dromasca

Richard Curtis is one of the most successful screenwriters in the 'feel-good' romantic comedy genre. Some of its remarkable successes are due to his writing. He has only dared to sit in the director's chair three times in order to bring the scripts of the feature films he wrote to the screens. The last time it happened was in 2013 with 'About Time', a film that combines the idea of time travel with the romantic genre in a rather original way. I don't have much to complain about director Richard Curtis, but I think he would have a lot to discuss with screenwriter Richard Curtis. The film starts from an original idea, develops it quite well for some of the time, but from about halfway through the screening I had the feeling that the author of the text had pretty much finished what he had to say and the actors and director were left to puzzle over how to fill the rest of the length of a feature film.

Tim, the film's main character, learns from his father, the morning after his 21st years celebration, that the men in their family have the talent to travel through time. Nothing spectacular from a historical point of view, so as not to cause global catastrophes, but they can correct small personal misfortunes, such as missed opportunities with a girl they really liked. He puts his talents into practice, with mixed success. The important breakthrough comes when he meets Mary, the woman of his life, whom he conquers with the help of small corrections of destiny. And yet, limitations cannot prevent greater misfortunes. Perhaps, after all, to live an ordinary life, with its great joys and small troubles, is still preferable.

The formula works wonderfully in the first part of the film, but then it bogs down in the middle. Curtis the screenwriter seems hesitant to make his characters unhappy for more than three minutes. The conclusion is that in life, as in film, too much happiness is not good for the cinematic narrative. In addition, there are a few time travel paradoxes that beg to be ignored, but that's only possible up to a point. Director Curtis is neat in execution but he seems to be out of ideas and doesn't really say anything new from the middle of the film to the end. There are many funny details and quotes from other films (a poster for 'Amelie' - the ultimate feel-good film for example) or books, but that's about it. We feel good as spectators, maybe even too good. I wasn't thrilled with Domhnall Gleeson's performance in the lead role and, in addition, he seems a bit young for the role and a bit unchanged throughout what would be a decade of action. Rachel McAdams is pretty and likable, but the one who explodes on screen is Margot Robbie. The future star was in one of her first major roles and she overshadows the main heroine as a presence, even though she has a much smaller supporting role, making us doubt the hero's romantic decisions. The acting delight is provided by Bill Nighy, an actor I love very much. In the role of the father he is amusing, subtle and touching, in the tasteful tradition of British comedies. However, even he cannot save the film, in my eyes. 'About Time' is like a cake too sweet to leave a pleasant impression.

Films about migrations, emigrants and immigrants are an important genre in world cinema, but not in Romanian cinema. 'Jaful secolului' a.k.a. 'The Heist of the Century' (which also circulates worldwide with the alternative titles 'Traffic' and 'Rheostat') has as its main theme the fate of Romanians living and working abroad. The dispersion of the population in search of a better life (especially from an economic point of view), made possible by the opening of European borders, is the dominant social phenomenon of the last 35 years of Romanian history. It also happens in most, if not all, countries of former Eastern Europe, but it reaches record numbers in Romania. And yet, Romanian cinema has produced surprisingly few films that look into the personal traumas and socio-economic dissonances of this migration. One of them was the debut film, over a decade ago, of Teodora Mihai, who also directed 'Jaful secolului'. The script is written by Cristian Mungiu, the filmmaker who paved the way for the successes of the Romanian New Wave two decades ago. Mungiu is also a co-producer of this film, which is actually a co-production of film studios from Romania, the Netherlands and Belgium. Among other co-producers we find the names of the Dardenne brothers. Unlike the films that made Mungiu famous, 'Jaful secolului' does not look to the past and (even though the story is based on a real event that occurred in 2012) is completely immersed in the present - a painful and complicated present for the film's heroes.

The script is inspired by an art theft in Rotterdam, a case that has not been fully elucidated to this day. At that time, seven famous paintings worth tens of millions of euros were stolen from an exhibition. It seemed to have been the work of professionals, who had operated with formidable speed, demonstrating a good knowledge of the places and disappearing before the police could show up and secure the area and the escape routes. The traces soon led to a gang of criminals from Romania. Screenwriter Mungiu started from these facts and built a fictional hypothesis not so much about the way the criminals acted, but about the reasons that led them to commit the theft. The first part of the film is a combination of a heist plot about the planning and execution of the theft, combined with the story of the young couple formed by Natalia and Ginel, who left Romania for Western Europe to overcome the economic difficulties at home. In the second part, the action moves back to the town on the Danube where the two take refuge together with their loot, after the heist story goes wrong.

From the Western viewer's point of view, it could be an immigration film combined with the story of a famous theft at the time and the complicated investigation that followed. None of these narrative threads are conventional, however. What primarily interested the filmmakers was the meeting between the two cultural and historical hemispheres of Europe. The tolerant democracy of the West, which accepts foreign economic immigrants on condition that they respect a set of rules that include social and economic distancing and differentiation, meets the feelings and resentments of Eastern Europeans who are forced to accept socio-economic inferiority and feel misunderstood and unaccepted by the majority society they have arrived in. Corruption and abuse exist in both societies and they only exacerbate the differences and conflicts. The motivations for the theft are completely different from those suspected by the investigators and probably most viewers.

The film benefits from some remarkable acting performances. Anamaria Vartolomei is a rising star of European cinema and this role in a (partly) Romanian film only adds value to her successful creations of recent years. Ionut Niculae and Rares Andrici both manage to give life to two viable and credible characters. A gallery of well-drawn authentic figures surrounds the heroes during the period they live in the Netherlands and in the hometown where they return. I cannot say the same about the investigators who resemble too much the clichés of investigators and prosecutors from many other Romanian films. I liked the cinematography less. I think it wanted to suggest the cold and indifferent light of the European northwest where the first part of the action takes place, the freeze and poverty of the Romanian environment in the second part. However, too many scenes take place at night, the darkness uniforms and makes the action at certain moments difficult to follow. 'Jaful secolului' (I like the Romanian title much better) is a well made and important film, with a theme that is painful and urgent for both hemispheres of the continent.

'Germany Year Zero', filmed by Roberto Rossellini in 1947 and released in 1948, is one of those films about which entire bookshelves have been written and can still be written. In less than 80 minutes, this film manages to be the ultimate document about Germany in the years after World War II and one of the most remarkable films ever made about the disasters of war, about destroyed childhoods and about the harmfulness of totalitarian ideologies. It is a film that has been disputed, contested and boycotted: the German public did not see it for three decades, with the exception of a single screening in 1952. It is considered one of the masterpieces not only of Rossellini's career but also of the entire neorealist movement, although in its production it violated some of the fundamental canons of neorealism. More than anything, it is a cry of deep human pain, expressed through the means of cinema.

Roberto Rossellini, who had lost a nine years old son the year before, chose to have in 'Germany anno zero' as its main hero a twelve-year-old boy who survives in the ruins of Berlin. Edmund is the youngest brother in the Köhler family. His mother is dead, his father is ill. The older brother is hiding from the police, he fought in the German army 'until the bitter end' and he fears imprisonment in the camps. With three food coupons for four people, existence is difficult. The middle sister is forced to go out at night 'for fun' with the soldiers of the occupation armies, and Edmund tries to help the family by working (although he does not have a permit due to his age), selling objects on the black market, being an accomplice in thefts. He no longer goes to the school where 'democracy' is taught. The building in which the family lives is half in ruins, and in fact there does not seem to be any intact building left in the area of Berlin where the filming was done. The other tenants are also decimated families or refugees, always looking for food, in danger of being disconnected from gas or electricity because there is no money to pay for it. The meeting with his former teacher, still an adherent of Nazi ideas, infests the child's mind with ideas about the survival of the strong in a world in constant conflict. The consequences of this 'life lesson' from the past will be tragic.

Rossellini used in this film, as he did in many others, amateur actors, to whom he gave minimal script instructions and granted them freedom to build their lines and details of the characters. This procedure, still considered modern today, gives the feeling of authenticity and true experience of the characters. The amateur actors were themselves survivors of the war, the deprivations and traumas they brought to the screen were reflections of their own experiences. Filmed two years after the Holocaust and the crimes of war, the film indirectly reminds them: German society is still deeply divided, psychological wounds are open, many of those who survived physically still carry in their souls the poison of the criminal ideology that had triggered the conflagration. Children are also late victims, their childhood is stolen, their coming to age is polluted. Those who had instilled the concepts that had led to the disaster continue to deny their responsibilities. Physical and spiritual recovery had not yet begun. The footage brings Berlin in ruins and its inhabitants to the screen like ghosts still haunted by the past. They are authentic, even if the actors played most of their roles in studio conditions in Italy. 'Germania anno zero' completes and concludes Rossellini's trilogy of war films. It is also an exorcism of his own demons. The first two films had been dedicated to Italy during the fascist period and that of the occupation at the end of the war. With 'Germany Year Zero' the Italian filmmaker returns to the roots of the conflict, in a way closing the historical circle by describing the disaster suffered by those who started the conflagration. It can also be seen as a historical warning, valid today more than ever.