthood is a thing Planned is a lie or a rationalization. And every unplanned child was once an unplanned pregnancy.

I'm curious also about something Mungiu said at about the 3:20 mark. He's giving the history of illegal abortion in Romania and noting that it had nothing to do with moral or religious reasons, especially since religion was discouraged under Communism. And then Mungiu says, with the emphasis that this is important, that in Romania "we are Orthodox, we are not Catholic." Well, I at least knew that much. But its relevance went over my head. I had been pretty confident that the Orthodox Church condemns abortion too (less so, contraception; also outlawed by Ceausescu). So ... what, if anything definitive,² does Orthodoxy teach about abortion and contraception? Peter? Rod?
----------------------------------------
¹ Don't let the title "Oppression and Abortion" turn you off. That's the National Pinko Radio headline-writers. Plus there's no denying by sane people that the Ceausescu regime was (a) oppressive and (b) did not outlaw abortion for good reason.
² I understand very generally that differences in church structures could make this question, or any similar one, a bit more complicated for the East than the West.

Actually, this isn't really a "fisk," more like my saying "Mr. Speaker, permission to revise and extend my remarks" about 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS, beyond what I said back in September when I first saw it.

unlike in VERA DRAKE, nobody says abortion is wrong

That isn't quite true. There is a conversation Otilia has with her boyfriend where she asks what he would do if she were in Gabita's position. He says, not to her joy, that he would marry her because he's against abortion because it's so dangerous. Which doesn't actually count as "wrong" in my opinion¹ ... but it is one reason to be against abortion.

There's even a hint, only a hint, in Marinca's performance in this scene, that her question might actually not be hypothetical. And earlier in the movie, Otilia mentions in passing getting notes to lie about her period. (This is one example of 4 MONTHS being so utterly "lived-in" and thus so endlessly rich with details that may or may not mean anything flying off like pinwheels. Another -- the abortionist leaves behind his ID at the hotel desk; was it fake?)

Abortion as either a moral matter or a political issue simply does not appear, on either side.

This is mostly correct. Politics certainly never enters the picture (except to the extent that short conversations about the consequences of getting caught reflect decades-ago political actions; which is a stretch), and morality isn't an explicitly textual matter, for the reasons I there stated.

But it is now inconceivable to me that this movie could have been made by people who didn't have deep qualms about abortion and the film reflects that, however far the makers may wish to take it -- whether they connect the lines, or dot the i's and cross the t's (or whatever metaphor appeals to you). It's not just The Shot, which seemed on second viewing last week to go on for twice as long as it had in my memory, but also the shooting of the subsequent disposal scenes, which use tropes frequently seen in horror movies -- dark of night, dog on the soundtrack, running into the middle of a composition where the perspective seems to stretch into infinity.

It's also the ending, as I wrote in the post below (and which David Edelstein rebelled against; an infallible sign that one is doing something right on this topic). It's also how the abortion is depicted as a violation itself -- Gabita says while lying down "it hurt when he put it in me," and it's not obvious whether she's talking about Bebe's catheter or his penis (though there be subtitling/translation issues). And director Cristian Mungiu has said repeatedly in interviews that under Ceausescu, "abortion lost any moral connotation and was rather perceived as an act of rebellion and resistance against the regime." In another, he said at Cannes that he wanted people to consider deeply "the moral issue" of abortion rather than about "getting caught." All of which presupposes that there is a moral issue in the first place.²

The major difference is that Dardennes deal in moral dilemmas and their consequences; in 4 MONTHS, there really aren’t any. Mungiu made a film much more about the most-hectic shit day of your life, trying to juggle 100 tasks, remembering what lies you told, and get around others in your way...

I stand by what I said about the film not being about moral choices per se, unlike the Dardennes' films. But one thing that occurred to me watching 4 MONTHS a second time was that while the drama (the actions of the characters) was deterministic -- people are constantly saying words to the effect of "it has to be this way" and "once we start, there's no turning back" -- the mise-en-scene (the actions of the director-god) was not deterministic, in a couple of ways that really stood out.

For one, the compositions frequently emphasized different pathways and doublings. I could not find a still to illustrate this former noun very easily, so here is the trailer ...

... and notice how at 25 seconds in, Otilia meets the abortionist at his car. The meeting takes place on a little cul-de-sac or connector that seems to serve a junction between two other streets, going off in different directions at each end. We see a different fork in the road at about the 1:16 mark of the trailer. Also, 45 seconds in, there's a shot of two buses going in opposite directions, passing one another on the same road, a shot that's repeated later in the movie, at night.

In addition, for a movie that is so naturalistic and that uses such long takes, it's amazing how symmetrical some of Mungiu's shots are, and not just in obvious cases, like when Otilia and the abortionist are in the car together, and the camera sits on the hood and we get a two-shot. But Mungiu also uses symmetrical compositions for the film's last shot (in my post below) and this composition-rhyme which starts the movie.

One late shot shows Otilia alone in front of their hotel room door, in the center of the shot (you see the set from a different angle 28 seconds into the trailer). But in that later shot, the doors to the two rooms frame her on either side, each of the doors is framed by a mirror, with parallel halls running down either edge of the shot. By having so many doublings in the frame, the film implies, among other things, that there's always an alternative choice to make, another room to enter, another bus to take, another path to travel. This gap -- between the film's characters and action and the film's setting and universe is consistent with what Mungiu has said about how Communism damaged people by training people to do things without a moral reflection, or to use my language, to acting as if (falsely) there was no alternative.

There's one other form of symmetry 4 MONTHS uses incessantly, and that's the use of mirrors in the setting. Here is one of the earliest scenes.

The movie's most famous still, one used on many of the posters, is also a mirror shot.

What a still cannot tell you is what is going on in these shots. In the first instance, Otilia is asking around her college dorm, trying to rustle together some soap. But also casually referring to the latest bit of pragmatic lying that defines 4 MONTHS from beginning to end -- how to get a note from a doctor to misstate the time of her period (unless what I speculated about above is true, it's not explicit why it matters to her. But at a minimum, it is a lie). In the second shot, Otilia has just had sexual intercourse with the abortionist as his payment (or "understanding") and is cleaning herself off while Gabita pays her share of the bill. I can think of at least two other conspicuous mirrors in the film (the hotel landing, the home of the boyfriend's parents).

Then there's also the detail of the film's last shot, the moral meaning of which I discuss in the post below. It's not obviously a mirror shot, but it is. Otilia turns to partially regard the camera. But it's dark outside and during the lengthy silence, Mungiu starts to show us that we had been looking at the women through a window. He shows us car lights, reflected first subtly and then obviously on the glass, with accompanying street sounds getting louder. Now ... what happens when you're inside a lighted room and look at a window to the outdoors at night? The glass turns into a mirror. Otilia had been looking, not at us, but at herself in a mirror. (In addition this also rhymes with the first shot of the movie, where we view fish through a glass tank, with talk about feeding them.)

I really really really don't want to even hint at Lacan here, but the mirror is associated with self-regard/examination upon committing a wrong action. And it defuses the wrong actions made present at the time, fragmenting the self by producing a false double and/or dissociating it from its actions -- "let's never talk about this again." That's what They did. Or as Mungiu put it, it promotes not thinking about the consequences of actions. In addition, to switch metaphors, the mise-en-scene constitutes the essence of the universe, the view from the outside that we can see fully, and it points us to something that is not in the accidental drama, the view of the characters from within, who can only see as through a glass darkly, not seeing (themselves) as they are seen (by us). And yet ... and here's Mungiu's genius ... the viewer is not only fully god in his perspective on the characters, but also fully man in his love for the characters, given how successfully Mungiu has made us identify with the characters and had us take on their flesh throughout.³
--------------------------------------
¹ It may be prolife heresy, but it's pointless IMO to deny that legal surgical abortions by doctors or nurses are "safer," for 50 percent of the persons involved anyway, than illegal improvisations by amateurs.
² To be fair, Mungiu also has said repeatedly that he doesn't see his movie as political or a moral tract on abortion. Which is fair and reasonable -- artists usually don't want to "reduce" their works that way. But I stand by my characterization that this movie breathes moral unease about abortion.
³ I know of no pro-life critic that has seen the movie and condemned it as the glorification of, or even excuse-making for, two or three murderers. But then, the pro-life movement has not condemned real-life women who abort, for decades, if ever since Roe.