4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile (4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days)
Written and Directed by: Cristian Mungiu
Starring: Adi Carauleanu, Luminiţa Gheorghiu, Vlad Ivanov, Anamaria Marinca

I went into this movie without any knowledge, other than the fact that it was this year’s Palme D’or winner. When I went and saw last year’s winner, I had a pleasant experience, and I thought I might as well give it a shot once again. You can usually count on the Cannes winners to have at least something interesting to offer (even if they are from Romania and have a pretty dubious title).

I cannot stress enough how extremely pleasant it is to be presented with a movie without any knowledge beforehand. Since a movie like this has little-to-no marketing (it had posters in the theater that showed it) unless you actively seek out information, you will go in completely open and that is a rare treat. I will not ruin this experience for you, dear reader, by mentioning any story elements in the movie. Instead I will focus on the style of the movie, because not only was it stylistically interesting, it was innovating and genuinely fascinating in its use of the medium.

First and foremost, the camera in this movie is unlike the camera in any movie I have seen in a very long time, perhaps ever. The way it moves around inquisitorially and seemingly without trying manages to capture both stunning images and framings is simply jaw dropping. The director Christian Mungiu seems completely comfortable mixing both long steady takes, long moving shots, short quickly edited sequences and subjective camerawork and puts all of this craftsmanship to use to underline both character and story. And not only does he master the craftsmanship of all of these techniques, he is using them to create new framings and innovative images and manages to make the movie feel distinct and unique. If you have any interest in camerawork, this is without a doubt a must-see.

While I personally do not watch movies for camerawork, when something comes along and does something this innovative, you can’t help but let it draw your attention from the content of the movie. There are times where you have to pull it together and focus on the story and the characters again, because you have been too caught up in the style. The movie has a very simple story and the characters are what drives it. This is definitely where most audiences will fail to see any redeeming qualities in the movie, because the characters do not go through any typical “character development” and what you are dealing with are just real people. There is barely a plot, and there are no defining moments nor high laden cartharsis to be had for these people. If you are a fan of the American type of character development, which consists of plot sequences through which the actions of the character will define them, you will feel unfulfilled by the characters in this movie. If you –- like me -– are more fond of the European style of characters, which means that the characters themselves are the plot, and that they define the “plot” if one is present, then this movie will be far easier for you to enjoy.

This is really a movie that has developed a style all its own, and speaks through a new language. If you are convinced that Transformers is the best movie of 2007, or if you still can’t believe how deep and insightful Ratatouille was, then you’re most likely better off staying clear of this particular movie. Since it holds no interest in having any elements concerned with easing the experience for the audience, entertaining for entertainment’s sake, nor any concern with explanation, this is one movie that requires you to take part in it. If you choose to do so, there is definitely an experience to be had here. — Henrik Seehuusen

SCORE: