252 Caietele Echinox, vol. 32, 2017: Images of Community

Doru Pop Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters in Bogdan Miricã’s Câini

Abstract : The main assumption of this paper ogdan Mirică was hailed by many as is that the Romanian film industry and the an innovator of the Romanian con- film directors themselves are going through Btemporary filmmaking, a “new sensation” a process of aesthetic and narrative trans- (Prouvèze 2016) of the cinema “made in formation, mostly due to the impact of Eastern Europe.” Dogs (Câini, 2016), his post-national cinema-making practices. Some feature film debut was considered to be of the recent works in Romanian cinema are nothing less than a “revelation,” which following the logic of another stylistic, that made again the Romanian cinema to of a delocalized cinema, a cinema that is both “shine bright” (Bissuel 2016). Just like his deterritorialized and non-specificnationally. predecessors (Puiu, Porumboiu), Mirică This is explicit in the way the directors are de- was awarded a notable FIPRESCI in the fining the national space, the territorial iden- “Un certain regard” section at Cannes, and tity and, finally, the way in which they project immediately afterwards was offered the social and collective representations. Using Transylvania Film Festival award (as it was the case Muntean or Mungiu). Clearly his as a case study Bogdan Mirică’s first feature career took the path of international suc- film,Câini (Dogs, 2016), the author argues that cess and the director was quickly intro- his cinematic practices indicate a conscious duced in the ever growing shortlist of the abandoning of the national specificity. so flexible “new Romanian cinema.” Keywords: Romanian Cinema; National Identi- This young director clearly brings a ty; Bogdan Mirică; Post-national Cinema; Thrill- different approach to filmmaking in the er and Western Genres; Deleuze and Guattari; contemporary Romanian film industry, Deterritorialization; Reterritorialization. first and foremost since his training was different from that of his older colleagues Doru Pop like Puiu, Porumboiu or Mungiu. He first Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania studied journalism and began his career [email protected] as copywriter for several Bucharest based DOI: 10.24193/cechinox.2017.32.21 international advertising companies. Only Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 253 later he got interested in studying screen- everyday life, Mirică places his story in writing and film production, so he went a space that is lacks specific localization to Westminster University in London. and is based on dislocated narratives, with Returning home with a degree in screen- characters that share a displaced identity. writing, he began writing screenplays for This is why the following analysis would MediaPro Pictures (Ho Ho Ho, 2009) and focus on these three elements: the deterri- the pilot of a comedy sitcom (Las Fierbinți torialization of narratives, the displacing of 2012). Later he worked for HBO Ro- characters and the dislocation of spatial iden- mania, where he wrote and directed the tities in order to demonstrate how the pro- first installments of a series called Umbre cess of de-localization and re-localization (Shadows, 2014-2015). Obviously Mirică takes place. In order to methodologically grew as an artist in an international envi- substantiate the interpretation the insights ronment, where using existing formats and of Deleuze and Guattari are considered working with the constraints of genres was extremely relevant, thus their dialectical normal. concepts of deterritorialization and reter- Considering this particular evolution, ritorialization (Deleuze and Guattari 10) his much ovated work is not a “surprise” – will be used as explanatory terms. almost all the tools of his trade and most of In their influential analysis of the the cinema-making practices that he uses rhizomatic nature of our contemporary in Dogs were developed in this internation- culture, Deleuze and Guattari conceive a alized workspace that is the Romanian film re-interpretation the classical Peircean tri- industry today. The purpose of the follow- ad: sign, object, significations. Devising a ing interpretation is to describe the inter- new conceptualization of the notions of nal mechanisms of this new stylistics that coding and decoding, linked to the idea of belongs to a delocalized cinema, based on territorialization, the two French philoso- a filmmaking aesthetics that is no longer phers state that we must discuss the territo- specific to a national identity and culture. rialization of signs, understanding indexes as territorial signs, symbols as deterritorial- Deterritorialization ized signs, while and icons are reterritorial- and Reterritorialization izations of the two (Deleuze and Guattari 65). Using the metaphor of the orchid and in Imagined Spaces the bee, who are caught in a similar dialec- s I pointed out in another study, the tical movement, one deterritorializing the Romanian film industry as a whole is other, while subsequently reterritorizaling definitelyA transformed by the logic and the each other, the two authors explain the rules of transnational cinema (Pop 2014). production of cultural signs. After a deter- The most distinct changes are the aban- ritorialization of signification is in place, doning local narratives and the settings a movement of reterritorizalization is put that were connected with a clear national into action, transforming the elements of specificity. Unlike Mungiu or Puiu before meaning. him, who constructed cinematic reali- Simplifying these seminal arguments ties that were anchored in the Romanian for the use of this interpretation, when can 254 Doru Pop say that, when we territorialize our reality Nation, Territory, Identity through cinema, this happens through a and Representation typical coding process. Moviemakers and spectators create a reality as a projection he larger form of territorial represen- of their shared needs, desires and ideals. tations happens in history, and the After a while, another movement happens bestT example is that of the Romanian na- when a de-coding takes place, and this has tion-state. The formation of the Romanian as a result the deterritorialization of our national territory, as it is the case with all representations. Last but not least, a third the nations of the world, is an illustration meaning will be generated by overcoding, of how territorialization is a meaning for- which produces a reterritorialization of mation, which operates in politics and in meanings. All forms of cultural production culture. In order to generate self-identity, have territorial expressions – we have po- all nations must define their spatial deter- litical territories, literary territories, artistic minacy, finally to territorialize their imag- territories and cinematic territories. And, ined collective self. In the Balkans this has since all social signs follow this logic, cin- been so much more problematic since of- ematic signs are also interpretable through ten the significant territory of one nation this paradigm. or ethnic group overlapped that of other The Deleuzian terminology is an in- neighbors. In this part of the world terri- terpretative method that provides an in- torial disputes and the forceful occupation sight into the representation mechanisms of lands have been for centuries malig- of art in general, and here into particular nant sources of cultural offensives, armed film making strategies regarding the for- conflicts and, even more tragically, ethnic mation of their spatial identity. As pointed extermination. Since every nation has its out by Ronald Bogue, in his essay about own imagined projection of their “nation- the relationship between art and territory, al territory,” and because such territorial all artistic productions operate in a simi- structures are associated with the bloody lar way, best compared with the territorial competition between ethnically distinct activities of animals (Bogue 94). All spe- groups, almost all forms of territorializa- cies, and in this particular case dogs, insert tion in this part of the world had a tragic meaning into their living spaces (through and bloody outcome. scent and other physical displays) and do Contemporary Romania was a result not allow other animals to reconfigure that of a long process of territorial determina- meaning. Such an ethological explanation tion, through several political and military would helps us to understand how terri- gestures of force. First created as a modern torial determinacy and indeterminacy be- state in 1859, Romania (at that time called come suggestive for the transformation of the “United Principalities”) was com- a cultural product. posed of dismembered parts of Moldova and Walachia. Only half of the historical Moldova was composing this new state on the map of Europe, with large portions of the ethnic Romanians still living in the Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 255 neighboring empires. The Russian empire Transylvania) and several other (Buko- held on the Eastern part of Moldova, to- vina, Dobrogea) gravitating around them. day part of the Republic of Moldova. In The anguish of territorial dismemberment the West, the Romanians were part of not only existed for millennia, it was also the Austro-Hungarian Empire and their repeatedly happened during the modern homeland, Transylvania, was excluded history. Once again, another important from the political project. Only the south break-up was the loss of major parts of the of Bessarabia was briefly included, then ex- “Greater Romania” after the end of WWII. changed for Dobrogea, a strip of land con- Why is this relevant for the interpre- necting Walachia with the Black Sea. Nat- tation of cinematic representations? First it urally, a major ideal for the Romanians was must be underlined that the film industry to create a “larger Romania,” one which played a major role in the formation of the would re-integrate the dismembered parts imagined identity of the Romanian collec- of the imagined national territory. During tive psyche. As it was the case with many WWI Romania was once again broken other national cinemas, from the very be- and parts of it were split. It was only after ginning the Romanian films dealt with the war, due to the unexpected victory of historical topics, in a systematic effort to the Triple Entente, of which Romania was reconstruct the past. The so called “Roma- a late member, and due the internation- nian national epic” (epopeea națională) per- al policies of Woodrow Wilson, that the petuated consciously the heroic struggle for national borders were redrawn. By 1919 sovereignty and often promoted the myth it seemed that the dream of a “Great Ro- of “national unity.” During the communist mania” was finally accomplished, when the regime this process became even more pro- national territory more than doubled. Still pagandistic, with the historical films used for some nationalists this was not enough, to generate the nationalist mythology serv- since the truly “national space” was sup- ing the interests of the Ceaușescu regime. posed to reach “from the Dniester to the For the purpose of the national ter- Tisza,” as Mihai Eminescu the “national ritorialization, the figure of Mihai Vitea- poet” of Romanians defined it. zul (Michael the Brave), the first “unifier As Lucian Boia, one of the critical of the Romanians,” was the best carrier of historians of the Romanian imaginary, has significations. No wonder that two mov- properly described the creation of Roma- ies were dedicated to this medieval ruler, nia, our national identity was founded on the most important being Mihai Vitea- the “myth of permanent unity” (Boia 72). zul (1971), directed by Sergiu Nicolaescu, More importantly, I would add, Romanian which was followed by Buzduganul cu trei history was driven by the social phantasm peceţi (1977) by Constantin Vaeni. In fact, of the unaccomplished “Union.” The Ro- as eloquently argued by Choi, these movies manians were haunted for centuries by fulfilled some of the main purposes of any the trauma of their “dismembered” nation, national cinema – and more importantly that of an ethnic group that was living in they provided the nation formation with a separated territories, with the three major “territorial account” (Choi 2006, 310-311). “Romanian” spaces (Walachia, Moldova, These films were an expression of territorial 256 Doru Pop representation of the national ideal, pro- Great Sea” (Marea cea Mare) is his natural jecting the spatial definition of the nation dominion. state, even if the political idea did not exist during medieval times. Dismembered National Territories Mihai Viteazul is presented as driven and Spatial Uncertainty by a deep desire (“pohta ce-am pohtit”), in Representations that is the very idea of unifying all the three provinces populated by Romanians. With- ogs takes place in this space “between out going too far into a historical debate, the Danube and the Black Sea,” a it is enough to say that the purposes of the Dsemi-deserting piece of land called Do- Wallachian ruler were at least uncertain. brogea. On one hand, there is a dramat- Once more Lucian Boia articulates clear- ic dimension of this wasteland, allowing ly the fact that the actions of this military some critics to call Mirică’s production a leader could not have been determined by a “neo-western” (Prouvèze 2016). The bleak national consciousness, but rather by polit- backdrops and the barren lands are visually ical interests (Boia 2001, 133-134). Never- similar to those in the classical genre. theless, in these grandiose historical films, I would argue that, more importantly, the Romanians are described as protectors this landscape is radically opposed to the of the West, altruistic defenders of civiliza- picturesque representations of the national tion and fierce fighters for their territories. geography. In stark contrast with the post- For the argument developed here, it card views representing Romanianness (as becomes relevant that this fake mythol- a land of plenty, with mountains, fields of ogy, which was built by the national epic, green and blue rivers), we have in the movie Dobrogea was also presented as an integral an empty and dry landscape, with no iden- part of the “unified” national space, part of tification marks, no specific trait. There is the “body of Romania.” As illustrated by nothing that could localize the cinematic another relevant example from the mov- space within the “national space.” Almost ies made by Sergiu Nicolaescu, it was not all elements of authenticity are missing, only Mihai Viteazul who wanted to “unify and this universe depicted in the movie all the Romanian,” but all the “nationally becomes a symbol of the dismembered na- conscious” medieval leaders had this ideal tional territory. in mind. Nicolaescu, who distributed him- As Melbye’s well documented study self in Mircea (1989), made another heroic on the landscapes in world cinema compel- movie about a ruler of Wallachia from the lingly proves how the relationship between early 15th century, who apparently planned cinematic locations and the storytelling to “unify” these territories. King Mircea, creates a correlation with larger signifi- after a violent tale of nation building, is cation making processes, the spatiality in described in the final scene of the movie, Dogs is not only a frame for the protagonist discussing with his nephew (the future and his storyline. The geography, as argued Vlad the Impaler) about the importance by Melbye, provides the landscape with of national “inheritance,” as he claims that allegory functions, for the inner develop- the country “between the rivers, up to the ment of the psychological dimensions of Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 257 the heroes. Also, in what Melbye calls the are placed in Dobrogea – from Mitulescu’s “spiritual wasteland films” (74), the natu- Loverboy (2011), to the mythical-magical ral settings is not just enhancing the visual film of Ruxandra Zenide, Miracle of Tekir and aesthetic dimension of the narrative, it (2015). We need to explore why Roma- also creates deeper connections. nian cinema-makers are exploring the Here, contrasting with the ideal potential of this problematic space. One projected by the national epic, where the obvious explanation is that this space is Romanian national space was a homoge- cinematographically impressive, with open nous reality, the landscape is uncertain and spaces, wide fields of sand dunes or beauti- unstable. This is also true for the cultural ful seascapes. Another interpretation must identities of the people inhabiting these follow the allegorical dimension, and the spaces. Dobrogea is once more a relevant fact that Dobrogea itself is a deterritori- showcase for this indeterminacy of territo- alized land, both politically, culturally and rial identity and of national character. symbolically. As a problematic component Historically this territory that stretch- of the imagined national space, Dobrogea es in the narrow space between the Dan- remains a part of the Romanian nation ube and the Black Sea was occupied only state that expresses an inhomogeneous for a couple of years by Mircea, from 1404 identity and provides a backdrop for narra- to 1420, then returned to Ottomans. Only tives that deal with unstable relationships three centuries later Dobrogea was inte- and social dynamics. grated by the Romanian state, in 1877 af- In the classical theories about the func- ter the Russian-Turkish war. Then again in tion of cinematic places and locations, the 1916, this piece of land connecting Roma- treatment of spatial identity has profound nia to the Black Sea, was totally occupied symbolic meaning. Space is a constructed by Bulgaria and then returned to Roma- reality that has semiotic function in all nia, only to be halved at the end of WWII arts, and it is more so in cinema, where all and split between the two countries. These spatial determinations are a result of visual territorial disputes generated radical pop- choices, with the director building cine- ulation changes. By 1878, little more than matographically the scenes as controlled 220.000 inhabitants occupied this 15.500 environments for the development of a square kilometers territory, and more than story and the characters within a narrative. half of them were Muslims, with about As Conley suggestively argued, there is a 47.000 Romanians. By 1905 the Roma- close relation between the cinematograph- nian population was about 47% of the ic and the cartographic, that is films often total population (Limona 2009), mostly provide the viewers with an imagined map due to massive colonizations. In historical of reality. In this understanding movies are terms, Dobrogea is clearly a socially con- “topographic projection” that orient spec- structed national space, the result of a long tators within the perceived world (Conley political process of territorialization and 2007). deterritorialization. This is the case with Bogdan Mir- It is in this sense that it becomes rel- ică’s geographical projection – the direc- evant why many recent Romanian films tor invents a space and place that have no 258 Doru Pop connections with the actual social realities his explanation of Claudio Parmiggiani’s of Romania. Although at some point there works, the process of delocalization be- are some hints about the actual space of comes a manifestation of the profound in- narration, when Roman, the main charac- determinacy of artistic expression. For the ter, is about to go to Tulcea, for a public French art historian this “non-spatial spa- notary, the cinematic landscape in which tialization,” the creation of a paradoxical the camera moves is trans-spatial. That is “here and elsewhere” (34-35), represents to say that the pro-filmic space, the select- the power of delocalization. Didi-Hu- ed space captured on camera, is seldom berman underlines that delocalization, or based on geographically determined loca- rather delocation (after Delocazione, the tions. Unlike his predecessors belonging to term of Parmiggiani), is not the absence of the New Wave stylistics, who place their space but rather a force that gives consis- productions in particular environments – tence to spatiality, through the “matter of with authors like Mungiu or Porumboiu absence” (55). connecting their cinematic narratives to The operation by which a place is invest- very specific places in Romania: an or- ed with “nothingness,” allows the formation thodox monastery, a particular town easily of a non-space. Thiscinematic nonplace is not recognizable – Mirică constructs a non-ex- an impossible place, nor an improbable loca- isting Romania. In his movie the “Real” tion, but rather an expression what Gorfinkel space exists only in the cinematic imagi- called the “universally particular” (2011). In nary, and the localized territory has lost its Mirică’s film this undetermined localization determinacy. creates an un-real “Eastern wasteland,” an The viewer cannot identity any spe- impersonal space that has no national iden- cific traits in the open spaces presented on tity, a deterritorialized zone with no spatial screen and there is no localization in terms stability, no identifiable elements that would of the architecture of the buildings. This is allow us to define its specificity. And if ter- a land a result of deterritorializing reality, ritorial organization is a process by which an almost unreal no-man’s land, a nowhere we are assigning signification, by providing place, without identifiable qualities. There demarcation lines, deterritorialization allows are multiple reasons why Dogs is de-local- uncertainty to build up. More so, while ter- ized and non-specified. One possible com- ritorialization institutes order and stability, parison would be with the Latin American deterritorialization is opened to chaos and magic realism, both in literature and in ambiguity. This is the case with Roman, the cinema, where the non-configuration of urbanite who comes to the countryside de the geographies allow a reconfiguration of appraise the inheritance left behind by his inner worlds. As in the cinema of Alexan- deceased grandfather. When trying to find dro Jodorowsky, especially in movies like El out where is located the property estimat- Topo (1970) or The Holy Mountain (1974), ed to an improbable 550 hectares of land, the intended indeterminacy of spatial iden- the young man can get no straight answer. tity produces a psychological unfamiliarity. There are no fences, no demarcation lines, In contemporary art representations, not signposts, everything is undetermined as Georges Didi-Huberman elaborates in and unclear. And while the “Romanianness” Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 259 of the movies made before was obvious and of the 13.000 villages in Romania, and often excessive, in this type of indefinite spa- by 1988 the communist Leader was pro- tial setting the national character vanishes posing the destruction of over 3.000. And and is replaced by precarious social condi- even if there are no facts concerning the tions. The movie takes place in a borderland actual number of villages that were de- not only because the physical frontier adds stroyed or simply provided from growing, to the problematic nature of representation, the declared purpose of “eliminating the but because it develops a mode of existence difference between villages and cities” was that is problematic. A space of dust and sand a public policy in Ceaușescu’s Romania. is a direct reference to the fleeting nature of Actually we cannot understand Ro- humanity. manian cinema without understanding the historical split between urban and ru- ral, since we can distinguish between those Urban vs. Rural Cinema Spaces movie-makers that are urban and those pparently Dogs takes place in a rural who are rural. Using Fowler and Helfied’s community, yet there is no communi- distinction between “rural cinema” and “ur- ty,A there are no institutions (except the un- ban cinema,” we can identify two different certain local police), no determined spaces types of filmmakers in the history of the of rural life. Before moving forward with national cinema – for example Cristi Puiu, the arguments, we need to open the ref- the prodigy of the new generation is placing erences to a larger social and political re- his film in exclusively urban spaces. There ality, that of the imbalance between rural are many distinctions between the two ap- and urban in demographic distribution in proaches, yet among many other traits the Romania. For a very long time Romania most important for our discussion here is was predominantly a rural society, with al- the emphasis on location and the connec- most 80 percept of the population living in tion with the past (Fowler and Helfied 10). rural area during the 1930s, then 70% by If recent Romanian cinema is clearly con- 1965, and more recently 46 percent living fined to urban existence, with most of the in the countryside – according to the lat- successful movies of the new generation of est census in 2011. It was the communist directors located exclusively in cityscapes regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu who forci- and dealing with the present, we also have bly coerced the Romanian people to move a couple of relevant examples of Romanian from the countryside to the new urban films taking place in the countryside – most areas created by the state. In a desperate of them made during Communism. effort to urbanize the nation, a much de- Unlike the more famous movies made tested program called “systematization of before Dogs, Mirică builds his narrative rural areas” was elaborated and, according with a clear negative spatial differentia- to some provisional data, in only a decade tion from the typical settings of the “New 2 million people were relocated. Although Wave” films. One of the best counter-ex- we do not know exactly how many houses ample is Sieranevada (2016), the most re- were destroyed, Ceaușescu was speaking cent movie by Cristi Puiu, which provides about eliminating approximately 7.000 a radically different mise-en-scene, mostly 260 Doru Pop interiors of a crammed apartment block of that in Dogs – the gratuitous conflicts over flats, with conversational interactions about land ownership – the way in which the specific problems connected to Romanian space is described looses all connections to society. The movies of other film directors a particular, national territory. Once again, of the same generation, like Corneliu Po- the argument is that Mirică’s movie is de- rumboiu or Radu Muntean, are following territorialized in the sense that it is in-be- a similar path. The Romanian recent cine- tween. It is neither urban, nor rural, fun- ma was most of the times filmed indoors, damentally constructing a transient reality, in kitchens and narrow corridors, with the one that is not attached to an identity that directors developing an intimate space. can be placed. Mirică places most of the action in his This is helped by breakup of the “re- film takes outdoors, with an overt disdain alist pact,” is clearly visible when Mirică for interiors. Even the scenes that are tak- places the story in a rural area where there ing place in the derelict house belonging are almost no people and the only actual to the deceased grandfather do not pro- building is the old manor of Uncle Alecu, vide the viewer with too many localization in itself derelict and lacking any architec- clues. Even the “farm” administered by the tural specificity. In factDogs presents no gang of Uncle Alecu is lacking any spec- community, the space is simply populated ificity. This allows the development up of by isolated individuals who have almost the conflict between the two world apart – no social connections, moving around in that of the urban couple of Roman and his this territory as if they would be detached girlfriend, and the rural cop who fights the from any links with reality. Compared with peasant-like gangsters, lead by the psycho- the “national epic,” or any of the historical pathic Samir. In a highly confrontational movies of the past, in this film the very fab- scene between Samir and Roman, the ru- ric of reality is no longer determined by a ral gangster clearly states this dichotomy, national character. central for the intentions of the director: This film is no longer a “document- “In the countryside even the killings are ed” reality, as it was with the movies of the just another act of boredom,” the gangster New Wave stylistics, it is taking place in a tells the “outsider” who enters his territory. subjective reality, one that exists only in the In this a rural world, with unwritten rules, imagination of the director. Focusing on ac- without laws and lacking identifiable char- tions and the development of emotions, as acteristics, everything is indeterminate, the logic of the thriller would recommend, even death. sometimes Mirică lets his experience as a Nonetheless, the characters in Mir- screenwriter for Hollywood style movies ică’s cinematic universe are nothing like and TV series to transform his turns his the peasants of other cultural narratives. own writing into a pastiche. This is the case A brief cultural contextualization is neces- with the comedic style borrowed from the sary, since one of the direct references is to sitcom Las fierbinți, when the local peasant a classical “peasant” novel Ion, by Liviu Re- brings to the rural police station the boot breanu. If the central topic of this master- he found in the pond. Although comical, piece of Romanian literature is similar to the conversations that takes place in an Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 261 inauthentic context, a constructed image the local public. This is when the movie about the a localization that functions only becomes glocal, practiced as a dis-placed within the rules of the genre. form of cinema-making, one that does not Another important element that adds belong to any given social reality, that has to the deterritorialized dimension of this no historical determination and that could film is the unspecific nature of its visual easily be translated into another culture, identity. The visual vocabulary used by the albeit maintaining the appearances of a director and his cinematographer, Andrei determined spatial affiliation. Butică, is dominated by the dry yellow fields of desolate lands, punctuated by der- Displaced Genres, Disembodied elict fences and crossed by dirt roads that Characters lead to nowhere. This earth-like sensation provided by the visual development might ust like the spaces, the characters ap- seem “rural,” but it is closer to the “western” pearing in Dogs are lacking any specific- genre than to a “Romanian” geography. The ity,J they are devoid of any “Romanianness,” remarkable cinematographer builds an at- and, more profoundly, of any humanity. mospheric space, one that is not traceable These deterritorialized characters are also in photographic reality. transient beings, they do not have any de- In this sense Dogs is an aesthetical- termination or definite identity – Roman’s ly de-localized film, effacing any visible best friend or his girlfriend have no his- trace linking it to a particular place. Its tory, the mobsters are lacking distinguish- codes of landscapes, devoid of references, ing traits, and all the secondary characters and lacking physical boundaries creates a kept as unfamiliar individuals. Quite often territoriality that is imaginary. The space the young director places unremarkable in Dogs is not only dis-placed, its inde- ironies towards several of the Romanian terminate nature makes it an ambiguous New Wave tropes – the rabid dog is called landscape in terms of significations, that “Police” (Poliția), which makes an indirect are non-specific for the national territory. reference to Police, adjective; the long shot This is accentuated by the vast expansions with the local policeman, Hogaș (played of a deserted land, making this dusty and masterfully by George Visu), who takes his barren terrain, with the abandoned prop- time analyzing a rotting foot, is an irony of erty in its center and its borderland status, the “table scenes” in recent Romania cine- a non-national space. Obviously it allows ma. The movie is punctuated with ethere- the director to project a similar interior, al music, another flagrant breaking of the psychological desolation, but it is also an rules of the New Wave, with the atmo- indication this movie-making style to what sphere created in a similar to that of the Marquerite Danan described as the “post- classical western or thriller genres. national” cinema (Danan 172). Erasing the Once again, Mirică expresses a clear traits of the national imagery and replac- intention to break with the tradition of his ing it with an indeterminate territory, the predecessors, yet this lack of specificity is postnational film is digestible for a global also a result of the formation of the young audience and simultaneously relevant for director. Conceived like a typical policier, 262 Doru Pop the movie follows to the letter the structure although apparently explained during their of a crime thriller, having a similar atmo- development, is actually based on an inde- sphere with “Small Time Gangster,” the terminacy of their national identity. Mir- Australian TV series “imported” in Roma- ică’s characters have odd names – with the nia by HBO, for which Mirică worked as Protagonist called Roman (a strange sur- writer and director. As pointed out by other name for a Romanian) and the Antagonist critics (Debruge 2016), and acknowledged called Samir (also rather peculiar for the by the director himself (Mirică interview given context). Using limited references 2016), there are many international influ- to localization and brief and inconclusive ences in his moviemaking, most notably depictions of their identity, the people that from the Coen brothers, both in terms of appear in the film sharing no particular narratives, cinematography and character identity. building. In this respect Mirică’s cinema is Boyd van Hoeij (2016) observed al- closer to No Country for Old Men or Fargo ready that there are several elements that then to The Death of Mr. Lăzărescu. lacking motivation in the narrative build- While Dogs is apparently respect- up, and was questioning the ability of the ing the rules of the typical detective sto- director to tell a story coherently. Indeed, ry – there is an unsolved mystery/ crime, a characters appear and disappear without hard to put off investigator who solves the any justifications – this is the case with problem or the riddle that ensues, much Roman’s best friend who vanishes without to the pleasure of the viewers who are in- a trace, then later his girlfriend comes into volved in the process – unfortunately we the story without plot-line development, need to underline the fact Mirică also con- and often the secondary characters then firms the male stereotypes in the detective are left out the picture with no apparent movies genre. His film is one of the most reason. It is my contention that this ap- sexist perspectives about the world of men proach is intrinsic to the logic of deterrito- in recent Romanian cinema, with women rialization and dis-location. almost absent, or lacking any power of rep- A similar displacement happens in resentation, described as victims or objects the second plot of the story, which has in of the male aggression. its center the local policeman, Hogaș. He is As explained by Philippa Gates an elderly man, dying of cancer, who is in- (2006), this male-centered view of the vestigating the series of deaths in his “pre- world, illustrates the transcultural nature cinct.” Played with extreme force by one of the cultural imperialism of Hollywood of the most experienced Romanian film cinema. By respecting the rules of the actors of the previous generation, George genre, the storyline in Mirică’s production Visu, this is a meticulous and cynical of- is in fact an expression of male domination ficer who thoroughly and methodically and of the simplistic binary opposition law tries to build a net around the leader of versus crime, specific to capitalism (Gates a local gang. For an international public 7-8). This, in turn, generates a displacement this would be an easily recognizable plot, of the characters within the overall narra- yet for the specific Romanian context the tive. The national identity of the characters, premise is totally unrealistic. The local Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 263 police (in this case they are even called and Heidegger about the edges of art – it the “rural police”) do not have any inves- remains an expression of the disembodied tigating powers and abilities. No crime nature of Mirică’s characters. Just like the can be investigated in Romania without foot carried around pointlessly, a body part the involvement of the representatives of with no connection to a real person, the county or even national law enforcement entire cast in Dogs is wandering in the vi- institutions. Hogaș is obviously a displaced sual field without a territorial determinacy. character, a rural cop who looks and moves Another deterritorialized character is like the drunkard and heavy smoking cop the fictional Grandfather Alecu who, we in international policier genre (like Back- are told during the backstory, owned 550 strom or Columbo before hand) is no lon- hectares of land at the border of what we ger connected to a nationality and a factu- suppose to be the Romanian part of Do- al reality. The dialogue between the rural brogea. This might serve the development policeman, who acts as if he is Sherlock of the plot-line, but it is a completely dis- Holmes, and a credulous informant, that placed reference, since nobody could own takes place at the edge of a pond is relevant that much land in communist Romania, for this discussion. Two schematic charac- let alone in a region that was near the bor- ters that belong to the logic of an interna- der. Once again this raises the question of tional genre interact in a space that has no Mirică’s localized view, and if this could in- identity. At any given time their dialogue deed be about the “real” Romania, or even could be translated in another language about a determined rural space. Clearly and the scene would make sense for any the image depicted by the movie is that of non-specific movie spectator. an urban director, who has only a cultural Also the entire conflict between experience with the village existence, one Samir, the self appointed gang leader and that founded in international imaginary Hogaș, the dying police officer has noth- projection. ing to do with local identities, as it is an Even more importantly, the negative expression of the deterritorialization of character of Samir (also brilliantly depict- narratives. As pointed out, the policeman ed by Vlad Ivanov, maybe one of the most himself is built as a character inspired from powerful actors of the new generation) the popular Nordic police movies, like follows a genre mechanics that allows no Wallander (which in turn are following the precise delimitation. On one hand this is novels of Henning Mankell) or Backstrom, the typical Antagonist, a schematic and based on the books of Leif G.W. Persson. stereotypical psychopathic murderer, who Although symbolically relevant, the local reveals his true nature only at the end of policeman walking around with one foot the movie. The nationality of the charac- in a plastic bag, is not functional outside ter, his background history and even his the logic of this deterritorialized type of motivations remain unclear and his entire storytelling. And although the foot itself presence on screen is based on uncertainty. is symbolically relevant – with a clear ref- Last, but not least, an important com- erence to van Gogh’s famous shoes, and ponent of this imaginary uncertainty is the the more famous debate between Derrida anthropomorphic and symbolic connection 264 Doru Pop between humans and dogs. The reference cultural products (with Kafka’s Metamor- to dogs and the presence of the wild guard phosis being one of the best examples). The dog in the movie is relevant at a certain lev- transformation of humans almost into el for the mythological dimensions and its mad dogs is an expression of their deterri- connection to death. The direct link is with torialization and their implicit abandoning Cerberus, the monstrous being guarding of identity. Just like a dog, Samir is only the gates of Hades, thus the house of Un- defending his territory, and by this he is cle Alecu functions as a gate between nor- losing his humanity. In fact this territorial malcy and infernal atrocity. Here the alle- dispute is repetitive in Mirică’s storytelling, gorical connection with the dogs becomes one of the most illustrative is the scene in suggestive for the character build-up. As Dogs in which they gang hunts wild boars, pointed out by many authors, dogs are of- roaming around a property that is not even ten used in movies as “disguised humans” their own. (McLean 16), be it in fables, allegories or Deterritorialization is accompanied in advertising and fiction films – one of the by dehumanization, both filtered through most recent example of the allegorical use the connection with the aggressive dog of animals, and specially dogs as portrayals that guards the house where the main of humans, we have in Life of Pets (2012). character lives – while the human charac- In Mirică’s movie the metaphor of the dog ters in the movie slowly lose their human- is explicitly used to attribute “canine traits” ity and abandon their ground, the dog is to these wild characters living in the wil- transformed from the initial violence into a derness of Dobrogea – these are undomes- domesticated being. When the humans are ticated and aggressive beings. From anoth- being transformed into animals, the animal er perspective, dogs are also expressions gets the traits of normality and everything of the symbolically un-free men. Just as it is thrown into chaos by this profound loss happens in Iñárritu’s Amores Perros (2000), of identity. where the dogs are projected as symbol of loyalty and disloyalty, the relationship with Towards a Glocal Cinema the dog in Mirică’s movie becomes relevant for the behavior of men with other human he fact that Dogs was produced as an beings. In the final scene ofDogs this direct international co-production – man- metonymy is visually relevant – the brutal agedT by EZ Films, founded by Elie Meiro- killing of the guard dog by Samir only rep- vitz, with the help of Bulgarian producer resents his final act of brutality on Roman Katya Trichova from Argo, distributed by and his girlfriend. the French company Bac Films – makes it If we are to take a deeper look, at a a global cultural object. Also, in terms of more profound level, we must use the its content, the story was developed within explanations provided by Deleuze and several international workshops for which Guattari to explain how these reference the director got financial support. Yet, as to dogs function. The very idea of “be- argued before, this is not simply a trans- coming-animal” is in fact a manifestation national movie, because its aesthetics and of the in-between nature of artistic and its relationship with the cinematic space is Deterritorialized Cinema, Dislocated Spaces and Disembodied Characters... 265 ambiguous. While mingling elements of of narratives and landscapes we can draw western films, the classical police and thrill- the conclusion that, within the overall er genres, Dogs does not belong anymore process of post-national cinemas, Mir- to a clear national identity, and does not ică’s approach illustrates the way in which share the traits of the movies made by his the glocal cinema replaces “older” forms of compatriots. Nor does he explicitly aban- movie-making practices. As it has been don the local features. This indeterminacy, noted by other film researchers (Vincen- explicit both at the level of narrative and deau 339), the glocal cinema is the result of the cinematic development of this produc- a mixture between localized narratives that tion, ends up reterritorializing the story, are deterritorialized in a manner that make the characters and the space. Adding to them part of a global culture, rather than the argument about the deterritorialization belonging to a national identity.

Works cited Bogue, Ronald. “Art and Territory,” in Ian Buchanan (ed.), A Deleuzian Century?, Durham: Duke Uni- versity Press, 1999 Boia, Lucian. Romania: Borderland of Europe. London: Reaktion Books Boia, Lucian. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001 Choi, Jinhee. “National Cinema, the Very Idea,” in Noel Caroll and Choi Jinhee (eds.), Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 2006 Conley, Tom. Cartographic Cinema. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 2007 Danan, Martine. “National and Post-National French Cinema,” in Valentina Vitali and Paul Willemen (eds.), Theorising National Cinema, London: British Film Institute, 2008 Fowler, Catherine and Gillian Helfield (eds.).Representing the Rural: Space, Place and Identity in Films about the Land. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006 Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Mas- sumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987 Didi-Huberman, Georges. Génie du non-lieu, sur Claudio Parmiggiani. Paris: Minuit, 2001 Gates, Philippa. Detecting Men: Masculinity and the Hollywood Detective Film. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006 Harper, Graeme and Jonathan Rayner. Cinema and Landscape Film, Nation and Cultural Geography. Bristol: Intellect, 2010 Melbye, David. Landscape Allegory in Cinema: From Wilderness to Wasteland. New York: Palgrave Mac- millan, 2010. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006 McLean, Adrienne L. (ed.). Cinematic canines: dogs and their work in the fiction film. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2014 Pop, Doru. The “‘Transnational Turn.’ New Urban Identities and the Transformation of the Romanian Contemporary Cinema.” Ekphrasis. 2014, Vol. 11 Issue 1, pp. 9-22 Rhodes, John David and Elena Gorfinkel. Taking Place: Location and the Moving Image. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011 Vincendeau, Ginnette. “The Frenchness of French Cinema: The Language of National Identity, from the Regional to the Trans-national,” in Will Higbee and Sarah Leahy (eds.) Studies in French Cinema: UK Perspectives, 1985-2010, Chicago: Intellect, 2011 266 Doru Pop

Works cited online Bissuel, Gaël. “Dogs, thriller roumain de Bogdan Mirica (Festival de Cannes 2016),” Publikart, 18 May 2016, available at http://publikart.net/dogs-thriller-roumain-de-bogdan-mirica-festi- val-de-cannes/#eLhXUAljsyxSMfSp.99 Debruge, Peter. “Picture ‘No Country for Old Men’ as reimagined by the Romanian New Wave.” Variety, 15 May 2016, http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/dogs-review-caini-cannes-1201774890/ Mirică, Bogdan. interview Dana Knight, Decat o revista, 1 June 2016, http://www.decatorevista.ro/ interviu-bogdan-mirica-vreau-sa-risc-sa-vad-daca-publicul-poate-sa-duca/ Prouvèze. Alexandre. “‘Dogs’ de Bogdan Mirică: un néo-western à couper le souffle,” 26 September 2016, TimeOut Paris, available at https://www.timeout.fr/paris/le-blog/ dogs-de-bogdan-mirica-un-neo-western-a-couper-le-souffle-092616 Răzvan, Limona. “Populația Dobrogei în perioada interbelică.” Semănătorul, 2009 available at http://www.samanatorul.ro/editura/2009/Razvan_Limona-Populatia_Dobrogei.pdf http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/dogs-review-caini-cannes-1201774890/ Van Hoeij, Boyd. “Dogs (Caini) Cannes Review,” Hollywood Reporter, 15 May 2016, available at http:// www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dogs-caini-cannes-review-892415