Children Underground

I had often wondered why, in the documentary portrayal's of street kids, 'Streetwise' was the one to garner all of the attention. Granted, it too, was a heartbreaking look at some kids affected by some pretty tumultuous times in this country thanks to many idiot policymakers euphemistic ideas about trickle-down economies. Sad as it is to say, I think the appeal comes from 80s nostalgia, and particularly nostalgia for the 80s American teenager. 'Children Underground,' which follows five children living in a subway station in Romania is much more disturbing and stark portrayal than Streetwise. As the prologue explains, many children found themselves on the street because, after the fall of Communism in Romania, the economy and state facilities in particular were effected and became ill-equipped to deal with hardships. Although, some of the kids portrayed in this documentary left home as a result of family problems.

Of the five children are Cristina Ionescu (16) is the oldest and I suppose the protectorate of the group of subway children. Although, she never seems to be too sincere in this role, beating the younger ones herself sometimes. Her background involves shifts between state custody in an orphanage and later an asylum because, as she said, she refused to let herself be beaten or taken advantage of and fought back.

Mihai Tudose was probably the most interesting among the street children; a 12 year-old boy who ran away from home because, as he explains, his father beat him. He always seemed to be in search of something better than the street life, but it just didn't seem that many were able to help him out. For example, we see him attending the school for street children, but when the social workers went home to get the papers that would enable his attendance, his parents wouldn't give them up. He was, just as the synopsis for the film says, a particularly intelligent boy. He just seemed to want to give up life in the subway in exchange even for the company of a pseudo-family (the homeless mother and the baby living in the abandoned building).

Macarena Rosu (14) was perhaps the saddest case because she basically spends the entire film huffing paint with other street kids. And, to the point that by the end, it seems that she has become either schizophrenic or manic depressant as a result, rationalizing her existence with the imaginary mother and father living outside of Bucharest and the twin sister by the same name attending private school, even though we know her to have arrived on the streets straight from an orphanage.

Ana and Marian Turturica are the youngest of the group. They never really get the full story as to why Ana (10) kept running away from home or why she eventually got her brother, Marian (8) to come with her. I would suspect, based on the stepfather's conversation, that it was because she at least did not get along with him. Or, that they felt incapable of living with their mother while she and the stepfather were unemployed and barely surviving themselves.

There doesn't seem to be much that could be done through the state to help these children. The hospital for street kids, for example, had no place to house the children. There were other facilities that were so limited on beds that the children first had to be deemed capable of rehabilitation, which basically meant that, since these children were hoooked on huffing paint, it wasn't likely that they would be admitted. And the older ones, it seemed, stood no chance of consideration at all.

I think in part that this movie was more stark than Streetwise is because so many of the children weren't yet even teenagers when the movie was filmed. And few of them seem to be living in any sort of euphoric sense of freedom. The situation is bad and they appear to well aware that for many of them, they're trapped in it. (Although, that is not to make light of the situations faced by the kids in Streetwise). It is, as other said, a hard to film to take in. There are scenes in the film where you wish the filmmakers, if no one else, would intervene. Especially in the moments where the youngest are beat up, where Mihai inflicts mutilation upon himself, of the kids who spend all day with their face in bag full of Aurolac paint, of the underfunded facilitaties that couldn't provide enough assistance, and also of the families who seem just as hopeless as the children. It is indeed an incredible piece of film-making.

Though it tells a sad story of a small group of runaway children living in squalor, the courage and survival instincts of some of these kids is inspiring. The filmmakers, to their credit, avoid preaching or commentary and there is (thankfully) no narration nor much incidental music to manipulate the viewer's emotional response, as so many lesser documentaries try to do. The DVD contains helpful follow-ups telling where the kids were at after the filming was done. Some of their stories are sad, others hopeful. The documentary doesn't create phony drama with "heroes" and "villains," it doesn't condemn or point fingers at parents or society but lets the audience make up its own mind, and hopefully some viewers will be inspired by this film to make a difference about troubled kids in their own communities.

Whenever people ask me for some recommendations, I always bring this one up. I’ve seen many depressing films in my life, but this has to be one of the worst. It’s hard to imagine what it must be like to be one of those children living as they do. The paint sniffing, the lack of food and the fighting at their age is just sad. I found myself forgetting the ages of these children, but after finishing the film the pictures of some of the children have yet to leave my head months later. There are films like KIDS or Pixote that do their best in trying to portray a day in the life of a youth in their environment. This film is a step inside their lives, as even upon a child being gang beat, the camera did not interfere. The image of the child being beaten by a group of other children is vivid in my head today, and should be. This film was meant to over the eyes of people, and I guarantee it will to anyone who gives it a chance too.

This documentary films a group of homeless children who congregate in and around Piața Victoriei subway station. Former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu outlawed contraception and abortion. Children from orphanages and unwanted runaways gather in Bucharest numbering around 20,000. The kids beg for money, fight and struggle to survive while sniffing paint to keep the pain away. In the end, many of these early teens are reunited with their families.

The first half of this documentary is shocking to say the least. It's so unreal that I wonder at times whether this is a fake doc like 'Kids'. The most shocking thing is that those kids are so young. It's a modern-day Dickensian world. The movie does leave some question marks about the future of these kids and it would be awesome to reconnect with these kids in a future date.

Focused on the lives of five Romanian children –Cristina, an orphan who led a band of children living in a subway station, and who grew up and survived passing as a boy; the charming boy Mihai, who loves poetry, wants education and who has run away from an abusive father; Macarena, perhaps the most dramatic of all, a drug addict who had not even realized she had a mother; and Ana and her brother Marian, who left behind their town and the extreme poverty at home, only to find worst conditions in the streets-, "Children Underground" shows how the Romanian government has yet to find a way to deal with these children, who after a month or so in the street are difficult to rehabilitate. The movie follows the kids everywhere, and is a silent witness of all the violence and abuse they have to deal with on a daily basis. The filmmaker Edet Belzberg opens the movie with a propaganda warning, telling us that the children of the Bucharest streets are the result of the anti-abortion and birth control laws of dictator Ceaucescu. It does not take much to deduce that Belzberg means that this terrible situation is a consequence of the Socialist regime, but –as in "Power Trip"- the film becomes more interesting when, after a while, one realizes that neither Capitalism has sound answers for the situation of deprived children all over the world. If Belzberg had told us instead that we all have certain responsability for every single injustice in the world, including what she is about to show, it would have been a more telling relationship between filmmaker and viewer. As it is, it is a good documentary nevertheless, that unintentionally becomes another statement of the need of humanity to find better ways to share world's wealth.