Libertate

1. Great Production

'Freedom' or 'Libertate' (2023), directed by Tudor Giurgiu and produced by Oana Giurgiu is a rare gem among the few pieces of Romanian filmography that takes a look at the events that have unfolded in Romania in December 1989. The experience is supremely immersive in part thanks to the speedy and well thought out camera movements (as if you are one of the background characters witnessing the story take place) and the incredible sound design and effects (complementing through your sense of hearing, your presence during these events). This effect is also achieved through the rather close-on-the-action camera and sound focus / angles / framing / sound design during dialogue or action-centric scenes. Everything, from the decor to the aftereffects, portrays a complete and profoundly immersive experience of the Revolution of '89 as seen from Sibiu, bringing about a feeling of 'Hollywood budget' production factor, for which the production team should be commended and which makes this movie a must-watch for all Romanians, especially those that have not lived through these events and would benefit immensely from adding this small point of reference to a vocabulary of insights on the history of their country.

As far as the dialogue goes, the lines are beautifully savory, capturing the colorful vocabulary of the times and the spirit of the Romanian people through their language in the face of adversity (thanks in no small part to the flawless delivery if the actors and actresses). Sparkled with cliche-ic, modern, humorous moments here and there, the immersion is not broken and the overarching theme of the Romanian saying: "Facem haz de necaz" - or "Poking fun when in trouble" remains beautifully captured, something which the Romanian audience would clearly empathise with despite the colorless, hopeless and gruesome atmosphere.

2. Lacking Message

The other side of the coin here is what ended up feeling like an incomplete artistic vision on the part of the directing team. Vaguely put, after exiting the cinema you are left with a confusing feeling of not completely understanding the message of the movie - as if being presented with a perfectly executed cake on a random Tuesday at 13.00 and wondering to yourself what the occasion is. As other reviewers have put it, this movie is an exceptional radiography of the events that have unfolded in that period, but as with any radiography it necessitates a diagnostician that should walk the patient through the end result of a proper and digestible conclusion - perhaps not in the case of modern art, but for certain when it comes to historical movies. In the case of 'Libertate' the director's vision was either outshone by the focus on production and realism or diluted in the process, to the point where a viewer does not feel gently waltzed to an overarching message or concluding moral, as is usually the end goal of storytelling, regardless of medium. This may be due in part to an intentional neutrality of the directing vision or an accidental oversight as a result on the focus on the story itself, the research, and its delivery. Conclusions can still be drawn, however, but may have been left uncomfortably much at the discretion and subjective experiences of the viewer who is this case, regardless of generation, is looking less for freedom of opinion and more for answers over what has actually happened in '89 and who is responsible for the many deaths that occurred.

Ironically the movie is portrayed and sold as a new and necessary look at the historic events that are still shrouded in mystery and censorship at the risk of being forgotten after 34+ years, but fails to deliver a stern position/opinion/message/new angle on such a controversial topic as if just as afraid to postulate one, just like the modern institutions it (and many others) accuses of the same fault. As if presented with an uninterpreted radiography, the viewer is purposefully left to make their own opinions on the story, symbolically similar to what led to the events back then - a general confusion based on the lack of a centrally delivered information, where everyone could only survive by making their own assumptions and accusing everyone else in the process, which ultimately led to the back and forth fighting and innocent casualties. Whether this vision was accidental or intentional and whether it will be a popular or unpopular one among audiences remains to be seen.

3. Opinions

Personally, I had the chance to experience the movie during its premiere at the old People's Palace, where the Romanian Communist Party Congresses took hold in the past, which is just in the vicinity of the building with the infamous balcony where Ceausescu was last seen in power before fleeing with the use of a helicopter. This, I believe, was a very inspired choice on the part of the organizing team. Soldiers in old uniforms were welcoming the audience silently as if to recreate the prisoners escort feel portrayed during the movie.

In aspects pertaining to the political and macro context, the movie benefited from a hybrid sponsorship between centers and authorities from both Romania and Hungary, from the National Cinematography Center and Film Institute of Hungary to the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Culture from Romania, and numerous commercial sponsorship from high retail brands. This may have contributed to the rather politically neutral and uncontroversial, if not dutiful, perspective on the events. It delivered no more, no less than what is already known by most of the Romanian people about the Revolution (even though it tackled a story that is not widely shared), and does not try to shake the existing status-quo on the matter or provide answers to a topic littered in questions even today. On one hand, the movie may have assimilated the general reaction of the institutions that it has collaborated with in delivering a movie not meant to break the norms, on the other hand, its vision may have been a minimalist one from the start as if to say 'all we want to do is remind you that this happened, and not open a Pandora's box about the topic, and through this portrayal let you know that new events about something that happened 30+ years ago may still be uncovered, and that history is always worth researching'... then again perhaps not.

4. Conclusions

The movie remains an exceptional one and sets a new bar in terms of production value for the immersive experience it creates and its indirect educational effect as a result of that. Inevitably, when tackling such intense and emotionally packed topics, it will undoubtedly spark a political analysis and rekindling of the many questions on an entire nations mind - left yet unanswered. In that regard the movie had a modest if not tactfully avoidant stance, and has perhaps accidentally raised too high expectations (due to its marketing narrative and reported research into the events) for what its intended purpose was: to shed a simple and unambiguous light on one more small, yet important, story that unfolded during the events of '89, and not to provide closure to several generations. It succeded in reminding us that even in the absence of answers, or satisfying new insights, the people and the public should never stop asking the questions.

Romanian cinema, like a significant part of the Romanian society, is still obsessed with the events of December 1989, which led to the fall of communism. Romania was the last country among the former allies of the USSR in which this regime change took place and the only one in which the transition was violent. Neither historians nor courts nor ordinary people have yet given a clear verdict on those events: what really happened? Was there a popular uprising, a coup d'état, media stage, or a combination of all these? 'Libertate' ('Freedom'), the film directed by Tudor Giurgiu, focuses on what happened in Sibiu, a city that in 1989 had about 150 thousand inhabitants, located in Transylvania, in the geographical center of Romania. In a style that can be characterized as docu-drama, the film follows the struggles between the forces that until the eve had been allies in the preservation of communist order and legality, and which now find themselves - out of manipulation, out of inexperience, out of fear - engaged in - a violent conflict.

Tudor Giurgiu aimed and largely succeeded to create an immersive experience for the spectators, recreating the atmosphere of chaos in Sibiu on December 22, 1989 and in the ten days that followed. He created a gallery of characters in constant motion, most wearing army, militia or security forces uniforms. After some time, a few main characters emerge: Viorel Stanese - officer in the judicial militia who shows up for work and finds himself defending weapon in hand the institution's headquarters against an unclear enemy, Leahu - a taxi driver but perhaps also a security informant who finds himself with a gun in his hand at the wrong time, the army colonel Dragoman who evolves in days or maybe just hours from revolutionary to torturer. Almost all the characters had been collaborators and perhaps even profiteers of the old regime. The order imposed by the dictatorship collapses, everybody fears and suspects everybody else, some find themselves in the camp of the victors, others are categorized as 'terrorists' and become prisoners in a swimming pool emptied of water, along with some of the victims of the repression. In an anthological scene, protesting the conditions of detention, former militiamen and security officers chant 'Freedom!'. But what Freedom can we talk about after half a century of dictatorship? What does this word actually mean?

Tudor Giurgiu makes copious use, especially in the first part of the film, of the mobile camera, with the cameramen among the characters, in the crowds on the streets or next to the panicked officers in the besieged Militia headquarters. The second half of the film is spent most of the time in the structure of the swimming pool, an excellent visual metaphor of an enprisonment space. As things quiet down, so do the cameras and the cinematic style returns to a classic narrative. The swimming pool gradually empties as the prisoners are released, but the first to leave are those who agree to cooperate. The cast is excellent, the actors live their roles rather than act and the difference between documentary and fiction is almost completely erased. With this film, Tudor Giurgiu returns to the roots of Romanian history of the last 33 years. Without judging the characters and their actions and without taking explicit attitudes, he seems to suggest that the current disorientation of many segments of the Romanian society has its origin in the confusion of those December days. 'Libertate' is an intentionally chaotic film about those days of change that could have happened differently.

I have just had the privilege of seeing this tonight, at a pre-screening before the actual launch and I can say I was very happy and relieved to see these stories told so well and yet also not be a documentary, in spite of the mountains of research and effort that went into recreating some of the aspects depicted. Probably the best and most mature non-meta Romanian film.

Please go out and support it by seeing it in cinemas, starting October 6th - it's well worth it and it deserves to be seen if you're even remotely interested in Romanian films, history inspired stories - or, indeed, great movies in general!

📽 "Libertate" magnificently directed by Tudor Giurgiu and masterfully written by him together with Cecilia Stefanescu and Nap Toader, is a historical drama inspired by the great mystery behind the events of the dark days of December 1989 in Sibiu, where the fall of the communist regime leads to bloody confrontations between soldiers, policemen, civilian protesters and representatives of the secret police, all resulting in unprecedented chaos. This film really succeeds in transposing the audience in the time-space line, but more importantly in the minds of the protagonists, questioning more than ever the value of moral ethics and the power to keep yourself clean in a dystopia full of corruption.

🎞 A special characteristic of the story is the directorial and acting power to present a blurred overall picture, capable of connecting the narratives of different, doubtful perspectives, thus leading the audience to crucial moments where they even doubt the veracity of the protagonists...captive too in a world ruled by fear and lies. A psychological study of a fractured mindset imposed by the failed ideologies of a flawed system, but also an enchanting story designed to leave the audience with questions and personal analyses, quite recent events leaving us as spectators in the position of questioning our own inner revolution. A film that leaves its mark on the audience for a long time, truly a cinematic masterpiece, the opportunity to reflect and thus better understand the past and implicitly the future!

I encourage people to watch this movie...however much watching it infuriated me. It is a compelling and, as previous posters (apparently mostly Romanian) have written, it is indeed an "immersive experience," and deserves to be viewed and applauded from an artistic standpoint. But it is unfortunately a deeply regrettable travesty from the point of someone who has spent decades investigating the events of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989. My first, of several, hopefully, episodic, entries, is to demonstrate that despite what Tudor Giurgiu, the director, has said in his many interviews, and what one reviewer, Eugen Istodor, has said... "Vocea securistilor nu s-a auzit 30 si ceva de ani si filmul le da cuvantul." (Hotnews.ro 7 October 2023)..."The voice of the Securitate (communist era secret police) has not been heard for 30 plus years and this film gives them the floor."...there is nothing new in this story...in fact, it has been expressed repeatedly and has long since achieved a hegemony in the Romanian media and everyday life. (Tudor Giurgiu has spoken in public at these showings, I was there for one, about the "fake narratives (about the Army) that have dominated for 30 plus years...and about the supposedly dominant narrative of "the Glorious Army"...but let us test his claims here)...below, for English speakers, two famous public discussions of the Sibiu December 1989 events...from 1990 and 1997, therefore for 33 years and 26 years respectively...to be continued...

POET, ESSAYIST, AND NPR COMMENTATOR ANDREI CODRESCU in Sibiu in July 1990, seven months after the Romanian Revolution of December 1989

As my friends spoke, a strange feeling engulfed me. Most of what they said sounded true, but there seemed to be something missing, one element of the plot that no one cared to mention. Here, in the middle of this sumptuous feast, I experienced the eeriness of another (hardly new) revelation: They were all blaming the army for the shootings; none of them blamed the Securitate. And yet the official government line was that the Securitate-not the army-massacred all those people who were undeniably massacred in Bucharest, Sibiu, and elsewhere. Could my friends also have been ... ? I felt like drawing two fingers across my shoulder (a sign he had earlier related was used to communicate that someone had Securitate ties), but I had no one to do it for. In any case, the point they were making, and which was being corroborated everywhere these days, is that many shots had been fired, but few in defense of Ceausescu, He had been betrayed by everyone. Even his son, who'd been in charge at Sibiu, hadn't ordered anybody to fire at demonstrators. Ironically, the People's Army started shooting at the crowds at the same time that the army was officially coming over to "the side of the people." However, the shooting was intended to create more panic than corpses. Romania's TV revolution had only one side ...Everyone had been on it.

--"Big Chills: My High School Reunion in Romania," HARPER'S MAGAZINE, NOVEMBER 1990

and

Back in 1997, the American novelist and Pulitzer Prize Winner William McPherson wrote of what Valentin Ceausescu, communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's eldest son, told him about the events of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989. Here are some excerpts:

Valentin and I were having coffee in the Vox Maris, the same grand casino where the funeral feast was held. It was morning, two days after the funeral (of Nicu Ceausescu), and the crowds had not yet arrived.

--"Nicu was never groomed to be the successor. That was (only) the rumor." He paused for a moment. "But rumors even become the reality."

--"Yes. Especially in Romania."

--"Maybe others in the party thought it would be a good idea. He could command a lot of sympathy. He always wanted to look tough and act strong, but he wasn't. He was more like a child than anything else."

--"What about the 90 people killed in Sibiu?"

--"He did not order the shooting. I know when he's trying to lie, and he wasn't lying. I knew immediately. That's why I defended him so strongly."

--He paused and lit another Pall Mall. "Have you noticed? All the heroes in Sibiu now are the militia and the Securitate - all the dead people, and now they are the heroes of the revolution."

--"So the villains are now the heroes?"

--"Yes."

--And the heroes are now the villains.

The official toll of the dead, revised frequently with a final version released three years after the events, is 1,104; only 160 were killed before the dictator fled.

Curious - if the figures are accurate - that the majority of them were killed in Sibiu. "A lot of effort," Valentin once said, "to kill these two old people."

William McPherson, "A Balkan Comedy," The Wilson Quarterly, Volume 21, Issue 3 (Summer 1997)

Thank you, dear readers and watchers. --Domnul R.