Closer to the Moon

Much like JFK's assassination, the Great National Bank Robbery of 1959 is shrouded in mystery, the first being whether the robbery did in fact take place (or was instead fabricated to justify the purging of undesirable party members), and the second concerning the motives for the robbery. Here, Caranfil depicts the robbery as a real event symbolizing an act of resistance against a communist regime that has failed to live up to its ideals. It's an idealistic plotline that molds the protagonists into crafty anti-establishment heroes, and that's fine in principle, but I don't think he manages to convey his story convincingly.

The main problem is that Caranfil empowers his protagonists to the point where it becomes difficult to feel pathos for them. Rather than endowing them with a tragic backstory to make their suicide mission believable, he depicts them as privileged party members who live care-free and suffer from existential boredom more than anything else. And although their fate is ultimately in the hands of the authorities, they always seem to be in control of the situation: they plan and execute the heist without a hitch, knowing that they will get caught; they laugh at the authorities during their trial, and they make a mockery of the film shoot without getting reprimanded.

As far as authenticity is concerned, it also doesn't help that the director chose an English-speaking cast and portrays communist Romania as a rather idyllic setting (granted the late 1950s were a more liberal era than what came afterwards). That said, I give him credit for at least shooting it in Bucharest and having the actors pronounce the Romanian names accurately.

To be fair, it's not a terrible movie from any technical standpoint (acting, set design, cinematography, etc.) and I found it both genuinely funny and cringy, because you can't overlook the absurdity of 1950s Romanians speaking English with British accents (note: if you enjoy that, I recommend the 2017 TV-series Comrade Detective). But my impression is that the director missed a golden opportunity to create a black comedy that is both tragic and comic, choosing instead to shoot a light-hearted parody.

I was so completely entertained by this little film. I understand the historical data is highly accurate and appropriate for the Romanians that have lived in that exact period - which I respect so much . The amazing cinematography traps you along with power-house performances from Farmiga and Strong, the story is simply amazing and unique ( i think we all crave for unique stories nowadays). Caranfil's directing took me by surprise because I have never expected this level of craft from a director also trapped in a country where films at this scale are only a dream. I loved every single one of the shots and the editing was also amazing. I really hope Caranfil will make more movies like this - keeping the amazing dark, funny and artistic tone. ( See The Rest is Silence - it maintains that unique blend of tones ). One of the best non- American films i've seen in the last couple of years.

Almost all high-rate Romanian directors have a somewhat perverted fetish about Communist Romania stories. That being said, if you've seen a Romanian movie from the 2000's until present day, in over 90% of the cases it's some story set in Communist Romania,and how bad it was and how people where so against it all. Nothing further from the truth! All of these stories are filled with one-sided prejudice opinions and resemble the directors view of the world. So, this movie isn't any different from all the other famed movies our directors have launched in the past years about pre-1989 Romania. The Ioanid gang, who where a bunch of superficial silly Bonn vivers on film where in fact a gang of guys (and a girl) with no ideological stance to their continuous dissidence before the WWII and afterwards. They where acting against the regimes only for the fun of it, for the adventurous filling of being in contradiction with those in power , not because they opposed Nazism and Communism as ideologies. They where Jews, who where oppressed by the Romanian Nazi collaborators and afterwards resented by the same Romanian Nazi collaborators(fascist legionnaires disguised as Communists and Bolsheviks as Romanian Iron Guard followers where to do after Germany lost the war) wrapped in the red flag of Communism. All in all the actors played their parts well, as they are professionals. But the storytelling, the way Caranfil romanticized a bunch of fools is not to my taste. As a different approach by our distinguished directors, I'd like to see a movie about the atrocities committed in the years when fascists where in power in Romania, when our 'honorable' King Carol II imposed his dictatorial regime, banning parties and letting the legionnaires from the Iron Guard rise to power before slaughtering them as they, in return, set Bucharest on fire and killed many Romanian Jews and other personalities such as Nicolae Iorga. But there is no real interest. It is more comfortable to pick the same over done subject of Communist Romania. My advice to you after seeing this artistic movie is to see the real reenactment "propaganda" movie made by the authorities in 1960. It's with the real participants and has a better way to sticking to facts as they occurred.

Vera Farmiga and Mark Strong played Romanian Jewish Communists who along with three others plot to rob the Romanian State Bank, a crime punishable by death. The court and country decide to use the case to teach a lesson in propaganda film. The burglars are acting as themselves in this film. The burglary was more about robbing the bank but anti-Communist. There is a nice romance in the film as well. Vera Farmiga and Mark Strong gave the best performances in the film. I would have liked to know more about it. The film was shot on location abroad.

In reality, something happened. Some people have been executed without being guilty. They have been forced to play a role in their fake trials and all ended in their execution. A false history was created by some top authorities in order to teach some kind of a lesson to the people that worked in the communist regime structures. This movie was not made for the public. This false reenactment most probably inspired Lucian Pintilie to create a cinematographic masterpiece, Reconstruction (1968). Add to that the fact that Pintilie's film has been done in those crazy times, when you could have gotten into big trouble for criticizing the regime.

Now, here comes Caranfil, a great director, that takes the original story and twists it once again, turning these people into courageous heroes that opposed the regime. They get into a suicidal mission just to send a message. How much believable is that? Does this bring justice to the original six persecuted people? I'm not sure about that. There's a documentary, called Marele Jaf Comunist (The Great Communist Robbery) that reveals more of the true story. Anyway, a drama is not supposed to tell the real story, and that's OK, but in this case, it's a pity that some people will take it as history.

The real six people have been persecuted in communist style with fake trials and five of them were killed. They were Jews and they were high professionals. Moreover, ironically, they had a history in participating successfully in bringing the communism to Romania. So, why did the regime chose them in order to teach a lesson to the other communists, and probably to the Jewish communists?

The movie might leave you with the impression that all Jews were persecuted under the communism. Many of them they were. The Russian occupation brought suffering to all kinds of Romanian citizens. But many of the Jews supported the regime since the beginning.

I know that many of the Jews have been disappointed by the communism that they previously believed in. Most of the Jews went to Israel sometimes in the Sixties, but also, many Jews supported the communist repression, leading to massive deportation, imprisonment and execution of hundreds of thousands of Romanian citizens. You will not see this in the movie.