Critical Defense

In “Friend Indeed Who Doesn’t Judge or Flinch” Manholia Dargis is not pulling any punches in her discussion of Romanian filmmaker (Cristian Munguin) “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days”. In fact, she throws so many punches, I wonder if she doesn’t have a manuscript for her forthcoming book tucked away somewhere in her flat. This article is principally concerned with the status of art within contemporary culture. The intersections, however, are aplenty, as Ms. Dargis takes on the Academy, Pro-Lifers, representations of pregnancy in American popular culture and even arts criticism itself! With all of these topics colliding in one article, one may certainly wonder if Ms. Dargis’ has left enough space for the film.

The lede, while captivating, establishes the precedent for the remainder of the piece both in its size and scope: “[T]he camera doesn’t follow the action, it expresses consciousness itself”. Admittedly, Ms. Dargis brings the topic back to earth when she locates this ‘consciousness’ in the plight of a young woman in State controlled Romania in the 1980s.
Nevertheless, as is evident in Dargis’ swift transition to the film’s European acclaim and American neglect, Dargis has another ‘consciousness’ in mind.

Dargis is angry with the Academy for ignoring the film because the recognition would certainly prompt wide-release of the film. To this, Dargis adds the additional claim that this film is a welcomed alternative to the “coy, trivializing attitude toward abortion in vogue in American fiction films”. Indeed, Ms. Dargis is quite right in identifying the recent endemic in American films where a young and beautiful woman is accidentally impregnated and she keeps the kid! I can think of a few Juno, Knocked Up and Waitress. But Dargis, nevertheless, maintains that this film is should be viewed principally for the ‘new talent’ in Romania -- writer/director Cristian Munguin.

Now, what to make of this strange opening to Ms. Dargis’ piece? Should we see the film for its ‘alternative’ political view or for the burgeoning artistic genius of Munguin. It is evident throughout the rest of the piece that Ms. Dargis tries to vigorously defend (dig herself out of the hole?) the claim about the film’s artistic merit. Put another way, she is totally aware that taking a shot at both the Academy and representation of abortion could very well overshadow the film review itself. And what a heroic effort Ms. Dargis gives!

As an enthusiast for foreign films, especially those coming from Central and Eastern Europe, I think Ms. Dargis does a remarkable job at capturing the grim aesthetic. Her attentiveness to the way that a seemingly accidental realism is transformed into aesthetic is a remarkable insight as indicated by the following description: “Hours later, during an unbearably tense scene when she’s surrounded by barking dogs on a desolate street, you realize there are no accidents here, just art”. For me this indicated that Ms. Dargis has a special eye for the difficult and vexing images that set art from schlop.

In the end, despite the huge opening, I think Ms. Dargis adequately defends her claim that Munguis’ film should be watched for its artistic genius. She achieves this with her careful consideration of the tendency to interpret Mungiu films within a wider socio-political context. This is a seemingly contradictory statement given that Ms. Dargis seems to do just this at the beginning of the piece. Quite the contrary, however, given that Ms. Dargis draws attention to the fact that Mr. Mungiu creates a work of art that no mere interpretation could contain. In doing so, Ms. Dargis refocuses the piece on the artistic merit of the film, which in turn, justifies her claim that the Academy is full of ‘philistines.’