Interview with Cristian Mungiu, young Romanian film director

by Ramona Mitrica

On 15 April 2003, at The Other Cinema, The Romanian Film Club in London screened the film ‘Occident’ (Romania, 2002), in the presence of the director. On that occasion we conducted the following interview with the director, exclusively for the readers of the RCC Newsletter.

'Occident’ is an intelligent black comedy about social mobility in our 'globalised world'. Almost everyone seems to want to leave Romania, where life does not have much to offer.

In addition to being a slick black comedy, ‘Occident’ is also a story about migration – and especially about those who stay behind. Young and old Romanians all want to go abroad, but it looks as if they won't get any further than the local graveyard.

Prizes: Leeds-Best New Director Award 2002; Thessaloniki-Audience’s Award 2002; Cluj TIFF-Best Picture 2002; Montpellier-NOVA Award 2002; Rennes–Special Prize of the Jury 2003; Annonay–Great Prize–Best Picture 2003; Mons–Great Prize of the Festival 2003; Titra Prize 2003 Selected for Quinzaine des Realisateurs,Cannes 2002. Also selected at PalmSprings, Cleveland, Warsaw, Annonay, Rennes, Mons, Goteborg, Rotterdam etc.

You can send Cristian Mungiu your views about his film at this e-mail address: occidentfilm@hotmail.com

Q1. Your movie ‘Occident’ is a very clever mixture of comedy and acute social comment which is in some ways almost tragic - is this a deliberate stylistic strategy or is it how you see life in Romania?

Life in Romania is not at all fun. But I think there is this habit created in the former regime, during the communist times, of Romanians trying to mock the difficulties they were obliged to surpass. And I think that what I try to do is to deliver a message which was not necessarily a very funny one through this kind of comedy. Because I think it was really much easier for people to understand what I wanted to say and to be attentive to this kind of story. Otherwise if you choose to be bitter you scare away the audience because they see that this kind of story is told in this manner every time on TV and they’ve seen things done in this manner several times before. So I think it’s just not the moment to make films, at least for the local audience, in this manner any longer. And, at the same time this is my way of telling stories. I like to see the funny angle of these situations. Even if for the people involved the situation itself could be pathetic. But this is what I wanted to see.

Q2. How much of the content of the film is fiction and how much is it an assembly of incidents you have witnessed? Are the characters, for instance, people you know?

Most of the stories in the film are almost true. What happens in the film is that at the point when you start to mix and blend them together you alter the stories. But I drew on real stories. For example, the story which was absolutely true is the story with the black person. This is something I witnessed. I was in Iassy and I was not staying at home. I was staying with a former colleague of mine. And the real story was even more bitter. I saw the parents, and all the neighbours helping them, because they were going to stay in a house, not in a block of flats. They brought chairs and tables they got from everybody. And they prepared so much for the visitor, that guy. But it was so shameful for them in the neighbourhood to receive that person. And the moment was very funny but at the same time very tragic. They had six dogs. The moment of silence was so deep that the dogs bit the black guy. Unfortunately. So the story was really very touching for me and this is why I wanted to have it included in the fil m. I knew this from the beginning. And there are lots of other stories, like the one with the policemen, which was true.

At the same time, I started to notice that a lot of people around me were leaving the country, so it appeared to me obvious that this is the thing that interests everybody after the age of 35. So this became the story of my film. The idea of the people’s preoccupation with migration. They have to decide either or not to leave as soon as possible. This is sort of a common thought for people after 30 and at the same time I discovered that all the discussions you are having with people at that age at some point turn towards this: leaving or staying in there.

Q3. The style of the movie makes the message oblique and quite subtle for Western audiences. Are you trying to make a social or political point and if so what is it?

What happens is that the story interests people everywhere. I think that my film is not mainly for the Western audience. It contains so many specific Romanian things, lots of dialogue and people really enjoy the dialogue. I think there are some films made there which have lots of images and very little dialogue which are more oriented towards this market than my film. What people appreciate in my film here is the story. As intricate as the story seems to be they really like it as well as the situations and the humour in the film. This was universal. This is what they appreciated. Another thing that was really appreciated and made it so popular was the structure. Maybe the structure seems to be a little bit intricate at the beginning but people are so much used here to having linear stories that they really appreciated this. They appreciated that they had this advice that after some 20 minutes in the film they had to put together some information, to be very attentive, and the situation that they’ve seen already gets new meanings by getting some more information on it. So this is something that was really appreciated. But I don’t know what will happen with my next film because this is something you can do only once.

I didn’t start having to demonstrate something about Romania, about the political or the social life there. I was just looking for good stories for the people to see. So this was my concern. And it turned out to be true that, if you had good stories, with real people they will also tell a lot about the society and about the politics, they will become a social comment of the society where these people live. If you are true. But this was not really something that I intended. I wanted to say real good stories and to be as far away as possible from the old Romanian style of trying to demonstrate a point. I really don’t like this. I wanted to stick to the point, and if the story works, if the characters, and the situations which I chose are good and surprising then there are going to be lots of small comments coming from there.

Q4. You have a very specific vision of life in Romania - you have developed a style which is specific to your culture and experience but it is very much appreciated by audiences outside the country. Do you see yourself making movies in the rest of Europe or perhaps Hollywood?

I think this is very difficult really, because there are so many people here who know better what happens here than me. The problem is … mainly I see myself as an author, not a director. I want to make my stories; I want to write my screenplays. Not just to be a professional that directs films. And I can only tell the stories that I know. And the stories that I know are from where I live. This is where my background is and this is where I can see the little differences with things and the details, the coincidences. This is where I see how people are. Just a few shades. This is where the difficulty comes from. For Hollywood direction is a job, eventually, but this is not something that I want to do tomorrow. I would be very happy to make my little budget films and to find the money. And, of course, in case I manage to find some subjects that would interest people here this would be ok also. And work here. I see myself working in coproductions.

Q5. For some reason your concerns in the movie are being shared by other film makers throughout Europe - migration, movement across borders, national identity and how to preserve it. Are you conscious of being part of this movement of European intellectuals which is just becoming clear in the various works being done?

No. I don’t know. I am not that sure that there is a movement. To have a movement I guess you have to have some sort of programme. I think this is mainly a concern because several people chose to speak about a reality which emerged in the East – European countries because of the situation in the last 10 years. And it is true that I discovered that this is a concern everywhere I presented the film in Eastern Europe. And even here. Because allowing the people from Eastern Europe to come here generates this interest in migration from that part of the world. But I don’t know if this has coagulated into some movement. And anyway, if there is one, I am not conscious of being a part of it. This was just my concern drawn from the Romanian realities. I just discovered that this is an issue which was very important but it was not my point to be a part in a network of stories about these issues.

Q6. You are very aware that Romanians have flocked to see your film. To what extent do you find it interesting to explore the life of Romanians outside the country and do you see that as having a relationship with your attempts to define Romanian identity?

I would like to make a film which could be in a way a sort of continuation of this film. About some Romanians trying to integrate themselves in Britain, maybe. Or some place else. Travelling with this film, I’ve seen so many people from various social categories and it’s very different from the view of the people back home. So I think it would be very useful to try and make a film that would tell about their difficulties integrating here. The difference between what they were expected to find and what they really found here. I’ve seen in Paris some people who have some thrilling stories. They left the country thinking that everything was going to be simple. They were ashamed to go back home so they were just sleeping in the streets, not stealing but begging, trying to find small jobs, sending some money back home where everybody thought that they were in some offices. But this is also a subject which was treated by various Western films. So what I really think is that our view about what happens back in Romania and their view about on the exact same issue is very different. So I think we should try and keep this balance. I saw documentaries made by Romanians and by foreigners on the same subjects. And they were so different from each other. And I think it’s important to be able to offer a general view of what happens, of what was the background. And I can’t say that their point of view is wrong. It is different. They come from a different world and they see the reality differently there. So I think this is a good thing for us. Someone should try and do it. I talked to a director awhile ago and I think somebody is going finally to make a film about the Romanians living abroad because this is a phenomenal subject. A Romanian director.

Q7.The film I would say shares an aesthetic with various products of art in Central and Eastern Europe - dark humour - a mixture of comedy and tragedy - an elliptical, fragmented way of constructing a narrative in which one looks at the same events in different ways within the same story - and the camera has a steady way of looking closely at the subjects which is neutral but also sympathetic - will the Romanian film aesthetic be based on elements like these or is this merely a place where you are starting off - let me put it another way - Romanian films have been social realist or surrealist in their style and approach - your film blends elements of both in an entertaining narrative - stylistically where are you going from here?

The only thing I know now is that I want it be very realistic. To present things as natural. Things that happened where people are real, even if I have to say good bye to part of the comedy. I want to have things as true as possible. So I have to leave out all sorts of things which were much more comical at the beginning. It seemed to me that if it is too much then it is not enough. I wanted it to be believable. And this is the way I want to go. On the contrary, what I want to avoid, and this is something that drove me from the very beginning, I want to get rid of metaphors and things which are not direct, that want to signify something else. I think that way of making cinema in Romania is over. It is now more difficult to find a true story and to define a true character which is believable. I hope we will manage to prove that this is the new line to follow in the Romanian cinema. It is much more interesting and much more modern.

Q8. As a young Romanian film maker - what sort of support do you feel you need from 1- your audiences 2 - from the cultural apparatus of the state - and 3 - from the European film industry and film culture?

From the audience I need just one thing. To go and see the film. To buy a ticket, eventually. This is important. I think that there are already too many Romanians that have seen this film without paying for the ticket. This is understandable to a point when they don’t have the money. But you have to know, to quantify how many people go to see your film because this is your argument if you want to get some finance for your next project. So this is really important. And people should understand that it is not possible to preserve and keep alive a local cinematography if people avoid seeing films in theatres and cinemas. And 1 euro per ticket I don’t think it’s much. They are spending it on a beer.

I don’t expect to get some big support from any state bodies as they are not necessarily supposed to support film making. What I expect though is to receive very precise and strict rules from our National Centre of Cinematography within their competition for giving money for films. For the moment the situation is a little bit confused and the criteria they are trying to use to finance film is not very clear. They are a state body but they wanted to be completely separate from The Ministry of Culture. So the idea is that if they want to they can encourage film makers who proved that they can attract lots of audiences at home or abroad, at festivals. Or if they want to they can preserve the old way of making films which have an audience in Romania but are not that popular outside Romania. And this is really very difficult. What I hope is that when Romania is integrated in the European structures, or even a little bit earlier, we shall have access to some more of the money which is normally given for films here. Some of the countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland already are into this program that co-finance coproductions between their countries and Western countries. Romania is not yet a part of that. So I think that it would be a real chance for us to get some more money for coproductions as soon as the country is integrated in European structures.

Q9. Can you tell us something about the economics of production how does making a film from the idea to the script to the editing differ from how it would have been ten years ago?

We should look at both sides: production and finance. It is different. In production the situation changed because it changed everywhere. Now we have the same modern techniques. In terms of financing. I don’t know if ten years ago is a good limit. Twelve year ago or thirteen years ago it was even more difficult that it is now. So the situation changed and improved when they invented in Romania what was at first called the National Office for Cinematography. That was a good institution. Before we had some ‘case de film’ and they were giving money after a screen play competition. It worked like in a publishing house. You were just giving them a script and these ‘film houses’ had their own directors, were ruled by directors which normally had money just to make their own films. So the change came as a sign of democracy and things went better. I won every time without having any relationships with this committee, every time I entered the competition. So what we are trying to do now is to improve this sy ste m because there is now a law of cinema in Romania and they have a stable amount of money now which they collect and I think they are eager to finance now around 8 to 10 films a year. In case we manage to direct this money to the best films, to the best screenplays, to the best projects, we then could hope that in a few years the cinematography will improve not only in terms of numbers, but in terms of quality.

Q10. What inspires you?

Everything. Situations, people, things that I see, walking in the street. I usually do this: I drive or I walk or I talk to somebody and all of a sudden I realise that ‘this is funny. This is interesting.’ And if something happened now this would generate a comic situation. I normally imagine a lot of things on some concrete occasions which aren’t very, very normal. And I am trying to write them down and use them. But from this up to writing a script there is a very, very long process. And it is really complicated. For me it is the most important and beautiful part of the work. And in that period, when you are writing, you are sort of inspired by everything. Because you place yourself in a position of such awareness that everything that happens to you in that period has a particular significance. It seems that every little detail that you notice gives you an idea. Maybe 80% of these ideas are just crap. But for the moment you are very, very attached to everything that happens next to you. On the televis ion, in the newspapers … everything has a connection to what you want to do, starting with the smallest thing. So, for example, in this film of mine there are lots of things that happened to me when I noticed when I was writing the script. Small things. For example the thing with the banana. The seeds. I thought: this is funny. Or the thing with the plastic fruit on the table. I’ve seen that in somebody’s house. I haven’t seen them knocking them. But I thought that for my characters, in that particular house, it would be the right place to have the plastic fruits. And that would generate a comic situation.

Q11. Anything inspired you here in London?

Yes, maybe. I am working on a new script. We’ll see. I need time. That time from the moment you notice something till the moment you put it on paper.


Born in 1968, Cristian Mungiu studied English and American literature. A graduate of Bucharest film school, he worked as assistant director on some 15 features from 1994 to 1998, among them Bertrand Tavernier’s Captain Conan and Radu Mihaileanu’s Train de vie. A journalist for various magazines, he has published short stories in literary periodicals and directed several prize-winning shorts. He wrote the scripts for Tina and her Mother and Far City Ends (Slum). Occident is his first feature

Filmography: 1996 Horia Viorel Brief (short film documentary), 1997 Mariana (short film), 1998 The Hand of Paulista (short film), 2000 Nothing by Chance (short film), 2000 Zapping (short film), 2000 The Fireman's Choir (short film), 2002 Occident.

Cristian Mungiu published an e-book called ‘7 Scripts (7 scenarii)’ (in Romanian; Editura LiterNet, 2003);

Details on:
http://editura.liternet.ro/carte/32/Cristian-Mungiu/7-scenarii.html