Avis des utilisateurs

Radu Jude's "Îmi este indiferent daca în istorie vom intra ca barbari" ("I Do Not Care If We Go Down in History as Barbarians" in English) does two things at once. The most important is that it looks at a shameful instance in Romania's history: the army's massacre of Jews in Bessarabia, even before the Nazis arrived (one of the Nazi officials even complained that the Romanian army was simply going ahead and killing Jews!).

But the other issue addressed is how Romania has treated this in years since. Romania, like the rest of Europe, wants to simply think that it was a victim of the Nazis; in reality - as in most of Europe's other countries - plenty of its citizens were delighted to help the Nazis.

The protagonist is a woman making a movie about the 1941 Odessa Massacre carried out by the Romanian army, with the title referring to a quote from Foreign Minister Mihai Antonescu. During the movie's production, a number of people start revealing their unwillingness to acknowledge the country's history. As someone notes, it's comforting to be the good guy.

It's not a masterpiece, but it still calls into question how much anyone is willing to recognize the bad parts of their own country's history. As John Quincy Adams once said, the historian must have no country (and the one character does even note the US's sordid history).

I have seen today together with other several hundred of spectators Radu Jude's most recent film, "I Do Not Care If We Go Down in History as Barbarians" at the Haifa Film Festival. A film that courageously and blutly addresses the theme of knowing and assuming the historical past in the Romanian society of today. A movie that will have an impact and will spark controversy, but I am convinced that this is exactly what the filmmakers intended.

Every people I know builds its own historical image, its own mythology. These are based in part on historical facts but viewed from their own perspective and beautified on a voluntary basis (to mobilize and unite 'nations' in times of crisis or for diversionist and propagandistic purposes) or involuntarily. Very few nations that I know have had and only at certain times of their history the lucidity of recognizing their mistakes, of contradicting their mythologies and of rectifying their own historical image to accept the mistakes and sometimes even the crimes committed by governments and the leaders they had chosen or accepted to represent them. Knowing and accepting your own history is a process that varies from country to country, from people to people, that is carried out differently and never easily. It is also the case of the Romanians and of Romania, who have experienced a series of successive dictatorships that for almost half a century have imposed alternate visions of their own history deformed by ideologies and nationalism, burring in silence the crimes committed during the Second World War, and especially the period of the Holocaust. The historical studies of the past 2-3 decades began to bring to light the dark aspects, but the process of knowledge and assumption is still difficult, it is struggling with ignorance and resistance. A few books such as those written by Catalin Mihuleac or films such as those of Radu Jude are part of this slow but essential process.

Many parallels can be drawn between director Radu Jude and the main heroine of the film, a stage director with a poet name who receives the financial support of the mayoralty for organizing a reconstruction of some episodes from Romania's participation in the Second World War. The show is planned to take place (symbolically I guess) in the center of Bucharest, in the Palace Square, the place where the (incomplete, hesitant) change of Romania's destiny began in 1989. Like Radu Jude himself, stage director Mariana takes the risk of including in her artistic creation not the accepted heroic nationalist official version of history, but the uncomfortable truths about the war crimes committed by the Romanian army in 1941, when it was allied with Nazi Germany. In the Romanian episode of the Holocaust, 380 000 Jews died, but these facts historically documented by studies and the work of the Wiesel Commission (which investigated Romania's part in the Holocaust) are still only partially acknowledged, accepted, assumed by most of the Romanian people from all classes of the society, from the political elite class to the majority of the population educated in the period of communist propaganda or that of the intellectual superficiality of the post-1990s. The idea that the Romanian governors and the army under their command were responsible for war crimes contradicts the mythology and idealized image created during long years of ignorance.

The Romanian society, as presented by Radu Jude, is fragmented on multiple plans. The director's historical and self-analytical approach enjoys the support of a part of the team with whom she works, but also encounters a great deal of resistance at all levels, from that of the cultural officials who attempt to influence the content of artistic creation in a "soft" version of censorship and up to some of the amateur actors and extras participating in the show, intrigued and indignant about the non-conformist version of the history that they are being directed to present. Racism and cabotinism, cynicism and demagogy lend themselves to a combination of sometimes comical, sometimes absurd attempts to divert the purpose of the project. Eventually something is done, but at a significant personal price.

Radu Jude's characters reflect other gaps and dissonances at different levels of today's Romanian society. Some of them are cultivated, they cite freely from philosophers and historians, but they also use at the same time vulgar street language, full of obscenities and curses. There is a secondary conflict of the relationship between the stage director and a married aviation pilot and the question of whether presenting it is essential to the main line of the film is legitimate. The answer is in my opinion positive, the character of Mariana is thus presented in its different dimensions, as a complex and yet familiar character, a smart and vulnerable woman in her personal life, far from being just a politically-obsessed individual. The acting performances are excellent, with special mention for Ioana Iacob in the lead role and Alexandru Dabija in the role of the cultural clark mediating between the artists and the authorities. The extracts from the archive materials of the cinematographic journals of the times are used intelligently under the pretext of documenting the realization of the reconstruction and create a clear picture of the historical context to which the film relates. The long frames and the use of hand-held camera create a dynamic and authentic atmosphere.

Is the movie too long with its two hours and twenty minutes? I confess that I was not bored at any moment, on the contrary, I was permanently interested in the subject and the details, and I found that the gradual construction of the action builds up in a final with a strong emotional impact. My only concern is that for audiences that are not that familiar with the history and present of Romania some nuances will be lost in translation, but maybe they will be the ones paying attention to different qualities and angles of interpretation.

For filmmakers and spectators, the central question of the movies seems to be whether history can be taught, rehearsed, assumed. The answer to this question remains ambiguous. "I Do Not Care If We Go Down in History as Barbarians" is a film that those who will see will not forget easily and will discuss for a long time.

An incredible movie about the difficulties of every nation to face its ghosts and to assume its history and eventually its identity.

Mariana wants to direct a street show for the public depicting Romania's hand in the genocide of Romanian Jews during WWII. Her mentor and backer questions whether it is necessary, and maybe play up the heroics of the Romanian army in the war. That is the gist of the movie with the enormously long title.

The question is, why such a controversial theme? The Holocaust as illustrated in this picture will not play well here in a city with the largest Jewish population in the country. There is no question the Romanians have mastered the art of filmmaking; in fact, Lincoln Center hosted a Romanian Film Festival a few years ago. Noteworthy in this picture is an interesting back-and-forth between the two principals as they argue the philosophical and ethical pros and cons of the show, with some interesting historical references. As always, the actors are very natural and their competence is a feature of Romanian films.

It is worth your time and the ending packs an unexpected punch. It is not for everybody but it is the type of superior filmmaking you can expect in Romanian films.

7/10 - Website no longer prints my star rating.

This film is a great feat, with a universal message regarding the difficulty in facing our true national images in the mirror, including savage, murderous episodes. Exquisite acting and art, as well as nuanced irony neatly combined with grave philosophising and serious storytelling. I was glued to the screen for the entire 2 hours and 20 minutes.

I saw the movie at the Seattle Film Festival. The subject matter is relevant and intriguing from a social point of view - so the movie had the potential of being poignant and thought provoking. Instead, it feels as if the editor had been AWOL. The first hour and a half of the movie is peppered with irrelevant scenes, gratuitous coarse "humor" that is neither here nor there, and static shots with noise in the background (not unlike the time I accidentally hit record while pointing at the floor). Had it been a topic that I didn't have a personal interest in, I would have walked out of the theater after the first hour.

Surprisingly, the movie does end strongly. A good editing job could probably do wonders, producing a good 1 hour long movie. And that, in my book, would be preferable.

Boring, vapid, annoying, I left after the first hour. Poor and tangled dialogues, useless nudity. There is a scene where an old black and white picture, with hanged people, it's shown for more then a minute !!! The same picture, one minute !! WTF ? Or another scene where you can see a closeup with a guy's penis for about a minute!! Why ?? Dont go to this movie !

I saw many boring movies and I tolerated most of them and I have never put bad comments on them. But this is the most boring movie I have ever seen. Besides being boring it is also vulgar: many vulgar jokes and vulgar nudity scenes. Maybe this movie had a good idea, but it was implemented poorly.

I wat lch a lot of movie from all countries and all genres, but this is the most boring piece of ... I ever saw. It shows an actress/ director doing research. She reeds a couple of minutes from a book, watches a youtubefilm, walks through a museum and lays naked in bed with her boyfriend. That was the first 45 minutes...

The photography was amaturistic and ugly, the discussions between the cast irritating and a mess.

Avoid, avoid, avoid!

Aimed for a presumptuos kino, and they ended with some kind of a botched simpleton ambulant act. worst acting i've seen,

Even on fast forward the movie is boring to death.Life is too short to waste it with such nonsense.

As in the last 20 years this movie is another romanian garbage production. The actors probably are PC figurants paid by the soros funded NGO's

This movie is... wait, is it a movie? 😂 i highly recommend this whatever-it-is-being-called to those time killers who believe that history is documented & teached on History channel.

good job, guys! not.