Summer entertainment? Well, it’s summer, isn’t it? I mean it’s the time of the year when I have no problem sitting into an air-conditioned cinema with a bucket of popcorn in my hands and a cold drink by my side, to watch one of those films that I’m sure won’t join my list of masterpieces, but which I hope will relax me for two hours or so. ‘F1: The Movie‘ fits this recipe very well, for me. It’s a film that takes place in the world of Formula One car racing, it’s co-produced by Brad Pitt and written for Brad Pitt, and the director is Joseph Kosinski, who also made ‘Top Gun’, so he can be declared the world master of directing spectacular action films in which the main role is played by a male star who, at over 60, looks like he’s at most 40 or so. Another label that could be applied to the film is that of ‘crowd pleaser’. Well, if I’ve already revealed that I’m part of the crowd, I can say that I came away from this movie quite pleased.
As I have already mentioned ‘Top Gun’, the script for ‘F1‘ proposes a similar story. A veteran (aviator there, racing driver here) returns to the elite of his profession after more than three decades to save the world (there) or save the team from last place in the Formula One world circuit (here). Our hero is called Sonny Hayes and he is brought back to the top speed racing tracks by Ruben Cervantes, an old friend and the owner of the team of losers (until he arrives). Just like in the air fighters movie, the veteran must work as a team with an ambitious young man, who becomes his apprentice, partner, friend and rival. The clash between generations and personalities also has effects on the race tracks.
The script is quite formulaic and predictable, but, fortunately for the viewers, this does not matter much when watching the film. The races scenes are superbly filmed and the sensation is immersive, amplified by the quality of the image and sound in the room where the viewing takes place. The cinematography, editing, music are exceptional, they give a feeling of continuous dynamism and have enough elements of novelty in each scene to not give the impression of repetition and avoid boring the viewers. Experts and fans of Formula One racing will probably find some mistakes or exaggerations, but for completely uninitiated viewers – like me – the impression is overwhelming. The presence of actors like Brad Pitt himself (to whom I can only reproach that at 61 he looks a little too young for the role!) or Javier Bardem can only add quality. These are not the deepest or most interesting roles in their careers, but it is obvious that they play them with passion and pleasure. Finally, I confess that I’m not a fan of car racing, I don’t watch it on TV, and I’m not even interested in video games inspired by it. That is until now. After watching ‘F1‘, I think I may give these a chance.
Alfred Hitchcock died in 1980, but not completely. In fact, his influence is so strong that to this day, 45 years after his departure, not only are his films watched and re-watched, analyzed and enjoyed, but they also represent benchmarks for many of the creations in various cinematic genres, such as suspense, horror, spy films or psychological thrillers. One of the absolute compliments we can give to a director or screenwriter who has created a film with a strong visual impact or brought an extraordinary story to the screen is to characterize that film as a production that even Hitchcock would not have been ashamed of. This is certainly the case with the film ‘Mortelle rendonnée‘ (the English distribution title was ‘Deadly Circuit‘) made three years after the master’s death, in 1983, by Claude Miller. The quality was to be expected, as the script, which loosely adapts a ‘serie noire’ novel, is by Michel Audiard, perhaps the most remarkable screenwriter and dialogue creator of French cinema since the Second World War. But what Miller has done with this material is something very special.
The hero of the film is a private detective (nicknamed The Eye) in the vein of those imagined by Raymond Chandler: cynical and lonely, although he does not work independently but in an agency with a stern boss who is more concerned with expenses. He carries with him a personal trauma – a marriage that broke up after the death of his only daughter, Marie, 20 years ago. He solves crossword puzzles and talks to himself, which is the original pretext for a permanent voice-off commentary throughout the entire film. He looks so anonymous that we almost believe that he could be following the young and beautiful Catherine, a serial killer, for days, weeks or months across half of Europe, without her ever noticing him. Catherine also carries a trauma of her own, as if in a kind of symmetry of the destinies between the detectived and the followed suspect. She tells her various victims stories about an imaginary father, sometimes a lecturer, sometimes a polar explorer. In fact, she is an orphan raised in the public system, who had slipped down the slope of crime. Does The Eye imagine that he has found his lost daughter in the pursued killer? Maybe so, in any case, from a moment on, the detective turns into a protector. Are there any chances of saving her?
Michel Audiard does not try to create any illusion of credibility in his script. In fact, perhaps, of what we see on the screen, little is true and the rest is the dreams and desires of the two heroes. Only the corpses are for sure real. The detective’s obsession with talking alone and out loud gives Michel Audiard the opportunity to create another series of dialogues (or rather monologues) of those in which he was a master. Isabelle Adjani is fascinating in a role in which she envelops her beauty in mystery and a vulnerability compensated by violence. Michel Serrault creates another character wounded by life, forced to hide his traumas and loneliness. The two evolve in their parallel universes until their meeting at the end of the movie. Another remarkable acting creation is that of Stéphane Audran, ugly and aged by make-up to the point of not recognizing her for a surprising composition role. The music, original or combining variations on Schubert and ‘Paloma’, expressively accompanies story. ‘Mortelle rendonée‘ is a strange and special thriller, with two heroes that will remain in the memory of the viewers. Hitchcock would have appreciated it.
‘Everybody’s Talkin’ este un cântec compus de Fred Neil în 1966 și care a fost făcut celebru de ‘Midnight Cowboy’, filmul din 1969 al lui John Schlesinger, care lansa carierele de vedete hollywoodiene ale lui Dustin Hoffman și Jon Voight. Balada, care povestește despre diferențele culturale și presiunile personale cauzate de prăpastia dintre metropolele urbane și America tradițională, a introdus o expresie care exprimă acele subiecte aflate pe primul plan al actualității, acele teme despre care discută toată lumea. La bine și la rău. Acum vreo 4 ani majoritatea cetățenilor planetei deveniseră experți în virusologie, pandemii și vaccinuri. De vrei doi ani încoace subiectul despre care vorbește toată lumea este Inteligența Artificială (IA). Toată lumea a auzit despre IA, majoritatea dintre noi avem opinii, deși probabil că peste 99% dintre cei care își dau cu părerea ar eșua cu răspunsurile la simpla întrebare ‘Ce este IA?’. Există însă și opinii autorizate, și ele nu vin doar din direcția experților în automatică. Cum Inteligența Artificială influențează deja profund viața economică și socială și chiar și viețile noastre personale, este interesant să ascultăm opiniile unor experți în domenii cum este antropologia sau istoria. Întrebările sunt multiple – de la o privire comparativă a revoluției AI în raport cu alte salturi disruptive care deja s-au petrecut în istorie până la impactul fenomenului în viața politică globală sau cea din România. În cursul ultimelor zile, YouTube mi-a oferit ocazia să aflu opiniile a doi experți de talie mondială în domeniile lor. Antropologul Alexandru Bălășescu, fost director executiv al Institutului Cultural Român din Istanbul și șef de cabinet al Ministerului Culturii din România, cercetător care folosește metode antropologice și artistice pentru a explora interacțiunea om-tehnologie, schimbările climatice și sănătatea și autor al cărții ‘ Climate Change in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ (‘Schimbarea climatică în Epoca Inteligenței Artificiale’) a fost invitatul podcastului ‘Vorbitorincii’ pentru un dialog foarte interesant, care a durat peste două ore, cu Cătălin Striblea. Istoricul israelian Yuval Noah Harari, ale cărui cărți despre trecut și viitor se bucură de o mare popularitate și în România, unde sunt traduse și publicate de editura Polirom, a ținut o scurtă expunere cu titlul ‘AI and the Paradox of Trust’ (‘IA și paradoxul încrederii’) în fata participanților la China Development Forum. În ambele intervenții Inteligența Artificială s-a aflat în miezul tematicii.
O primă observație îmbucurătoare. Atât Alexandru Bălășescu, cât și Yuval Noah Harari au o înțelegere clară a ceea ce este și ceea ce nu este Inteligența Artificiala și nu cad în capcana extinderii definirii domeniului IA la întreaga tehnologie de comunicații și computerizare dezvoltată în ultimele decenii. Alexandru Bălășescu dovedește cunoștinte destul de profunde în teoria sistemelor și explică clar diferențele dintre diversele forme ale tehnologiei digitale, în principal dintre sistemele de automatizare închise (cu toată complexitatea lor crescândă) și sistemele deschise, în care funcționează paradoxul fluturelui. Nu orice sistem electronic sau informatic – și mai ales sistemele deterministe – este o formă de IA. Yuval Noah Harari reușește cu și mai multă simplitate și claritate (poate și sub presiunea formatului de expunere în timp limitat care i se impusese) să identifice cele două proprietăți specifice ale unui sistem IA: capacitatea de auto-învățare și creativitatea. Exemplul clasic folosit de el este cel al aplicației DeepMind a lui Google, prima care a reușit în 2016 să-l învingă pe Fan Hui, campionul jocului Go. Sistemul IA nu doar că a învățat în câteva zile regulile și subtilitățile acestui joc vechi de peste 2 500 de ani, dar, după ce a studiat mii de partide ale maeștrilor din istoria jocului cu strategiile și subtilitățile lor, a creat noi metode care nu fuseseră imaginate până atunci de adversarii umani.
‘Distruge democrația AI-ul?’ Întrebarea este inclusă în titlul dialogului de la ‘Vorbitorincii’. Sintaxa este ambiguă și acest antagonism senzaționalist (intenționat sau nu) este neutralizat în discuție, însă această concluzie va fi în beneficiul celor care vor urmări atent întreaga dezbatere. Cine va citi doar titlul rămâne cu semnul de întrebare, asta în cazul în care nu-l confundă cu semnul de exclamare. Dacă preluăm cele două elemente definitorii semnalate de istoricul israelian, pentru ca întreg sistemul IA să devină un pericol real pentru societatea umana, pe lângă auto-învățare și creativitate ar trebuie să existe și intenționalitate. Alexandru Bălășescu descrie influența noilor tehnologii asupra mediilor sociale care le-au generat și a comunităților din jur. În mare parte am fost de acord cu raționamentele sale, însă cred că am detectat și o problemă majoră. A considera întreg mediul corporatist (american sau global) ca pe un monolit este, în opinia mea, o simplificare de model care poate duce la concluzii greșite. Nu există o mono-cultură în Silicon Valley sau în alte aglomerări hi-tech din diferite părți ale globului. Marile corporații ( ca și personalitățile care se află la cârmele lor) sunt și ele la fel de diverse ca structură, orientare socială sau opinii politice ca orice altă comunitate umană. Simplificările și generalizările ideilor sau acțiunilor câtorva lideri foarte vizibili ai acestei industrii nu doar că pot duce la evaluări eronate, dar înlesnesc demonizările de care pot profita politicienii populiști. Mi-a plăcut, în schimb, în discuția de la ‘Vorbitorincii’, legătura pe care o face Alexandru Bălășescu intre IA și schimbările climatice, felul în care descrie impactul acestora asupra marilor sisteme sociale și faptul că identifică corect legătura dintre schimbările climatice și accelerarea din ultimele decenii a migrațiilor. Istoria omenirii este o istorie a migrațiilor.
Intervenția lui Yuval Noah Harari a avut loc în fața unui public în majoritate chinez, la o conferință care s-a desfășurat în China. Este semnificativ și important acest fapt, căci – așa cum cititorii rubricii CHANGE.WORLD au putut afla din numeroase articole pe care le-am scris în ultimii ani –, China este astăzi o supraputere tehnologică, aflată în competiție cu Statele Unite și în interacțiune globală cu tot restul planetei în domeniile tehnologiilor de vârf, în general, și al Inteligenței Artificiale, în particular. Diferențele de sisteme politice și limitările impuse dezbaterii și circulației ideilor fac cu atât mai importantă participarea unor experți reputați cum este Harari în evenimentele publice care au loc în această țară. Teza principală a istoricului israelian în respectiva comunicare este legată de conceptul de încredere. Competiția dintre liderii IA este acerbă și ea se accelerează, în pofida faptului că mulți dintre experți au lansat avertismente severe despre pericolele progreselor în capabilitățile entităților IA în absența unor pârghii de control și limitare la același nivel. Niciunul dintre concurenți însă nu se oprește, din cauza neîncrederii în ceilalți producători. În schimb, fiecare dintre firmele producătoare are încredere că propriile produse vor putea fi controlate și că efectele introducerii lor nu vor fi nocive pentru societate. Avem deci încredere mai multă în sistemele IA decât în ceilalți factori umani din industrie? În realitate, demonstrează și pledează Harari, păstrarea sub control a capabilităților sistemelor IA și evitarea efectelor nefaste ale singularității vor fi posibile doar prin coordonare, standardizare și cooperare. Adică prin încredere între factorii umani implicați.
Concluziile mele sunt optimiste. Inteligența artificială are ramificații aplicative în domenii diverse. Dialogul interdisciplinar cu experții din aceste domenii, dar și cu filozofii, istoricii, antropologii este util și poate fi fertil. Condiția este ca partenerii să fie implicați și cunoscători nu doar în domeniile lor, ci și în structura și efectele IA, să știe să explice elocvent, dar și să asculte. Cele două intervenții menționate sunt exemple bune în această direcție.
Surse:
Articolul a fost publicat inițial în revista de cultură ‘Literatura de Azi’
Norwegian cinema is less known in the world than the ones coming from other Scandinavian countries, but lately it has offered some interesting productions, especially films about ordinary people and their relationships. ‘Elskling‘, the 2024 debut film by director Lilja Ingolfsdottir, also falls into this category. If the translation app doesn’t fool me, the title is equivalent to ‘Darling’, but the producers decided to release it on the English-language market with the title ‘Loveable‘, a slightly explicit title in my opinion where more ambiguity would have been more appropriate. It’s a film about a marriage in crisis, one of those situations that many of us have gone through or known in our lives. The characters are so natural and the situations are believable, which is a good starting point.
Maria was diverced with two small children when she saw Sigmund at a party and fell in love with him. She searches for him for several months and, when she finds him, she initiates a relationship that seems to turn into a second-chance love story. They get married, two more children are born, seven years pass. The flame seems to be about to die out, especially on Sigmund’s side. He is busy with his professional life and claims to need ‘space’. Maria, meanwhile, is overwhelmed by raising her four children and frustrated by the fact that she is unable to achieve her own professional fulfillment. Maybe she also needs her ‘space’? Maybe, if the relationship is no longer working, that it would be better to divorce? The word ‘divorce’ is pronounced late and with difficulty. For Maria, trying to be independent, separated from Sigmund and the children, is risky.
I have a problem with films with excessive verbosity, and ‘Elskling‘ is one of them. It is true that part of the film is spent in sessions at the psychologist where Maria and Sigmund arrive together, but Sigmund quickly gets bored and abandons after the first two sessions, leaving Maria as his only patient. It is a good pretext, but not enough, and in a few scenes (especially one of the many scenes with mirrors) the emotions are stifled in words. Too bad, because at other times we are dealing with a sensitive and empathetic sketch of the life of a couple in need of help. Helga Guren is an excellent actress and her Maria joins a gallery of numerous female characters in Scandinavian cinema that are filled with restrained emotion. Oddgeir Thune, the performer of the role of Sigmund, has all the physical qualities necessary for the role plus acting talent. The story and the acting performances will divide audiences in their appreciation of the degree of responsibility of the two heroes in the crisis of their marriage. I was intrigued by one aspect, however, and I don’t know if this observation is not related to cultural differences. Here is a film about the breakup of a relationship between two mature people who raise four children together (two born in their marriage, two from the heroine’s previous marriage). The two talk a lot on to the other, in the presence or absence of the psychologist. How is it possible that the interests and well-being of the children are never a subject of discussion or an argument for how the relationship will evolve? With these small observations, I think ‘Elskling‘ is an interesting film, coming from an unexpected direction, by a filmmaker who promises to make many other, good films in the future.
I have been expecting the release of the new version of ‘Superman‘ written and directed by James Gunn and I didn’t miss the opportunity to watch the film on its first day of release for audiences around the world. I’m not sure I’ve seen all the films featuring the character of Superman, but I remember the 1978 film fondly and I was also a big fan of the TV series ‘Lois & Clark’ that was very popular in the ’90s. Remakes of superhero movies are sometimes (admittedly, quite rarely) successful, and I had high hopes. Unfortunately, the disappointment was in line with expectations.
‘Superman‘ is not just about movies but also a true cultural phenomenon and an industry of fashion items, toys and gadgets built around the characters. For producers, success is probably not measured only in the number of tickets sold, let alone in the comments of film critics. The calculation is made much later and it depends on the reaction of the audience and the extent to which they are urged, after watching the film, to buy the new products generated by that version. The new ‘Superman‘ does not bring anything new to the story we know. There is a new twist, probably already known to almost everyone who gets to see the film, which however generates only false or superficial identity crises for the main character. The double identity of the Clark / Superman hero is almost completely absent, the actor David Corenswet spending about 90% of the film in the costume in which I have not yet figured out how the physiological needs are satisfied. Perhaps newer is the fact that Superman is now part of a somewhat larger category of meta-humans who help, when they are in a good mood, humanity in its difficult moments. Fans and critics call this the ‘superhero universe’. The toy-generating novelties are Crypto the puppy and a gallery of robots who have also grown bored with the names they have been given – ‘One’ to ‘Twelve’ -, who are not yet different enough to generate characters, but are elegantly designed enough to make collectors and many parents fork out the money to purchase the models.
The story is dull and uninteresting, even though we live in times when humanity is in great need of superheroes. The pseudo-technical vocabulary produces moments of unintentional humor. Screenwriter James Gunn tried to introduce some political elements related to the conflict between large corporations and the rest of humanity or international politics, but everything is predictable and drowns in clichés. The two actors who take over the role of Clark and Lois – David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan – are OK, but neither he matches Christopher Reeve’s charisma, nor she matches Teri Hatcher from the television series, who was in my opinion the funniest and sexiest Lois in the history of the role. There are many allusions and homages to the original story and previous films in the film – in the sets and other details -, but I wonder how many of the younger viewers understand them. Not even the dog Crypto can save this ‘Superman‘, which for me was a bore with many spectacular special effects.
‘The Trial‘ (1962) is – in my opinion – the second peak of Orson Welles‘s directing career, along with ‘Citizen Kane’. Welles himself considered it his best film. ‘The Trial‘ is the title of two masterpieces: one literary – Franz Kafka‘s novel – and the other cinematic – Orson Welles‘ film. It is a demonstration at the highest possible artistic level of the stupidity of the question ‘which was better – the book or the film?’ and of the impossibility of comparing quality works of two arts – literature and film – which have such different means of expression at their disposal. I re-watched the film, or rather the recovered version (the original had long been considered lost) which was qualitatively improved. Like any other artistic work at this level, each re-watch is an opportunity for discovery and deepening.
Joseph K. is visited at dawn by the police. He is investigated and suspected. He does not know what the charges are and will never find out, but he knows that he lives in a system in which everyone is being watched and anyone can be suspected, tried, convicted. Can one try to prove innocence without knowing what the accusation is? Do lawyers help? Can one find defense in churches and solace in faith? Can love or physical attraction change anything? ‘The Trial’ is a parable of the monstrosity of systems based on fear, of the perverse deformation of justice into its opposite.
Orson Welles created, together with Anthony Perkins, a prototype of the model citizen who becomes a victim of the system. Much has been written about the relationships of the character Joseph K. in the film with women and about the fact that Welles allegedly used the actor’s identity to instill ambiguity in his character. The result is concentrated in a few masterful scenes in which Perkins appears with Jeanne Moreau and Romy Schneider. Welles cast himself in the role of the lawyer, reminding us what a great actor he was too. The cinematography belongs to Edmond Richard who was on his debut film. He would work with Welles in a few more films, then work later with Bunuel.. We find many of Welles‘ cinematic ideas from previous films: the huge shades, the low lighting of the figures or the alternation of very long shots with very short shots. Welles would have liked to film in Kafka’s Prague, but this was not possible in the continent divided in 1962 by iron curtains and walls, so he used Yugoslavia as an Eastern European setting, adding the Gare d’Orsay (abandoned and in semi-ruin, before being renovated and becoming a museum) for the interiors of Joseph K’s nightmares.
Political cinema has a controversial name, because many ‘political’ films are manifestos rather than works of art. ‘The Trial‘ proves that it can be done differently. It is a profound, bold, visionary film and at the same time a political film, just like the novel written by Kafka in the first decades of the century that had not yet seen the Holocaust, the Gulag, the cultural revolution or the killing fields. As a mature filmmaker, Welles was proving that he remained the politically engaged, but before all, one of the great film directors of the 20th century.
De multe ori doar când un om dispare realizăm cât de mult a însemnat el în viața noastră și pentru cei din jur. Fred Baker a fost unul dintre acești oameni. Nu am fost niciodată prieteni apropriați. Ne-am întâlnit în sălile de lucru ale organizației care a definit și definește cum funcționează Internetul – Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). El era deja o celebritate, ceea ce se numește un lider (prin poziții de conducere, dar mai ales prin autoritate profesională), atunci când eu făceam primii pași în acea lume. Acum, când am aflat vestea surprinzătoare și dureroasă a decesului său, îmi dau seama că a fost pentru mine și pentru mulți alții un coleg și un conducător, o autoritate și o inspirație, un mentor și un prieten. Aș vrea ca mai multă lume să știe cine a fost și ce a realizat Fred Baker. Lui îi este dedicat articolul din aceasta săptămână al rubricii CHANGE.WORLD.
Fred s-a născut în 1952 la Cleveland, Ohio și a studiat în New Mexico. Prima sa poziție în domeniul ingineriei calculatoarelor a fost cu Control Data Corporation (CDC), o firmă americană care avea în anii ’70 relații de colaborare cu România, mai exact cu Fabrica de Calculatoare de pe platforma Pipera, care fabrica sub licență unități de discuri și benzi magnetice. Cea mai mare parte a carierei sale profesionale și-a desfășurat-o ca angajat al firmei Cisco Systems, între anii 1994 și 2016. În 1998 a fost recompensat cu titlul de Cisco Fellow, o recunoaștere rezervată liderilor tehnologici și personalităților cu influență în cadrul corporației și în afara ei. După ce a părăsit Cisco în 2016 a devenit consultant independent. Activitatea în cadrul organizației IETF a început-o în anul 1989, cu participare activă în conceperea și scrierea unui număr impresionant de standarde în domeniile administrației Internetului și a rețelelor bazate pe tehnologie Internet Protocol (IP), a protocoalelor de comunicații care permit conectivitatea în Internet și a calității serviciilor și aplicațiilor pe Internet. A fost editor, autor și co-autor a peste 60 de documente Requests for Comments (RFC) ale organizației. Între 1996 și 2001 a condus organizația în calitate de președinte (IETF Chair), într-o perioadă de progres exploziv al tehnologiei și de pătrundere a Internetului în toate domeniile vieții economice, sociale și particulare. A îndeplinit misiuni importante atât ca lider al organizației, cât și ca reprezentant al acesteia pe lângă sau în comitetele directoare ale unor foruri asociate cum sunt Internet Society (ISOC) și Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
L-am urmărit și admirat pe Fred în acțiune. Impresionau la el două calități care sunt esențiale pentru un contributor de valoare în orice domeniu, în general, și în domeniile științifice, în particular. Cunoștințele sale tehnice erau profunde și stăpânea desăvârșit detaliile, dar era capabil să cearnă esențialul și să-l exprime și să-l explice în mod simplu, clar și ordonat. Trata de la egal la egal și cu respect orice partener de discuție, indiferent de poziție sau chiar de expertiză. Din acest motiv era considerat o sursă de informații tehnice și organizatorice pentru orice nou venit în organizație. La Fred se combinau două caracteristici care rar se întâlnesc în aceleași persoane – o franchețe și un stil ‘no-nonsense’ care evita orice formalism și făcea clare și ne-echivoce pozițiile în orice problemă și o interfață umană prietenească și respectuoasă fata de oricine. Aceste calități umane și de prezentare au făcut din el un ambasador și un propagator al principiilor Internetului cum puțini alții au fost în istoria organizației IETF și a rețelei globale create de aceasta. Atât în perioada în care a condus organizația, cât și în deceniile care au urmat, Fred Baker a călătorit în toată lumea, pe 6 continente (nu știu daca a ajuns și în Antarctica, dar nu m-ar mira să aflu că da), vorbind despre Internet, explicând tehnologia, dar mai ales principiile rețelei globale, ale accesului liber la informație și servicii, ale conectivității universale. Lui i se datorează în mare măsură începuturile activităților de implementare a Internetului în multe țări din Asia și Africa. Peste tot și-a făcut prieteni, a fost ascultat și apreciat.
La începutul anului 2025, existau aproximativ 5,56 miliarde de utilizatori ai Internetului la nivel mondial, reprezentând cam 67,9% din populația lumii. Aceste cifre uluitoare se datorează în principal unor vizionari care au stabilit principiile rețelei globale cu peste jumătate de secol în urmă și au scris primele specificații tehnice și programe software, și apoi celor care au continuat munca acestora, transformând Internetul într-o componentă vitală a infrastructurii societății moderne. Fred Baker a făcut parte din această a doua generație, de evangheliști și propagatori, de ingineri și inspiratori. Numele său va rămâne înscris pe documentele care formalizează gândirea sa tehnică. Cei care l-am cunoscut ne vom aminti de colegul și de omul care a fost.
Drum Bun în Eternitate, Fred!
Articolul a fost publicat inițial în revista de cultură ‘Literatura de Azi’
Romanian cinema seems to feel uncomfortable with George Enescu, the most important Romanian composer and one of the most appreciated musicians of the 20th century. Violinist, conductor, educator, but above all composer, who in addition to a few hits (especially the rhapsodies) also composed a lot of profound and difficult music, a challenge for performers but also for listeners, Enescu traveled a winding path throughout his life, from his appearance in the world of music as a child prodigy, going through a sentimental life often in the focus of the scandal press, to the end of his life as an exile from Romania that had became a communist country, marked by illness and disillusionment. Paradoxically, no film has been dedicated to him so far. Director Toma Enache worked for many years on the construction of the project that became the film ‘Enescu, jupuit de viu‘ (English title – ‘Enescu Skinned Alive‘) which fits well into the trend of biographies of great composers that seem to enjoy success on screens in recent years. The result is one of those films that polarizes opinions, declared by some as a masterpiece or art film, criticized by others as ‘soft porn’ and blasphemy against a national cultural icon. I will try to share what I felt while watching it, my impressions being also a combination of contradictions.
Enescu’s biography is presented in somewhat chronological order, although there are many ‘flash-back’ and ‘flash-forward’ insertions. For the Romanian viewer, somewhat familiar with the composer’s biography, the exposition does not present any problems, but for less initiated viewers I think there will be quite a few difficulties in placing some episodes in time and especially in context. The emphasis is placed on the passionate love story between Enescu and Maruca Cantacuzino, which unfolded over the course of several decades. However, a problem arises here that I am not sure if it is technical or a directorial decision that is difficult to explain. Toma Enache uses very little makeup, or if he does, it is clumsy. Enescu seems frozen in an eternal allure around the age of 50 while Maria Rosetti Cantacuzino looks about 20 years younger. In reality, the two were quite close in age, Maruca being about three years older. Problematic decisions or executions, because, for example, the relationship of the woman about 50 years old with the philosopher Nae Ionescu over ten years younger is difficult to understand based on the way the protagonists look.
I cannot avoid the comparison with the film ‘Boléro’ by Anne Fontaine, made in the same year, which tells the story of the life of Maurice Ravel, Enescu’s contemporary. In both movies the scripts center around the gestation of the major mature work of each of the two composers – Ravel’s ‘Bolero’ and Enescu’s opera ‘Oedipe’. In my opinion, we learn much less about Enescu’s masterpiece in this film. Is Oedipus’ suffering meant to be a replica of the musician’s love pains, passionately loved but occasionally deceived by the capricious princess? We learn too little about Enescu the man and his relationships with the world around him. Toma Enache built sets, used authentic locations when he could, and created luxurious costumes to reconstruct the world of the Romanian aristocracy before World War II, but the image seemed as brilliant as it is superficial. The music is, of course, formidable, with Enescu performed by the Orchestre National de France conducted by Cristian Macelaru, but the spoken text does not always work well and sometimes sounds more like a precious documentary commentary. I was not enthusiastic about either the choice or the acting performances of Catalin Bocirnea and Theodora Sandu. They look great in the love scenes, but from a film about Enescu I expected something completely different. More about the soul and music, less about the flesh. The producers chose not to release the film in the commercial cinemas in Romania, limiting themselves to special screenings and now to broadcasting on television. Perhaps it would have been more successful in cinemas. If I’m wrong, ‘Enescu, jupuit de viu‘ may even become a cult film, not just one good for anniversary screenings.
Radu Jude‘s films intentionally take their viewers, especially those in Romania, out of their comfort zone. Whether it’s about national history, its repercussions in the present, or current events, the director and screenwriter place a mirror in front of the viewers in which they see themselves, those close to them, and those who surround them. Any mirror is a reflection of reality, but mirrors can also distort. They magnify some details, shrink or hide others, offering a processed image of the world in their field of vision. This is what happens with ‘Kontinental ’25‘, the film that premiered at the Berlin Film Festival and is now starting its journey on screens in Romania. Through the title, Radu Jude ambitiously places his film, and perhaps not only this film, under the tutelage of Roberto Rossellini. The stars, aligned or misaligned, gave me the opportunity to be present at one of the first screenings today.
Orsolya, the heroine of the film, is a bailiff in Cluj. The first scenes of the film do not show her, however, but Ion, a former athlete, who has become a ruin of a human being, a homeless and a beggar, rummaging through the city’s garbage to fill his bags with recyclables from the sales of he barely survives. Orsolya, together with the gendarmes, executes an eviction order for Ion, an order postponed because she had already been benevolent and tried to help Ion in the past. Desperate, Ion asks for 20 minutes to arrange his affairs and commits suicide. Orsolya, although she is not at fault and the incident cannot have legal repercussions for her, feels guilty. In addition, Romanian nationalist circles in the press and on social networks try to create a diversion case out of this story. The event shakes the fragile balance of her world, already based on compromises. She is Hungarian and married to a Romanian officer. Her mother is a Hungarian nationalist, but she converted to Orthodoxy in order to integrate into her husband’s family. She lives in a privileged area of the city undergoing spectacular development, but her profession puts her in contact with the most disadvantaged of the citizens left behind in neo-capitalist Romania. The film is a succession of dialogues between Orsolya and several people: a friend involved in social activities, her mother, a former student, her priest, in which the heroine tries to find peace and ease her conscience. Is there a real solution to these turmoils, or the only alternative is to retreat back into compromise?
Screenwriter Radu Jude manages to catch in this story many of the contradictions that simmer under the spectacular development of the Transylvanian capital into a technological center and a modern European city: the traumas of history and nationalist resentments, the differences in social status and economic situation between those who have succeeded and those who were left behind by the system, an imperfect political and judicial apparatus. Film director Radu Jude alternates the fiction built through a succession of episodes captured by the Ozu-style fixed camera, with images of the Cluj of contrasts that recall his experimental films that explored the past based on archival photographs. The fictional part is supported by an excellent team of actors built around the main heroine played by Eszter Tompa. The combination works very well and the effect is assertive and disturbing, as the filmmaker intended. If it weren’t like that, it wouldn’t be a Radu Jude film.
The phenomenon of nostalgia for communism seems to refuse to die. ‘Sunt o babă comunistă‘ (English title – ‘I’m an Old Communist Hoag‘), the 2013 film by Stere Gulea, joins several other creations of film schools from former communist countries, which attempt to analyze the economic and psychological difficulties experienced by generations that had their youth during the communist period and that were not spared by the often brutal transitions to completely different political and economic systems. The most famous creation of the genre is, I think, ‘Good Bye Lenin’ by German director Wolfgang Becker. Dan Lungu’s novel and Gulea‘s film inspired by the novel propose a similar female character, but who ends up experiencing nostalgia not as an illusion, but through assumption and even through action.
Emilia and Tucu, the heroes of the film, live with difficulty in a provincial town during the transition. The factory that provided jobs for the family and those around them has closed and the machinery is rusting in the workshops. Alice, their daughter, is away in Canada and her visit with her American fiancé is testing the couple’s meager resources. When a film about the Ceausescu era is being made in town, Emilia is called to participate as one of the veterans of the era. It is an opportunity to remember episodes from her youth, with the bad parts and the good ones.
Emilia is not a fanatic. Her memory of the past is, of course, selective, but that happens to many of us when we recall the periods of our youth. The change of regime came too late for her to adapt or change her lifestyle, the simple, perhaps naive, values about work or family relationships also come into conflict with the changing mores of the era. Luminita Gheorghiu fills her character with humanity, this being another one of her great roles. Emilia has a counterpoint in the character of Mrs. Stroescu, a woman with different experiences, of suffering, during the communist period. The role is played by Valeria Seciu and film viewers have the opportunity to watch these two great actresses, who have since disappeared, together. The director and screenwriters do not try to judge or impose a point of view. I do not think that many will become nostalgic for communism after watching this film, but there are chances that they will better understand the roots of the nostalgia phenomenon, at least for the older generations.
