4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Movie
German title 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days
Original title June 4, 3 săptămâni și 2 zile
Country of production Romania
original language Romanian
Publishing year 2007
length 113 minutes
Age rating FSK 16
Rod
Director Cristian Mungiu
script Cristian Mungiu,
Oleg Mutu
production Cristian Mungiu
camera Oleg Mutu
cut Dana Bunescu
occupation

4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days (original title: 4 luni, 3 săptămâni și 2 zile ) is a Romanian drama by Cristian Mungiu . It premiered on May 17, 2007 at the Cannes Film Festival. Set in late communist Romania under dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu , it is about the fear and humiliation that comes with living in a dictatorship. The work was the first Romanian film to be awarded the Golden Palm and was also awarded the European Film Prize and the Grand Prix de la FIPRESCI . It was also met with great approval by the critics because its sober formal style developed an extraordinary, almost unbearable tension. Mungiu organized a tour with a mobile projection system in Romania, where there were hardly any cinemas in 2008, in order to bring the work onto the screen there.

content

Historical starting position: Romania under Ceaușescu

The historical background against which the plot takes place is not directly explained in the film. In communist Romania , Nicolae Ceaușescu came to power in 1965 , to whom Moscow did not submit, led the country on a special national path and cultivated an extreme cult of leadership . The spying of the population by the Securitate secret service was total, the economic situation miserable. In contrast to other Central European People's Republics , in which a liberal sexual morality and family policy prevailed, Ceaușescu's ideology of national population growth reached deep into private life with strict regulations ( Decree 770 ). Contraception was not offered and there was several years imprisonment for abortion . Nevertheless, it was largely carried out by lay people in secret under precarious conditions, which is said to have resulted in the deaths of around 10,000 women. In the event of unexpected complications, the police would deny the woman access to the hospital as long as she did not name who was involved. After Ceaușescu's fall in 1989, one of the first legislative changes was the lifting of the abortion ban.

action

The film magazine Positif gave the reader the recommendation - which is rarely mentioned in such magazines - not to read anything about the film before going to the cinema. So he could experience the same surprise effect while watching the film as the festival audience in Cannes.

A Romanian university town in 1987. The students Găbița and Otilia share a room in the dormitory, where there is a lively black market in cosmetics and cigarettes. They have something planned for the evening that they don't talk about openly. While Găbița hesitates, Otilia pushes the preparations forward. At university, Otilia borrows some money from her friend Adi, who insists that she come to his mother's birthday party that evening. She squirms without revealing her plan with Găbița and finally promises the insistent Adi to come. Because a room reservation made by Găbița in the hotel she intended has failed, Otilia has to laboriously beg a room from the receptionist in another hotel. Then she picks up the unknown Mr. Bebe, with whom Găbița actually has an appointment. This has meanwhile arrived in the hotel room, where the central sequence of the film is now taking place.

Găbița is pregnant and wants to have an abortion despite the strict ban. During the first examination, Bebe, who was performing illegal abortions, found that she was not two months pregnant as claimed, but four months. The students have less money with them than Bebe expected. In an extortionate, humiliating haggle, the man manages to get both women to sleep with him in addition to financial compensation. While in the bathroom, Otilia discovers a jackknife in his suitcase and takes it. Bebe sterilizes the utensils he has brought and introduces a probe to Găbița. She has to remain in bed until the fetus is expelled, which can take two hours or two days. After Bebe leaves, Otilia leaves for her boyfriend's mother's birthday party and leaves Găbița alone. The receptionist points out that Bebe forgot his ID at the hotel. She finds no inner peace with Adi's parents and their friends, as she cannot reach Găbița by phone, and leaves the party prematurely.

When she arrives at Găbița's hotel again, the expulsion is already behind her. Găbița lies in bed and the fetus lies on the floor in the bathroom. Horrified by the sight, Otilia packs it in her bag and sets off into the night to throw it into a garbage chute somewhere. Back at the hotel, she knocks on the room door in vain. There is an ambulance in front of the hotel, as it turns out because of a fight and not because of Găbița, who is sitting in the hotel restaurant. Otilia suggests never talking about what happened again.

Topics

Life in dictatorship

The film does not focus on details of Ceaușescu's politics, but on the climate that has developed. Instead of relying on a large but impersonal storytelling, Mungiu precisely describes everyday life from a subjective perspective. The name Ceaușescu is never mentioned, the likeness of the dictator is never seen. According to Mungiu, his era should form the background of the story, but not its theme, in order to avoid the usual clichés of political films. There is a stuffy atmosphere in a lying, police, petty-bourgeois and burlesque- machic society. The gray, joyless mood in the country is also based on the behavior of the people. In public you feel like you are being watched and you try not to cause a stir - no laughing, no joking, no flashy clothing. Because abuses cannot be punished, they are part of life. The story illustrates how much the individual is at the mercy of totalitarian structures. The system was based not only on the secret police, but also on those citizens, to whom it gave some authority over others. Everyday life and interpersonal relationships are almost entirely characterized by addictions, corruption and blackmail, and those who have a bit of power savor it to humiliate others. This means, for example, that Otilia, as an authority figure, has to report her comings and goings to the receptionist and explain her personal affairs.

Mungiu himself sees a number of possible interpretations of his film - system metaphor, survival story, existential simile - none of them are wrong. For him, personal choices are essential. Most people do not see beyond the day and do not consider the consequences of their actions. That still applies to many Romanians today. Because the state had decreed childbearing, the Romanians did not see abortion as a personal, moral decision and were only concerned that they would not be caught. “The worst thing the regime has done in us has been influencing our thinking so that we do not consider the moral dimension when making decisions. This is a subliminal, harmful appropriation. It took me years to realize that the fight against communism was not only a fight for freedom itself, but also to learn to think freely. "

Several reviewers of the film found that it would be wrong to interpret the film in partisan terms of the question of abortion . The reasons that led numerous Romanians to terminate their pregnancy lay in the precarious economic situation and food supply, and therefore had nothing to do with personal freedom of choice. Mungiu counts himself among those " decree children " who would not have been born without the repressive laws. He did not want his work to be understood as an anti-abortion film and stressed that he was abstaining from commenting. Rather, his film is a homage to those women who, despite the repression, had the courage to terminate a pregnancy; many viewed it as an act of resistance to the regime.

A female friendship and condescending men

Although it is Găbița who is pregnant, Otilia takes matters by the hand - she is the one who has drive and drive, it is she who endures fear and has courage, takes risks, for Găbița thinks and speaks, “ Go to the front like one small soldier while the other remains in cover. ” Găbița is dependent, unworldly, unreliable, irresponsible and demanding. She is prone to easy lying and is otherwise unable to act outside of the regime's patterns. One critic stated that she knew exactly how to get sympathy from Otilia, another found her very unsympathetic and of rare malice. The film title carries a thoughtful continuation that should be 1 hour . When Otilia leaves for the birthday party, she promises Găbița to be back in an hour. During this hour, Găbița is exposed to an existential experience in solitude in which she could die. The fact that she recently went to the restaurant on her own raises the question of how far she has developed. According to Mungiu, she gained energy and appetite after going through it.

In “one of the most unbalanced friendships in film history” , Otilia performs a service that almost leads her to exhaustion. For the Cahiers du cinéma, Otilias daring testifies to a solid friendship, whose Găbița is not worthy. In the last shot she sticks her nose into the menu and “Otilia turns to us, we are her only friends and the only ones who have witnessed her ordeal.” Others say the subject of the film is the emotional compulsion to care towards suffering fellow human beings, and in the relationship between Otilia and Găbița, only a patchy, fragile care for the other is possible. Otilia's heroic behavior makes one wonder what a deep bond there must be between the two women. It is possible that friendship is not decisive at all, and Otilia is acting in the spirit of general solidarity. “Without uttering abstract arguments or grandiose motives, Otilia instinctively opposes the most effective and inconspicuous means of totalitarian regimes: the infection and corruption of intimate human relationships.” Her help is simply an act of solidarity.

The men consistently get off badly in the film. Bebe shows a patronizing demeanor towards his mother, whom he visits briefly on the way from meeting Otilia to the Găbița waiting in the hotel. He seems to enjoy wielding power over women. In a rude tone, he makes a fool of the two young women in the hotel and threatens them. As long as Bebe is present, the two women make an insecure and intimidated impression, always addressing him as "Herr" while he addresses them as "Miss" or "Maiden". Even the otherwise courageous Otilia has nothing to oppose him. Her friend Adi does not respond in any way to Otilia's needs during a conversation during his mother's birthday party, he sometimes fends off her with an expression that one would expect from Bebe. When she confides in Adi in the hope of understanding and support, he can be moved to nothing more than a promise to marry her in a socially acceptable manner in the event of pregnancy. Here “in the dispute between the two of them, the understanding of the role of a society comes to the fore in which contraception and pregnancy rest solely on the shoulders of women.” According to Uricaru, the men were unwilling to take on the burden of family planning because of the rural, orthodox tradition of the country take, especially since the women have to bear the consequences. The state's family policy thus became another means of rule that men exercised at home and thereby unwantedly became supporters of the regime.

Naturalistic staging of tension

dramaturgy

The leading actress Anamaria Marinca explained that the character she played, Otilia, had to hide her feelings, especially her fear, as was done back then, in order not to attract attention. The film-dienst observed that "Marinca's performance is characterized by a subtle underplay, in which only body tension and verbal determination express the inner strength of her figure."

The film seems to encompass more than what is visible in the picture. On the narrative level, people and events that Mungiu does not show influence what happens. For example, the woman who referred Mr. Bebe, decisions that have already been made, such as the Găbițas about abortion, or the circumstances under which she became pregnant in the first place. The two women and the audience do not witness the abuse of each other by Bebe. It is the fear of the protagonist in the picture that arouses the idea of ​​the event, as is the case with the dinner scene. While some critics flatly described 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days as a thriller , others were more cautious. The work would have a tension, as it is usually associated with thrillers, the tension of a thriller, or build up a huge inner tension without resorting to the tricks of the thriller genre. Bebe's knife that Otilia pockets and his passport that the receptionist forgot play an important role. In part, these objects were interpreted as suspenseful false tracks, and in part their disappearance for the rest of the narrative as an ellipse , because they could reappear after the end of the film, which should be understood as open, and put the two women in danger. The reviewers spoke of an “increasingly narrow, hopeless, increasingly claustrophobic atmosphere” of oppression and fear that could be grasped with hands, or a threat that insidiously creeps up on and oppressed the viewer. And to do this, Mungiu “doesn't need to bring up any party cadres or secret service agents.” He develops a surprising plot without adding any spectacular twists and turns. In the first third of the film he pursues a narrative strategy that withholds important information, but the tension does not recede even when it becomes clear that it is about an abortion.

Sober style

Mungiu does not use any symbols or metaphors, except for the small aquarium with two ornamental fish that can be seen in the first shot and symbolizes the relentless trap in which the women are stuck. Epd Film described the style of the work as an almost documentary naturalism, "as barren and brittle" as the country was at that time. The director explained to his cameraman Oleg Mutu , who grew up in what was then Soviet Moldova and who did not know Ceaușescu Romania firsthand, how the desired impression could be created. The two imposed strict formal rules on themselves. Mungius' declared intention was to make a hard, sober film, to exclude everything that could appear posed or conventional, to avoid as much as possible and not to dictate to the audience by means of formal constructions that interpose between the feelings of the scene and the audience what to feel. He wanted to be honest, because he believed that the audience would react more honestly than if he had constantly forced his own point of view on them. According Filmbesprechungen he renounces addition to the emotional control of the public on moral judgments, "as it is also not primarily him for explanations or any" "is the past, but which one can not escape as quickly to an immediate participation." Reclamation Each Didactics would have run counter to the message of the film. As a result, Mungiu refrained from using music, except for the end credits - “no violins” .

camera

There are no close-ups to keep at a reasonable distance from the action . Due to this distance from the action, the camera conveys the presence of state surveillance. The production designer banished lively colors from the scenery. As little artificial light as possible was used, and indoors the light sources should always be visible in the picture. During the day, the scene is "bathed in a leaden light that seems to swallow every impulse of life." When Otilia wanders through the night - the cities were not illuminated - there is a "pitch black Romanian night, not an 'American' ', where a mild blue veil lies on the shadows" . Mungiu and Mutu implemented the event in long, unedited plan sequences because they looked more natural and in order to minimize intrusive cuts, which are always an interpretive intervention. Only when the scene changes are shorter shots , otherwise the scenes are characterized by a single shot. Therefore, Mungiu stipulated that the actors had to learn up to ten pages of text by heart when assigning roles. He justified the consistent use of a hand-held camera with its more natural effect, but his cameraman should keep it as calm as possible so that it doesn't attract attention. Mutu had to use fixed frames and was not allowed to wave after the people when they left the picture. The figures, which are often positioned outside the picture, give the impression of only seeing a narrow section of what is happening and a feeling of being locked in. It is reinforced by camera positions at right angles to the rear wall, which flatten the room. Despite the static framing, the image section moves a little around itself, no tremors, but swaying. The image is thus caught in the tension between expression and repression, between the urge to move and its suppression. The slight tremor underlines the subjectivity, makes life out of joint a tricky balancing act, disorientates and denies a secure, external position from which someone could comment on the event. The film adopts Otilia's subjective perspective as the camera follows her everywhere. The audience is forced to witness the unbearable moments that Otilia goes through. How the dramaturgy and camera capture the main character and the viewer is particularly evident in the seven and a half minute shot with the jovial evening party celebrating Adi's mother's birthday. The talks show how the state determines the training and place of work of young people. The camera remains frontally and uncomfortably fixed on those sitting at the table and increases the feeling of not having any options. Mungiu does not grant any relieving omissions, and certainly no recuts to Găbița, about whose apprehensive condition he leaves Otilia and the audience in the dark. One critic noted that the director defused the Mannerism time bomb ticking in this scene in good time.

After the film has had its essence in what is not shown for so long, the shot with the trained fetus lying on the bathroom floor is all the more shocking. According to Wilson (2008), it is visually similar to material used by anti-abortionists in Western countries to create horror. Mungiu found this attitude inevitable because the fetus is a very integral part of what Otilia is going through that day - she has to carry it in her handbag - and to make her anxiety more understandable as she walks through the night. Besides, it would have been strange and dishonest not to show it.

Emergence

Development of material based on authentic reports

It is the second feature film by Cristian Mungiu, who was 39 years old when it was made. His original idea was a couple of short films that report subjectively in a light narrative tone of the late communist years. When he gave the texts to some younger people to read, they found the material very amusing: life must have been fun back then. It wasn't the response Mungiu intended, and he felt responsible for causing another. He considered it his duty as a filmmaker to remember the system of the time, as it is now and then played down or even glossed over in Romania. So he made a fresh attempt. He had several people tell him about their own experiences with abortions and found that the experiences were similar. The most important basis was the descriptions of a woman who upset Mungiu and so angered him that he recognized the potential for a film. Mungiu fictionalized the biographical aspects and added some environment. A first draft of the script was ready in July 2006.

Low budget and challenging filming

The Dacias made in the country dominated the streets in late communist Romania. The film character Mr. Bebe drives such a vehicle.

Together with Oleg Mutu, Mungiu had set up his own production company in 2003. With costs of 750,000 euros, they exceeded the budget of 600,000 euros over the course of 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days . The film was financed almost entirely with Romanian money, about half of which consisted of the winner's prize that Mungiu received in December 2006 in the script tender of the national center for cinematography. Despite the controversial material, the project quickly passed the funding bodies. According to Mungiu, the scripts would not be read there and they trusted his reputation as a former Cannes participant.

“Many viewers assume that the performers are laypeople whom I have allowed to improvise. They are experienced actors and there is not a word in the film that is not in the script. ” When writing the scenario, Mungiu intended to use Vlad Ivanov , with whom he had worked on several commercials , for the role of Mr. Bebe . He also knew Laura Vasiliu from commissioned films , whom he, like Anamaria Marinca, actually found too old for her role, but he found both of them to be the most convincing of all the actresses. The casting of the main role was still open a week before the start of the recordings, because Mungiu had not found anything on site. Anamaria Marinca was last on the list because she had settled in London, and the audition flight was already a drain on the budget.

Suitable filming locations that have not changed too much after almost twenty years were found less in the center than on the periphery of Bucharest , which is the location of the action, a smaller city; There was no money for recordings outside the capital. Filming began in January 2007 and lasted 32 days; the team shot chronologically and on 35mm film. Operating the camera was physically very strenuous, and when Otilias walked at night, the whole team followed her over 100 meters with the recording devices. During the dinner scene, Mungiu realized that the image was an inadvertent reminder of Christ's Last Supper , so he changed it. This scene was the most tedious of all, as several actors had to be coordinated for over 7 minutes. The work was completed in time for Cannes.

reception

The Golden Palm and Romanian Cinema

The world premiere took place on May 17, 2007 at the 60th Cannes Film Festival , where the work was considered by the attending critics as a favorite for the Palme d' Or, which was also awarded, from day one, regardless of excellent competitors . This was the first time in the history of the festival that the jury awarded the main prize to a Romanian film. Mungiu thanked him happily: "It seems that you finally no longer need big budgets and big stars for a story that is heard all over the world." The film also received the FIPRESCI award from the international film press. At the 20th European Film Awards , Mungius directorial work won the prizes for “Film” and “Directing”, and the work was also nominated in the categories “Screenplay” and “Best Actress”. Despite these successes, the film was surprisingly not nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 2008 Academy Awards.

Romania's cinema was completely subject to the system in the communist era and was artistically insignificant; in contrast to Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia , for example , it did not experience any renewal movement in the 1960s and 70s. After the fall of the Wall, a quantitative decline set in - in 2000 the country did not produce a single film. A section of the international press claimed that a new “wave” or “school” had been forming in Romanian cinema since the beginning of the decade, and that 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days was its strongest appearance. The death of Mr Lazarescu (2005, with Oleg Mutu at the camera) and 12:08 east of Bucharest (2006) were cited as further striking examples . In addition to the meager production conditions, the ironic view of Romanian reality and the past is characteristic of these films. Mungiu saw the unifying element only in the fact that some Romanians of similar age who acted as author-director-producers received recognition at the same time. There is no common aesthetic manifesto, each of them has a different attitude towards cinema. But they are all challenged by former representatives of the old regime and a young generation that doesn't know history.

The 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days performance in Romania encountered difficult infrastructural conditions: there were only 37 movie theaters in the whole country, mostly used by US productions, and films were usually watched at home. Mungiu organized a 30-day tour to show the film using a mobile projection system from Germany in 15 larger cities that had no cinemas. Culture houses and abandoned former cinemas were used as projection sites, with dust and dirt easily getting onto the copy. These presentations reached around 18,000 spectators.

In Germany, the film opened on November 22, 2007 and reached 30,000 cinema-goers. It grossed 10 million US dollars in cinemas around the world, almost a third of it in France.

In 2016, 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days ranked 15th in a BBC survey of the 100 most important films of the 21st century .

Reviews in the German-speaking press

The German-language reviews were almost without exception positive, sometimes even enthusiastic. It was often said that the “clever jury” had rightly awarded the work the Golden Palm, and that it deserved the award for the negotiating scene alone. There is another great Romanian director who has made a “great film” . The reviews hardly went into the performance of the actors; the Stuttgarter Zeitung thought Marinca was great , for the Neue Zürcher Zeitung she played “impressive” , Vasiliu “great” and Ivanov “outstanding” .

The “uncomfortable but also immensely exciting film” gets on my nerves. The director consistently maintains the pressure and the tension seems to tear the picture apart. It is dense, exciting, oppressive , intense and lasting. The time found him “difficult to bear, but unforgettable” , “uncomplicated to the limit of pain” , because imprisonment is not only claimed and illustrated, but made tangible. The Berliner Zeitung noted that the view of the fetus could perhaps have been spared the audience.

The reviewers paid particular attention to Mungius' narrative style. The film sticks in the memory, said the taz : “It's a film that you can't get rid of because its images sink into our memory. It is precisely in his objectivity and sobriety that he develops an emotional force that neither overwhelms nor overwhelms the viewer, but just leaves them staring spellbound at the screen. ” The time recognized a highly accomplished “ anti-cinema ” , a puristic “ journey back to zero the art of film and commerce. ” And: “ The lack of stimulus, the cinematic asceticism develop a pull that leads deeper and deeper into the tragedy of young women. ” According to the NZZ , the seemingly unaffected film is “ the ingenious product of a highly conscious worker Filmmaker. " The film-dienst cleared the use of reduced cinematic means of the " suspicion of clumsy style will " . How close the banal and despair are for the individual, the film tells "with adequate means" , without reinventing the cinema.

"It has been a long time since a film director has used the intensity of an aesthetically sophisticated documentarism so skillfully," explained the Frankfurter Rundschau , and the FAZ stated: "He films, as a Tacitus tells, with the clarity and sobriety of hatred, calm, with merciless patience. ” According to epd film , Mungiu describes the country and time precisely. “But like any outstanding film, it goes far beyond this specific reference, with topics of almost existential impact: helplessness, fear and responsibility, life and death, friendship and betrayal. To make a small, inconspicuous film out of such material at first glance is great art. ” The Berliner Zeitung regretted that German productions treated GDR history “ on a penny issue ” and saw the model in 4 months : “ Intellectual independence is the outstanding thing about this film, about the young Romanian cinema in general - it is the condition for accuracy, both aesthetically and historically. ” Other critics judged that the film shows life under communism without any glorifying nostalgia and rich “ about its subject, its place and its time far beyond. "

One of the few voices that rejected the film was Cinema . Despite the golden palm, one could do without the drama. The artless aesthetic should emphasize the documentary, she said, "but the bloodless game and scenes that stop the flow of action unmotivated do not trigger compassion, but annoyance."

literature

conversations

  • With Cristian Mungiu in epd film No. 11/2007: Interview
  • With Cristian Mungiu in Die Welt, May 29, 2007, p. 26: "We have been underestimated"

Reviews

positive

Rather negative

Further publications

  • L'Avant-Scène Cinéma, June 2007 (French). 4 months is the focus of the issue, with articles by several authors on the work, on the country's recent history, Romanian cinema, abortion in film, conversations with Cristian Mungiu and Anamaria Marinca and the complete copy of the film.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Gail Kligman: Controlling reproduction in Ceausescu's Romania. Berkeley 1988, cit. in: Vincent Marie, Nicole Lucas: Les histoires dans l'Histoire ( Memento of March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ). In: Innover dans la classe: Cinéma, Histoire et représentations, Editions Manuscrit Université, 2007; see. also Hanns-Georg Rodek : Film miracle from Romania In: Die Welt , November 21, 2007, p. 27
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Cristian Mungiu in conversation with L'Avant-Scène Cinéma : Entretien avec Cristian Mungiu , No. 563, June 2007, ISBN 978-2-84725 -057-2 , pp. 3-8
  3. ↑ a b Positif: Cristian Mungiu. No. 559, September 2007, introduction p. 14
  4. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Rupert Koppold: Blick zurück im Zorn In: Stuttgarter Zeitung , November 22, 2007, p. 33
  5. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Ioana Uricaru: The corruption of intimacy In: Film Quarterly , Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 12-17
  6. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Cristian Mungiu in the French press booklet: Dossier de presse. Note you réalisateur.
  7. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Cristian Mungiu in conversation with Positif : Entretien avec Cristian Mungiu. Une façon franche de filmer , No. 559, September 2007, pp. 17-21
  8. ↑ a b c Anke Leweke: Without instructions for use In: taz , November 22, 2007, p. 17
  9. ↑ taz, November 20, p. 15
  10. ↑ a b c d e Eithne O'Neill: 4 mois, 3 semaines et 2 jours. Lame de couteau. In: Positif , No. 559, September 2007, pp. 15-16
  11. ↑ a b c d e Anke Westphal: Remembering a cold home In: Berliner Zeitung , November 21, 2007, p. 23
  12. ↑ a b Jan Schulz-Ojala: History is Thought In: Der Tagesspiegel , November 20, 2007
  13. ↑ a b c d e Hanns-Georg Rodek: Filmwunder aus Romania In: Die Welt , November 21, 2007, p. 27
  14. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l Cristian Mungiu in conversation with Cineaste , Spring 2008, pp. 35–39: Not just an abortion film ( Memento from June 28, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  15. ↑ a b c Susan Vahabzadeh: All are dead anyway In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 22, 2007, p. 12
  16. ↑ a b c d Emma Wilson: An "abortion movie"? In: Film Quarterly , Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 18-23
  17. ↑ Direct quotation from Stéphane Delorme: Un bon petit soldat In: Cahiers du cinéma , No. 626, September 2007, p. 26; Hans Jörg Marsilius: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days In: film-dienst No. 24/2007, pp. 20–21; Silvia Hallensleben: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days In: epd Film No. 11/2007, p. 38; Christoph Egger: The feeling of latent threat In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung , November 15, 2007, p. 49; Eithne O'Neill: 4 mois, 3 semaines et 2 jours. Lame de couteau. In: Positif , No. 559, September 2007, p. 16; Emma Wilson: An "abortion movie"? In: Film Quarterly , Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 19-20
  18. ↑ a b c d e f g Stéphane Delorme: Un bon petit soldat In: Cahiers du cinéma , No. 626, September 2007, pp. 26-27
  19. ↑ a b c d e Richard Porton: Not just an abortion film ( Memento from June 28, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) In: Cineaste , Spring 2008, pp. 35–39
  20. ↑ a b c d e f Christoph Egger: The feeling of latent threat In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung , November 15, 2007, p. 49
  21. ↑ Anamaria Marinca in conversation with L'Avant-Scène Cinéma : Entretien avec Anamaria Marinca , No. 563, June 2007, p. 10
  22. ↑ a b Josef Lederle: Anamaria Marinca. More real than reality In: film-dienst No. 14/2008, pp. 10–11
  23. ↑ a b c Hans Jörg Marsilius: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days In: film-dienst No. 24/2007, pp. 20–21
  24. ↑ a b c Michael Kohler: Eine Frauensache In: Frankfurter Rundschau , November 22, 2007, p. 37
  25. ↑ a b c d e f g Silvia Hallensleben: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days In: epd Film No. 11/2007, p. 38
  26. ↑ a b c d Iris Radisch: A journey back to zero In: Die Zeit , No. 48, November 22, 2007, p. 58
  27. ↑ a b c d Andreas Kilb: The true story of the Romanian darkness In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , November 22, 2007, p. 35
  28. ↑ Michael Kohler: Eine Frauensache In: Frankfurter Rundschau , November 22, 2007, p. 37; Iris Radisch: A journey back to zero In: Die Zeit , No. 48, November 22, 2007, p. 58; Ioana Uricaru: The corruption of intimacy In: Film Quarterly , vol. 61, no. 4, p. 15; Emma Wilson: An "abortion movie"? In: Film Quarterly , Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 22-23; Cristian Mungiu in conversation with Positif : Entretien avec Cristian Mungiu. Une façon franche de filmer , No. 559, September 2007, pp. 17-21. The shot lasts 7:18 on the PAL DVD.
  29. ↑ Die Welt, May 29, 2007, pp. 26-27
  30. ↑ Cristian Mungiu according to Ioana Uricaru: The corruption of intimacy In: Film Quarterly , vol. 61, no. 4, p. 16
  31. ↑ a b Süddeutsche Zeitung: Golden palms and a clap on the buttocks ( memento of the original from May 18, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , May 27, 2007 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sueddeutsche.de
  32. ↑ Hanns-Georg Rodek : On the trail of trends In: Die Welt, May 29, 2007, p. 26; Die Presse, May 29, 2007: The anniversary year of consensus; Anke Westphal: The film festival of the winners In: Berliner Zeitung, May 29, 2007, p. 26; epd film No. 7/2007, a great year. The Cannes Film Festival in its 60th year , p. 13
  33. ↑ Spiegel Online, May 27, 2007: Goldene Palme for Romanian Mungiu, script award for Akin
  34. ↑ http://www.hermannstaedter.ro/stire.php?id=322&dom=&ed=1339 Genealogie Dead Link | url = http: //www.hermannstaedter.ro/stire.php? Id = 322 & dom = & ed = 1339 | date = 2018-08 | archivebot = 2018-08-21 11:11:01 InternetArchiveBot}} (link not available)
  35. ↑ taz, May 29, 2007, p. 2: Triumph for the “Bucharest School” ; Barbara Schweizerhof: Phoenix from the Ashes In: epd Film No. 11/2007; Bert Rebhandl: A belated liberation In: taz, November 20, p. 15; Hans Jörg Marsilius: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days In: film-dienst No. 24/2007, pp. 20–21; Michael Kohler: Eine Frauensache In: Frankfurter Rundschau , November 22, 2007, p. 37; Susan Vahabzadeh: All are dead anyway In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 22, 2007, p. 12; Stéphane Delorme: Un bon petit soldat In: Cahiers du cinéma , No. 626, September 2007, pp. 26-27; Sight & Sound, October 2007, pp. 36-39
  36. ↑ Hans Jörg Marsilius: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days In: film-dienst No. 24/2007, pp. 20–21; Michael Kohler: Eine Frauensache In: Frankfurter Rundschau , November 22, 2007, p. 37; L'Avant-Scène Cinéma, June 2007, p. 21; Stéphane Delorme: Un bon petit soldat In: Cahiers du cinéma , No. 626, September 2007, pp. 26-27
  37. ↑ Cristian Mungiu according to Margret Köhler: Under construction In: film-dienst No. 13/2007, p. 14
  38. ↑ Jörg Taszman: A hit movie in a country where there are hardly any cinemas anymore. In: Die Welt , August 16, 2008
  39. ↑ Documentation by Sorin Avram, produced by Cristian Mungiu, on the DVD edition of Concorde Home Entertainment (2008), EAN 4010324026453
  40. ↑ Cristian Mungiu in conversation with epd Film No. 11/2007: Interview
  41. ^ Jörg Taszman: Life in the dictatorship . In: epd Film No. 7/2008, p. 53
  42. ^ Box Office Mojo , accessed July 25, 2009
  43. ^ Susan Vahabzadeh: All are dead anyway In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 22, 2007, p. 12; The film was also oppressive: Michael Kohler: Eine Frauensache In: Frankfurter Rundschau , November 22, 2007, p. 37
  44. ↑ Cinema No. 11/2007 : 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on July 14, 2009 in this version .