When it comes to grim accounts of healthcare issues and bureaucracy in Romania, photographed in long takes with a hand-held camera, the 2007 Cannes Palme d'Or winner "4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days" plays like a screwball comedy next to last year's relentless three-hour endurance test, "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu." (A test, by the way, that I failed.) That's not to say it's any less harrowing; it's just shorter and, in my view, less distractingly theatrical. (The cinematographer is the same -- Oleg Mutu -- so the difference may be in the director.)
Here, the long takes (sometimes entire scenes) don't keep reminding you that they're being filmed by somebody walking around with a camera. The work is steady, controlled, disciplined. And, like several impressive films at this year's Toronto Film Festival (including "No Country for Old Men," "Chop Shop," "Persepolis," "Paranoid Park") it chooses just the right moment to cut to black at the end. (That's a favorite device of mine, and it seems to be quite popular about now.)
As you may know, Cristian Mungiu's film is about an abortion, which virtually guarantees it will be "powerful." But what makes the movie work is the portrayal of the characters: Otilia (Anamaria Marinca), the central character, helps her passive-aggressive roommate Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) arrange for an illegal, hotel-room "probe" procedure performed by a cut-rate black market abortionist who goes by the name Mr. Bebe (Vlad Ivanov).
But this isn't just another story about women victimized by men in a repressive and bureaucratic political system (although it is that, too). The most infuriating character in the whole piece is Gabita, who is so irresponsible and "helpless" that she deliberately puts Otilia at risk again and again, by forcing her to take all the risks except for the actual procedure itself. You wonder how the weak and utterly blank Gabita ever even survived to reproductive age, and whether she would have done anything at all if Otilia hadn't stepped up to take responsibility. (Gabita seems like the type who would just give birth and then walk away from the baby -- whether in the hospital or in an alley somewhere.)
This in no way excuses the ways Mr. Bebe exploits the situation, but during a painful, protracted negotiation in the hotel room, your sympathies are -- for a while, at least -- more with him than Gabita. She has failed to follow any of his instructions (meeting him in person, reserving the room), which makes him justifiably distrustful in a country where performing an abortion carries a stiff prison sentence. But he eventually crosses a line, from understandable paranoia to cold manipulation of the situation.
"4 months..." is a sharp political commentary about free-market forces in a socialist bureaucracy where nearly everything is regulated by the government. In certain respects, Mr. Bebe is simply an entrepreneur, a man who identifies a need and fulfills it to make a profit. Pure capitalism, supply and demand. Meanwhile, the government keeps its citizens' social, economic and private lives wrapped in a binding of red tape.
I'd love to see a Bordwellian Average Shot Length analysis of this film. Fortunately, the long takes don't call attention to themselves. One such shot at a dinner table, during a birthday party at the home of Otilia's boyfriend, is composed with the boyfriend's mother on the left, Otilia in the center, the boyfriend slightly behind her, and his father on the right. Olilia has just left Gabita in the hotel room after the abortion. She doesn't want to be here, and she's thoroughly distracted. The conversation and activity (eating, smoking, drinking) go on all around her, and she remains relatively immobile in the frame. She is in the action, but not of it, and the camera communicates her distress and unease with subtle effectiveness.
"4 months..." is an impressive film. But it does not reflect well on the Cannes jury that it was chosen for the Palme d'Or over the Coen brothers' "No Country for Old Men." That seems almost inconceivable. One is a good movie; the other very nearly defines the essence of movies.
"4 months..." is an impressive film. But it does not reflect well on the Cannes jury that it was chosen for the Palme d'Or over the Coen brothers' "No Country for Old Men."
----
Couldn't agree more. 4 Months is a strong film, I'd argue stronger than recent Palme d'Or winners L'Enfant and Fahrenheit 9/11, but I've seen nothing at the festival this year that can match the exhileration I felt watching NCFOM. And I caught that at the 10 pm screening after a brutally long day.
BTW, regarding my post about In The Valley of Elah, it's actually one of my favourites at the fest this year. But then I also liked Crash ...
"But it does not reflect well on the Cannes jury that it was chosen for the Palme d'Or above the Coen brothers' "No Country for Old Men." That seems almost inconceivable. One is a good movie; the other very nearly defines the essence of movies."
Wow Jim, between you and Roger extolling nothing but praise for 'No Country for Old Men' and tossing around words neither of you use lightly, I'm getting extremely excited about the latest Coen Bros. (not that I wasn't before, but with a one two punch of Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers, I was ever so slightly skeptical). Any thoughts whether the critical success of this film would fast-track more McCarthy adaptations? I'm thinking more along the lines of Blood Meridian than The Road. Heard anything else about Blood Meridian besides Ridley Scott being attached? I really hope that doesn't stick! Loving the reports from TIFF, keep up the good work!
Your attempt to provide a link to show how you failed the endurance test was also, alas, a failure.
While I agree that No Country for Old Men is an astounding piece of filmmaking, I would argue that "4 months…" is equally powerful, albeit in a different way. You should start criticizing the jury's Coen snub in the remaining awards, which were generally not as worthy. (No way Javier Bardem shouldn't have won the acting award). And yes, I saw every film in competition.
Of course, the best film at Cannes was "You, the Living," which wasn't in competition.
Joel and Ethan Coen are the Beavis and Butt-head of starstruck independents, who clearly consider themselves better than history. All of their films, save for "Blood Simple", don't have a great deal on there mind except how cool the Coen brothers are and how stupid or contemptible everybody else is, including everyone in the audience. It's pretty laughable and sad that Jim considers the Coen brothers adolescent smarminess and comic-book cynicism the essence of cinema. I would like to echo Godard as well. JLG once said that, "cinema is truth 24 frames a second, every cut is a lie." The Coen's cinema is lies 24 frames a second, every cut is the truth.
The Death of Mr Lazarescu and "4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days" are brilliant, heartbreaking, transcendent films that contain more human warmth than the entire Coen's brothers filmography. The Coen's brothers make movies that are imitations of art. The Death of Mr Lazarescu and "4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days" are imitations of life.
David: You write:
"The Death of Mr Lazarescu and "4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days" are brilliant, heartbreaking, transcendent films that contain more human warmth than the entire Coen's brothers filmography.
First, I should emphasize that drawing a comparison (as I did) between the Coens' work and these two Romanian films is a very narrow and ephemeral one -- made as an afterthought only because "No Country" and "4 months" both happened to be in competition at the same edition of the Cannes film festival. One took the big prize, the other got squat, even though the critical response was equally ecstatic. In almost all respects, the films could not be less alike.
But, for me, there is more human warmth and wisdom and artistry in the last few moments of "Miller's Crossing" (or in the opening and closing moments of "No Country") than in "Lazarescu" and "4 months" combined. And I think "4 months" is a fine movie. ("Lazarescu" felt like more of a theatrical illustration or tract to me -- but, as I say, I didn't make it through the final hour.)
A friend of mine once said exactly what you say about the Coens finding their audience and characters laughable and contemptible. I could only respond that if he understood the nature of the humor, he wouldn't see it that way. You get where the humor is coming from or you don't, and if you don't you think you (and the people on screen) are being laughed at, and that's all there is to it.
I know there are lots of people who feel the way you do about the Coens, which is why I wrote this piece the way I did (throwing down the gauntlet, as one critic in Toronto described the post). I mentioned the specific moments I value in "No Country" and why. What I'm saying is: These are the kinds of things I care about most in movies. Obviously, our cinematic values are quite different!
I'm less of a fan of "Miller's Crossing" than many of you, but high among the many, many reasons why "Raising Arizona", "Fargo, and "The Big Lebowski" are Top 100 films in my book are precisely human warmth. Yes, the characters are often laughable as who isn't? But for the Coens' audience I see respect for our intelligence and our ability to empathize with those we may also be inclined to laugh at. This last point is where Judd Apatow's movies really hit the mark, as well.