Interview with Cristian Mungiu
After living
through the Ceacescu dictatorship, Cristian Mungiu probably finds the stupidity
of the Motion Picture Academy’s Foreign Language committee a minor nuisance. Nominated
by Romania as its candidate for the Best Foreign Language film, his “4 Months,
3 Weeks and 2 Days,” a stark, subtle and devastating depiction of
the travails of two young women seeking a solution in a society in which
abortion has been criminalized, was totally ignored by whoever the clowns are
that make that determination. Maybe he felt vindicated by the film’s opening
weekend in New York
which took in some $25,000 a screen. But I’d be lying though if I said it
wasn’t on his mind when I talked to him
on the phone long distance to Bucharest
a couple of weeks ago.
PK: How are things in Bucharest?
CM: I just got back last night from a very long
flight. It’s snowy.
PK: Here in the United States, a lot of people are
embarrassed and angry that your film not only wasn’t
nominated but also wasn’t
even
on
the
short list
for
Best
Foreign Language film. What
are
your
feelings about it?
CM: Well, we had this expectation because we had
this wonderful response from the Cannes
Film Festival. And because the film was very well received in festivals and
because we got a lot of nominations and awards from different critical
associations in the States, we had these expectations and we thought it was
maybe likely that the voting members of the Academy would have the same
opinion, so we’re
disappointed, to be honest. It’s alright
if
these
people
have a different taste, there’s nothing to
comment about
this,
if
Academy
members
have different taste, it’s absolutely all right. The problem is that it’s
not
very
fair
if
the
group of people
who
vote
for
this don’t represent the
taste of all the members of the Academy, and it’s frustrating not
to
know whether this
is
what they
would
chosen.
PK: At least it will bring about reform in the
voting system, one would hope. On the other hand, another film which is about a
very similar subject – a young
woman
having an unwanted pregnancy, “Juno,”
- won tons of nominations. Do you have any thoughts about that?
CM: Well honestly, I haven’t
seen
the
film.
And
then, you
you
can’t
really compare a film spoken
in
Englsh with a film spoken in some
other
language. It’s normal that
in the U.S.
most of the attention will be on English-spoken films, which is very
understandable.
PK: Do you plan to see “Juno?”
CM: It’s not
like
I
plan
to
see
this
movie
more than
some
other
movies.
I
plan
to
see
all
the
movies
that I
hear
a lot
of
good
things about, but not necessarily this one.
I
don’t feel like we were competing or
anything like
that.
And there’s
no
indication for me
that the
vote
of
the
members
of
the
Academy
was
connected
with
the
subject,
I
don’t know. I
have no idea
about
this.
Who
knows?
PK: There have been a number of movies that have
come out in the past year that have been comedies about women in that
situation, which they almost never mention the word “abortion” and
nobody ever resorts to it. There’s “Juno,” there’s
“Knocked Up,” you may
have heard of that, and “Waitress,” to name a few. Do you think Americans have
a kind of unrealistic attitude toward this issue? And do you think a comedy is an appropriate genre for confronting it?
CM: Well, honestly, I don’t
think it’s
okay
to
judge
and
generalize and
say
what kind of
attitude
Americans
have on the
basis
of
the
vote
of
a few
hundred
people
or
some
tens of people. You can’t
really say this.
It’s
obvious this subject
is
difficult
and
polarizing, that’s clear for me.
But
what was
really important
for
us
all
around doing the
promotion of the
film
in
the
U.S.
is
that we
finally thought it became
clear
that the
film we screened doesn’t carry any kind of
message, neither for or
against
abortion. It
presents a story set in a very complex kind of
environment and
it
invites you to have
an opinion. So
I
don’t think it could be offending in any
way, neither to people being pro or against abortion. But finally what I really
felt was that the American audience will be curious enough to see how come the
American press considered this film to be so good and so interesting, and the
voting members considered it not to be interesting at all. I hope that we are
going to reach our most important goal, which is to have as many people as
possible see the film and have their own opinion.
I
am
absolutely
content with
the
tone of
my
film.
I
don’t think this
is
an issue
that I
could
have treated differently and I’ve
made a lot of comedies
in
my
life before
this
film, but it never occured
to me, in connection with the story I was trying to tell, [to make it into a
comedy]. It’s not
about
humor
here, a comedy would not have
been
appropriate,
to
be
honest. I wanted to
be
realistic and I
thought
that this
is
the
way I
want
to
speak about
this now. And this should be generating and stimulating people to think about
something important. For all of us to make up our own minds and have our own opinion, this is what I
want. It’s not
like
telling people
what to
do.
PK: There are some funny moments in the movie, though.
CM: Yes, yes, I don’t
have anything against
that. But
you
know,
there’s a huge difference between humor and comedy. Comedy
lacks – from
my
perspective, comedy is something that creates laughter
lacking realism and would
place the discourse of the film from the beginning in a
very different tone. My main concern was to be very believable, very honest to
the story and to present in a very
realistic way both the society and the period in which this happened and this
specific story.
PK: A comedy also implies a happy ending, or at
least an ending of some sort, and you don’t really
have either one
in
your
film.
CM: Because I don’t have
much to
do
with
this
kind of
filmmaking, at least not for this
project. So we never aimed to please the
audience, we wanted to tell
a very
true story in a very direct
and
honest way. Assuming from
the
beginning
that people
might
be
displeased with what
they
considered to be the
truth.
PK: Most American films use
rapid
montage
and
sound effects
and
other
ways
of
manipulating the
audience for
a particular response to the film whereas
your
film
is
completely
devoid
of
any of
that kind of cueing of the audience. Do you think American audiences
will enjoy that change?
CM: I think there is not just one American
audience. It’s obvious that the
film
won’t be successful in a lot of
small places in cinemas all
across
U.S.
because it’s very very different and very difficult for most
of the people that only enjoy and are used to mainstream cinema. But this was
also the purpose of the film. I truly believe that the film achieves some of
the important goals of an American film which is the tension, and this
atmosphere of a thriller in the second part, but in a completely different way,
trying not at all to appeal to these very manipulative things that you can do
as a director. It’s very
easy to
impress people and make them cry if you
use
fast
editing and music, but I
think it’s not
dignifying for
you
as
a director. This
is
exactly what
we
wanted
to
avoid,
because for us
it’s
important
not
only what story
you
tell
but
how
you
tell
it.
And
we
don’t make
films
only looking necessarily for what the
profit
is going to be. Our first and primary goal is to make sure the story is told in
a very truthful way and we’re
not
being manipulative with our audience.
PK: Actually there are times with the film goes
out of its way to frustrate those expectations.
CM: Yes, I have a point about this, I mean I
allowed these things in the film on purpose because I see film narrative in a
different way than the American mainstream. First of all,
I’m
trying
to
get
the model of my narrative
from life and not from film, and not from different kinds of films. Learning
life, you realize that there are a lot of questions at the end of the day that
don’t get
an answer in
your
real life. And I’m
trying
to
have this in the
film. If I’m making a film about
a couple
of
girls and only what happens for
them
in
this
day, I
really try to
be
as
close
as
possible to the truth,
and
the
truth is that most
of
the
things that happen to them are going to
be
solved
but
not
all
of
them, and it’s
my
way of
saying,
“this
is
how
life goes
and
this
is
just
a fragment.” A film is not a whole story, and
it’s
up
to
you,
the
spectator, to
make up and to
imagine all
the
possible consequences, because
obviously there’s going to
be
a next day
for them. I hate this
type of filmmaking, where all the questions in the film get an answer by the
end of it, and everything is available for the subject. This is very fake, in a
way. Things don’t go
like
this
and
life is
not
like
this,
and
I’m
trying
to
get this kind of truth to
the story while also allowing some things that are not directly to the point.
PK: I don’t think you’re going to
enjoy “Juno”
then if that’s your
feeling about
films.
CM: Well, I can’t really
say
much –
you
know when
I
go
to
the cinema, I develop my expectations in the
first three minutes of the film. I have nothing against a good film and good
laughter and eating popcorn on a Saturday evening, it’s
just
not
the
kind of
film
that I
am
making.
PK: You said your film is trying to be honest to
the experience, and the experience that occurs to this is similar to your own
experience, I would assume, because you’ were the same age as those
characters at
that time
in
Bucharest, is that correct?
CM: Well, it’s more than
this
–
it’s
involving a lot
of personal details. It’s
a true story which I
knew from somebody who is very close to me, and it
involves a lot of things which are
–
not
necessarily autobiographical, but anyhow very close to me.
PK: That birthday party dinner scene, I think
people all over the world can recognize the stress and the absurdity of that
particular scene. Was it drawn from your personal experience, because the
details are so precisely…
CM: Pretty much, pretty much, because I come from
a family of doctors so I know what I’m talking about.
But
you
know the
best
news that you
get
after
people
see
this
scene
and
you
tell
me
it
can be
understood all over the world
and
I
had the
same feeling seeing this
film
screened in a lot of
countries,
is
that if
you
are
describing very
truthfully an experience that you had and which is very generally human, then
the context and the period won’t matter that much, and it’s
going to
be
universal
enough so that a lot
of
people
can recognize
themselves
in
the
situation. And
I
got
this
comment from several
people in the states watching the film, that “these
could
be
my
parents”
despite
the
fact
that they
have never seen this place, in the
80s
in
Romania,
and
if
you
listen
to
the
dialogue, they speak about
a lot
of
specific
things generated
by that period, but it’s
also
about
an attitude
that you
can get
no
matter where you
are
born. It’s
an attitude,
it’s
a conflict between generations, it’s a conflict between social
classes – and
you
know it’s
an important
moment for
me
in
terms of how you think about cinema.
Cinema is mostly something where you need to hear people to know their
thoughts, and you see things, while for me that moment transcends a little bit
the limits of cinema. You watch that scene and you know what the main character
thinks about. You kind of hear his thoughts and she’s
always silent, but you know
that she
doesn’t want to
be
there, that she’s
embarrassed, that she
wants
to
be
someplace else,
and
this
is
why
that scene
is
so
strong
for
me
because it’s also very very layered.
Next: Altman, Kieslowski,
Truffaut, Kents vs. Marlboros.