Romanian Cinematography and Film Culture during the Communist Regime

by Nela Gheorghica, Italy

Abstract Cinematography and film culture in Romania were used as instruments for cultural manipulation and political propaganda since the beginning of the communist era, either by imposing certain themes on national productions, or by censoring almost all foreign film productions entering the cinema network. Thus, the movies produced outside Romanian borders often suffered content alteration in order to fit communist ideology, if shown at all. We argue that the evolution of cinematography and film culture matched the con- troversial existence of Romanian censorship itself and the ever-changing official position towards the Western community. As will be discussed, Romanian people benefited from strictly controlled film entertainment, with only a few exceptions, such as the Cinematheque and Cinema Almanac, and had no direct and complete ac- cess to information on certain movies or directors, since press and cinema were drenched with pro-communist, anti-capitalist messages.

fter more than 20 years since the 1989 by censoring (totally or partially) the foreign ARevolution, Romanian communism con- films entering the national cinema networks. tinues to be a somehow dim subject, both in- In our paper, we chose to focus our attention side and outside Romanian borders, as some on the case of Romanian cinematography and of the most important works dealing with pri- film culture of the respective era, while trying vate and public life from 1945 to 1989 went al- to underline its particularities. most unnoticed at the national level and were When speaking about the Romanian not translated at all into foreign languages. It cinematography and film culture during the is no wonder that it was only briefly taken into Communist regime (1945–1989), historians consideration and referred to in the ground- seem to agree that it follows in the footsteps of breaking Black Book of Communism (1997) and the contorted history of Romanian censorship. in Stéphane Courtois’ Dictionary of Communism Chronologically speaking, it can be divided (2007), as state authorities themselves have no into three distinct periods: from 1945 to 1964 official agenda in recovering lost memories – when the Declaration of April was signed, of a past not yet completely assumed. Only through which the Romanian Workers’ Party in 2005, 16 years after the Revolution and the sanctioned the relative political independence collapse of the communist regime, was the from the Soviet bloc (Şercan 2012, p. 338), from Institute for the Investigation of Communist 1965 to 1971 (a brief period of controlled lib- Crimes in Romania (IICCR) founded, followed eralism, when arts generally could flourish by the Presidential Official Report Condemn- again) (Rusan 2012, p. 114) and from 1971 to ing the Communist Regime one year later (Ro- 1989, years marked by the return to the ideo- manian Presidency 2006). logical purity of the cultural mini-revolution It is already well-known that cinema, sanctioned by Ceauşescu’s July Thesis (Maliţa along with many other cultural productions, 2012, p. 213). was used as an instrument for manipulation The 1950s are characterized by extensive and political propaganda in all communist and severe control of all screenings, which countries, either by imposing certain themes mostly included Soviet films and a few cho- and dispositions on national productions, or sen politically “neutral” western productions.

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 6 Nela Gheorghica

During the 1960s and 1970s though, cinema did not bother the audiences, as long as they entered the “golden age” of the communist pe- could reach out to the outside world. For in- riod with the foundation of the Cinematheque stance, a western blockbuster such as “Gone and the expansion of the network of cinema with the Wind” (1939) became a cult movie halls. These facilities hosted an increasing for Romanians only in 1970 (!), when it was number of spectators and going to cinema be- screened here for the first time (Caranfil 2009, came a form of leisure for people of all ages vol. 4, p. 298). The December 1966 Cinema Al- and backgrounds, from the countryside to the manac edition included the top ten foreign capital. During this period the Romanian pub- premiers of the year in Bucharest, featuring lic had access to the most recent Western mov- Teshigahara’s Woman in the Dunes (1964), ies, which were only briefly censored and only Tony Richardson’s Tom Jones (1963) and A lacked the so-called “pornographic” scenes Taste of Honey (1961), John Ford’s Stagecoach deemed offensive by the communist system of (1939!), Stanley Kramer’s Judgment at Nurem- family values. berg (1961), Wajda’s Ashes and Diamonds (1958), The period after the second half of the Kakogiannis’ Zorba (1964), Huston’s The Night 1970s and until the December Revolution is of the Iguana (1964), The Shop on Main Street characterized by Romania’s international dec- (1964) and Pierre Étaix’s Yoyo (1965) (p. VIII). laration of its ideological independence from the Soviet Union, the return to severe totalitar- The Situation of Cinema from an Of- ian practices, and by the instauration of the cult ficial Standpoint of the personality surrounding the presiden- As Lenin himself famously remarked, tial family (Troncotă 2006, p. 208). The newly „Cinema, for us, is the most important of the found singularity and the cold diplomatic re- arts”. Therefore films and film distribution lations with the former allies also triggered an were considered to be of great significance economic recession. Therefore, the communist in communist Romania, too. Decree no. 303 regime also decreased its investments in the from the 1948 Constitution sanctioned the na- movie industry. As a result, most of the avail- tionalization of the entire film industry and able representations were films obtained by regulated the way cinema products were to be barter – Romanian movies exchanged for oth- commercialized; all cinema halls and film rolls ers, most of them produced within the Soviet on the market were to become state property, Union. The Western productions still entered which made cinematography much more eas- the country, but many of them had a different ier to control and manipulate (Troncotă 2006, title and no credits to avoid potential copy- p. 83). In May 1949 the General Direction of right lawsuits. The decline in cinematography the Press and Printing was founded as a natu- was quite obvious, since the same films were ral addition to the General Direction of State screened over and over again, while cinema Security (1948). It became the institution di- halls gradually emptied. Daily TV broadcasts rectly responsible for censorship in all sectors, were cut to only two hours, which underlines including the production, acquisition and dis- the degree of state control over all existing in- tribution of films, whose prerogatives only in- formation channels. creased in the following years (Cubleşan 212, Although Romanian premiers did not al- p. 65). ways coincide with the international ones, this Ever since the mid-1950s to mid-1970s, it

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 7 Nela Gheorghica

was officially believed that “the influence cin- ing a political and propagandistic scope. The ema had upon the consciousness of the masses rest of them (60%) belonged to more neutral is intense and continuous, since cinematog- genres, such as pure entertainment, musi- raphy is the art gathering the largest number cal comedies, and children’s films (Popescu of spectators” (Vasile 2008, p. 316). According 2011, p. 281). With only a few exceptions, the to Ceauşescu himself, “film is one of the most national cinema followed in the footsteps of important means for propaganda”, therefore the official political doctrine, as the most com- the need to carefully control its content is also mon themes were the anti-capitalist and anti- of paramount importance (quoted in Palade fascist communist resistance, the finding and 2010, p. 7). neutralizing of western spies, bourgeois deca- The situation of cinema was often dis- dence and misdeeds promptly stopped by the cussed during the sessions of the Commis- honest communist representatives etc. Among sion for Ideology of the Romanian Communist the most popular film writers and directors, Party (1968) and the Secretary Sessions of the we should mention Liviu Ciulei, who was Central Committee of the Romanian Com- nominated for the Palme d’Or with The Forest munist Party (1970). A stenography dating of the Hanged (1965), Sergiu Nicolaescu (who from February 10th, 1970, presided by Nicolae was also a very active actor, famous for play- Ceauşescu, documented that “world cinema- ing in detective and historical movies), Titus tography is dominated by films about vio- Popovici, Dan Piţa, Mircea Danieliuc, Alexan- lence, sexual problems, commercial movies, dru Tatos etc. Lucian Pintilie, another name and movies of great ideological value appear important to the history of Romanian cinema- quite seldom. Cinematography in the socialist tography, became persona non grata after the countries also brings about a series of prob- making of Reconstruction (1968). The film in lems, since the quality of films is not even very which he openly criticizes the authorities and good there” (quoted in Palade 2010, pp. 6-7). the damages brought by communism within In consequence, Ceauşescu’s July The- society and at the individual level was banned sis (1971) sanctioned that: “measures will be until 1989. taken to balance the movies presented in our cinema halls, limiting the screening of police and adventure movies, banning those films The evolution of Romanian censor- spreading violence and vulgarity, advocating ship the bourgeois lifestyle” (quoted in Popescu Although it previously existed for reli- 2011, p.192). The direct results of these deci- gious, political or ethnic reasons, Romanian sions were visible not only in the way foreign censorship took the shape of an ideological movies were censored and often misrepre- blockade and political isolation after 23 Au- sented, but also in the national film produc- gust 1944 with the presence of the Red Army tion, marked by the return to the strict rules of (Troncotă 2006, p. 44). Not surprisingly, its regulations defined by Gheorghiu-Dej’s social main characteristics, initially borrowed from realism (Popescu 2011, p.189). Soviet Union, were later transformed to suit Out of the 550 Romanian movies pro- the needs of the socialist democracy of the duced during the communist regime, approxi- 1970s and the 1980s after the breakup with the mately 222 (40%) can be considered as hav-

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 8 Nela Gheorghica

Eastern Bloc and the decisive distancing from the rise of dissident groups within the Roma- the western world. nian Communist Party itself) etc. For instance, A turning point in the evolution of Roma- the 1972 Concise Encyclopedic Dictionary nian censorship is arguably 20 August 1968, defined it in a neutral manner as ”the control when Ceauşescu’s decided not to participate exercised by state authorities over publica- in the invasion of by the War- tions, shows, radio-TV programs, or, under saw Pact troops. This historical moment un- certain circumstances, over correspondence derlines the new direction Romania took and and phone calls”. However, a year after cen- the country’s decisive split with Soviet-made sorship was officially abolished in Romania, ideology and Party doctrine. For a short pe- in 1978, the Dictionary of Neologisms gave a riod of liberalization of only a few years, the highly politicized explanation:”the control ex- arts particularly flourished, until the Presi- ercised by the capitalist state over publications dential couple visited China and North Korea and prints, in order to stop the dissipation of (Courtois 2008, p. 690). Afterwards, censorship modern ideas” (Rad 2012, p. 7). The separation will become only a means to implementing the from the western world could not be more ob- Asian-inspired dictatorship: that is, the ideolo- vious, as society itself was intoxicated, at the gization of all sectors of public life, the re-writ- time, with a huge number of anti-capitalist ing of (national and international) history and slogans emphasizing the righteousness of the the implementation of the most powerful cult communist ideology. of the President’s personality in the Eastern bloc, in press, all printed material and cinema, Cinematheque and Cinema Almanac - too. the two sides of the same coin Censorship in Romania was officially In order to paint an accurate image of abolished in March 1977 with the elimination what cinematography “looked like” in those of the State Council for Press and Printing, years, we will further discuss two very impor- but it did not completely disappear (Cubleşan tant elements of the cultural life, which came 2012, p. 68). On the contrary, it took the shape to function as a whole and underline the fact of a monstrous type of self-censorship and re- that entertainment could not exist outside vealed the state of mind of an entire popula- propaganda. tion deprived of the right to self-expression, One of them is the foundation of the Na- too terrified of the eventual consequences tional Film Archive1 in July 1957 for the sake and thus inclined to consider almost any- of storing film rolls (already state property) thing as potentially inappropriate or anti- and eventually acquiring new ones. This can “democratic”. Censorship was now too deeply be seen as an attempt to join the international entrenched in the Romanian spirit to require a trend of preserving the most representative legal framework. cinematic creations since brothers Lumière on- Similarly to many other notions whose wards, while exercising strict control over the interpretation changed in communist Roma- 1 The National Film Archive (1957) nia depending upon the “temperature” of the is sometimes referred to as the Romanian relationship with both the East and the West, Cinematheque, although its purpose and activity the very definition of censorship also fluctu- differed from the institution named Cinematheque, ated at significant internal events (for instance, founded in 1960.

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 9 Nela Gheorghica

productions introduced to the general public. entirely to cinema productions, which was The activity of the Archive was then made ac- initially edited by the State Committee for cessible to the audiences with the foundation Culture and Art and then controlled by The of the Cinematheque (1960), which only dealt Council for Socialist Culture and Education. with film screenings and cultivating the public The magazine was printed from 1963 until taste accordingly to Party programs (Plăiaşu, the events of December 1989. Similarly to all para. 14). prints, it was the object of heavy censorship Over time, the Cinematheque became im- and scrutiny, but it also had the huge advan- mensely important with its varied and attrac- tage of introducing to the public the names of tive film offer. It also became one of the few western movie productions, filmmakers and communist-born institutions still functioning actors, along with news regarding art devel- up to the present days. Thus, the initial two opments in the outside world. Bucharest screenings per month increased to Its issues were characterized by the low- 60 by 1973, while the number of archived films quality paper, the scruffy black and white also grew rapidly (Plăiaşu, para. 26). What appearance, the use (and abuse) of wooden made it unique was the fact that the movies language, the abundance of messages direct- shown in its hall were not cut (presented as ed towards the Presidential couple and the they were or not at all), and that it familiar- numerous articles focused on the evolution of ized the Romanian public with film cycles of Romanian cinema in the context of the various the most important directors or actors. Many political events governing cultural life. Titles of them were not accessible in traditional cin- such as: The Moral and Philosophical Responsi- ematographs, as they were not financially or bility of Romanian Cinema (no. 7/79, 1969), The ideologically fit for screening (Plăiaşu, para. Offensive of Political Cinema. Film and Contempo- 28). Nevertheless, censorship still applied to rary Society (no. 6/114, 1972), The Communists, taboo subjects such as Nazism, loose morals, the Heroes of Our Movies (no. 11/321, 1989) etc. or to the films openly criticizing the political are highly exemplary of the general content system in place. Among the drawbacks, we and tone of the texts. Moreover, since the be- should mention that the Cinematheque was a ginning of the 1970s, its articles poignantly sort of much longed for “delicatessen” among show, once more, that, from the strict socialist avid cinephiles, since tickets and subscriptions perspective, cinema was not a product of tal- were difficult, if not almost impossible to ob- ent and imagination, but a mere device meant tain, given the limited number of places. for glorifying the working class, for revealing It was obvious that cinema could function the unpardonable flaws of the capitalist societ- as a huge propaganda device, for it patched up ies and for educating the masses (Dumitrescu, an existing gap (and popular need) and had para. 6). a general appeal to the masses. Therefore, the Nevertheless, Cinema Almanac remained Communist authorities decided that the mov- highly popular and was read by a large num- ing image needed to join forces with the writ- ber of individuals, due both to its singularity ten word. Several years after any publication and to the few articles which passed censor- in the field ceased to exist (Dumitrescu, para. ship and would bring news from the outside 5) Cinema Almanac was subsequently brought world. This provided insights on directors, to life. It was a monthly magazine dedicated actors and lifestyles which were otherwise

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 10 Nela Gheorghica

impossible to grasp. It included foreign film Saathi (1971), which presented no ideological reviews, information on ongoing interna- threat and quickly became blockbusters due tional film festivals, articles focusing on the to their neutral content and the frequency of life and work of certain actors and directors, their screenings. interviews, and correspondences with au- Western movies were less present in Ro- thors residing abroad (usually within the So- manian cinema houses than those produced viet Union), which were aware of productions within the limits of the Soviet Union and were screened in Moscow, Sofia, etc. Together with usually viewed as negative examples, since the movies shown within the Cinematheque, the film critics and activists actively looked for so- Almanac was the only way Romanian people cial and moral implications to exemplify the could witness some of the changes happening huge gap between the “evil” West and ”demo- in the western world. cratic” East. Moreover, American cinema itself was often presented as the negative counter- Western cinema and the (negative) part of the European and Asian productions, utopia as it tends to completely blank the author’s Leaving aside the films presented at the personality, who is supposed to finalize pretty Cinematheque which were only available to a much one and the same product over and over reduced number of spectators – as tickets and again (Rădulescu 2011, para.19). subscriptions were difficult to acquire -, films Among the most popular movies pro- were also screened in traditional cinema halls. duced within the confines of the Soviet sphere These were not dependent on the public re- of influence were Eisenstein’s Battleship Po- quest or taste, but on the (ever changing) cri- temkin (1925) and Ivan the Terrible (1944, 1958), teria of the socialist ideology at the time. Films Dobjenko’s Earth (1930) and Tarkovsky’s were not entertainment, but instruments for Ivan’s Childhood (1962), Andrei Rublev (1966) educating the masses, and their original mean- and Solaris (1972). From Poland, we should ing and message were twisted and turned to mention Andrzej Wajda’s A Generation (1955), suit the official ideology. A rather interesting Kanal (1957), Ashes and Diamonds (1958) and example is the official attitude towards Go- The Wedding (1973). These films were also dard’s movies. He was considered to be “one subject to censorship, as all dialogues even of the most representative contemporaneous slightly referring to China and Russia were re- filmmakers”, often and highly recommend- moved (Popescu 2011, p. 186). Another note- ed by Cinema Almanac since his productions worthy film was Jan Rybkowski’s Yesterday in were characterized by “harsh critique of west- Fact (1963) etc. The most notorious Czechoslo- ern society” (December 1966, p. 2). vak productions were Ján Kádár and Elmar Widely popular foreign productions Klos’s The Shop on Main Street (1965), Jiří Men- (which also received good official reviews) zel’s Closely Observed Trains (1966), and Miloš were Bud Spencer’s spaghetti westerns - Pie- Forman’s Audition (1963), Black Peter (1964) done a Hong Kong (1975), Piedone l’africano and (1965). Despite being (1978), Piedone d’Egitto (1980) etc. -, George Lu- produced in communist countries, the mov- cas’ Star Wars movies (1977, 1980, 1983), Chi- ies from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, nese karate flics, Hindi family musicals, such Hungary etc. were often subject to censorship as Ek Phool Do Mali (1969) and Haathi Mere as well, merely because they presented imag-

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 11 Nela Gheorghica

es or situations unfit for the pure communist Nevertheless, many official reviews cata- “eye”. logued western movies as poor cinema. For In order to prove the alleged openness example, The French Connection (1971) was of Ceauşescu’s “liberal” regime, a series of reduced to being a film about drugs and the cultural agreements were signed with west- damage they cause on an individual and so- ern countries at the beginning of the 1980s. cial level, while The Godfather (1972, 1974) His refusal to participate to the occupation of was nothing more than a story about violence Czechoslovakia on 21 August 1968 was only a (MNIR/CNSAS 2013, para. 5). An anonymous peak moment of a period characterized by a film review dealing with Kubrick’s Clockwork flourishing in Romania’s diplomatic relation- Orange (1971) considered it “at the same time, ships with the West. A year before, in 1968, a masterpiece, and a polluting film about a the French President Charles de Gaulle visited polluted world; an aggressive and violent Romania as part of his European tour, fol- movie about disorder and ugliness, about the lowed in 1969 by Richard Nixon himself. This filth and the noise characteristic to a world was the first time that an American President where vice roams freely; a universe of terror, visited Romania or a socialist country after where light and oxygen cannot enter” (quoted World War II. Moreover, in 1975 Romania was in Rădulescu 2011, para.13). awarded the “most favored nation status” by The James Bond movies (Casino Royale the United States. In this particular cultural (1967), Diamonds Are Forever (1971), Live and and political environment, a large number of Let Die (1973), The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), movies including ideas opposed to the com- Moonraker (1979) etc.) also make an interest- munist ideology were introduced to Roma- ing case, since, according to Romanian film nian audiences. However they were meticu- critics of the respective era, they were the lously “operated” on by censors beforehand to epitome of the “triumphant imperialist ideol- the extent that ideas envisioned by the direc- ogy”, expressing the supremacy of the white tors themselves were modified (Popescu 2011, Anglo-Saxon hero, who undertakes with- p. 289). out hesitation the difficult task of saving the Among them, we should mention Hitch- world; in the process of defeating the villain cock’s North by Northwest (1959), Fellini’s (seldom Asian), 007 meets numerous women, (1960), Two for the Seesaw (1962), whom he treats as objects of pleasure. In ad- which became 30 minutes shorter at the end dition, this type of production was deemed of the censoring process. Other examples are to be rather boring, even for the “ignorant” Antonioni’s Blowup (1966), Barefoot in the Park American audience, while the cultivated East (1967), ’s Live for Life (1967) in preferred enjoying European art or historical which 19 lines and a shot of Mao Zedong por- movies (MNIR/CNSAS 2013, para. 8). trait were cut out. The Valley of the Dolls (1967) The anti-capitalist discourse intoxicated was screened without the love scene featuring all written and spoken words, and it was of- Sharon Tate, while in In the Heat of the Night ten attributed to famous representatives of the (1967), Anne of the Thousand Days (1969), Hel- West, who allegedly despised and resented lo, Dolly! (1969), The Legend of Nigger Charley the societies they lived in. One example was (1972) all fighting scenes are shortened or the British actor and producer David Hem- eliminated, etc. (Popescu 2011, pp. 180-189). mings, who was famous to the Romanian pub-

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 12 Nela Gheorghica

lic for Blowup (1966) and for having – from the Summary strict communist perspective – a meritorious The 1985 summer edition of Cinema Al- professional background. Similarly to young manac features an article entitled Nine Decades communist generations, he strived to achieve of Cinema, which was quite symbolic of the his goals from an early age. In an interview way western film productions were acknowl- given to Cinema Almanac in 1977, – he alleged- edged and commented within the Soviet area ly said that the British audiences (and implic- of influence. In it the 1945-1955 decade is char- itly the English-speaking world) lacked the acterized by the author Cristina Corciovescu opportunity to see quality movies abundant as “the return to realism” (Corciovescu 1985, with social and political content, esthetically p. 62), as it featuring groundbreaking direc- relevant or convincing historical points, and tors such as the Italian neorealists Roberto that it was intoxicated with mediocre produc- Rosselini, De Sica, Visconti etc. and the French tions (Rădulescu 2011, para. 20). directors René Clement and Jules Dassin, who Not surprisingly, a list of the top-ten broke with American cinema and successful- films of all times (1895-1973) published by ly reversed its stereotypes. The few English- Cinema Almanac (and taken from Kino, a Pol- speaking productions of the period taken into ish publication which consulted 60 of the most consideration in the article are Elia Kazan’s On important socialist film critics and research- the Waterfront (1954) – described as the movie ers) only included titles such as Welles’ Citizen denouncing New York corruption – and Lau- Kane (1941), Chaplin’s Gold Rush (1925) and rence Olivier and Orson Wells’ Shakespeare Griffith’s Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Through- (neutral) adaptations. out the Ages (1916). Thus it ignored the most When discussing the 1955-1965 decade, recent (and controversial) masterpieces of the Corciovescu also mentions the American-in- Western cinema (Rădulescu 2011, para. 17). spired French New Wave, comprising names Obviously, the presence of those specific films such as Chabrol, Truffaut, Godard, Malle, was not accidental, as they discuss, more or Rohmer, and Rivette. It was conceived of as less directly, notions dear to socialist ideology, the exact opposite of Italian neorealism and such as tolerance, social equality and the way as having no stylistic or esthetic coherence. money has the power to affect destinies. The Moreover, its representatives were “a con- classification included no Romanian produc- glomerate of talents brought together due to tions and introduced titles such as Eisenstein’s economic, social and historical circumstances” The Battleship Potemkin (1925) – deemed to be (Corciovescu 1985, p. 64). Again, the American the best movie so far, Fellini’s 8 ½ (1963), An- cinema of the moment is reduced to only a few drzej Wajda’s Ashes and Diamonds (1958), Ku- directors, chosen for their explicit opposition rosawa’s Rashômon (1950), ’s to Hollywood trends – this time, Andy War- (1950), Aleksandr Dovzhenko’s hol, Stan Brakhage, Paul Morrissey and Jonas La Terre (1921) and Roberto Rossellini’s Rome, Mekas, who were cited as the pioneers of the Open City (1945). With only a few exceptions, American underground cinema because they the movies were not chosen based on their were “suffocated by the Hollywood conform- high esthetic value, rather for the strong social ism and outraged by the compromises of com- message conveyed, as they gathered new voic- mercial cinema” (Corciovescu 1985, p. 65). es to justify the rightfulness of the Communist The period lasting from 1965 to 1975 is cause.

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 13 Nela Gheorghica

characterized as the revival of the political pecially about leisure and the way it interfered movie and the birth of science fiction cinema. with the official ideology. Therefore, the only American directors men- Romanian cinematography and film cul- tioned here are Francis Ford Coppola, Steven ture followed the contorted relationship with Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and George Lucas. the western world and the Soviet Union, as The box-office success of Arthur Hiller’s Love both national and foreign movies were subject Story (1970) was also discussed in the con- to the same limitations and taboos imposed text of the public’s reaction to the invasion of and implemented by censorship. Neverthe- violence and eroticism currently on the wide less, if the local productions, after overcoming screen. For the first time, Swiss cinema is men- the long and difficult process of meeting cen- tioned. It is praised for escaping the French sorship exigencies, turned out to be acceptable influence and for “presenting the realities and wholes (from both the official and the artistic the people as they are, with their weaknesses point of view), the foreign productions often and their cowardice, since they are the victims suffered incommensurable damages. Entire of the system they find themselves stuck in, scenes and lines were cut for contradicting the which oppresses them” (Corciovescu 1985, pp. official discourse; their entire message and ar- 65-66). tistic value were altered, as the auctorial inten- Needless to say, those particular decades tion was replaced by the cold eye of the cen- also featured many other exquisite western sor, a person who, quite often, had nothing to films, which the author chose to ignore for do with arts and cinematography at all. their progressive content or their moral inap- Among many other things, cinema propriateness. Still, film critique and the gen- brought its share of (mis)information and eral public took an interest in the works of was an important propaganda device, which innovative European directors such as Alain was used and abused to fit the ever-changing Resnais (Last Year at Marienbad - 1961; Je t’aime version of history. Similarly to the movies je t’aime - 1968), Fellini (8 ½ - 1963, Juliet of the created in Romania and in the Soviet bloc, Spirits - 1965), Antonioni (Blowup - 1966), Bu- which needed to follow the political evolu- ñuel (Un chien andalou - 1929, L’âge d’or - 1930, tion of the Communist Party, western movies Simon of the Desert - 1965), were also subject to partial or total censorship ( – 1960), Bo Widerberg (El- and affected by a sustained campaign of mis- vira Madigan – 1967, Joe Hill - 1971) etc. and in information and misinterpretation, aimed at the Japanese Kurosawa (Rashômon - 1950, Sev- distracting public attention from those issues en Samurai – 1954) and many others. which contravened communist ideology and at convincingly highlighting its many bless- Conclusion ings Despite the increasing number of vol- Despite harsh censorship and the strict umes dedicated to Securitate (the secret po- control of all media, the greater public could lice agency of Communist Romania), its in- still become familiar with the great produc- formants and to the various files open to the tions and producers of the seventh art in public eye after December 1989, little is known both the public cinema halls and during the about private life in communist Romania, es- exclusive screenings within the Cinematheque,

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 14 Nela Gheorghica

while reading about their favorite films, ac- matics of Communist Censorship). In: I. Rad, tors and directors in the monthly issues of coord. 2012. Cenzura în România (Censorship in Cinema Almanac. Although less accessible, the Romania). Cluj: Editura Tribuna. pp. 213-228. large-scale foreign cinema walked shoulder to MNIR/CNSAS, 2013. Filmele anilor ’70 – shoulder with the many propagandistic na- ’80 (Movies of the ’70 –’80) [Online]. Available tional productions, and with the hugely pop- at: http://www.comunismulinromania.ro/ ular creations which did not interfere in any Tineretea-noastra/Filmele-anilor-70-80.html way with the official doctrine (such as Indian [Accessed: 20 May 2013]. movies, the western productions, easy slap- Palade, Rodica (2010). În malaxorul ideolo- stick comedies etc.). In a period in which en- giei (In the Ideological Blender). Revista 22, 16-22 tertainment was considered by authorities to February, pp. 6-7. be less important than the creation of the new Plăiaşu, Ciprian. Cinemateca bucureşteană, man and the new state, people needed some locul filmelor „interzise” de comunişti (Bucharest sort of escape (even if only fictional) the pres- Cinematheque, the Place for the Movies “banned” sure of day-to-day living through laughter or by the Communists) [Online]. Available at: tears. This also explains the spreading of cin- http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/gen- ema halls all over Romania. eral/articol/cinemateca-bucuresteana-locul- filmelor-interzise-comunisti [Accessed: 10 References May 2013]. Popescu, Cristian Tudor, 2011. Filmul surd Caranfil, Tudor, 2009.Istoria cinematografiei în România mută. Politica și propaganda în filmul în capodopere (The History of Cinematograpghy in românesc de ficțiune (Deaf Movie in the Muted Masterpieces). Iaşi: Polirom. Romania. Politics and Propaganda in the Roma- Corciovescu, Cristina, 1985. Nouă decenii nian Fiction Movie). Iași: Polirom. de cinema (Nine Decades of Cinema). Cinema Al- Rădulescu, Marian Sorin, 2011. A fost manac, Summer Issue, pp. 55-68. odată… Almanahul „Cinema” [1971-1982] (One Courtois, Stéphane, 2008. Dicţionarul co- upon a time… there was “Cinema” Almanac munismului (The Dictionary of Communism). [1971-1982]) [Online]. Available at: http:// Translated from French by Mihai Ungureanu, pseudokinematikos2.blogspot.it/2011/09/fost- Aliza Ardeleanu, Gabriela Ciubuc. Iași: Poli- odata-almanahul-cinema-1971-1982.html [Ac- rom. cessed: 10 May 2013]. Cubleşan, Constantin, 2012. Cenzura Romanian Presidency, 2006. The Speech după cenzură (Censorship after Censorship). given by the President of România, Traian Băsescu, In: I. Rad, coord. 2012. Cenzura în România on the occasion of the Presentation of the Report (Censorship in Romania). Cluj: Editura Tribuna. by the Presidential Commission for the Analysis pp. 65-74. of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania. [pdf] Dumitrescu, Mircea. Reviste de film (Film Bucharest: Romanian Presidency. Available Magazines) [Online]. Available at: http:// at http://cpcadcr.presidency.ro/upload/8288_ mirceadumitrescu.trei.ro/revistedefilm.htm en.pdf [Accessed: 12 May 2013]. [Accessed: 25 May 2013]. Rusan, Romulus, 2012. Cenzura ieri şi azi. Maliţa, Liviu, 2012. Doctrina și pragmat- Tabieturi și tabuuri (Censorship Yesterday ica cenzurii comuniste (Doctrine and Prag- and Today. Customs and Taboos). In: I. Rad,

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 15 Nela Gheorghica

coord. 2012. Cenzura în România (Censorship in About the Author: Romania). Cluj: Editura Tribuna. pp. 111-116. Şercan, Emilia, 2012. Caietul de dispoziţii Nela Gheorghica, BA in Universal and – „Biblia” Cenzurii comuniste (1949-1977) (The Compared Literature, MA in American Stud- Workbook of Dispositions – the “Bible” of ies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Communist Censorship 1949-1977). In: I. Rad, Romania, certified English teacher. Disserta- coord. 2012. Cenzura în România (Censorship in tion thesis on Rembrandt’s Hat (1986) by Saul Romania). Cluj: Editura Tribuna. pp. 335-348. Bellow, Philip Roth and Bernard Malamud. Troncotă, Tiberiu, 2006. România e-mail: [email protected] comunistă. Propagandă și cenzură (Communist Romania. Propaganda and Censorship). Bucha- rest: Tritonic. Vasile, Cristian, 2008. Cinematografia româneasca în perioada de tranziţie de la “ep- oca veche” la realismul socialist, 1945-1949 (Romanian Cinematography during the tran- sition period from the “old age” to socialist realism, 1945-1949). In: S.B. Moldovan, coord. 2008. Arhivele Securităţii 4 (Security Archives 4). Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. pp. 314-326.

Bibliography

Cinema Almanac. Petcu, Marian, 1999. Puterea şi cultura. O istorie a cenzurii (Power and Culture. A History of Censorship). Iaşi: Polirom. Rad, Ilie, coord. 2012. Cenzura în Romania (Censorship in Romania). Cluj: Editura Tribuna. Vasile, Cristian, 2010. Literatura și artele în România comunistă (Literature and Arts in Com- munist Romania). Bucharest: Humanitas. Vasile, Cristian, 2011. Politicile culturale comuniste în timpul regimului Gheorghiu-Dej (Communist Cultural Policies during Gheorghiu- Dej’s Regime). Bucharest: Humanitas.

Euxeinos 11 (2013) 16