Interesting movie, though slow paced. Maybe this is due to main actor/director Malaele's theatre background, but the film really needed another edit to speed things up. You can see its theatrical heritage by its use of broad ethnic stereotypes – drunk Russians, loud Italians, shopkeeping Arabs, fortune telling Gypsies, Soviet-style building concierge (only Eastern Europeans who lived through Socialism will get that one), African whores. Actually, this is not a bad feature. Most Romanian films I've seen are a little self-obsessed about What It Means To Be Romanian in a self-deprecating but also self-congratulatory way, so injecting 'foreign' colour (played by Romanian actors) is a welcome change, at least for pacing and comedy. The film is supposed to be about death. Not only announced by the title, but by the blurb and by the opening allegorical scene with figures from the commedia dell'arte prancing about in an almost blank stage. The film starts briskly as three friends get drunk and end up getting their fortunes told by a Gypsy, who predicts when they will die and, for the first two, that they will die unusual and even burlesque deaths. Through a series of funny events, handled deftly and quickly by director Malaele, the first two predictions come through, leaving the third (played by Malaele) to contemplate his impending doom four or five days from now. That's when the film slows down. We get the absurdist Eastern European tradition being evoked here: convinced that his fate is inevitable, our hero visits a funeral home to arrange a casket (kudos to the funeral director, a nod to Dr. Strangelove and Pall Bearer), a tailor to get fitted for a burial suit. The rest is anticlimax. While waiting, our hero drinks and gets involuntarily involved in some absurd but highly predictable events: his friends and neighbours steal his stuff that he will no longer need, and a popular media-fed campaign tries to save his life. This last detail I found irritating, an absurdist but heavy-handed blurring of the dividing line between fantasy and reality, like we're back in the 1960s with Jean-Paul Sartre and finding out that hell is just like home but surrounded with ordinary people (such as yourself – Get It?); it's not Fellini. Way too much time is spent exploring this path, with on the one hand ridiculing people's superficial emotional commitment to save him fuelled by simple mob sentimentality and by slavishly embracing the media, and on the other, our hero's drunken disdain for the mob and its efforts. So, are we supposed to think he's found his dignity in accepting his fate? These scenes of his final days are way too detailed (for example, when he boards up his apartment) and too long and self-indulgent. He's perpetually drunk, so what does his rejection of the salvation movement mean? Then why the breakdown at the end when he implores God to save him and give him a few more years? His time comes and he seems to accept death but rejoices when he survives past midnight (the Gypsy's prediction). Death comes in the guise of visit from a beautiful player from the commedia dell'arte troupe in a neighbouring apartment, followed by some musing on the meaning of life and death. It's all a little allegorically heavy and obvious at this point. I was grateful the end was coming. We know almost from the start where this theme will go. The problem is that the movie slows to a crawl after dealing with his friends' deaths in the first half or so. Up to that point the pacing and subtlety were fine, with quick cuts and scene jumps. After, though, we're being led by a plodding camera and allegedly thoughtful script. It's dealing with death, which is not the easiest theme in the world, but it would have been helped by lopping off 15 minutes in the second half and perhaps communicating the message (death is unpredictable, so live well) more by allusion and less by long drawn out soul searching. The problem is that most of the second half takes place in his sombre apartment, which makes the director's task more difficult; maybe quicker cuts? More distance between lens and hero? It's too theatrical, too slow, too focused on Malaele. Don't expect a masterpiece, but enjoy it for what it is: a non-Hollywood and non mainstream film made by people who know a lot about acting but maybe need more practice in making the transition from theatre to film.
Add a Review
-
GLanoue12 December 2013
-
axel_talpa5 October 2019As Romanians, we rarely have the chance to feel proud when it comes to movies. In the last thirty years, we struggled to make a name in Europe and, instead, we got being called names (!). Anyway, this movie made me proud, as it is a genuine directing and acting masterpiece. Malaele is a dear friend to every Romanian film and theater goers and we only regret he only directed two movies, Nunta Muta and this one. The plot is beautifully handled by the director and the transition between the theater stage and the big screen is just great. It is not just a movie, it is a reflection of the director's ars poetica, as he seems to believe that surreality can influence the actual course of life. I think we have to see this movie and enjoy what the director tries to share with us.
-
ur1282532922 January 2021While the movie is nice and a very good absurdist movie, the sound editing and mixing is awful. You can barely hear the dialogue, but the noises, screams, knocks, police sirens will blow your speakers.
-
editheo-232443 September 2021Such an engaging, surprising and funny film. It is perfect for anyone looking to have a good laugh, question life or their choices. Very theatrical, as it is characteristic for Romanian films, but I don't consider this a disadvantage or flaw one bit. It uses cliches in a very funny way and manages to engage the viewer to the end.
The acting is, in a way, similar to theater, still very good for the film. Always helps to put things into perspective and it helps you to connect with the characters, laugh with them, be happy with/ for them, cry and be sad with them.
The sound might be considered "bad" because it records voices as they would be heard in a real life situation, while other loud sounds are as loud as they could be in reality. Some may consider this a major flaw, but I consider it just adds to the flair of the film.
All in all, this could prove to be the best choice of the evening when you seem to be a little tired and thinking about the meaning of everything, when you are in dire need of a laugh or want to see how cliches can be used/ made fun of to make for an interesting production. The casting of good actors also helps with accomplishing these, as they have experience in both theater and film and can play both in dramas and comedies. -
This is a bland, tasteless, uninspired, cliche and infuriating movie. When you think it can't surprise you anymore it hits you with the most cringe acting and melodrama you'll see in a while. Completely uninspired work, out of focus (literally and metaphorically), overall bleak and the sadness displayed couldn't even stir some pity inside of me, it just went through with how fabricated and fake it felt. There's nothing to learn here other that not the most talented people get to be in the spotlight. Viewing it from this perspective can be inspiring.
-
electronindigo4 January 2022I've recently acquired a taste for romanian movies, and was quite impressed by the romanian sense of drama and humor. But I have to say, this "Funeralii fericite" was an EPIC disappointment. It's not even a niche movie, but just distasteful, cringeworthy, and obviously desperate to evoke some sort of theatrical misunderstood art.
I thought Malaele was considered a "genius" but he's definitely overrated.
I'm sorry i wasted my time watching this.