"12:08 East of Bucharest" **** (out of ****)Back in 2006 several film critics and much of the public were just buzzing with excitement over the cinema coming from Mexico. At the Oscars that year, three of the most talked about films were directed by Mexican filmmakers, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel), Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) and Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth). Critics kept saying how the new wave of cinema was coming from Mexico how these three men were going to create a cinematic storm and blow over Hollywood. I didn't think that was fair at the time and I still don't. I liked these films very much. Two of the three made my "top ten" list back in 2006 but I didn't feel Mexican cinema was breaking any ground or was where our attention should be. I felt audiences should be keeping their eyes on Central and Eastern Europe.
Ever since the Cold War American audiences have simply kept many of the countries on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall out of sight and out of mind. Too bad. This part of the world has usually been a step or two ahead. The New Waves of Poland, Czech Republic, Germany and Hungary were breaking new ground. The cinema coming from this part of the world was truly experimental. Milos Foreman, Werner Herzog, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Miklos Jancso and Istvan Szabo. These filmmakers were taking risks and at the same time were showing American audiences what life was like in these countries.
But today this still exist. Look at Jan Svankmajer's "Alice", Emir Kusturica or the films of Bela Tarr (Satantango, Werckmeister harmoniak). It is these filmmakers who are worth our attention if you truly want to see something different. And now it is Romania's turn.
Also going back to 2006 audience members have steadily seen a growing interest in Romanian cinema. When "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (Moartea domnului Lazarescu)" opened it was the beginning of what is now being called the Romanian new wave. And since that time we have seen "The Way I Spend the End of the World (Cum mi-am petrecut sfarsitul lumii)", the Cannes 2007 palme d' or winner "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile)" and this film "12:08 East of Bucharest (A faost sau n-a fost?)".
Ever since the Soviets left artist from these countries can now finally start to tell the true stories of their countries. What life was really like living under communist dictators. These films coming from Romania are all confrontational. They each, in their own way, challenge and question the past and the role of the government.
"12:08 East of Bucharest" is a film about the Romanian revolution. On December 22, 1989 dictator Ceausescu left Bucharest and brought about the end of communism. But did a revolt ever happen in the nameless village where this film takes place?
A TV producer, Virgil Jderescu (Teodor Corban) will host a show celebrating the 16th anniversary of the revolution by bringing on two guest who claim not only was their a revolt in their town but they were also part of it. A drunken, debt-ridden history teacher, Tiberiu Manescu (Ion Sapdaru, who also appeared in a more serious look at the revolution, "The Paper Will Be Blue") and a man known throughout the town as playing Santa Claus, Emanoil Piscoci (Mircea Andreescu).
At its core "12:08 East of Bucharest", the original title is actually translated as something along the lines of "did it happen or didn't it", is the story about our memories and history. First time director Corneliu Porumboiu says the film was actually inspired by a television show he saw discussing the revolution but become so furious with the show he decided to take on the subject. In an interview with GreenCine Porumboiu said this " I was interested in how people fictionalized history. People change history according to who they want to be; their own personal histories become entwined with a larger historical picture."
As the two guest discuss their memories of that day, declaring themselves as heroes, calls start pouring in as they refute the guest stories. Some callers say there was no revolt in their town while the guest fight back saying they were there. At one point when the host of the show ask Tiberiu if anyone was with him, he responds three other teachers were, but sadly two have died and one left the country. How strangely convenient.
The other guest, Emanoil, says he went out to the town square to prove to his wife that he could be a hero. Though he also admits he was a little sad to see Ceausescu go, the government was going to send out $100 dollar checks to help the economy.
That is the key to the success of this film. It takes a serious subject and then laces it with humor. Emanoil discussing it in a serious way and then throws in his wise-crack. Nothing in "12:08 East of Bucharest" can really be taken serious.
In some ways this film reminds me of Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Spider's Stratagem", the story of a young man who grew up believing his father was a hero who fought the Fascist in Italy. The father's village even has a statue dedicated to him but when the son visits he learns many things about his father.
Both films question what makes a hero and how accurate is history? Who decides what should go in the history books? And from whose's point of view?
While some may want to dismiss "12:08 East of Bucharest" as nothing more than a silly comedy, to do so is a mistake. It has serious ideas. It is relevant in today's world. And those who see it are relating to it. The film won the "golden camera" at the Cannes Film Festival, won "best Romanian film" at the Transilvania Film Festival and was nominated in the foreign film category at the Independent Spirit Awards.
If after watching this film you found yourself interested in learning more about the Romanian revolution I suggest watching the documentary "Videograms of a Revolution" one of the most dazzling documentaries I have ever seen!
Posts
