Morometii 2

Very good acting, but 100% is just for critics. Is a theater in black and white. The director is blocked in 1980 and I don't know how all these good actors accepted to play this rubbish. I gave up watching after 20 minutes.

'Morometii 2' (translated in English as 'Moromete Family: On the Edge of Time) was the second film that I saw at the Romanian Film Festival organized in Israel these days, and the screening yesterday at the cinematheque in Herzlya was followed by a meeting of the producer Tudor Giurgiu with the local audience. On this occasion, I learned that the film written and directed by Stere Gulea beat the record of the number of viewers in the cinema halls in Romania in recent years. I am not surprised by this fact, as the film touches strings that have not vibrated for a while in the minds and souls of Romanian spectators. It's about nostalgia - the theme as well as the way to make cinema -, the film is blessed by a cast that includes some of the most talented and popular Romanian actors from several generations, and it's also the screening of a book that Romanian viewers know from the school benches. And yes, it's a solid, well-done film with many qualities that justify the price of the ticket and the time spent in the cinema theater.

If we look carefully, we are dealing with this two stories in this film, two stories that the screenwriter and director combine in one narrative, two worlds that start from the same place, but which will break apart irremediably. The first one is the world of Ilie Moromete, the main character in the first volume of the book that gave the name of the film, and the hero of the first film directed by Stere Gulea 31 years earlier. It is the world of the Romanian village, the basis of the economy and of the Romanian culture for centuries. In the previous film whose action was taking place in the interwar period, we saw this world threatened by the changes brought about by capitalism - modernity but also new morals, difficult to reconcile with the traditions. Ilie Moromete tries to resist with his skeptical wisdom and with the spirit of adaptation specific to the peasants in hard times. In 'Morometii 2' we are in 1945 and the threat is much more serious and aggressive, it is about the transformations brought by communism sustained by the Soviet occupation. The revolution is radical in this case, the change imposed by the new leaders includes forced collectivization and the destruction of private property. It is the end of an era and of a whole civilization, and this time Moromete's conservative skepticism and his instinctive resistance to change will no longer be enough. The second world described in the film is that of Niculae Moromete, the younger son in the family, a chip that jumped away from the trunk as Romanians say, through his desire to read and learn. He too, like his older brothers, will leave his native village, but in his case the personal change is much more radical, anticipating a social transformation that would follow, reducing numerically the peasantry class and destroying it from a cultural and lifestyle point of view

Stere Gulea does not actually brig to screen faithfully the second volume of 'Morometii' but rather extrapolates and combines it with elements from other books by Marin Preda, or with biographical information gathered from his diligent documentation work. Marin Preda is probably one of the Romanian writers who best described the transition period between interwar capitalism and democracy and the communist dictatorship, but he wrote during the communist era, and his anti-communism, if it existed, could never be explicit . In Stere Gulea's film we are dealing with a 'what-if' version of the themes and characters of Marin Preda. If he had lived and created in a period without censorship, this may, perhaps, would have been the path taken by Preda. Or maybe not.

What I liked. The cinematography is gorgeous. The decision to shoot in black and white is perfectly justified. The natural environment, the houses, the interiors, the costumes, the requisites - all render finely, in detail, without being ostentatious and strident, the period in which the action takes place. Horatiu Malaele's acting play is superb. His character has spirit and nobility. From now on, when Ilie Moromete's name will be mentioned, his face in this role will appear right before my eyes. The film has style, a style typical of the 'classic' Romanian cinema, renewing a thread interrupted by the two last decades of 'new wave'. It is one of the directions of the Romanian cinema that deserves to be continued. What I liked less. The combination between the descriptions of the two worlds is not always harmonious. There are many characters in the film that represent similar categories and typologies and they are too little differentiated - the children of Ilie Moromete, the peasants in the village who oppose collectivization, the acolytes of the new regime. Even the presence in some roles of excellent actors who do everything they know and can (and the know and can do a lot) is not enough to create credible and memorable characters. 'Morometii 2'is a good film that will not be overlooked by the history of Romanian cinema, but which misses the chance of being equal to the first film in the series and becoming one of the remarkable films of this history.

I really liked the movie, despite the white and black colours (which seems logical but is a bit more tough to digest). Horatiu is really acting great and what i don't get is why they claim that the contribution of Dumitru Caramitru was exceptional when he only had 3 lines 🤐

Highly anticipated and greeted with high expectations as well, the movie delivered what it supposed to do... the sequel to the better first part. However, it was a missed chance for the director Gulea to deliver another masterpiece that would have become his artistic testament: a richer post war political context, characters reaching their maturity and a rich artistic potential given by a whole spectrum of directions that the movie could have turn to. However, this was also the pitfall of this movie. The director become artistically greedy trying to cover too much of the artistic scope and did not concentrate on covering well certain aspects that could have defined the movie: transformation of Moromete, the relation with Niculae, his son, the impact of political drama unfolding after the war or the never changing peasant wisdom so well anchored in the Romanian culture. Everyone forgot that the writer main character was the Romanian peasant and his infinite wisdom, portrayed by Moromete and not vice-versa. Gulea choose instead to cover all of themes, resulting in weak presentations of all of them, forging forgettable characters that didn't impress nor amazed the audience, sacrificing art for a social drama documentary and betraying the village for more of a urban context, contrasting with the work of the writer Preda and his intentions... Not to be misunderstood, Gulea is a very good director but he got trapped in by his own ambitions and past. For once, the director knows that this will be his last chance to create something big for cinematography (hope I'am wrong...) and he wanted to do it all in ( a poker metaphor). To exemplify, it came to my mind the just released Polish "Cold War" movie that had a more empowering linear narrative...Secondly, Morometii 2 had become a personal revenge. Gulea's father spent many years in the communist prisons and maybe the director felt the need to dive in the political context as a personal duty. I think that Rebengiuc's choice not to act in the second part was a wise move (Malaele delivered also a solid performance)... wondering if with a different director things would have been different. Overall, the movie is a must see, loved it as it continued the story of my childhood book:) People should not compare this with Nunta Muta, Cel mai iubit dintre pamanteni or Rascoala.... it has a different artistic registry...

Based on a famous novel of Romanian writer Marin Preda, is full of fine linguistic humor and mirrors very well a disturbed and ravished post-WW2 peasant society, torn between right and wrong, the vanity of the young and backward-looking of the elderly, old and new, moral and immoral and between two antagonistic political regimes. The black-and-white (how else) picture adds up to the nostalgia and historical feel of otherwise a pure social drama.