4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days follows Otilia, who is the backbone of a friendship with her pregnant roommate, Gabita. From fixed-camera shots to the follow camera angles, tension rises in the scenes that surround Otilia, where the audience can see her inner struggles from beginning to end, as she traverses through obstacles for the sake of being an empathetic friend. At first glance, many critics claim it be an “abortion movie,” but with the historical context, and the naturalistic cinematography, it is easily permissible to only be a factor of the journey that is endured during the hardships of the Ceausescu era.
The exemplary performance given by Anamaria Marinca (Otilia), should not overshadow the acting by Laura Vasiliu (Gabita). Although Gabita’s character was nothing but worthless during the run of the film, it was beautifully played as narcissistic, timid, and completely dependent upon anyone willing to help. More importantly, both actresses were able to convey a friendship that seems definitely one-sided, but helped add significance onto why the camera was mainly following Otilia throughout the entirety of the movie. Otilia showed remarkable determination, despite the consequences that faced her, and did not shy away from showing how that affected her as she moved from one scene to the next. I think her strongest moment was during the smuggling of the fetus out of the hotel and into a trash chute, because during this, we see Otilia at her most vulnerable, where the streetlights are not present, strange silhouettes pass behind her, and she is seen both culpable and victimized. The paranoia that surrounds the scene from both her body language, and the cinematography techniques of follow angles with the mixture of handheld footage, only further enhances the emotion.
Beside the acting performance, the historical context in which this film takes place, is of crucial importance to the movie’s reception. Without background knowledge of the Ceausescu era, I can see how it is plausible for critics to perceive this as an “abortion” movie. Coming from a foreign perspective, where the audience is unfamiliar with both the territory filmed, and how their cultural impact pervades an individual to act upon certain circumstances, it is easy to see how there is misconception regarding how Cristian Mungiu intended for the film to be perceived. A curious thought; Did Mungiu initially think people would understand the historical implications that the plot is set in, or was he hoping viewers would do the research given their confusion as to why it received critical acclaim? Also, even if it was kept in the Soviet Union, would they be aware that it was purposely made to depict the difference between Romania’s government control in contrast to the rest of the Soviet Union? The aspects of the movie all blend well together to create the overall feeling of “being watched,” which has been noted by some critics as being part of the surveillance like cinematography techniques being used by Oleg Mutu.
In America, it is common to hear of homemade abortions, where people use many nonsensical techniques such as coat hangers, or any relevant sharp objects that may inflict damage onto the fetus, resulting in termination. Given the year was 1987, did Romanian citizens prefer the traditional method of receiving illegal abortions for the sake of sanitary measures, or for the advice of how to conceal the action afterwards? Given the present visuals in the beginning of a black market within the dorm rooms, I would assume that there would be secondary measures to dealing with abortion around that time. Part of the emotional turmoil comes from the affect Dr. Bebe attributes to the situation, only making the anxiety and fears worsen as he demands sexual favors in exchange for his services. The desperation of the two girls, is shown to be prominent throughout the entirety of a 24hr period, with a 2hr runtime, but yet, an elaborate scheme seemed to be the only solution for Gabita. The extentOtilia of the situation seems unnecessary if they’re both financially incapable students, and are inexperienced with the underground world of illegal abortions. It seems that the only possible reason to lead to such circumstances, could be from the height of anxiety and impulsiveness to do something about it, but even then, Gabita had 4 months to figure it out, and never did anything. If the relationship was so close between the two, I wonder why this event didn’t happen sooner? Although it is mentioned that circumstances were lied about, and Otilia was taken advantage of, it still wouldn’t make sense to know why Gabita wouldn’t have confided in Otilia earlier, or have Otilia figure it out sooner rather than later.
Concerning the mise en scéne with the correlation of having no musical soundtrack in substitute of using direct sound, further enhanced the naturalistic perspective that Mungiu was aiming for in the film. In an interview with Richard Porton, Cristian Mungiu clarifies many of the questions revolving the film’s context. The mise en scene was approached with realism to not only enhance the naturalistic effect, but to help seduce actors into their specific roles, where we get the specific example of Mungiu and Mutu needing to rework the stage scenery of the hotel room, since many of them did not meet the standards of location scouting. Considering everything was shot on location, there was no time for stage set or a production crew to rework a space. Given this obstacle, they were able to avoid financial deficits, whilst accomplishing the feeling of setting the muted tones with the grim face of the location. During the interview he talks about how this movie was meant to tell an individual story based in the setting of the Romanian Ceausescu era, where this is only one story to be told, and five more to follow it with different directors. Considering this as a series with a direction of claiming the different lifestyles amid the regime, it is curious as to what will follow in terms of subject matter, context, and if it will gain critical success like its current predecessor? Also, since 4 Months is based on a true story from a woman who claimed these events as accurate depictions from 15 years ago, will the remaining films in the anthology, derive from those who have lived through the period and survived, or will they be taken out of context from a secondary source, for hopes of weighing in a more engaging story, if one is not found?
Comments