Nr. 3 (24) anul VII / iulie-septembrie 2009 - ROMDIDAC

EX PONTO NR.3, 2009
158
all distances long and unbearably dangerous, and people’s lives meaningless.
The deliberate lack of focus avoids any emphasis: neither the protagonists
nor the landmarks of Bucharest (Piata Universitatii, Hotel Nehoiu, Cheiul
Dimbovitei, Universitatea) occupy the center of the screen. The camera
suggests the complete uniformity of Romanian society and exterior space.
To create the illusion of communist uniformity in the 2006 Bucharest where
Mungiu shot his movie he spent long hours searching for the unremodelled
blocks of flats, the best angles from where the historic buildings from downtown
do not show any sign of the last two decades (graffiti, bullet holes from 1989,
restoration marks, billboards). In spite of the very few anachronistic details
(the 1990s’ models of trams and buses, for example) exterior scenes are
authentic and identifiable as coming from the communist era.
For interior scenes no sets have been built either. They were filmed in
authentic Romanian apartments, hotel rooms, or dorm rooms, where there
is very little space for camera placement. Thus, the camera takes a corner
from where it records the static scene in which almost always one character
is cornered since the best perspective offers itself naturally from the opposite
corner, the one facing the camera. Since there is no room for two cameras
simultaneously, Mungiu chose to have the interior scenes taken from two
angles, the two opposing corners not only to induce a claustrophobic unease,
but also to remain coherent with his way of presenting the event through the
eyes of an objective witness, the camera itself which has no privileged place
in the spatial economy of the film. The editing is simple and honest with no
crosscutting, cheat cut, cut-in or cut-away. Space is crammed in between
the two alternative positions of the camera which tries to cover the space
exhaustively. For example, in the hotel room scene where the abortion is to be
performed the two angles are from behind the two girls. It is their entrapment
which is expressed by the camera. Each of them faces the other and a wall
nor is there any possible escape at their back either, even though the door
of the room is open, this is not an option for them. The naturalistic use of the
camera accentuates the documentary aspect of the film, as well as, creates
a feeling of tension, if not horror.
Another element which relates the film to a documentary is the way in
which the hand-held camera plays the role of the accurate informant of Otilia’s
moves as if the camera were her stalker. According to Moira MacDonald, the
Seattle Times film critic
the camera, handheld and deceptively amateurish (heads are chopped off
some shots), captures this story’s grim milieu: a shabby hotel room, with
a hallway whose fluorescent light buzzes on and off; a peaceful yet eerie
city street on a night that seems darker than night should be. (D4)
The position of the camera is so uncomfortable and psychologically
threatening that documentary characteristics are manipulated to produce the
level of anxiety of a thriller in which the viewer chases Otilia in the dark streets
of Bucharest, or captures what a hidden Secret Police officer might have seen
and reported, the scene of bribing the hotel manager. The most difficult mission
of the camera is the long and very close shot of the fetus. It is like documenting
the thriller while making it; it is both metanarrative and narrative at the same
time. The double-edged shot, which examines the fetus, closes the inquiry of
the abortion, but it also foretells the end of the communist era.
The stylistic ambiguity of the film, which might be read as a documentary,
an art film, and a thriller, puts more weight on this scene since it is the only one