R.M.N

Not sure what the message of the movie was supposed to be. There are two separate stories, one with a kid who saw something scary and is not able or willing to speak anymore after it, the second with a couple of immigrant workers who are not welcomed by the locals in the village.

Not much is happening in any of the stories, and definitely nothing that has not been depicted better in other movies.

The end of the movie is really, really confusing, with a woman who is asking forgiveness for something, not clear at all what exactly, then some bear figures hiding in the woods around her house... The movie left me with the sensation that I just wasted two hours that I could have spent in a better way.

Cristian Mungiu is one of the "founding fathers" of the Romenian new wave that started around 2005 with movies such as "The death of Mr Lazarescu" (2005, Cristi Puiu), "12:08 East of Bucharest" (2006, Corneliu Porumboiu) and of course the breakthrough movie of Mungiu himself "4 month, 3 weeks and 2 days" (2007). More than 15 years later the Romenian new wave is still alive and kicking. In 2022 the experienced director Mungiu delivers an excellent movie with "R. M. N" but there is also the "new name" Alexandru Belc with "Metronom". New name is maybe a bit exaggerated because Belc already contributed to the script of "4 month, 3 weeks and 2 days".

"Metronom" is situated in 1972 during the Ceausescu years and is thus typical Romenian. "R. M. N" covers more general themes. It is about Matthias (Marin Grigore) and his home village. After working in Germany for a while Matthias returns to his home village. In this village three Sri Lankan workers arrive at the local bakery because vacancies are difficult to fill (many workers work in the West). The arrival of the Sri Lankan workers leads to a lot of tension in the local community.

The above description seems to indicate that "R. M. N" is above all about racism, and that is not entirely untrue. In a key scene with a duration of twenty minutes there is a meeting in the village hall. In this meeting all prejudices against the Sri Lankan (and foreigners in general) are given free reign.

In my opinion "R. M. N" is about racism but not only about racism. It is also about hypocrisy. I give a number of examples.

In the first place Romanians working in Germany is no problem, but a Sri Lankan working in Romania is.

The film is situated in Transsylvania, a region with a Hungarian minority. This minority wants not to be discriminated against, but on the other hand has no problem discriminating other people.

There are also people defending the Sri Lankan workers, but this are their employers that have an economic interest. Their defence that no Romenian reacted on the vacant positions meets with the reply that they were only willing to pay minimum wages. So their bevaviour has at least a hint of hypocrisy to it. They are certainly not the good guys against the evil and dumb majority. In the films of Mungiu there seldom is a simplistic good versus bad distinction. In this respect the portrayel of one of the empoyers (Csilla Szabo played by Judith State) as always drinking a glass of red wine and always playing the cello was already a bit too "bourgeois" to my liking.

The village of the movie is situated on the edge of a primaeval forest. This is no coincidence as the forest symbolizes mystical and animal spirits, with recurring references to brown bears. These animal spirits overtake rational thought when it comes to reacting to foreigners. This is illustrated in the meeting in the village hall (in the scene already mentioned to) when some villagers tried to wrap their prejudices in rational arguments (maybe the foreigners carry unknown viuses with them). When their argument is refuted (we let them work with protecting rubber handshoes) the prejudice inside shows itself (but we simply don't want them here).

"R. M. N" is an ominous film with mob violence constantly in the air. In this respect it resembles "Werckmeister Harmoniak" (2000, Bela Tarr), although the last mentioned film is more abstact. The resemblance was for me the most obvious in the new years day parade with people in bear costumes fighting a neighbouring village as part of a new year tradition. For me this scene was the most Tarr like combining in an abstract manner animal spirits with xenophobia. The twenty minutes scene in the village hall did the same thing, but in a much more concrete way. This scene is more characteristic of Cristian Mungiu himself.

It's doubtful that anyone who's not Romanian -- and possibly Hungarian? -- will understand the title of this movie without looking it up on the Internet, as I did. And even after you do, you still might not completely understand why Cristian Mungiu decided to name it that. R. M. N. Is essentially the Romanian version of M. R. I, and while a brain scan makes a literal appearance in the film, it's done on a minor character, and what in the world does that have to do with everything else going on anyway?

But Mungiu has said that the idea of a brain scan, of peering underneath what's visible to see the inner workings of the mind, is a suitable metaphor what this film does to its characters. The movie is full of people who have thoughts and opinions and prejudices roiling underneath the exteriors they choose to present to the world, and it only takes the right combination of circumstances for all of those thoughts and feelings to ignite into a conflagration.

The major set piece of "R. M. N" is a town meeting done in one static long take. Here, the townspeople, presided over by their mayor, debate whether or not to let three Sri Lankan workers stay in the town and work at the local bakery. Xenophobia rears its ugly head, and civil discourse doesn't have a chance. Even though folks arguing on both sides of the argument make valid points, no one is interested in hearing anything anyone else is saying. Fear and irrationality reign supreme.

That same fear and irrationality bleeds into the film's enigmatic and deeply unsettling ending. You could spend a couple of hours with other people who've seen the movie debating what it all means, and still not be confident that you know. But it's effective as hell.

I'm sitting here thinking about this movie the day after I saw it, and I can't get it out of my mind.

Grade: A.

The director as usual deals with gray areas of morality. No one is all good or bad. All characters - with all their qualities and vices - are simply put, human.

He is able to treat topics such as immigration, racism, east-west, identity politics, etc. Without falling into the trap of being judgmental or prescriptive. No slogans here. All issues depicted naturally through the normal flow of normal people's lives...

The single take in the town hall - which goes on for minutes - must be a milestone in film history! I cannot imagine how many takes he must have had to create this virtually impossible scene. In a single take, so many characters engaging in the liveliest dialogue for minutes...it was breathtaking.

R. M. N. Was 2 hours of a visual and dramatic feast. I cannot wait to see what this great director will produce for us next.

I don't know this director from Roumania, some kind of a Roumanian Ken Loach, but I guess he is one of the best on the market. I will try to check what he did besides this one. It is not a light hearted story, it speaks of something very serious, dark, realistic, gritty. A tale about racism, intolerance, human behaviour, towards strangers, especially if they are foreigners come to work. I am sure it is like this in many countries, many places. This is not an easy topic to speak about. It is very well told, shown. It may be disturbing because too close to reality, to actual events and tragedies which we don't necessarily hear of.