12:08 East of Bucharest (2006) User Reviews

If you know anything about Romania, you will enjoy this film

[mertzg · 8/10 · 8 September 2007]

The viewer needs to understand that this is a Romanian film for Romanians. You'll catch all the inside jokes of the film if you've been there. The point of the film is that indeed the revolution was different for everyone . Even in late 1990 when I was there, the people were still scared of the Securitate, or secret police. Even during the one year anniversary of the revolution, it took courage to go and march, much less right after Ceausescu fled. The emphasis on 12;08, the reaction of the students when the teacher asked why they were so interested in the French Revolution, the interviewers emphasis on the time of the protests, and the accusatory views of the callers on the TV program, let alone the long shots of the bare dilapidated concrete buildings, all lend to the whole idea of the plot. Not only does one ask did the revolution occur in this one town, but did it occur at all? After all, Ceausescu's right hand people took over after he was gone. The people themselves ask if anything has changed.

The film can seem long and tedious to some viewers, but if you've lived in Romania, you get it.

a show of European cinema in Colombia

[doloresthomas · 8/10 · 5 April 2008]

There is really a lot to this movie. Even thought there is almost no evident action, except for the long television broadcast of an obnoxious talk show - even some apparently loose ends or inconclusive stories - the fact is you can ponder on days on this beautiful work of art. Acting is superb in most cases, and images of dusk and dawn in the freezing Romanian winter - so gray, so hard - are pure poetry.

The reference to dogma, among other keen jokes, talks about a clever story writer, and a cultured film maker.

I'm really glad I got to see this movie as a part of the "Eurocine" European movie showcase that visits us these days (april 08) in Bogota and the rest of Colombia. We get a chance to see the best of Romania, a country apparently so far away, yet so close to our hearts.

Here is political farce at its best

[roland-104 · 8/10 · 5 February 2007]

This film is set in a small Romanian city on December 22, 2005, the 16th anniversary of the downfall of the repressive communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, which technically occurred at 12:08, just after noon, on the same date in 1989. Virgil Jderescu (Teodor Corban), an entrepreneur who has prospered in the post-revolution free market era and now counts the local television channel among his assets, decides to devote his personal talk show today to commemorating the anniversary of the week-long revolution. His guests are an old, white maned and bearded, much beloved pensioner, Mr. Piscoci (Mircea Andreescu), known for his annual Santa Claus appearances over the years, and Professor Manescu (Ion Sapdaru), a seriously alcoholic local academic historian.

Virgil poses the question for discussion: did the people of this city participate actively in the revolution or not? The answer turns on whether locals were agitating against Ceausescu by demonstrating in the town square before the announcement of his downfall, or, instead, whether people merely came out of the woodwork afterward, when it was safe, to coattail on the revolutionary triumph courageously brought about by others, in Bucharest and elsewhere in the country.

The last hour of the film presents the talk show episode in real time, and it is as good as the very best of briefer political sketches in the salad years of Saturday Night Live. Virgil is the unctuous host, trying to satisfy his guests and the contentious viewers who phone in to criticize the discussants on live audio feed. Old Mr. Piscoci offhandedly, almost reluctantly, acknowledges that, yes, he was present on the scene in the square that morning, and no one challenges this. You get the sense that this fact, like everything in his life, is no big deal. In fact, he seems thoroughly bored with the proceedings and spends his time making paper boats and what look to me to be cootie catchers from notepaper on the table where the three principals sit.

Prof. Manescu on the other hand, nursing an especially foul hangover, asserts with all the pride he can muster under the circumstances that he certainly was present, calling for Ceausescu's scalp, in the hours leading up to the moment of capitulation. A woman phones in to state point blank that Manescu's lying, that she personally saw him drinking in a nearby tavern until well after the moment that C. stepped down. A male caller, whom Manescu had accused on the air by name of being a member of the Securitate - Ceausescu's thug police - who hit him during a scuffle in the square, admits that while it's true that he was a Securitate agent at that time, and that he was on duty in the square, because of those very facts he can vouch for the previous woman's assertion that Manescu was nowhere to be seen until later in the day. Manescu responds by first defending himself, then trying to elope from the station during a commercial break. He's brought back and spends the latter part of the show in a silent funk.

The TV station itself smacks of our familiar local cable access operations. A single staff person, an indifferent, skinny young man, runs the camera, mans the phones, helps Virgil chase after Manescu, and reaches his arm across the table at one point to sweep away Mr. Piscoci's paper boats. The whole show is steeped in dark, understated humor, with, of course, serious subtexts about false claims of political glory and the larger issue of whether anything worthy of the term revolution really occurred in Romania, or at least in their town, i.e., whether most people in Romania are better off today or not.

I'd love to give the film an "A" grade, but it is compromised by a creaking, protracted, confusing beginning: the first half hour is devoted to scenes in which each of the three principals, in their apartments, is awakening for the day. These scenes are shadowy; it's even hard to decipher who's who for a while. However, these scenes do serve to establish the fact that life for the characters other than Virgil is not very good, perhaps little better than before the revolution, if that. This film won the Camera d'Or Award for best debut feature last year at Cannes. My grades: 8/10 (B+) (Seen on 01/31/07)

Was there or wasn't there

[titus-herbert · 24 August 2007]

...a revolution in our town? This is not a movie about the revolution, it's a movie about life. You will notice perhaps how the writer inserts new elements on top of the old ones. The city, the people, their every day life seems to be the same. But there they are, a mobile phone next to the old furniture, the sofa with the carpet on it, a shiny car over the grey background of a building, the Chinese man who can speak romanian surprisingly well. These are signs of change, since the revolution, as the transformation was intended to be seen here. Also you will notice that the name of the town is hidden in all scenes: " Primaria (imagine brad de craciun)UI va ureaza..." ("The city hall of (the image of the Christmas Tree)UI is wishing you a Merry Christmnas!"). Also in the TV show, the name of the town is never mentioned, being replaced instead with "our town". This may be the writer's idea of cutting down the importance of the event (my guess). Another subtle way of summarizing the whole movie is right at the beginning of it: "the lightening of the street lamps", idea further carried out by Mr. Puşcoci: "The street lamps light up down-town first, and then one-by-one all the way to the suburbs".

So that is the way the revolution was seen. The comic part of the movie as others may have suggested is actually the reality of people trying to do what they see and think is good, to feel better about themselves, to appear better in the eyes of others, even if it is too late(Mr. Puşcoci's wife is dead), is about growing up and struggling to do better. I liked the music, the paper boats Mr. Puşcoci makes during the TV show, the way the wife tries to convince her husband to give her money for their daughter's vacation by showing him an old photo, the way a new day starts when the street lamps turn off,etc.

Strange little film that I didn't connect to. But others did.

[Screen-7 · 6/10 · 17 December 2006]

I went to this film for the simple reason that I had never seen a film from Romania even though I remember that Revolution well.

Honestly, I didn't really like the film that much.

However, I saw it with a packed audience and they were obviously enjoying it and laughing a lot! So, I can't really pan the film since it's clear that others resonate with it.

POSITIVES: I did like the shots of Romania in the winter -- I really felt like I experienced the place and that's speaks very well for any movie. I also thought the actors did did a darn good and convincing job. The subtitles were well done, which isn't always the case. I did laugh a few times during the TV studio scene.

NEGATIVES: He takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME to build up to the studio scene and then he spends WAY TOO MUCH TIME on the studio scene! It needed either a few more plot elements or more character development of the supporting cast so I could care about them more. The only one I really connected with was the Chinese guy -- probably because there was some identifiable back story there.

But, obviously, that's just me. You might really like this film -- obviously others do.

----

PS: Sometimes I don't know how good a movie is until a week or two after I see it -- if I'm still thinking about the movie, then that's a good sign. Well, this movie passes that test. I'm still thinking about how funny the two guests were on the TV show. The fact is, if I laugh at all in a movie, it's better than most comedies!

Before the Revolution?

[sweetnlowdown2 · 10/10 · 12 October 2006]

December 22, 1989. What exactly happened that day in Bucharest? We know Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu left the country bringing about the end of Communism, but, was there ever really a revolt?

This might be a touchy subject for a movie to some Romanians. I mean, after all, the movie is asking questions and challenging the country's history. And there are people who are still alive who can tell us what happened. But, Corneliu Porumboiu's feature lenght directorial debut shouldn't cause any controversy.

"12:08 East of Bucharest" is many things. First of all it is one of the best Romanian movies I have ever seen. It is also one of the best films I've seen in 2006. It is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year and was the best movie I saw at the Chicago International Film Festival this year. But the one thing it is not is a controversial film.

What makes a film just as this so good is the way it weaves a serious subject with humor. Who would have thought a subject about the Romanian revolution could have been so funny? Romanians, and really most of us Eastern Europeans (I'm Hungarian) have a very sarcastic sense of humor. And that humor is shown in spades in this film. In fact the audience I saw this film with (and it was a packed house) were also in fits of laughter. I started laughing at myself for laughing. I was even trying to hold it in so I wouldn't disturb the people sitting next to me.

The film mostly follows three men, Virgil Jderescu (Teodor Corban) the host of a TV show that is going to discuss the 16th anniversary of that fateful day and his two guest, both of whom claim to have been there, Mr. Manescu (Ion Sapdaru) and Mr. Piscoci (Mircea Andeescu).

The first half of the movie introduces these characters to us as each gets ready for the show. The second half of the movie is the TV show itself.

I've complained lately that one of the reason Romanian films don't get distributed in America is because Romanians are going away from what they know. The country has tried so hard to maintain the image it is not behind with the times and wants to impress Western society. This is a big mistake. Don't care what Western audiences will think. Just make films about your country and deal with subjects that are meaningful to you (by "you" I mean Romanian directors). Earlier this year we saw "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu". There was a film that dealt with a "Romanian" problem and people all over the world not only enjoyed it, but, were able to relate to it. This, I believe, would happen more often if Romanian directors followed their hearts instead of some demographic.

"12:08 East of Bucharest" is dealing with a major part of Romanian history and the outcome is a brilliant film that all audience members should be able to relate to. The humor also helps the film by keeping the audience engaged.

I hope we see more films like this. And I also hope director Corneliu Porumboiu keeps making films and hopefully they will be shown in America.

p.s. I also wanted to quickly point out a similarity I found between this film and Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Spider's Stratagem". Both films question a time in history. Are there such things as heroes? Does fact ever get mixed with fiction? How can we separate the two? When is a lie more important than the truth, if ever? These are important things to think about.

was it a good movie or not?

[rmanory · 7/10 · 15 October 2008]

I enjoyed and did not enjoy this movie, hence my ranking at the level of 7.

I am a speaker of Romanian, but left that country a long time ago, and as such I was very interested in the historical content of the movie. However, the movie, like the television show in it, leaves the spectator with the main question unanswered, and perhaps this is the director's message. Unlike other commentators on this board, I think that Manescu, the history professor, actually was in the Main Square protesting something or other on that day, and the callers who called during the program left sufficient doubt in my mind to believe that the guy has indeed been there. But that's not the main issue. The main (and very good point) of the film was the fact that the callers were trying to justify their own actions during that day and to dismiss anything Manescu might have done, only because had Manescu's story been accepted they would look bad in the eyes of their peers. The incident with the Chinese merchant is also very moving, showing that Manescu was a indeed a decent person, and making his version more credible in my eyes than that of the other eyewitnesses. I did not like the fact that for the first hour or so in the movie there is no closeup on the various participants, so that when they finally gather in the same room together, it is the first time that one sees their faces. In any case, there were a few things that reminded me of a few other Romanian films I have seen recently, such as The Death of Mr Lazarescu and 4-3-2. The common things are the simple apartments, the derelict buildings and the way people speak with each other, which is so different than the way people talk in the West. However, in my view the vulgar language had the effect of diluting the film's message. It is realistic, it does reflect the way people speak, but I can't believe that people use this language when calling a TV station. There was also a small problem in the plot: IN an early scene Jderescu is asked by his wife to bring his entire salary home, whereas in a later scene it turns out that he owns the TV station, and 'he made it' from a former engineer to a respected TV journalist and station owner. Overall, the movie has a mixed message. For Romanians living in Romania, it is a cruel satire on their way of life, their behavior with each other and their self image. The telephone call from the former Securitate agent-cum-factory owner is compelling, since to this day Romania has not acted against these people and it's a sore point in society, probably because of their large percentage in population, and also because the people who were closest to the Party were also those who managed to get ahead in business when the system has changed. In summary, I think that a good movie has to be able to make a mark beyond the local viewers, or the speakers of the language, and the fact that a Danish viewer gave it a low mark says something about this issue.

A small city, it's men, their Christmas trees

[moody1032 · 10/10 · 19 February 2007]

It is surprising that the movie got good rates from viewers outside Romania. It is incredible easy, as a Romanian, to connect to every image and to every word, so it becomes quite difficult to isolate the message that one can only receive through the experience of living the last 16 years in Romania, from the more general, human background of the movie. The movie is not a comedy. There are moments when you laugh. There are even more moments that will make you smile. But a comedy does not keep you thinking of it for days.

It's 22nd of December. 15 years from the Revolution. Three days until Christmas. Throughout the movies, the Christmas trees work as extensions of the characters. Manescu, the alcoholic history teacher finds in his apartment a cheap and ugly tree that he doesn't remember buying. Piscoci, the friendly retired old man (a surprise, since movies taught me that old men are lonely and isolated), takes advantage of the trip to the tiny TV studio, in the station owner's wrecked car, and stops on the way to buy a tree. Jderescu, the TV station's owner and talk-show host, a men that keeps statues of Plato and Aristotle on his bookcase, a host that starts his show with pretentious quotes from Heraclit and gets offended when his former job, as a production engineer, gets mentioned, well, Jderescu does not have a Christmas tree. So he will buy one, when Piscoci gets one. There is also o beautiful tree, shortly passing buy in the hand of an ex-student of Manescu, now working outside the country.

"No man can cross the same river", states Jderescu in the beginning of the show. Yet Manescu, the man who protested in front of the city hall in 1989, comes cross with that original day. We see him getting more and more wrecked, closing within himself, looking sideways, hesitating before each answer, facing old enemies, as powerful now as they were then, trying not to remember the mix of courage and cowardice from 22nd of December 1989. The callers in the show argue that he was not there on that day, and he gets lost in demonstrating otherwise, increasingly rabid, aggressive, more and more outnumbered.

And, meanwhile, an ignored Piscoci demonstrates, based on common sense, that the truth of each callers does not have to exclude the Manescu's truth.

Close to the end of the movie, we get two great moments. The only phone call in Manescu's defense is a mirror set in front of all those who speak before, reflecting an image so hideous that can only get rejected. And then, after this purification, to fill in the remaining time of a failed show, Piscoci narrates his memories of that day. So, was it or not a revolution in their small town? Well, no big history happen in there. Just small, human stories.

Ten stars, without a doubt. Just a handful of movies haunted me so many time after the end credits rolled on.

You're On The Air!

[Spuzzlightyear · 7/10 · 8 November 2006]

The ouster of Ceausescu from Romania certainly isn't exactly the comedy event of the century, but those wacky Romanians, who just nailed black comedy last year with the black 'The Death of Mr. Lazerescu' set to it to make this film, all about a call in TV show about the revolution, as hilarious as possible. First of all, please just ignore the long, ridiculous, not needed preamble to the show itself, where the participants perform in mundane life. This was surprisingly dull, boring and totally not needed, No, what this film will be remembered for is the call-in show tour-de-farce that the three actors do. One of them is a host, the other 2 are the 'guests' that have rather dubious memories of the revolution. One of them sets himself out to be a ridiculous hero of the event, only to be shot down (or at least attempted to, he just challenges everyone at every turn) and the other is quite comfortable not saying anything, just sitting quietly making paper animals.. This is all perfectly ridiculous. I could have watched a full hour and a half of this nonsense rather then the ridiculously slow preamble before it.

Wonderfully quirky East-European production

[Playitagainsam · 10/10 · 2 April 2008]

A wonderfully quirky movie, rooted in the deep inner conflict experienced by many people who have to re-conciliate their Communist-era mentalities with(in) a post-Communist society.

Most Romanians (and East-Europeans alike) will understand it very well, since many clichés are present here: the vain, non-professional media, the desolate streets, the people without perspectives or hope, the arrogant new-rich former secret service people, the successful immigrants coming from even lesser parts of the world... all grafted on top of a nagging general feeling of guilt and shame, emanating from the sheep-like population.

Let's face it: the real (and only) Romanian heroes of 1989, "before 12:08 on December 22", were the several thousands of mostly young folks who defied the authorities in the streets of Timisoara and Bucharest... the rest of the country just watched and waited, much like the viewers of Jderescu's "talk show".

PS. - To the pretentious prig from Denmark: I think you were supposed to post your "art cinema" commentary under the latest creation of your much-ballyhooed co-national, Lars von Trier, "Direktøren for det hele" (2006). Your comments fit that film to a "T"!!!

If you have absolutely no idea what Porumboiu's minimalistic film is all about, and no respect or understanding for another culture, I think you should refrain from posting. Sadly, your inane text was at some point featured on the main page for this Romanian film, even though you - thankfully! - represent an insignificant minority of malcontents.

Cinema as music

[cliffhanley_ · 6/10 · 20 August 2007]

Director Porumboiu confesses to admiring the early work of Jim Jarmusch, but this feels as if it could have spun off from one idea in a Tati comedy. It is set in an un-named little town, somewhere east of Bucharest and built mostly of drab post-communist concrete. All of the exterior shots emphasise the drab modernity, in grainy near-monochrome. In contrast to this, the lives of the town's citizens are described almost as if they are living in a village, during the build-up to New Year; or as the subtitles have it, 'new year's'. The old man who regularly does a 'Santa', the school teacher who throws his earnings down his throat, the talk-show host desperately attempting to gather enough guests to discuss whether or not a revolution happened locally to coincide with the downfall of Ceaucescu, the kid who wants to be a video artist instead of gamely pointing the TV camera where he is told. The story introduces all these characters, giving them no obvious interconnection, until they are dropped into the TV studio with the added pressures of real time and occasional phone-in callers. It's here that the quiet, wry humour steps up a level, and with especially the creative use of the 'F' word gets the audience laughing out loud instead of smiling sadly. There's a kind of coda, taking a line from the interview about how street lights work and extending it into a metaphor, back in the grainy streets as darkness falls again, but dressed up for the season. If it were music, it might take its place beside the romantics, although it's perhaps closer in spirit to Zappa. Discuss!

A slow motion towards the essential

[wbartl · 9/10 · 24 September 2007]

A very good piece of work that seems slow when you watch it and is very effective in the end. It makes you sad and hopeful at the same time. After having gone through revolution the actors are sucked up by their daily struggles about money, love and dignity. The pictures are dark and don't make you want to go to Romania in December. Nevertheless it is a must for everybody who is interested in understanding Romanian culture. But first of all it is a contribution to the national discourse in Romania itself. I would like to see more of the process of Romanian self-reflection. Unfortunately Romanian films are hardly available on DVD outside of the country.

Overrated

[rsilva00-1 · 6/10 · 27 June 2007]

I really don't get the critical response to this film.

It's awfully slow for its first half--which flails at character development--and only gains momentum in the long scene in the television studio which, as far as I can tell, is the film's sole reason for existence. And even then, the television study stuff is not especially funny nor profound. A guy gets drunk on air; everyone's confused about what happened (Hilarious? Maybe if you think Woody Allen later films are a laugh riot.) Though it has it's moments, the TV scene has the bloated, predictable feel of a Saturday Night Live sketch.

And please don't try to tell there's some meaningful at the heart of this movie. Maybe if you find Hallmark Cards meaningful. I don't. I got its rather obvious points about subjectivity in experience and the gray areas in revolution (who couldn't?) but it doesn't really go anywhere from that.

That being said, 12:08 Bucharest is not a terrible movie, but not the great one critics are proclaiming it to be. It fits into the Art Film mold without being able to fit the definition of what any good film should be: surprising, challenging, and alive.

Nice but lacks depth

[qarliv · 5/10 · 10 June 2009]

It is a nice movie to watch that discuss the idea of the 1989 revolution in a small town east of Bucharest. In a local TV station, a debate is initiated. The movie has potential that was not realized in practice. For example, it has a bit of humor that is nice. There are good actors but the script lacks any depth. You get hints that you have to analyze to understand the meaning of the movie. I did it only after the movie ended. The movie could have develop more the ideas that it presents, but finally it is disappointing. It lacks a good script. It ends suddenly leaving you with a sense the movie missed its goal. I heard other opinions that were much more negative.

Reflections of gray

[Vincentiu · 23 April 2007]

Strong film about social realities of deep Romania. Revolution as myth and self legitimation, lives like gray shadows, society as symbol of failure. Don quixotic gestures and illusions like warm refuges , strange games and paper heroic values, disillusions and questions without answers.

An old man, an alcoholic teacher, a local television boss and a Chinese. Memories about December 1989 as occasions to present the social mud,hate and fear beyond the hideous masks, the slices of unhappiness and sterile search of life's sense. A sad show about horrible reality, nooks of desperation and traumatic dreams.

In fact, reflection of gray tones. Bovaric isle in a far East.

Start the Revolution Without Me

[Buddy-51 · 7/10 · 11 August 2008]

"12:08 East of Bucharest" is a droll Romanian comedy that deftly examines how the citizens of that country look back on one of the pivotal events in their nation's history.

The movie takes place 16 years to the day (December 22, 1989) after the Communist government, led by Nikolai Ceausescu, was overthrown in that country. Now, Jderescu, the host of a local TV talk show, is hoping to commemorate that anniversary by examining what role his own town might have played in that seminal event. The issue Jderescu hopes to settle is whether a revolution actually took place in their town or whether the citizens simply waited till it was "safe" - i.e. after Ceausescu had already fled the scene by helicopter at precisely 12:08 PM on that fateful day - before venturing out in protest. Jderescu has chosen to have two "common folk" guests on his show to discuss the matter - an alcoholic history teacher named Manescu, and a cranky retired old man named Piscoci. Manescu at first tries to pass himself off as a hero, claiming that he and a group of friends headed over to the town square before the downfall of the government, but conflicting testimony from some of the callers to the show begins to call into question the truthfulness of his story.

"12:08 East of Bucharest" feels a bit like two movies combined into one. The first is a casually paced, noncommittal look into the everyday lives of three citizens of this town. We see Jderescu having breakfast with his wife, making phone calls to re-confirm the guests for his show, and spending time with his mistress, a beautiful young reporter at the station where he works. Manescu struggles with a hangover from the night before, visits the bar to pay his tab, apologizes to a Chinese merchant he insulted while drunk, and contends with a bunch of recalcitrant students who would much rather be setting off firecrackers in the hallway than learning about the Romanian Revolution (though they all seem to know about the French Revolution well enough). Meanwhile, Piscoci divides his time between fighting with his television set and buying a Santa Claus suit for an upcoming children's party at which he's been asked to perform. Writer/director Comeliu Porumboiu has filmed this section almost entirely in medium and long shots with virtually no close-ups or cutting within scenes. The advantage of this naturalistic approach is that it allows the scenes to play out in what feels like real time, while the disadvantage is that it distances us somewhat from the characters, making it harder for us to identify with them and the things we see them doing.

Still, this section helps us to better understand why a man like Manescu might feel compelled to place himself center stage at an event of such profoundly historic magnitude. Perhaps it affords him the opportunity at long last of being an active participant in history, rather than a mere teacher of it. We all create new identities for ourselves, Porumboiu seems to be arguing in his film, for who among us wants to be known as nothing more than a face in the crowd, a person ground down to nothing by the prosaic realities of our humdrum existence? Heck, even Jderescu, the talk show host, is finally unmasked on-air for the mere textile worker he was in the years before the revolution. Apparently, personal reinvention is not something exclusive to movie actors and rock stars anymore.

However, it's when we get to the talk show itself that the movie truly begins to engage our interest. As caller after caller deflates Manescu's attempts at making himself out to be the hero he probably wasn't, we get the sense that Porumboiu is implying that the issue itself may not even be worth debating all these years later. Just because Manescu and his fellow unarmed citizens didn't risk their lives by confronting the Communist military doesn't make them bad people. Still, there's no denying that Manescu's appearance on the show brings to the surface a whole host of feelings on the part of the general populace regarding the part each of them played in the revolution. By opening up this dialogue, the movie, I imagine, serves a healing function for the Romanian people. What matters for the rest of us is that the movie raises these issues with so much genuine humor and compassion that the dilemma becomes instantly recognizable for viewers the world over.

is it a comedy?

[ioan-iacob · 10/10 · 4 February 2007]

Yes, I thought so. For the first two thirds of the movie. Then I started understanding it's so much more. If torn apart, crushed people can be amusing, then, yes, this is a comedy, and so is everything in life. Living a sordid life can be accepted as normal, and can made be fun of - and, in the end, what else is left to do?

What's interesting is that all characters, no matter how decaying might look, are given the chance of rehabilitation. The depressive drunken teacher? Well, he used to be a good man. His racist words have no actual meaning for him, just as curses don't have an actual meaning for children. And he used to play guitar, sometimes..

This movie's point is just so much deep beyond the visual - and even though it tricks us into believing it focuses on facts (in Romanian, the title reads like 'Was it or was it not?'), the message I perceived was that somehow, in the end, facts don't matter, not so much, but people do. Is it a comedy? Well, yes. But it's not 'hilarious', it's not Beavis and Butthead. It's a very sad comedy. It's life.

Cope with it

[eabakkum · 7/10 · 22 May 2014]

My motivation to watch this film is a bit weird. The Leninist system and its aftermath fascinate me, and therefore I often buy films about this subject. So when I saw the DVD "12:08 east of Bucharest", with a hammer and sickle on the cover and a short text about the revolution of 1989, I yielded to the temptation. However, the narrative is actually about Romanian people in a provincial town, whose sole experience with the revolution have been the TV images from Bucharest. The characters are neither Leninists nor rebels, but plain and common people. There is a teacher suffering from alcoholism, an aged man, and a TV producer, who used to work in the textile industry. Their behavior and situations are moving but mainly trivial. Even the TV producer, despite his obvious arrogance, is likable in the struggle for the survival of his channel. If you try to identify the legacy of Leninism in this community, it is perhaps the helplessness of the main characters. In addition there is the disconsolateness of the town, and its houses, buildings and roads - although of course these saddening shots may just be the deliberate selection of the film director. There is some mild humor, like the shopping of the aged man for a (red) Santa Claus suit. Christmas - the holiday in which neither the past nor the future is of as much interest as the present. Or the Chinese friend of the drunk teacher. He drinks to make other people interesting. When he read about the evils of drinking, he gave up reading. However, the dominant message of the story seems to be the apathy and indifference with respect to the revolution, even though it has freed the people from a long lasting dictatorship. The world is full of apathy, but so what? The target group of the film is probably the Romanian people, who are invited to reflect on it, and cope with it. Foreigners may feel grateful for the freedom and democracy, that they enjoy. That's all, folks!

Was it, or Was it NOT a Romanian Revolution?

[screenwriter-14 · 10/10 · 18 August 2007]

12:08 EAST OF BUCHAREST deserves all the accolades awarded it at Cannes, and Corneliu Porumboiu's amusing, entertaining and important film is a great window into the questions of the "Romanian Revolution". The opening shots of a Romanian city with its lights blinking off and the photography of the concrete buildings that house Romanian families created a perfect background to launch the film and story and the question of "whether there was, or was not a Romanian Revolution".

The characters in the film were both colorful and rich, and the humor displayed was tremendous. When I look at the lives of Romanians in contrast to the vast riches of America, and I see men and women going about their lives in Bucharest and other Romanian towns, the question of the revolution almost takes a back seat to the citizens attempting to scratch out a living and survive. What Mr. Porumboiu gave to the world was a rich story, interesting characters and presenting the question of a revolution. That answer, must be seen in this wonderful film. I look forward to more Romanian films and other works from the very talented Corneliu Porumboiu.

funny satire

[MB_West_Lafayette · 7/10 · 2 March 2011]

This is the first movie by Porumboiu. It is sarcastic, witty, and humane. The revolution is the backdrop for the old theme that nothing changes much after all. The drab lives of the people remain drab, the Securitate bully is now the rich bully and the recollection of the revolution in the town turns out to be underwhelming. What redeems these sad truths are small acts of kindness and, of course, humor. I took three points off because the movie could have been put together better. The first half does not connect well with the TV interview. A better sequence would have been to start with the interview and put some scenes in the middle, back and forth. Also the script did not exploit fully the possibilities of what could have been a drama as well as a satire. I hope Mr. Porumboiu keeps at it.

A breath of fresh air!..

[raluca-pache · 10/10 · 25 June 2007]

That's how I can describe this movie. I liked so much and it was so funny. Good characters, great story, a very deep message, and of course good humor!

The story line, through simple, make you still wonder about the movie even after it is over. The movie makes a 360 degrees circle and returns in the same place it started, leaving all of the questions unanswered and yet leaving us with a sense of serenity.

It is a piece of history and an insight into the Romanian current reality. But most of all, it is beautiful satire. Very funny!

I really recommend this movie!

Funny and meaningful Romanian film...

[dwpollar · 7/10 · 24 January 2010]

1st watched 1/23/2010 – 7 out of 10 (Dir-Corneliu Poromboiu): Funny and meaningful Romanian film about a few people in a small town east of Bucharest trying to recall the events of December 22nd, 1989 – the day Romania won a revolution against Communist control. This movie is wonderful more because of what it doesn't say then for what it does. A local talk show host invites some local folks to join him to talk about this day and whether there was a physical revolution in their town before the government was ousted at 12:08 PM. The movie starts as he's trying to gather his guests and we're introduced to the three principal characters in the story. One, a drunk school teacher – another an old man who occasionally dresses as Santa Claus for the local kids and of course, the host. They arrive together and the debate begins between the teacher, the callers and the host about his presence in the town square before the allotted time when the takeover occurred. He insists he was involved in a local revolution but all the callers debunk his recallings. The old man, doesn't have much to give, he's just there to express there was a gathering after 12:08 PM. The host, believes in the significance of this local revolution, but all in all there isn't much of one, really. It happened and that's really all that matters and there was change --- hence this is the point of the film. A quietly funny gem that let's you have time to think as well while viewing --which is definitely rare (especially in American films).

Ah, yes, I Remember It Well

[writers_reign · 10/10 · 18 August 2007]

This is a lovely, gentle satire that comes across even to Westerners who know next to nothing of Romanian politics and must be exquisitely rich to Romanians themselves. There's a lovely air of the quiet desperation that Thoreau claimed informed the lives of the majority. The setting is a small town in Romania where the owner of a small television station (he has a staff of one, reminiscent of those ubiquitous one-man radio stations in thirties America) is obliged to telephone invitees from his home to ascertain if he can rely on them to show up for his talk-show and then has to use his beat-up car to take them there. For his talk show this December 22nd he has opted to pose the question was there a revolution in THIS small town BEFORE 12:08 on this day in 1989. The fact this this is the SIXTEENTH anniversary of the downfall of Nicolae Ceaucescu and not a rounder number like 20th also smacks of desperation. To debate this with the Host/Station owner Virgil Jderescu (Teodor Corban) are History teacher and serious alcoholic Tiberiu Manescu (Ion Sapdaru) and a retired Santa Claus Emanoil Piscoci (Micea Andreescu) and for good measure the audience are encouraged to telephone with live on-air comments. On paper this is not exactly riveting stuff but writer director Corniliu Porumboiu proves adept at capturing the quirkiness and small-time score settling of, presumably, a small Romanian town. In some ways it is reminiscent of The Fireman's Ball with the same Eastern-European flavored humor and observation. I'll certainly buy the DVD once it becomes available.

Me cac robotu tu

[stevespeedy · 7/10 · 3 August 2009]

The summary translated the sub-title phrase as "I don't like your answering machine." Such was the problem with the translation and a fluent speaker in the room was a terrific help for me. What the actor had actually said was "I crap on your robot." Was It, Or Was It Not is the English title of this film, a mockumentary about the fall of communism in Romania. The story centers around a drunk who wastes his entire paycheck on booze, and every payday gets shaken down by his sponsors and returns home to his nagging wife. The film builds up slowly to a talk show which portrays the masses as being ineffective to stop anything the nomeklatura want. As a result of such unheroic conformity, nobody did anything to get rid of communism, even the execution of the brutal Ceaucescu was mere amusement shown on the boob tube.

Such is the hard lesson of government overthrow, and Americans need to take notice.

It's movies like these that give Art Cinema a bad name...

[hund2110 · 3/10 · 23 February 2008]

Have we been so stifled by Hollywood formulas and actors studio mannerisms that we need throw gold stars and superlatives at anything that does not retread plot devices or boast a familiar narrative contrivance? Is that the measure of good cinema? Anything that isn't a bloated American production? 12:08 East of Bucharest won the Camera D'Or in Cannes for what must the most self-indulgent, esoteric, longwinded one-note joke ever put on art film. We have needlessly long- shots, completely disjointed from the movie's rhyme-scheme, which does nothing but draw attention to the fact that you're watching a film that desperately craves acknowledgement for its bureaucratic pace and 'artistic' subtleties. But nothing congeals and the film's 2-3 minute inert shots and circular banter is reduced to mere gimmicks instead of underscoring (almost non-existent) themes of a stagnated post-communist economy and wishful democratic nostalgia.

This has all the hallmarks of a disastrous inside joke; though the characters are supposed to be quirky, lovable oafs they're never actually written to be anything other than 2-dimensional pastiches each equipped with one tragic flaw and completely irrelevant emotional baggage.

In spite of a few truly charming scenes during a live broadcast gone awry, this is trite, uneventful (in every way) and surprisingly pretentious art-house filler.