Children Underground

I had often wondered why, in the documentary portrayal's of street kids, 'Streetwise' was the one to garner all of the attention. Granted, it too, was a heartbreaking look at some kids affected by some pretty tumultuous times in this country thanks to many idiot policymakers euphemistic ideas about trickle-down economies. Sad as it is to say, I think the appeal comes from 80s nostalgia, and particularly nostalgia for the 80s American teenager. 'Children Underground,' which follows five children living in a subway station in Romania is much more disturbing and stark portrayal than Streetwise. As the prologue explains, many children found themselves on the street because, after the fall of Communism in Romania, the economy and state facilities in particular were effected and became ill-equipped to deal with hardships. Although, some of the kids portrayed in this documentary left home as a result of family problems.

Of the five children are Cristina Ionescu (16) is the oldest and I suppose the protectorate of the group of subway children. Although, she never seems to be too sincere in this role, beating the younger ones herself sometimes. Her background involves shifts between state custody in an orphanage and later an asylum because, as she said, she refused to let herself be beaten or taken advantage of and fought back.

Mihai Tudose was probably the most interesting among the street children; a 12 year-old boy who ran away from home because, as he explains, his father beat him. He always seemed to be in search of something better than the street life, but it just didn't seem that many were able to help him out. For example, we see him attending the school for street children, but when the social workers went home to get the papers that would enable his attendance, his parents wouldn't give them up. He was, just as the synopsis for the film says, a particularly intelligent boy. He just seemed to want to give up life in the subway in exchange even for the company of a pseudo-family (the homeless mother and the baby living in the abandoned building).

Macarena Rosu (14) was perhaps the saddest case because she basically spends the entire film huffing paint with other street kids. And, to the point that by the end, it seems that she has become either schizophrenic or manic depressant as a result, rationalizing her existence with the imaginary mother and father living outside of Bucharest and the twin sister by the same name attending private school, even though we know her to have arrived on the streets straight from an orphanage.

Ana and Marian Turturica are the youngest of the group. They never really get the full story as to why Ana (10) kept running away from home or why she eventually got her brother, Marian (8) to come with her. I would suspect, based on the stepfather's conversation, that it was because she at least did not get along with him. Or, that they felt incapable of living with their mother while she and the stepfather were unemployed and barely surviving themselves.

There doesn't seem to be much that could be done through the state to help these children. The hospital for street kids, for example, had no place to house the children. There were other facilities that were so limited on beds that the children first had to be deemed capable of rehabilitation, which basically meant that, since these children were hoooked on huffing paint, it wasn't likely that they would be admitted. And the older ones, it seemed, stood no chance of consideration at all.

I think in part that this movie was more stark than Streetwise is because so many of the children weren't yet even teenagers when the movie was filmed. And few of them seem to be living in any sort of euphoric sense of freedom. The situation is bad and they appear to well aware that for many of them, they're trapped in it. (Although, that is not to make light of the situations faced by the kids in Streetwise). It is, as other said, a hard to film to take in. There are scenes in the film where you wish the filmmakers, if no one else, would intervene. Especially in the moments where the youngest are beat up, where Mihai inflicts mutilation upon himself, of the kids who spend all day with their face in bag full of Aurolac paint, of the underfunded facilitaties that couldn't provide enough assistance, and also of the families who seem just as hopeless as the children. It is indeed an incredible piece of film-making.

This is a very powerful documentary of the lives of children in Romania in the late 1990's living in a subway station. By careful filming and concentrating on five children ranging in age from 8 to 15, and by using mostly their own words and interactions, the stark realities of their survival are allowed to show themselves rather than being extracted by force. The follow-up material at the end of the film as well as in the supplements on the DVD are as significant for the effect on the viewer as the body of the documentary. Although the home conditions from which these young people fled are repugnant to our sensibilities, it's clear there is more to their endurance of street life than that. When one boy is asked what he likes best about living in the streets, he thinks a moment and then shouts, "I get to live FREE!" and does a little dance to illustrate. How sad that children should have to sacrifice such basic amenities as health care and education to get a little control over their own lives. In an interview, the film-maker confesses that the most difficult task of all was not intervening as these small people were beaten and insulted, and as they remained perpetually intoxicated on volatile solvents. I agree with the choice. Intervention in the immediate term would not have altered the course of any of their lives, and the impact of the film would have been destroyed. I hope that BOTH lessons here are not lost on the audience -- not only what privations follow a society's collapse, but also what children and ALL humans are willing to suffer in order to gain some personal autonomy.

I watched this docu last night; aired on TVO Toronto. It initially drew me in due to the filming format... no commentary or host; just raw footage documenting the life of these children on the street in Bucharest. I like this format. It allows you to feel or experience being there, rather than being interrupted every minute by a host voice. Good job.

The whole account really touched me. You know you hear about these kids, but was interesting to actually see their lives. What really bothered me is how few citizens actually stopped to help or talk to the kids; most just ignored the kids. Each time Ana cried, tears began with me. I just wanted to reach out, but couldn't through the TV. Grrrr.

This docu is worth watching, but somewhat emotionally tugging. Would be a good documentary to show in middle school, to remind kids here in the West just how lucky they are.

Mostly, it served as an inspiration reminder to me of why I like to help others. Which, as I am finding, is often a very lonely road versus my friends who only like to spend their spare time at nightclubs.

I was curious to see this film having spent time in Bucharest several years ago. I never ventured onto the subway but did have occasion to go into the underground....which is necessary in many European cities since the streets are often quite wide and difficult to cross. This is particularly true in Bucharest where everything that the former dictator built-- the buildings, the roads, etc. all appear to be on steroids. Add to this the fact that so many of the nominated documentaries (and foreign films) are never properly distributed here --even in NYC..In any event, this is a very disturbing film; at times difficult to watch and as I recall the film makers received considerable criticism on their decision not to "interfere" with what was taking place --to allow the physical and mental abuse of the children by the older "leaders of the pack" and by the parents who also appear in the film as well as the lethal consumption of lead paint taken by the children to get them high and that clearly was contributing to their deteriation. It was stark, disturbing, very difficult to watch but incredible filmmaking , nonetheless.

Nightmarish look at the lives of Romanian kids living in a large subway station in Bucharest, most of the kids are runaways from abusive homes or orphans, and most are addicted to huffing a toxic silver paint called aurolac.

The number of homeless children in Romania is very high due to a stupid decision made some years back to ban birth control. Many families in the current free market economy can't take care of the kids, who are shipped off to who-knows-what state-run childcare facility.

The film follows a number of the kids. The stories are heartbreaking. The filmmakers decision to stay passive during filming is troubling. Obviously, they want to capture reality, warts and all, for the viewer. I can respect that. But its nevertheless disturbing to watch the filmmakers passively "watch" a weeping ten-year old girl get viciously beaten by a street gang (in the next scene her nose is broken) or a 12 old boy mutilate himself with a piece of glass. The lack of action smacks of hypocrisy, especially in a film that presents itself as an indictment of apathy.

Trips to several kids' homes reveal worlds more menacing than life living on the streets.

Of all the kids Mikhil seems like he has the most promise. He seems upbeat, with a lot of spunk, and talks about getting an education. Cristina, the eldest and leader of the gang, lords over them in ways that seem militaristic. Macarena, perpetually weeping and high, hands and face smeared with silver paint, seems the most fargone. The bottomless look in her eyes is the most disturbing thing about the film. Ana is alternately responsible and uncontrollable. She dotes on her little brother maternally.

Heartbreaking movie. Children shouldn't have to live like this. Unfortunately, it is not just in Romania, all over the world this problem is widespread. I'm glad this film brings a bit of this to light