George-Hari-Popescu
Joined Jun 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings372
George-Hari-Popescu's rating
Reviews3
George-Hari-Popescu's rating
A very good movie for the communist cinematography. An appealing romance, some action and some humour. The 80s were somehow tense in the society and censorship was putting pressure on the Romanian cinema.
The movie still suceeds to reveal some hidden traits of that period, including the presence of western brands of cigarettes only available to the communist elite. And here the elite is Virgil and Virgil' father who is the head of a major construction site. Another revelation is the forced promotion of uneducated persons in the military.
Lastly, the main musical theme that you can hear in its entirety in the opening credits is one of the most beautiful in the Romanian cinema.
The movie still suceeds to reveal some hidden traits of that period, including the presence of western brands of cigarettes only available to the communist elite. And here the elite is Virgil and Virgil' father who is the head of a major construction site. Another revelation is the forced promotion of uneducated persons in the military.
Lastly, the main musical theme that you can hear in its entirety in the opening credits is one of the most beautiful in the Romanian cinema.
I thought it was a documentary, at the beginning of the movie. Then I noticed the accents of an artistic film. In the middle, I realized that it was a film in Ivana Mladenovic's style. The story is quite simple: Ivana visits her parents and grandmother, in Kladovo, on the Serbian bank of the Danube. It is an occasion of verbal conflicts with them, of secret meetings with her Serbian boyfriend who is 13 years younger than her and the welcoming of her former Romanian boyfriend, along with his girlfriend, during the Romanian-Serbian friendship festival.
Why is Ivana so terrible?
Because she feels she has medical problems, although the tests say she has nothing. Because of this, her parents consider her a hypochondriac, and her grandmother condemns her lifestyle. But Ivana is mostly afraid of what the town will say if they find out that she has a relationship with a 21-year-old boy, as she is 34. This fear was a real one, as the director confessed at the post-premiere discussion.
Otherwise, Ivana is a strong woman, with pertinent arguments, to the same extent that she is annoying. In this context, the adjective "terrible" becomes an additional reason to want to know her and find out the internal motivations behind her behavior.
Engaging one's family in a movie is not an easy thing to do. It was difficult at times, especially since her father was a veterinarian and could not always be available on the set, and her grandmother was old, so she had a rather low energy level. However, Ivana's effort paid off and a lively film full of psychology was the result.
The script started with Ivana's personal diary. Together with Adrian Schiop, she built a plausible scenario, sprinkled with irony, self-irony and even humor, sometimes bitter. Ivana acknowledged that she was inspired by "Summer Night, Half Past Ten" by Marguerite Duras.
The shootings also involved a part of the city of Kladovo, where Ivana was considered a famous actress because Serbs don't consider the role of director as an important one.
The funny thing is that Ivana's former Romanian lover is Andrei Dinescu, and his father, the poet Mircea Dinescu, appears in a scene in the end, on the bridge, when he says a few words and recites.
I urge you to watch the movie for the realistic character created by Ivana Mladenovic, one of the most complex characters I have encountered in Eastern European cinema.
Why is Ivana so terrible?
Because she feels she has medical problems, although the tests say she has nothing. Because of this, her parents consider her a hypochondriac, and her grandmother condemns her lifestyle. But Ivana is mostly afraid of what the town will say if they find out that she has a relationship with a 21-year-old boy, as she is 34. This fear was a real one, as the director confessed at the post-premiere discussion.
Otherwise, Ivana is a strong woman, with pertinent arguments, to the same extent that she is annoying. In this context, the adjective "terrible" becomes an additional reason to want to know her and find out the internal motivations behind her behavior.
Engaging one's family in a movie is not an easy thing to do. It was difficult at times, especially since her father was a veterinarian and could not always be available on the set, and her grandmother was old, so she had a rather low energy level. However, Ivana's effort paid off and a lively film full of psychology was the result.
The script started with Ivana's personal diary. Together with Adrian Schiop, she built a plausible scenario, sprinkled with irony, self-irony and even humor, sometimes bitter. Ivana acknowledged that she was inspired by "Summer Night, Half Past Ten" by Marguerite Duras.
The shootings also involved a part of the city of Kladovo, where Ivana was considered a famous actress because Serbs don't consider the role of director as an important one.
The funny thing is that Ivana's former Romanian lover is Andrei Dinescu, and his father, the poet Mircea Dinescu, appears in a scene in the end, on the bridge, when he says a few words and recites.
I urge you to watch the movie for the realistic character created by Ivana Mladenovic, one of the most complex characters I have encountered in Eastern European cinema.
"A poet, a lawyer and a geek walk into a bar and they ask themselves: why we believe in democracy anymore?" This is what Lawrence Lessig says in the documentary "Meeting Snowden" (2017, France, 52 min.). Lessig is the lawyer, Birgitta Jonsdottir is the poet and Edward Snowden is the geek. They all sit around a small table in a hotel room and Moscow and talk about democracy.
The film was made while Trump was about to take over the presidency and there were some that Russia could hand over America's most wanted whistleblower if Trump was to kindly ask Putin to do so. Fortunately, it didn't happen and the Russian authorities extended Snowden's residence until 2020. Recently, Putin said that Snowden did a bad thing when he revealed NSA secrets, but he agrees that he served his country when he did that.
Uninformative, but meditative
Compared to other documentaries and feature films with or inspired by Snowden, this one is less informative. You will not know more about the American whistleblower that you already knew and there aren't any mind blowing revelations. This documentary is rather an essay, a series of reflections about means democracy today, in the era of technology and global surveillance.
If "Citizenfour" is an informative and full of suspense documentary, "Killswitch" (2014) is an introduction to the subject of global mass surveillance and "Snowden" (2016) is a biographical attempt, "Meeting Snowden" only wants to make you think about the relationship between the state and the citizens in today's societies. Lessig says that, in the USA, people "act as if they lived in a democracy". Then he makes an aggressive comparison with the Soviet regime in the '70s.
During the debate in the hotel room, the three activists come to talk about the different ways in which people are manipulated today. They agree that fear is imposed today through the constant repetition of the terrorist menace. But let's not forget that, after Snowden's revelations, the US government admitted that they never caught a terrorist using the intrusive surveillance systems that they have been using for 10 years.
For a person who doesn't know much about Snowden and his exile stories, the documentary is a history and democracy lesson. But those who follow the Snowden subject since the activist caught the public eye will be disappointed.
In this film, Snowden seems tired, passive and his discourse is corny and fade. Lessig tries several times to add some spice to the discussion, but Snowden is not aware of that. Birgitta Jonsdottir's contribution is very low, but her opinions in the introduction and the final part of the movie are valuable.
Quotes
"It's so easy today to divide people! Look at the narrative about Russia and the United States." — Birgitta Jonsdottir
"Citizens of US don't see the unconstitutional mass surveillance laws; they see an individual challenging the stability, the structure, the dignity, the reputation of the government class". — Edward Snowden
"Fear works as a political strategy. Invoke terrorism and freedoms will evaporate." — Edward Snowden
"Ordinary people can do extraordinary things." — Edward Snowden
The film's structure
The film has an introduction, with a background of the meeting in Moscow; also, there is an introduction about Snowden, for those who don't remember who he is. The discussion in the hotel room follows, interrupted by short behind-the-scene moments (Snowden clapping his hands when the shooting starts, recalibrating the cameras etc.) and some general opinions close the film.
There are a lot of images with the streets and buildings of Moscow. The final sequence is a mix of the most recent street protests around the world, including those from Romania from the beginning of this year.
See the movie at ARTE.TV.
The film was made while Trump was about to take over the presidency and there were some that Russia could hand over America's most wanted whistleblower if Trump was to kindly ask Putin to do so. Fortunately, it didn't happen and the Russian authorities extended Snowden's residence until 2020. Recently, Putin said that Snowden did a bad thing when he revealed NSA secrets, but he agrees that he served his country when he did that.
Uninformative, but meditative
Compared to other documentaries and feature films with or inspired by Snowden, this one is less informative. You will not know more about the American whistleblower that you already knew and there aren't any mind blowing revelations. This documentary is rather an essay, a series of reflections about means democracy today, in the era of technology and global surveillance.
If "Citizenfour" is an informative and full of suspense documentary, "Killswitch" (2014) is an introduction to the subject of global mass surveillance and "Snowden" (2016) is a biographical attempt, "Meeting Snowden" only wants to make you think about the relationship between the state and the citizens in today's societies. Lessig says that, in the USA, people "act as if they lived in a democracy". Then he makes an aggressive comparison with the Soviet regime in the '70s.
During the debate in the hotel room, the three activists come to talk about the different ways in which people are manipulated today. They agree that fear is imposed today through the constant repetition of the terrorist menace. But let's not forget that, after Snowden's revelations, the US government admitted that they never caught a terrorist using the intrusive surveillance systems that they have been using for 10 years.
For a person who doesn't know much about Snowden and his exile stories, the documentary is a history and democracy lesson. But those who follow the Snowden subject since the activist caught the public eye will be disappointed.
In this film, Snowden seems tired, passive and his discourse is corny and fade. Lessig tries several times to add some spice to the discussion, but Snowden is not aware of that. Birgitta Jonsdottir's contribution is very low, but her opinions in the introduction and the final part of the movie are valuable.
Quotes
"It's so easy today to divide people! Look at the narrative about Russia and the United States." — Birgitta Jonsdottir
"Citizens of US don't see the unconstitutional mass surveillance laws; they see an individual challenging the stability, the structure, the dignity, the reputation of the government class". — Edward Snowden
"Fear works as a political strategy. Invoke terrorism and freedoms will evaporate." — Edward Snowden
"Ordinary people can do extraordinary things." — Edward Snowden
The film's structure
The film has an introduction, with a background of the meeting in Moscow; also, there is an introduction about Snowden, for those who don't remember who he is. The discussion in the hotel room follows, interrupted by short behind-the-scene moments (Snowden clapping his hands when the shooting starts, recalibrating the cameras etc.) and some general opinions close the film.
There are a lot of images with the streets and buildings of Moscow. The final sequence is a mix of the most recent street protests around the world, including those from Romania from the beginning of this year.
See the movie at ARTE.TV.