Nicolaescu made abysmally bad movies. Oglinda however is somehow better. Coposu was consulted for this movie. In general, the judgement of the characters is slightly neutral, with a dose of nationalism and admiration for Antonescu. It is peculiar how Hitler is shown as a calm,monotone partner of conversation rather than the flamboyant one that is usually depicted.
Add a Review
-
The motto of the movie: "History is the first book of a nation in which we see the past, the present and the future". Nicolaescu said about its critics that they were "afraid to look in the face of history." He referred to Oglinda as "real history, without any form of restriction".
-
chfstaffing19 February 2018I would rather call the movie The Royal Mutiny. The subject is vast, hot, burning topic. Of course, the events are very condensed and sketchy. It was mostly an anti royal propaganda as at the time the movie was launched in theaters King Michael I of Romania made attempts to gain popularity, and attempted to recover his throne - be reinstated as king. So, the movie is mostly centered on creating a negative image of King Michael. Communists also have a very sketchy presence, few minutes, and at least that prison guard is presented in all his violent, animalistic veracity. Stefan Radoff, himself a political prisoner, played well his part, but too mono-emotional (like someone suffering from chronic ulcer pain) thus his part is shallow - Radoff was capable of much deeper composition. King Michael is not well-played. As a young king he was much more arrogant, although after going into exile he was very polite, no trace of arrogance in his demeanor - I personally saw him in New York, back in 1999 I guess. The movie deserves to be watched, at least for the tantamount efforts made by Sergiu Nicolaescu too shoot it.
-
Ana_Banana22 September 2014This is perhaps the epitome of controversies from a controversial director about a very controversial historical event and controversial characters. Nicolaescu was a good director, if sometimes biased, who has left us several truly great films and some propagandist stuff as well (let aside his controversial personal participation in the uprising in December 1989). Despite his obvious sympathy for Marshal Ion Antonescu, Romania's prime-minister during WWII, one of the director's personal role models was a high ranking officer in his family who was also a member of a military unit sent by the Soviets to 'reform' the Romanian army after the USSR has occupied Romania.
Now to the controversial aspects of the plot. It is centered around a crucial and extremely dubious event in recent Romanian history, the coup on Aug. 23, 1944: young King Michael and his adepts (including a few Communists and Soviet agents) arrested Antonescu and his collaborators and declared a breaking up from the alliance with Nazi Germany and joining the Allies, although Romania had no formal diplomatic arrangement about that. As a result, the Soviets occupied the country, and the Communists joined the government (in a few years taking over the full power and unleashing their tyranny with political assassinations, forced labor camps for the extermination of any elite, censorship, and so on). The King was abandoned by the Western allies who had their deal with Stalin at Potsdam and Yalta about post-war Europe, and finally he was deposed and exiled. In the mean time, Antonescu and his collaborators were shot after a mock trial.
And finally about the film about all that. Maybe it would work better as a documentary, with its almost black and white characterization and extensive quoting from genuine historical documents. Its very ambition to depict everything about extremely controversial and tragic events is an almost impossible task. One should appreciate such intention as it is, especially considering the moment when the film was released, a few years after the fall of open-day Communism and while Antonescu is still an almost forbidden topic.
A great military leader who loved his country deeply and apparently was a honest and dignified man in a time of political crooks and cowards, Antonescu was at the same time a stubborn and impulsive man, reluctant to break his alliance with Germany, and he was no politician. He was the only one who has assumed the government in 1940 in a moment of terrible crisis for Romania (the loss of northern Transylvania and eastern Moldova as a result of the Hitler-Stalin pact). Of course he was a dictator in wartime, as was the fashion in that age in Europe, and had a vacillating position towards the Jewish community (his main stigma today is his persecution of the Jews, although there were no state organized concentration camps and systematic pogroms, and later many of them were helped to flee from the country and from the Nazi troops there). All this would offer material for ten films in the hands of sensitive filmmakers who would pay attention to the inner evolution of characters and to their exploration.
If we were to extract a good part, it would be more in the film's subject itself rather than in its superficial, speech-like treatment, and in the tragedy of a country and of a historical character who wanted to keep his dignity in a time of compromise, cowardice and horror. Because if more people would stand for their rights and for what is good instead of joining any winners for any personal benefit, then horrors such as war, crime, terror and any dictatorship could never get to occur in the first place. -
Vincentiu18 December 2012first time, I viewed this film in high school, like a break after few good hours of history lesson prepare. it will be a support for a right image about a confuse moment of Romanian past. in fact, it was only a demonstration of good performance of few actors. the work of Sergiu Nicolaescu is not bad. but, subjective constructions, theirs are only full patriotic products. in this case, desire is to create something different. but the Manichean nuances, the deep admiration for Ion Antonescu, the need to define portrait of a national hero is obvious. sure, an artistic film is not a documentary. but if is it its ambition ? to9 tell truth, entire truth, to analyze - in small pieces - roots, skin and fruits of an event ? so, the basic value of this interesting movie is to open discussion about a dark problem. beginning of debate, part of director vision about history, it is one of first steps on a long way.
-
Kirpianuscus18 June 2016the good intentions are the basis of each Sergiu Nicolaescu films. in the case of Oglinda , the work about a delicate subject, the ambition to recreate a large historical fresco , the desire to use the film for support own ideas is not really easy or convincing. something missing. and this absence does entire film a kind of wax museum , with many statues, mechanical speeches, words as ash and confuse message. result - a demonstration who not defines reality but impose thesis. the savior of the film - Ștefan Radof as Iuliu Maniu. he has the desire and courage and science to do a realistic character, to give a coherent message and to define the atmosphere of period in its key elements. Adrian Vîlcu as the king Mihai is not in the most favorable position. because his character is to far by the original model in attitude and decisions. and because Nicolaescu desire is too Utopian - to create a gallery of heroes.