This short documentary directed
by Vlad Nedelcu, billed as ‘Cinema made in Romania’ (‘Văzut în toată lumea, dar
nu acasă: Seen all over the world, but not at home’) contemplates the state of
Romanian film. ‘What does Romanian
cinema mean to you?’ is the first question asked, and the answers given by the
interviewees – directors, actors, a producer and a critic – suggest difficulty pinning
it down.
Before the Second World War
Romanian film production had been open, but under communist rule with only rare
exceptions it became nationally isolated, heavily regulated and censored.
Romanian directors’ work was uneven, and although some tried to express a
personal vision despite the orthodoxy, it was with limited success.
All funding came from the state,
with no private money, and box office ratings were not an issue as it was not a
commercial climate. National output was
small, 20-30 films each year, still a significant number given the technical
constraints on production. Cinemagoing
was a popular activity because there were few leisure alternatives, not because
Romanian films were particularly powerful.
There was a crisis in the late
1980s when production declined so the national debt could be paid. Television broadcasting was also reduced and cinemagoing
filled the gap, albeit the quality was variable. For
financial and ideological reasons foreign language films were not shown. The situation was not unique to Romania in
communist countries, but it was more severe than in others.
In the years after 1989 some
aspects changed, such as the freedom to explore new themes, though the
directors remained the same. Foreign
films appeared in the early 1990s with an improved distribution network, but
evolution in Romanian film was slow; an initial expectation of creative
flowering did not materialise and there was corruption in the awarding of
funds.
So Romanian cinema entered the
doldrums during the 1990s as the industry tried to decide what to do with its
new-found freedom; an assumption that a hitherto forbidden sexual emphasis
would play well with the public was mistaken, and films were of poor
quality. It required a new generation of
filmmakers to bring a fresh approach.
Romanian cinema improved in the
early 2000s, when it heralded a New Wave, though actors, with a strong theatre
heritage, found it a steep learning curve.
However, there is now more competition for leisure time than there used
to be. Romanian films are strong in
depicting realistic situations with energy, and making the most of small
budgets, but this does not make for widespread popularity at home.
There does not seem to be a
strong identity for Romanian film, nor a significant art house film buff
culture in Romania. Referring to films
made after 2000, ‘not so loved at home, but critically acclaimed abroad’ is the
verdict. The consensus is that Romanian
films appeal to those who make them and to the critics more than they do to the
Romanian public.
As in many countries, the average
Romanian cinemagoer prefers Hollywood blockbusters over those relating to unvarnished
experience as expressed in ‘Romanian Minimalist Cinema’. There is little desire to see the problems of
everyday life reflected back. Interviewees
suggested that more home-grown commercial films are needed to expand the range
available and help to address the imbalance.
It was pointed out that the
situation might improve if directors were more responsive to domestic
audiences, rather than making films to suit themselves, but it was also noted
that while these films may not do well in Romania itself, they tend to sell in
other countries. As a result, at least
Romanian cinema is now on the map internationally.
The documentary is available from
Cinepub, itself evidence of a thriving Romanian film culture:
