The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
The spectacular reality of Nicolae Ceausescu
tributarystu4 February 2016
Having been born at the end of the 80s, my recollection of communist Romania is negligible. So for me, this wealth of archival footage represents less an excursion into dreary eyed nostalgia, but rather a fascinating, vicarious experience. It is unfathomable to think that this is a part of our human heritage, and the film leaves the impression of being a document of society, culture and politics that's out of this world.

This other-worldliness is achieved through the exclusive use of archival footage, to the detriment of any present-day commentary. The biographical tale of Ceausescu leads us through several decades of communist Romania, and is bound by the trial and execution of the former dictator. Surprisingly, although my knowledge of recent Romanian history is fairly limited, there was little actual information in the the events and moments portrayed which I was unfamiliar with. I'm not sure that's a good thing, for such a long runtime - all it says, to me, is that you should probably not watch this documentary if your aim is solely to gain a straightforward understanding of history.

What it does do very well, is synthesize the essence of what the public frame of mind was at the time. It ebbs and flows beautifully, from the fascination of the Western world with Ceausescu after his stance on the invasion of Prague, to his ultimate isolation within the communist block. In this, as well as in much of the propagandistic materials made for public consumption, there is a strong sense of falsehood meshed together with a (willing) naivety of the everyday folk. The film is at its best when it manages to effectively contain these paradoxes of truth, the double-standards of pre-89 communist dogma, and the absurdity of turning a mildly charismatic, semi-literate individual into an egomaniac with absolute power.

In between all these moments, you've got Ceausescu delving into sheer silliness - with the cherry on top being his speech on how Romania will only return to capitalism when "pigs fly", then joking on the advances of genetics only to realize this is not quite the right thing to say and reinforcing the initial statement with raised pitch and ample gesticulation. There are many scenes like this, of various sizes, that shape Ceausescu as a character and the warped world-view provided by public television. At three hours, one could argue the documentary is overlong, as certain elements become repetitive. One can also argue that in their repetitiveness, these elements bear different meanings, according to the wider context of their occurrence, sort of a seasonal aspect of the biographical story.

Whichever way you look at it, there is so much to see and experience in Andrei Ujica's film, that you are guaranteed to not be left indifferent by it.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't believe the hype
R-Clercx13 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When watching this 'documentary' (which isn't accurate as this is more a linear collage of archival footage), I kept wondering when will the director take a stand or provide in some analysis? 180 minutes is long, very long to keep staring at footage most interested in social history will have seen before.

But, this is literally what it is and remains: 180 minutes of archival footage back to back without any narrative what so ever. If one watches this docu hoping you'll learn more about the life of Ceausescu you won't because most interested in this topic will already have seen thetypical news footage.

What is missing is in depth analysis, interviews, arguments pro and against. Basically anyone, given enough time and resources can collect a whole bunch of video footage about a certain person, collage it and then you'll get this result. If anything it makes the figure of Ceausescu more confusing than clear and those who don't know any better might even think he wasn't that bad at all and was set up in the end to fall.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
a daring way to tell a story
davidkaori23 April 2011
"The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu" is an audacious, and to my eye very successful, way to tell a story. I should say to show a story, because nothing is told. No context or viewpoint is provided, other than the camera's. The filmmakers have drawn on a rich video archive concerning Ceausescu and Rumania from 1965 to 1989. No opinions are explicitly offered, and no history or explanation provided, beyond what the camera sees. And the camera sees a lot. As with the footage in Leni Riefenstahl's "Olympia," the images are quite arresting, and one really doesn't want to move one's eye away from what the camera is seeing. I would offer three pieces of advice about the film. First, go and be prepared to supply your own context. I'm a historian and fairly wonky in these matters, but even so, it took me a good few minutes to get accustomed to the idea that the film's narrative was going to be simply what the camera was showing. I suspect this will catch many viewers by surprise, and it's better to know it in advance. Second: go with an open mind. Ceausescu is a controversial character. It pays to put your viewpoints aside --not forget them, just suspend them-- while you are seeing the film. And finally, by all means go. This is audacious storytelling and great cinema. The effort you expend on this journey will certainly be rewarded.
42 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Irony is hidden in the title
metcavus20 March 2013
Autobiografia lui Nicolae Ceausescu (2010) is a feature-length documentary derived only from archive footage, from images mostly taken by official camera crew of Ceausescu. It covers the years of Ceausescu reign, between 1965 and 1989. From the footage and camera angles we can easily understand that in most of the occasions more than one camera were used for documenting, and that cameramen were given a broad freedom, even shooting the most intimate moments of the Ceausescu couple.

The role of the director here is mainly to edit the images which are mostly arranged in chronological order, but this is where the brilliance of Andrei Ujica starts to shine! He implements wonderful editing skills, often using montage technique to enrich the narrative. Moreover, in most cases shot/reverse shot is brilliantly used as if this is a well-designed fiction.

For me, this phenomenal documentary, among other things, presents two main issues to remember. First, it shows how the life and people of Romania were seen by a president. How a president lives and how he perceives his country visually. This is because the lens of the camera in most cases can be metaphorically leveled with the eye of Ceausescu. That is why the title of the film is so ironic! We all know that the conditions in Romania were not the same with the images documented by Ceausescu cameramen. And second, it sadly presents how this big communist utopia, this all-happy-people real communism slowly vanishes. It is sad because initial happiness of people really looks like was coming from the heart.

In conclusion, this is a must see documentary, a real cinema pleasure, which bears a potential of numerous discussions, not only about Romania or the so-called communist bloc, but also about the nature of governing and making history.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
the duration of the movie is part of the message of the movie
ligia-g21 November 2017
Maybe an explanation of the long duration is this: the duration of the movie is part of the message of the movie. I grew up partly during those times in Romania. Having watched this movie now reminds about the dread of many moments that I lived through, especially of the repetitive propaganda that we all had to listen to every day (2 hours of TV program daily, 90% of the time with his face on the screen). The title of the movie – autobiography – suggests that this is how the title character would have made this movie: in the same egotistic way that he ignored the Romanian population during his dictatorship.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not an autobiography, not even a biography, just some footage
trifanandreidaniel7 February 2022
The point of the documentary should be to learn about Ceausescu. Well, this documentary wouldn't make any sense to someone that didn't know him very well. It's just footage edited together without any explanation whatsoever.

I watched this with my father, who is pretty much a romanian historian, and he had to explain it all to me. "this was in the year ... in the context of ... when ceausescu visited ... to talk to ... about ..."
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wonderful objectivity
waveenergetic11 December 2021
However, unless Ceausescu wrote it himself, that is a biography, not an autobiography. Minor nitpicking aside, this is simply beautiful to watch. The progression of a man to a leader and then to a myth he believed too much in. The rise to power of a murderous regime is very insidious and can happen again.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
best 3 hours of history
boxfighter3017 December 2015
this are the best 3 hours of Romanian communist history, a period of nearly 42 years in video, things that you will never find in history books.I find it objective and a real help to understand that era. For those who are not Romanians or interested by the subject , it might be boring, dull or whatever, but again , nobody can't force you to watch it for 180 min, but for me it was a real help on making an image of the years before i was born and the 7 years after that i lived in communism. Glad someone had the courage to do it, too bad its not as promoted as it should among Romanians especially.The title is an irony, because the dictator never had an autobiography or even the chance to see the movie,it presents the debut of communism in Romania and very soon the debut of Ceausescu in the history if the country. We can't judge actions or reactions of the character but we can pretty easily make and opinion about him, especially by listening all his speeches during the movie, where you can have a certain feeling of nationalism surrounding his position towards Romania. As a dictator , he follows the line of all the dictators in the world, living his life in pure luxury while his people struggles to exist, especially in the last years of his "kingdom".Facing the riot of an entire country his faith is sealed, but his death is not people's decision. So before seeing the movie, don't think as if it's an action movie, it's just a history lesson, and if you are not into history, you will never really have the chance to appreciate the quality of this movie. From me it has a 10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
interesting idea
sergnechaev24 October 2012
Andrei Ujica's film is an interesting mish-mash of documentary and archive material. Arranged progressively according to the timeline, we are treated to a very long and protracted story of Ceauseascu's life and role in the history of Romania. The film is done according to the very nice-sounding, but eventually problematic motto of "letting the archives and the evidence speak for itself". This proposition can achieve some moniker of success only among those, such as myself, who come from Romania, and know its history well, having studied it at the university level. But to foreigners or even young Romanians, lacking the context and the historical background, the film fails in documenting anything. An external viewer will not know who most of the people in the film are, what the background is for Ceausescu's reactions (such as his speech in 1968 in support of Czechoslovakia) as so forth. The film is also very long, almost three hours, and I admit that even I, who have a professional interest in the documentary material, had to give up half way through and resume later. Making an analogy, the film represents the difference between archive material and a book of history. The material, outside of its chronological arrangement, is raw, lacking subtitles, names etc. in many cases; a documentary based on the material painstakingly gathered by the director would have been much more interesting for the wider public. Still, the film is worth watching for a specialized audience, and shows never before seen material on a very important epoch and person in Romania's history.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Communism is evil
ama_bill_th18 December 2021
And anyone who dares call themselves communists or socialists in the modern world are evil too. If you watch every documentary on communism and you still choose to identify as one after seeing all the horrible situations these people put their constituents through, you are indeed an evil person.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
10/10
cosmin7420001 November 2019
The only movie who is objectiv about the life of the greatest leade in the history of Romania
0 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
unbelievably dull and uninformative!
deschreiber15 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film may have some interest for people who lived in Rumania through the Ceausescu era, as it shows many of the films and television footage they will have seen over the years. But for anyone else, it is a terrible, terrible film which adds nothing at all to one's understanding. And it is overwhelmingly, excruciatingly dull. The most you can say for it is that it familiarizes you, far more than you ever want, with the face of that ridiculous man.

It opens with the footage most people around the world have seen of the dictator and his wife sitting at what appear to be little schoolroom desks. They are being confronted with charges, as if in some sort of court, and being asked to enter a plea. He steadfastly refuses. All we hear of his crimes is someone off camera accuses him of ordering the shooting of people in a crowd and of bringing the country to the brink of ruin. The scene lasts only a few minutes, then switches to the funeral of his predecessor, the first of many official events and ceremonies. Footage of long lines of people outside the building, shuffling into the building, moving up the stairs, down the corridor, into the room where the body lies, footage of ordinary people viewing the body, footage of this dignitary and that dignitary viewing the body, footage of people leaving the building, footage of the body being carried out and placed on a stage, footage of Ceausescu giving a funeral speech, all this goes on for what seems like forever, conveying next to nothing to the viewer. For nearly three hours we are shown extended--painfully extended--official footage of state events, parades, speeches, dinners, visits by leaders from other countries, Ceausescu visiting other countries. There is really nothing else in the film other than these long, almost meaningless pieces.

The nearest thing to drama comes in a scene in the last half-hour or so at a national party congress. A party official takes the podium and accuses Ceausescu of manipulating the event to have himself re-elected. Someone in the audience shouts it's a lie, and immediately the entire room rises, shouts, and chants, calling for Ceausescu to be re-elected. That is the extent of understanding we are given of the dictatorship. Why on earth was he so reviled that the people rose up against him? Was the country struggling? Were people hungry? Was there injustice and corruption? We have no idea. Was the regime repressive? Not a word is given. At one point we see Ceausescu touring a couple of well stocked food stores. My guess is that a Romanian might watch that and scream that it was all a set-up and that the real stores were empty and the people were starving. But nothing like that is told. Why are we watching him tour the stores? No explanation, just more dreary official footage.

It boggles the mind how anyone could put together such a pointless film as this. It adds nothing to one's understanding of the man, the nation, or the times he presided over. It's simply official archival material strung together chronologically. And, just to be clear, this is a million miles from high-art Leni Riefenstahl material. As a complete outsider, who only knows of the revolution against Ceausescu from news reports at the time, I could have done a better job of shedding light on the life and times of Ceausescu. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary as bad as this before.

For this to get a rating of 7.9 is absurd. Surely the people involved in the film have been here to rate it highly. I give it 1 for Awful because there is no lower rating.
17 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
lack of substance
mariuscalinchereches13 November 2021
Very nice to use some images available at national television, but what else? It is unfortunate because in few years the public might use a real documentary about this subject.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Great ideea, bad montage
bobicaradu_c27 July 2022
I didn't like the fact that the images are skipping years, turning back and forwards. Now we see imagines with him at 60s birthday then back to 55 birthday.

I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to see identity the year or location for most of the imagines. Was that hard to add some name or dates on the screen?

I understand the silent imagines, I don't understand why the voice or music shooting were not calibrate.

Surprised this has a good score with so many mistakes. It is interesting to see it if you have a laptop or phone next to you so you do extra research.

Waist of my time. Can find better documentary.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
3 hours I'll never get back...
florinfodorean29 December 2022
Frustrating and very difficult to watch.

There is no narration, no time stamps, not one name/description. Always wondering who, where, when things were taking place... no historical value or information whatsoever.

Three hours of random footage that made absolutely no sense.

I was hoping to get an idea of how events unfolded... even though it's an autobiography... I'd still expect some timeline or description of events instead of just watching a montage made by some amateur, out of already shot footage... most of the times there is no sound, a perfect spot for some narration or at least some music...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed