CEU eTD CollectionSubmitted to [619396]

CEU eTD CollectionSubmitted to
Central European University
History Department
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Documenting Post-Communism:
Romanian non-fiction film industry
(1989 – 2004)
By
Andrei Răzvan Voinea
Supervisor: Professor Marsha Siefert
Second Reader: Professor Vlad Naumescu
Budapest, Hungary
2012

CEU eTD CollectioniiAbstract
My thesis analyzes the Romanian non-fiction film industry from 1989 to 2004 by
e n g a g i n g w i t h B o u r d i e u ’ s t h e o r i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f c a p i t a l a n d t h e f i e l d o f
cultural production. Equally important, the concept of ‘trajectory adjustment’ proposed by Eyal,
Szélenyi and Townsley enables to understand the relations between the post-communist
institutions and the agents from the social space present in the non-fiction film industry. The
main purpose of the study is to reveal the factors which determined the success of a particular
group of filmmakers at the European festivals in 2004 and to explain the reasons behind the
failure of the state-owned institutions.
The interviews that I have conducted with Alexandru Solomon, Lauren Ġiu Damian and
Nicolae M ărgineanu, important filmmakers from this period offered an important insight of the
documentary film industry, by stressing relevant details concerning the production, distribution
and exhibition of the films. On the other hand, the research in the Sahia Studio’s Archive
provided me useful information about the Studio during the first decade after the fall of
communism.
Th e c on cl u si on of th e s tu dy wi l l rev eal th e si gn i fi c an c e of th e c ul tu ral ca pi tal i n p os t-
com m uni st soci eti es. On th e on e h an d, th e Sahia S tudi o fai l ed to i m pose i tself on th e n ati on al
and European level because it could not take advantage on the long run of its economic and
s o c i a l c a p i t a l . T h i s d e t e r m i n e d t h e e x o d u s o f t h e t a l e n t e d y o u n g f i l m m a k e r s , h e n c e , o f t h e
cultural capital. On the other hand, the cultural capital gained by the young generation of
filmmakers by collaborating with the European programs and television companies enabled them
to impose a new hierarchy in the industry.

CEU eTD CollectioniiiiContents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
Chapter 1: Three approaches to the post-communist non-fiction film industry ………………………9
Social theories: from a state-owned system towards a market oriented business …………………9
The documentary film industry: production, distribution, exhibition …………………………………….. 15
Non-fiction films: modes of representation ……………………………………………………………………….. 24
Chapter 2: From Alexandru Sahia Studio toSahiafilm ………………………………………………………. 28
Legislation and political background ………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Documentaries about the Revolution ……………………………………………………………………………….. 34
Distribution and audience ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40
Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
Chapter 3: Independent companies and filmmakers …………………………………………………………….. 44
Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
Screening for Amsterdam: The directors and their films ……………………………………………………. 49
Intentions and Production ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Distribution ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
Audience and Reception …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 61
Final Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 63
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65
Books …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65
Filmography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 66
Websites ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 67
Journals …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 68
Interviews ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 69
Legislation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70

CEU eTD Collection11Introduction
On the night of 22-23 December 1989, generals Iulian Vlad (the Chief of the Securitate )
and Stefan Gu úă (the Chief of the Army) assumed the power simultaneously with other groups in
the attempt to prevent the chaos after the flight of Ceau úescu. In the headquarter of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party, the two generals commanded their units, announced the
S ov i e t Em b a ssy th a t th ei r m i l i ta ry s u p p ort w a s n o t n e e d e d an d tri e d to l i m i t th e ef f ec t of th e
news from the television. The ‘Night of the Generals,’ as it was later named, was not broadcasted
live as the events from the National Television, but the moment is symbolic for our study: the
communist system lived its last days and will die together with its last leader in a few days, while
in the building which represented one of its centers, a new type of system was about to be born,
marked by the attempt of copying the Western Institutions and to implement capitalism. The
evidence of these events would have been probably covered in oblivion and confusion as many
other moments of the Revolution, had not been for the footage captured by the operator Adrian
Sârbu from Alexandru Sahia Studio.1 The tape of the events and the proximity of the new
political figures propelled Adrian Sârbu among the most influential media actors in post-
c om m un i s t R om an i a . In a s en s e , th e m om en t b ri n g s al on g th e el em en ts th a t wi l l b e re c u rren t
during the study of the documentary film industry in Romania after 1989, namely the change of
the political system, the apparition of new figures that benefited from their prestige to find a
better place in the social space, the importance of film footage in documenting the events and the
significance of the context in which the footage is produced.
1 Footage from the night at the Central Committee available online at

CEU eTD Collection22My thesis analyzes the Romanian documentary film industry in the first 15 years after the
fall of communism. In tracing the evolution from a state dependent industry to a European
success story marked by the official selection at the International Documentary Film Festival in
Amsterdam 2004, I will go one step back and concentrate on the context that determined the
change in production, funding, distribution and exhibition of documentaries. On the one hand,
the only specialized institution in documentary production before 1989, Alexandru Sahia Studio,
almost collapsed at the end of the nineties, once the state incentives were cut-off, while the
second, Video Publishing House was “identified [by the young filmmakers] as the epitome of
irrelevant documentary, unable to attend the pressing social and political issues raised by
Romania’s present.”2 On the other hand, the young directors started collaborating with the new
independent companies such as AGERFILM3 orFundaĠia Arte Vizuale4 and, towards the end of
the first decade, established their own companies. Moreover, they understood that the
collaboration with the European programs and televisions companies would represent not just a
challenge, but also a decisive factor for their careers. This evolution towards a consumption-
oriented system affected the documentary film industry which had to face new problems.
Focusing only on the documentary film industry, the study completes the previous works
dedicated to the subject, but neglected the background of the film industry. The film critics tend
to concentrate on the subject of the film, rather than on the conditions that determined the release
of the documentaries. However, it would be unfair to omit the significant studies from this realm,
such as Br ădeanu’s article that concentrates precisely on collapse of the Sahia Studio , the weekly
2 Adina Br ădeanu, “Death and Documentary: Memory and Film Practice in Post-communist Romania”,
“KinoKultura , 6 (2007), available online at http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/6/romanian.shtml , accessed May,
17th, 2012.3 Founded by director Nicolae M ărgineanu in 1993; the website is available at http://www.agerfilm.ro/ , accessed
May 18th, 2012.4FundaĠia Arte Vizuale [Visual Art Foundation ], company of filmmakers Vivi Dr ăgan Vasile and Velvet Moraru
was established in 1992; for more details, visit http://www.fav.ro/en.html , accessed May, 18th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection33columns published by film critic Valerian Sava in Observator Cultural5 or Mihai Fulger’s
interviews and articles.6
I will argue that the strategy followed by the Sahia Studio led to an institutional collapse,
thus to a limited recognition at national or European level and the success of the young
generation of filmmakers from 2004 was determined by a re-consideration of the role of
documentaries and by the collaboration with the European funding Programs and television
companies.
In order to demonstrate the relevance of the argument, a series of questions need to be
asked: can the transition from state-dependent industry to market-oriented business be
understood beyond the film industry level and what is the relevance of this approach? How did
the dynamics of national and European film industries affect the documentary filmmakers? To
what extent can we differentiate between the types of documentaries proposed by the producers
and filmmakers and how does a choice influence the production, distribution and the relationship
with the audience. Or is it rather the other way round? The second series of questions intend to
explain the reasons of the state-institutions’ decline and the motives for the success of the young
filmmakers: how did the legislation and the political changes influenced the industry; why did
the directors founded their independent companies and what were the results?
For the purpose of answering the questions, I have conducted a series of interviews with
director and producer Nicolae M ărgineanu (December 2011, Bucharest), Lauren Ġiu Damian
(director, professor at “The National University of Drama and Cinema”, manager of the Video
Publishing House) and Alexandru Solomon (director and producer). Of particular importance
5 Valerian, Sava, Observator Cultural, 2000 – 2004, available online at http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Proiect-
Simpozionul-National-pentru-Refondarea-Cinematografiei*authorID_15-pageID_26-authors_details.html6 Mihai Fulger’s blog http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/author/mihaifulger/ and „Noul val” în cinematografia
româneasc ă, [“The New Wave” in the Romanian Cinema”], Bucharest: Grup Editorial ART, 2006

CEU eTD Collection44was the research at the Sahiafilm Archive, were I had the opportunity to watch the documentaries
produced by the Studio in the first years after the Revolution, which I analyze in the second
chapter.
F o r t h e t h e o r e t i c a l o v e r v i e w o f p o s t – c o m m u n i s m , I e n g a g e d w i t h t h e ‘ t r a j e c t o r y
adjustment’ theory introduced by the Eyal, Szélenyi and Townsley7 and investigate to what
extent this can be helpful in explaining the transition from the state-dependent industry to a
market-oriented system. Combining the evolutionary and the involutionary theories regarding the
transition, the ‘trajectory adjustment’ will enable to understand the documentary film industry in
the context that marked its evolution and explain the milieu that determined the success of a
particular group of filmmakers and the failure of the state-owned companies.
The reference to Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘cultural, economic or politic capital’ is relevant
for explaining the success of a particular category of social actors. Decreasing the scale or rather
changing the lens and coming near to the ‘field of the cultural production’, namely the film
industry, I suggest an accurate identification of the institutions involved in production,
distribution and exhibition with the concepts of used by Eyal&all. Accordingly, the studies of
Jäckel8 and Finney9 regarding the film industry and the meaningful studies regarding film
festivals belonging to Dina Iordanova will reveal the significance of these places of exhibition in
the film industry. Adjusting the scale to the realm of documentaries, in order to explain the
variety of modes of representation and the different techniques used by the filmmakers to
re p re s e n t th e v i ew of re al i ty , I wi l l ref e r m os tl y t o S te l l a B ru z zi10 and Bill Nichols11 as main
7 Gil Eyal, Iván Szélenyi and Eleanor Townsley, Making capitalism without capitalists: class formation and elite
struggles in post-communist Central Europe, (London: Verso, 1998).8 Anne Jäckel, European film industries, (London: British Film Institute, 2003).9 Angus Finney, The international film business: a market guide beyond Hollywood (London, New York: Routledge,
2010), 222.10 Stella Bruzzi, New documentary, (London, New York: Routledge, 2006).11 Bill Nichols, Representing reality: issues and concepts in documentary, (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1991)

CEU eTD Collection55theoreticians of the genre and to Lauren Ġiu Damian12 in order to map the Romanian documentary
film industry.
However, the approaches cannot extensively cover such a topic: the lack of sources
regarding the history of Sahiafilm after 1989 from an institutional perspective together with the
absence of magazines dedicated to documentaries makes difficult to reconstruct. In addition, the
inevitable disputes between the filmmakers and film critics, not to mention the permanent
accusation of imposture and incompetence addressed to the top managers of the public
institutions lead to prudence when dealing with this topic, especially when addressed by an
outsider in the film industry. Hence, there is a certain complication in drawing risky conclusions
or making assumptions difficult to prove.
The first research chapter investigates, on the one hand, the decline of the state-owned
studio, Sahiafilm by analyzing the legislation, the influence of the political factors and the
strategies followed by the managers as means of adapting to the new requirements. Equally
important, besides the interview with Damian, I will examine a couple films produced by Sahia
which reveal one of the strategies adopted after 1989, namely the recovery of the alternative
histories and memories hidden before 1989, such as 6ă nu ne răzbunaĠi/Do not revenge us ,
(Mihai Constantinescu, 1995), Timiúoara 89, (Ovidiu Bose Pa útină, 1990) or Panc (Sabina Pop,
1990).
The second research chapter compares five movies produced by independent filmmakers:
Alexandru Solomon Marele Jaf communist/The Great Communist Bank Robbery (2004), Florin
Iepan 1ăscuĠi la comand ă: DecreĠeii/Children of the Decree (2004), Dumitru Budral ăBlestemul
ariciului/The Curse of the Hedgehog (2004) , Ileana St ănculescu Podul/The Bridge (2004), and
12 LaurenĠiu Damian, Despre documentar…si inca ceva in plus , [About documentaries…and something more ],
(Bucharest: Editura Tehnic ă, 2003).

CEU eTD Collection66Thomas Ciulei Asta e/Europolis (2001) in terms of intention, production, distribution and
audience. The comparios will reveal the reasons for funding the companies and the impact of the
collaboration with the European programs and television companies.
Examining the history of the Romanian cinema from 1897 to 2000,”13 film critic C ălin
&ăliman offers a useful insight of the film industry (including the first ten years of post-
communism), by examining the documentaries that were produced in this timeframe, the
directors and the producers. In the chapter dedicated to documentaries, C ăliman reviews the
films a series of documentaries either released by Sahiafilm , or produced by private companies.
A m o n g t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f h i s a n a l y s i s , o n e c a n e n l i s t t h e l a c k o f r e f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g t h e
audience as well as the role of the state institutions that assured the financial support or the
distribution of the films. The other synthesis of the history of Romanian film, written by Valerian
Sava14 has as an ending point the year 1989, but provides valuable information regarding the
Alexandru Sahia Studio during communism.
Previously, I mentioned the absence of magazines dedicated to the documentaries.
Between 1990 and 2004 there were a couple of attempts to found cinema magazines, such as
“ECRAN” Magazine (1991-1992) edited by the Department of Cinema Halls Network and the
Distribution of Film in Romania and Noul Cinema/The New Cinema (1990-1998), or
ProCinema, but regrettably for my topic, they were more concerned with fiction films rather
with documentaries. After 2000, the weekly Observator Cultural [Cultural Observatory] has a
special column dedicated to film, where important issues regarding legislation or the support for
the ‘New Wave’ were discussed by Valerian Sava, Mihai Chirilov or Lauren Ġiu Damian
13 Călin Căliman, Istoria filmului romanesc 1897 -2000 , [The history of the Romanian film 1897-2000 ], (Bucharest:
Editura Funda Ġiei Culturale Române, 2001).14 Valerian Sava, Istoria critic ă a filmului românesc contemporan , [The critic history of the Romanian contemporary
film], (Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1999).

CEU eTD Collection77Following the success of Romanian New Wave marked by the triumphs of directors such
as Cristi Puiu or Cristian Mungiu at Cannes in 2004 and 2007, the international media turned
their attention to the Romanian Cinema, simultaneous with the release of the new documentaries
of Solomon or Iepan. Therefore, the issue eight of Moveast ,15 a scholarly journal published by
the Hungarian National Film Archive includent relevant articles signed by Valerian Sava and
Alexandru Solomon, and to the Kinokultura online journal (volume 6/2007)16, dedicated one
special issue to the Romanian Cinema. In Kinokultura , Adina Br ădeanu’s17 crucial article opens
a new perspective on the evolution of the documentaries and announces a captivating insight of
the post-communist dynamics of Sahia Studio . Although the article offers little insight on the
audience and distribution, it convincingly argues against the announced death of the
documentary film industry, drawing a consistent line between the collapse of the state-driven
institutions and the new producers that do not depend on their financial support. Br ădeanu
concludes that if the “death” was valid, this regarded only the state institutions. These extensive
studies, collaborated with the reviews of the Romanian critics (such as the special issues of
Cultura18orDilema Veche19 d e di c a te d t o d oc u m en ta ri e s ) en ab l e u s to u n d e rs ta n d n ot j us t th e
documentaries, but also the context which determined their production.
My i n te rv i e ws wi th th e di re c tors of d oc um en ta ri e s p rov e t o b e on e of th e f ew rel i ab l e
methods of accessing the information. From the interview conducted with Alexandru Solomon
important issues regarding production were discussed, while the interviews with Florin Iepan or
15Moveast , International Film Periodical, 8 (2002).16 KinoKultura, Special Issues 6: Romanian Cinema, May 2007, available online at
http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/6/romanian.shtml , accessed May 18th, 2012.17 Adina Br ădeanu, “Death and Documentary: Memory and Film Practice in Post-communist Romania”,
“KinoKultura , 6 (2007), available online at http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/6/romanian.shtml , accessed May,
17th, 2012.18 Mihai Fulger, Mihai Sturza, “Documentarul românesc: între Sahia úi Discovery”, [“Romanian Documentary:
between Sahia and Discovery”], Cultura , 48 (2006), available online at
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=7029 .19Dilema Veche, 188 (2007).

CEU eTD Collection88Thomas Ciulei are relevant in terms of intentions and meaning of the film, concentrating on the
decision to collaborate with the European Programs and Televisions. On the other hand, the
interview with Lauren Ġiu Damian, one of the most important directors of documentaries before
1989 at Sahia and manager of the Video Publishing House offered important insights regarding
the Sahia Studio.
The reviews gathered by liternet.ro20 cover mostly the documentaries produced by
independent filmmakers: from this perspective, my subject is balanced in favor of the movies
that received the most attention such as Solomon’s The Great Communist Bank Robbery or
Iepan’s TheChildren of the Decree . The rest of the resources that I have used during the research
will appear during the study.
The thesis title can be read twofold: on the one hand, the movies analyzed involved with
topics about the Romanian post-communism such as dealing with the socialist traumas (the
abortion and the hidden crimes, propaganda, Jewish question), with the difficulties to adapt to
the transition or with the question regarding the minorities and the relation with the neighboring
countries. Hence, the stress lays on the topic of the documentaries. On the other hand, the way in
which the films were produced represent themselves evidence of the Romanian post-communist
film industry. Changing the type of production, dealing with the decline of the state control in the
economy and migrating towards Europe’s model was not a process characteristic only to the
documentary film industry, but it can be considered representative to the Romanian society.
Therefore, the production companies can be perceived as models of adapting to post-
communism.
20 Liternet Publishing House, available online at http://www.liternet.ro/ .

CEU eTD Collection99Chapter 1: Three approaches to the post-communist non-fiction film
industry
Social theories: from a state-owned system towards a market oriented business
The first level of my study will enable to understand the macro level of the topic, namely
the changes from a state-owned system in 1989 to the market oriented business, dominated by
independent producers and the infusion of European capital, without a total separation from the
state incentives. Therefore, within the framework of post-communism,1 I w i l l e n g a g e w i t h a
series or concepts regarding the social change that affected the Central European societies,
generalizing the characteristics of the transition and particularizing on the realm of documentary
film industry.
The socialist states were characterized by the Party’s control in the cultural domain,
including film industry where it administrated production, distribution and exhibition of the
films. Although not in the same intensity during the period, Faraday argues that the cultural
production was characterized by state monopoly, bureaucratic control and aesthetic-ideological
orthodoxy.2 While the monopoly meant that the ‘creative workers’ were allowed to work “only
in corporate institutions established by the state,”3 the bureaucratic control manifested in the
supervision of the managers who ruled the institutions; the latter feature refer to the fact that “all
1 Why “post-communism” and not “post-socialism”? Although the thesis address to the social realm, the studies
consulted refer mainly to the topic of “post-communism”: (Gil Eyal, Ivan Szelényi and Elanor Townsley, Making
capitalism without capitalists: class formation and elite struggles in post-communist Central Europe, (London:
Verso, 1998), Richard Sakwa, Post-communism , (Philadephia, Penn: Open University Press, 1999), Alexandru
Matei, Mormântul comunismului românesc, [The grave of the Romanian communism ], (Bucharest: IBU Publishing,
2011), Adrian T. Sârbu, Alexandru Polgar, Genealogii ale post-comunismului, [Genealogies of the post-
communism ], (Cluj: Idea Publishing House, 2010). Therefore, I will prefer this term for not creating confusion
between the concept used by the authors and the different way I would be using it.2 George Faraday , Revolt of the filmmakers (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000), 52-53.3 Faraday, Revolt… , 52.

CEU eTD Collection1010authorized cultural producers were expected to conform to a single system of aesthetic and
ideological norms established by the Party leadership.”4
In Romania, the Romanian Workers’ Party5 a s s u r e d t h e i r d o m i n a n c e o v e r t h e f i l m
industry first in 1948 by nationalization the cinema halls and the studios and second, by the
foundation in 1950 of the Alexandru Sahia Studio6 in order to control the production, distribution
a n d e x h i b i t i o n o f t h e n e w s r e e l i n t h e c i n e m a h a l l s . T h i s l e d t o a c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e
filmmakers in order to assure the symbolic and material resources offered by the centralized
state.7 By 1989 the company had more than 300 employees and produced over 300 films
commanded by the state such as the newsreel, films documenting the official visits of the
President outside the country, films commanded by the plants (mostly ‘safe-work instructions’)
or regarding the various events.8 It would be an overstatement to consider Sahia only an
instrument of propaganda of the regime. Although it assumed this position and did not negate it,
the Studio produced films that remain important source for documenting everyday life during
1950-1989. The production of documentary was under censorship, especially in the period 1982-
1989 which banned important initiatives of the documentarists in their attempt to show images
and stories in contradiction with the official discourse. One of these moments happened in 1988,
4 Faraday, Revolt… , 53.5 The official name of The Romanian Communist Party between 1948 and 19646 In the memory of Alexandru Sahia, Romanian publicist in the interwar period (1908 – 1937), member of the
Communist Party and admirer of the U.S.S.R7 For an extensive analysis of the cultural policy in Romania during state socialism see Katherine Verdery, National
ideology under socialism: identity and cultural politics in Ceau úescu’s Romania , (Berkely: University of California
Press, 1991).8 In this sense, among the most valuable materials were dedicated to the heavy snowfalls from 1953-1954: In luptă
cu nămeĠii/Marele Viscol/Fighting the Snow – The Great Snow Blast, 1954) available online at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhezZGfFNDs , or the flooding of the island Ada-kaleh in 1968 for the
construction of the Iron Gates Plant ( Ultima Primavar ă la Ada-Kaleh/The last Spring at Ada-Kaleh (1968),
available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmqEHsd-eT8 ], both accessed May 27th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection1111when, due to the fact that allowed the production of the documentary Cota zero/Elevation zero
by Lauren Ġiu Damian, the manager of Sahia, Aristide Moldovan was fired.9
In order to analyze the effects of the political changes from 1989 regarding the Central
European countries, two theories emerged: the ‘evolutionary’ theory which argued that the
societies adapt to capitalism10 by destroying the state-socialism institutions and copying the
functional institutions from the West in order to reach the same results and the involutionary
theory or ‘path-dependence’, a concept advanced by David Stark11 which assumes that the social
actors still use the same patterns from the old regime in order to adapt to capitalism, going back
t o w h a t th ey kn ow a n d e x pe ri en ce d th a t f a r. A c om b i n e d re s ul t of th e s e tw o th e ori e s , n am ely
‘trajectory adjustment’ was proposed by Eyal, Szelényi and Townsley12 who do not neglect the
role of the new institutions as shaping the individuals “so that individual behavior will conform
to institutional constraints and imperatives,”13 but acknowledge the probability that the agents
continue the set of practices that they were already accustomed with. The result is an “interaction
between agents and structure: agents matter as well as institutions,”14 which manifested both in
the legislation issued by the Romanian authorities as well as in the relationship between the
filmmakers and the institutions with which they cooperated. Using only an evolutionary or
9 David Reu, Secvente din istoria tarii [Fragments from the history of the country ], (Bucharest: Editura Reu, 2009).
Although he did not mention this moment in the interview that I have conducted with him, Lauren Ġiu Damian
considers Moldovan “the savior of the Romanian documentary industry” in his book Despre documentar… úi încă
ceva în plus [“Something extra about documentary”], (Bucharest: Editura Tehnic ă, 2003).10 Capitalism should not be regarded as a definite aim or concept. Szelényi &…argue that “capitalism will always be
a generic term describing a diverse set of social actors and institutions. For this reasons, we contrast different types
of capitalism to explore the range of possible actors and institutions that can sustain a functioning capitalism
system”, in Eyal&all, Making capitalism… , 3.11 David Stark, Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe (Ithaca, N.Y.: Mario Einaudi
Center for International Studies, 1991).12 Gil Eyal, Ivan Szelényi and Elanor Townsley, Making capitalism without capitalists: class formation and elite
struggles in post-communist Central Europe, (London: Verso, 1998).13 Eyal&all, Making Capitalism …, 9.14 Eyal&all, Making Capitalism…, 40.

CEU eTD Collection1212involutionary (path-dependence) theory would oversimplify the issue and neglect the
connections between individual filmmakers and the context in which they developed
An example of the evolutionary model of adaptation was founding of the Centrul
NaĠional al Cinematografiei/National Center of Cinematography – CNC in 1990 for regulating
the film industry following the French model. Moreover, the new political change from 1995
adopted a new legislation regarding film industry and in 1997, inspired from the French
legislation. In addition, the name of the institution was changed to Oficiul Na Ġional al
Cinematografiei/The National Office of Cinematography in order to recall the institution from
the interwar period and thus, to negate the communist period. Once again, in 1999, the
legislation was changed, and followed a German model, while in 2002, the name of CNC was re-
established by the new Government and other substantial changes were adopted. The ‘path
dependence’ could be traced in this example by the fact that the management from 2000 to 2004
was assured by ex -m em bers of th e Com m uni st Party wh o i nfl uen ced th e resul t of th e con tests
organized by CNC in favor of their ‘protégé’.
As Eyal& all suggest, in the way to capitalism that characterizes the post-communist
societies, the social actors and the institutions adapt by taking advantage of the different types of
c a pi tal (e c on om i c , s oci al an d c ul tu ral ) an d th os e w h o a re a b l e to c om b i n e th em (th u s g ai ni ng
‘symbolic capital’) are the winners. The terminology used by Bourdieu15 needs clarification and
identification with the social actors and institutions discussed. ‘Cultural capital’ can be
understood as ‘accumulated labor’ in a particular field (in our case the documentary film
industry), acquired in the process of education or training (‘institutionalized state’), as a form of
cultural good such as pictures, book, in our case films (‘objectified state’) and as ‘cultivation’ or
‘Bildung’ achieved in a certain period of time (‘embodied state’).
15 Pierre Bourdieu, The field of cultural production: essays on art and literature (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993).

CEU eTD Collection1313Furthermore, the ‘social capital’ refers to the “aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to…membership in a group,”16 in our case identified with the group
of social actors involved in the documentary film industry such as producers and distributors. In
support of this affirmation, I quote Nichols17 who argues that “what characterizes the
documentary filmmaking generally is its status as institutional formation,”18 before referring to
documentary as ‘a corpus of texts’ or as ‘a constituency of viewers’. Hence, the importance of
the social capital is vital in understanding the bonds between the ‘communities of practitioners’,
such as the Sahia Studio, the National Television, the National Center of Cinematography and
the independent filmmakers.
Ultimately, the economic capital is “directly convertible into money and may be
institutionalized in the forms of property rights.”19 This type of capital can be acquired from state
incentives (direct or by contest), selling the property, winning important awards which do not
involve only symbolic gratification, but sometimes significant amounts of money.
These types of capital are not independent in the social space, but determine each other
and help assuring the social actors and the institution the instruments for staying on the
‘trajectory’. This is what Eyal and his colleagues argue, namley, that the importance of shifting
between different types of capital is determinant in assuring a position in the social space and
that “cultural capital is dominant in post-communism,”20 because the social (political) capital is
n o l o n g e r r e l e v a n t w h e n c o m p e t i n g w i t h t h e f o r e i g n i n d u s t r i e s , w h i l e t h e e c o n o m i c c a p i t a l ,
16 Pierre Bourdieu, The forms of capital , first published in J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258, available online at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm , accessed May 27th,
2012.17 Nichols, Representing Reality , 14-31.18 Nichols, Representing Reality , 14.19 Bourdieu, The forms of Capital, http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-
capital.htm .20Eyal&all, Making Capitalism…, 7.

CEU eTD Collection1414though important, cannot replace the know-how needed for developing sustainable projects.”
Particularizing this theory to the (documentary) film industry, I will investigate in the research
chapters how significant was the ‘cultural capital’ for both Sahia and for the independent
f i l m m a k e r s . I w i l l a n a l y z e t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t a r g u e d b y a u t h o r s o f Making
capitalism… according to which social actors
[Who] were at the top of social hierarchy under state socialism can stay there only if they
are capable of ‘trajectory adjustment’, which at the current juncture means if they are well
endowed with cultural capital. By contrast, those who relied exclusively on now devalued
political capital from the communist era are not able to convert this capital into anything
valuable…are likely to be downwardly mobile.21
Is this available both for individuals and for institutions? The synthesis between the two theories
place “the actors at the center of our analysis,”22 therefore, the emphasis lies on the individuals.
However, due to the acceptance of the fact that “we conceptualize individual and collective
actors such as members of classes or elites, as actors whose behavior is affected by the nature of
the institutions they used to operate in under communism,”23 th e af fi rm a ti on m i gh t s e rv e a s a
relevant tool for both categories.
Particular important is to engage with Bourdieu notion of field of cultural production,24 as
it emphasizes the importance of understanding the work of art in reference to the milieu that
produced it and on the process behind the final product. The relationality between the agents and
the structures such as academies, journals, magazines influences the position of the agents in the
social spaces. The creator from the cultural field defines it together with the critics, the audience
and the producers or distributors:
The space of literary or artistic position-takings, i.e. the structured set of the
manifestations of the social agents involved in the field…is inseparable from the space of or
artistic positions defined by possession of a determinate quantity of specific capital (recognition)
21 Eyal&all , Making Capitalism…, 6.22 Eyal&all, Making Capitalism…, 39.23 Eyal&all, Making Capitalism…, 39.24 Pierre Bourdieu, The field of cultural production: essays on art and literature (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993).

CEU eTD Collection1515and, at the same time, by occupation of a determinate position in the structure of the distribution
o f thi s spe ci fi c c api tal . The li te ra ry o r arti sti c f ie ld i s a f ie l d of fo rce s, but i t i s al so a f ie ld of
struggles tending to transform or conserve this field of forces.25
In conclusion, the documentary film industry changed from a state-dominated system
towards a capitalist system, marked by the import of institutions and legislation from the
European Union (especially from France). However, in this adaptation, it had to adjust both by
changing the laws and institutions or by changing the actors who govern the institutions, most of
the time due to political reasons. As the only specialized studio before 1989, dependent on the
state incentives, Sahia had new challenges to face and a new system to adapt. This meant a
n e g o t i a ti o n of t h e t y p e s of c a p i t a l i t o w n e d : s o c i a l a n d p ol i ti c a l a s o n e of t h e m o s t p o w e r f ul
brands of socialism), cultural (by the large number of experienced filmmakers connected to the
studio) or economic (both equipment and real estate).
The documentary film industry: production, distribution, exhibition
The second part is dedicated to the differences between the Western and Romanian
systems of production, distribution and exhibition. Notions such as producer/production need not
just a definition, but identification with the concepts used so far and differentiation between what
the state socialism understood by production, what the post-socialist filmmakers and institutions
changed at that sy stem and what the challenges for a European producti on com pany were. For
the latter, I will refer to production as “the stage of filmmaking when the film begins to be shot
and for which most of the elements of the film have been budgeted for,”26 while the producer “is
the manager of creating a film… [He or she] initiates, co-ordinates, supervises and controls
matters such as fund-raising, hiring key personnel and arranging for distributors. The producer is
25 Bourdieu, The field , 30.26 Angus Finney, The international film business: a market guide beyond Hollywood (London, New York:
Routledge, 2010), 222.

CEU eTD Collection1616involved throughout all phases of the filmmaking process from development to completion of a
project.”27 Due to the importance of the television companies and European funding programs in
the Romanian industry, I will limit my research only to them, deliberately neglecting the role of
the state or the independent producers.
A s I m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , i n s t a t e s o c i a l i s m t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f d o c u m e n t a r i e s w a s
characterized by state monopoly, bureaucratic control and the aesthetic-ideological orthodoxy.
The single investor both in the production and distribution was the state, either by direct or
indirect command. The aim was not directed in the acquirement of economic capital, hence the
distribution had not the role of gaining profit, but in gaining capital in order control more
efficient the resources. Lauren Ġiu Damian showed how the Sahia Studio functioned before 1989:
[It] had a section of protocol, thus it paid the independence with something in
change, namely there were propaganda movies and the state spent a lot…The second
section was the movies, being a studio very competitive a lot of latent partners who
ordered movies, (presentation movies or labor protection), and there was a section of
scientific and artistic documentary where the censorship was not so harsh.28
As for exhibition, the documentaries were mostly shown at the beginning of films in
cinema halls, with specific aim of propaganda and rarely at the television, where the television
company had its own studio specialized mostly in reportage. However, characterizing the Soviet
film industry, Faraday argues that, at the ‘protection’ of the state financial support, the
filmmakers “were insulated from the pressures of audience demand,”29 therefore having a more
secure position compared with their correspondents in Western systems.
1989 brought a change in the meaning of producer and production. Although the state
continued to support the production in the first years, more as a reflex until privatizing the Studio
the films were no longer shown at the beginning of a feature film and the demand in
27 Finney, The international… 222.28 LaurenĠiu Damian interviewed by the author, Bucharest, April 22nd, 201229 Faraday, Revolt… , 2.

CEU eTD Collection1717documentaries decreased. As a consequence, the managers of Sahia redefined their position and
emphasized the need to continue the production of documentaries by finding another sources of
financing. On the other hand, 1989 announced the beginning of a parallel industry, whose first
pioneers were the filmmakers who founded their own production companies, either specialized
in feature films or in documentaries. The differences between the European industries and
Romanian film industry were still evident: I will mention only a few, which were addressed by
the filmmakers from IDFA in their letter sent to the Minister of Culture in December 2004.30
Blaming the Romanian Minister of Culture for the lack of support for the independent
companies and for the concern to the collapse of Sahia, the four filmmakers stressed the absence
of any official from the National Television, the CNC or from the Association of Film Critics at
IDFA and for the absence from their structures of “commissioning editors”, a significant public
office. Second, the ‘community’ of filmmakers and critics perceive the documentary as a minor
gen re an d as a stage of th e di rector’s career on th ei r way to f eature fi lm s. Thi rd, al th ough n ot
mentioned in the letter, but present in numerous other interviews31, the importance of trainings or
‘pitching sessions’ as vital in the Western film industry is something that is not present in the
Romanian documentary film industry. Moreover, according to the law from 2002, the
documentary film supposed to have maximum 20 minutes, stipulation harshly contested by
Solomon or Iepan.32
But probably one of the important changes and a separation from the socialist perception
of the documentary was the role that it had to fulfill in the society. I have argued that, while
30 Alexandru Solomon, Ileana St ănculescu, Dumitru Budral ă, Florin Iepan, Scrisoare dup ă IDFA [Letter after
IDFA ], published in Observator Cultural, No 251/December 2004, available online at
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Scrisoare-dupa-IDFA*articleID_12418-articles_details.html , accessed May 27th,
2012.31 Interview with Solomon, available online at http://atelier.liternet.ro/articol.php?art=2801 , accessed May 28th, 201232 Alexandru Solomon ironically recalls the protest against the article from the law in the interview conducted in
Bucharest, April 27th 2012.

CEU eTD Collection1818before 1989, the documentaries were produce to inform and had a clear narration and structure,
the documentaries produced by the independent filmmakers are perceived by themselves as “a
spectacular instrument of knowing the history, a creative form a social critique and inter-cultural
communication. In a country as Romania where the amnesia is the attitude of the majority
regards to history, and the society is paralyzed by civic apathy, the documentary becomes o
necessity, not a privilege.”33 From this perspective, they preferred to engage with other kinds of
mode of representation and inclined the balance in favor of ‘creative’ documentaries: either
using reflexive strategies or interactive mode of representation, the documentary proposed by the
filmmakers after 1989 differed from the ‘Sahia type’.
A s c o l l a b o r a t i n g w i t h S a h i a o r w i t h o t h e r t h e s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s p r o v e d i m p o s s i b l e o r
difficult to realize, the independent filmmakers searched for new patrons and realized that, in
order to advance in the career they had to access the European Programs and to collaborate with
the foreign television companies in the form of co-production. As the agency is Western, I will
refer to co-production as “a film that involves more than one party in the production process
through co-operation as a joint venture or partnership, or as a part of an officially sanctioned co-
production treaty.”34 Following co-production leads to one of the main supporter of the
independent Romanian documentary films, EURIMAGES, a pan-European fund dedicated to co-
productions, established in 1989 by the Council of Europe in order to balance the American
(Hollywood) expansion in Europe. The initiative belonged to the French filmmakers35 and
consisted in supporting the co-productions in Europe in order to create a competitive market.
Analyzing the report of the European Audiovisual Observatory, Finney concluded that the co-
33Letter after IDFA , available online at http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Scrisoare-dupa-IDFA*articleID_12418-
articles_details.html , accessed May 27th, 201234 Finney, The International… 217.35 Anne Jäckel, European film industries, (London: British Film Institute, 2003).

CEU eTD Collection1919productions “travel better than their 100 per cent national counterparts”, and they “attract on
average 2.7 times as many admissions as their national peers.”36 The second program, MEDIA
was established by the European Commission in 1991 “to support the audiovisual industries in
Europe. It covers training, development, promotion, distribution and the support of film
festivals.37 The program played an essential role especially in the organization of ASTRA Film
Festival, one of the top documentary festivals in Romania who was organized due to the absence
of a documentary film festival organized by the authorities. Two important aspects need to be
mentioned: first, the United Kingdom was not a member of this fund, and second, the
documentaries need to have at least 70 min. to be supported. The contradiction between the
length of the movies according to the Romanian Law which limited the documentary to 20
minutes and the European Stipulation emphasized the opposite ways in which the documentaries
were perceived in 2002.
Besides EUIMAGES and MEDIA Program, the foreign television companies proved to
be successful (co) producers for the Romanian independent filmmakers. A short overview of the
way in which BBC works is offered by Stella Bruzzi, who comments about the type of
documentary BBC promoted from the very beginning under the management of John Reith,38 the
General Manager of BBC from 1927 to 1938:
“John Reith’s dictum that factual broadcasting in this country should both educate and
ente rtain came from an elitist conce ption of the role of the media, that the BBC had a sense of
moral obligation to its audience to impart worthwhile information. This is the “filmmakers as
teachers and audience as willing pupil” model of documentary.39
Following this pattern, Bruzzi argues that “the current vogue ( 2000s ) is for reconstruction
to be used often alongside more traditional documentary methods, such as archive and
36 Finney, The international… 78.37 Finney, The international… 220.38 John Reith was the General Manager of the BBC for two decades (1927-1938); more details on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith/reith_history.shtml , accessed May 20th, 2012.39 Bruzzi, New Documentary, (Routledge, Great Britain, 2006), 51.

CEU eTD Collection2020interviews, and despite Janice Hadlow (then Channel 4 Commissioning Editor for History,
currently Head of the BBC Four) warning […] in 2003 that filmmakers venture into
reconstruction at their peril, documentaries have become obsessed with it.40 Although Bruzzi
r e f e r s m a i n l y t o t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e e v e n t s u s i n g a c t o r s , h e r a r g u m e n t i s r e l e v a n t w h e n
mentioning that 2003 is the year in which both Solomon and Iepan directed their documentaries
co-produced by BBC. Furthermore, she presents over helpful insights of the documentary-
m a k i n g a t B B C : r e f e r ri n g t o t h e u s e of a r c h i v a l s o u r c e s , s h e c l a i m s t h a t : “ t h e p u r p o s e of i ts
retrieved archive being to demonstrate what has already been or is in the process of being
s i g n a l e d b y o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s s u c h a s t h e v o i c e – o v e r o r t h e w o r d s o f t h e
interviewees…within this hierarchy, words guide the audience’s responses to archival image.”41
Moreover, between 2000 and 2006 a shift occurred in the practice of documentary making,
namely “the rise of dramatic reconstruction as a supplement to or even replacement for archival
material.42
How did BBC decide to co-produce, for example, The Great Communist Bank Robbery ?
The film directed by Solomon proposed to investigate the robbery of the National Bank in 1959
by a group of Jewish Communists. It also intended to deconstruct the propaganda documentary
made to reconstruct the event produced by the Sahia and Minister of Internal Affairs which was
shown to the Party members in order to prove them that the Party is capable to punish any
deviation. By interviews with the witnesses, victims and members of the Party and the
Securitate , Solomon proposed to go beyond the layers of propaganda and show the motivation of
thegangsters and to impose on the public debate the importance of the past and the way in which
the past still persists in the present.
40 Bruzzi, New Documentary, 51.41 Bruzzi, New Documentary, 37.42 Bruzzi, New Documentary, 43.

CEU eTD Collection2121In the interview that I have conducted, Solomon recalls the importance of the
Documentary Campus Masterschool, “a Europe-wide development program offering filmmakers
a unique opportunity to access the international non-fiction market,”43 where he participated in
2001:
There were more weeks of training over the year…[the] filmmakers proposed topics, the
topics were selected; afterwards you met with series of tutors who held their courses, keep in
touch with them while you develop the topic; the organizers being specialized tutors in
production, distribution and two of them were the tutors from BBC and from Arte.44 At the end of
the training, there is a kind of presentation session (my note-“pitching session”) where everybody
presents their project not just in from of the tutors, but also in front of other guests from television
companies and financing funds with the aim to assure the filmmakers an actual support. After this
presentation, BBC first and Arte, afterwards decided [to co-produce the film].45
How can we i n terpre t thi s i n th e th eore ti cal f ramework th at we h ave dev el oped so far?
First, the training session provided the filmmakers both with ‘cultural capital’ which was
transformed in economic capital by the choice of the BBC/Arte of supporting the films and
relocated the ‘social capital’ of the filmmakers from Romania to abroad. As I will mention more
detailed in the last chapter, it was also the case with Ileana St ănculescu and Thomas Ciulei, both
of them completing their studies in Germany and gaining access on the European networks by
t h e s a m e t i m e . T h e p r o d u c t i o n m e a n t a l s o a c h a n g e o f a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e r o l e o f t h e
documentary and the ‘modes of representation’ followed by the directors, explained later on.
Not only the production changed, but also the distribution. In Western industries, the
distributor, can be regarded either as a “facilitator of product flow between producers and
exhibitors”46, w h o a n d d e a l s w i t h t h e s e l l i n g o f t h e f i l m a f t e r h e g o t t h e r i g h t s t o d o s o . ”
Moreover, the distributor can be “a company that buys the license of exploitation of a film in
43What is Documentary Campus Masterschool , available online at http://www.documentary-
campus.com/v2/page/masterschool/masterschool/ , accessed May 27th, 2012.44 According to the official site, the tutor from BBC in 2001 was Nick Fraser (Commissioning Editor) and from Arte
Olaf Grunert, (Director Development and Events), http://www.documentary-
campus.com/v2/page/masterschool/masterschool_tutors/1/ , accessed May 27th, 2012.45 Alexandru Solomon, interviewed by the author, Bucharest, April 27th, 2012.46 Finney, The international…, 217.

CEU eTD Collection2222order to be able to exploit the title in the theatrical and/or subsidiary markets.”47 In the socialist
film industry, apparently, the distribution did not had the logic of making profit, but rather to
assure visibility to a large category of public, while documentaries occupied a privileged position
by being exhibited before the feature films. 1989 brought the first major change in the industry,
by slowly stopping this practice and obliging the directors to find other modalities of making
their movies available to the audience. Private companies such as Independen Ġa were founded
after 1989, but none specialized in documentaries, but rather in importing Hollywood films.
Therefore, the main distributors of the film were the television companies, but they were
not interested in distributing and broadcasting documentaries, because, as Damian argued, the
Television had its own documentary department and chose to involve in the production and
exhibition of its own movies.48 However, the National Television has the merit of broadcasting
the documentaries of the independent filmmakers, in the case of Iepan’s The Children of the
Decree, along with a debate concerning the topic addressed by the director. As for European
industries, EURIMAGES participated not only in the production, but also in the distribution of
movies, although one of the criticism addressed to the program was that it focused too much on
(co-) production and less on distribution. In my study cases, the distribution was taken by the
television companies (besides the producers) from various countries and the films were also
exhibited at film festivals.
Theorized by Dina Iordanova and Regan Rhyne49 among others, the film festival
circuit(s) represents a key-element for this study, as one of the criteria for analyzing successful
films was represented by the official selection at IDFA and the awards gained at other festivals.
47 Finney, The international… , 217.48 LaurenĠiu Damian interviewed by the author, Bucharest, April 21st, 2012.49 Dina Iordanova, Rhyna Regan, Film Festival. Yearbook 1 – The Festival Circuit, (St. Andrew Film Studies, Great
Britain, 2009).

CEU eTD Collection2323The film festivals could be approached from various perspectives, such as an alternative to
Hollywood distribution or as a marketing project dedicated to tourists by the city authorities.
Nevertheless, most critics appreciate their role as essential feature of the distribution with effects
in the authorship, production and the prestige of the author. Two main advantages result from the
studies regarding film festivals: first “[the festivals] play an essential role in the discovery and
launching of independent films”50 a n d th e s e c on d , i t c om p en sa te s f or th e p o or sy s tem of f i l m
distribution in Europe, creating “an alternative distribution network that opens doors to ‘real’
distribution.”51 Why?
“ S e n d i n g a f i l m t o a f e s t i v a l , e s pe c i a l l y t o a c o m pe ti t i v e o n e , i s o f te n t h o ug h t o f a s a
support me chanism that a film needs in orde r to ge t to its ‘re al’ life and re ach out to audiences
beyond festival screenings in a red-carpet setting. Entering a film at a festival is seen as a way of
o pe n i n g d o o r s t o w h a t l i e s be y o n d , to a s t r i n g o f sh o w i n g s a t o th e r f e s ti v al s a n d , l a te r o n , to
proper distribution via theatrical al DVD deals for a wide range of territories.52
Iordanova’s vision might look optimistic, but I consider it valid for my case for one
reason, namely the ‘cultural capital’ gained by the filmmakers after being exhibited at IDFA. The
cultural capital justified the initiative of the filmmakers to send the authorities the letter that I
have mentioned earlier but also the acquirement of economic capital by the winner of one of the
awards. Why did IDFA play such an important role? Because it is the most acclaimed
documentary film festival in Europe (comparable with Cannes for feature films) or Sundance (at
an American level) and being in the official selection at the festival represents a sign of
appreciation from the community of European filmmakers. Besides IDFA, important festivals
such as The Documenary Festival from Thessaloniki, Visions du Réel from Nyon, Sheffield
Doc/Fest or the Edindocs (Edinburgh) fight for a place in the hierarchy of the top documentary
festivals. In Romania, the most acclaimed documentary film festival was on the seashore of
50 Finney, The international… ,5551 Iordanova, Film Festival , 2352 Iordanova, Film Festival, p.24

CEU eTD Collection2424Black See at Costine úti, but soon after the Revolution, the festival was not organized anymore, as
neither was the other important festival from Târgovi úte.53 In conclusion, the documentarists lost
a t n a t i o n a l l e v e l o n e o f t h e f e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s w h e r e t h e y c o u l d p r e s e n t t h e i r f i l m s . T h i s
disadvantage was balanced by the organization of Astra Film Festival starting 1993 at Sibiu.
Before moving the theory regarding the documentaries, a short conclusion needs to be
drawn. The direct result of entering the European networks changed the production, distribution
and exhibition and imposed a new hierarchy where the recognition from the abroad was
important. Thus, the independent filmmakers became intermediaries between the European
networks and Romanian cinematography. Using their cultural and social capital, they have
successfully protested against the rejection of funding by the CNC in 2003, determining the
members of CNC to support a part of the budget needed for their movies. On the other hand,
following most of the time the same practices as before 1989, in the context in which the
distribution and exhibition did no longer continue, Sahia could not transform their social capital
into economic capital which could have helped them to avoid the collapse and weren’t able to
produce after 1996 significant documentaries. The causes will be analyzed more detailed in the
flowing chapter.
Non-fiction films: modes of representation
From a macro perspective, the documentary film industry does not differ substantially
from the feature film, at least in the Romanian legislation. During the study a couple of
documentaries will be examined, documentaries which are distinct not only in terms of
production or distribution, but also in terms of modes of representation and topics addressed.
53 According to Lauren Ġiu Damian, interviewed by the author, April 21st 2012; He also stated that the Association of
critics and filmmakers organized small festivals, with no impact on the audience

CEU eTD Collection2525One of my hypotheses claimed that the young filmmakers did not take into consideration
collaborating with the Video Publishing House orSahia because they rejected the ‘type’ of
docum en tari es th ey woul d h ave b een asked to di rect. Th eref ore, a cl oser l ook a t th e th eory of
documentaries is necessary at this point of the analysis.
As I mentioned earlier, the documentaries before 1989 preferred adopting what Nichols
would call an ‘expository’ mode of representation, using a voice-over narration, while the
images support the text as illustration. Nichols states, when discussing about the ‘expository’
mode, that “the rhetoric of the commentator’s argument serves as the textual dominant, moving
the text forward in service of its persuasive needs.”54 In addition, the mode hides the viewer the
process of reaching the result-argument. There is no mystery or suspense about the topic of the
documentary, but rather a narrative addressed directly to the audience working in a solution-
resolving end. This type of documentary, attentively controlled by the authorities supposed to
have the effect of convincing the audience about the correctness of the decisions of the
authorities and informing about the changes from the country without presenting a counter-point
of view. The other modes opf representation (such as ‘direct cinema’, the ‘reflexive’ and
‘interactive’) were rarely adopted by the filmmakers from Sahia.
The ‘direct cinema’ (adopted by Budral ă) proposed not an investigation of the past, but
an insight of a contemporary Roma community, an anthropological reflection of the life
conditions. As Nichols argues ‘observational cinema’ (his definition of ‘direct cinema’) allows
the viewer to have a direct contact with the life of the characters, “to gain some sense of the
distinct rhythms of everyday life, to see the colors, shapes, and spatial relationship among people
and their possessions etc,”55 emphasizing the anthropological dimension of this mode of
54 Bill Nichols, Representing Reality, 3555 Nichols, Representing… , 42.

CEU eTD Collection2626representation. On the other hand, Bruzzi portrays the direct cinema as “an attempt to keep
authorial intervention to minimum by adopting a more causal, observational style that had as its
premise the desire to follow action rather than dictate it, to see and record what happened to
evolve in front of the cameras.”56 In respect to the method of filming, Mamber emphasizes the
importance of the “hand held camera and live, synchronous sound…the essential element of
cinema-verite is the use of real people in undirected situations.57 H o w e v e r , B r u z z i a d o p t s a
critical point of view when referring to it: “the direct cinema is a ‘problem’ because its exponents
believed that, with the advent of portable equipment and with the movement’s more informal
style, they could indeed show things as they are and thus collapse the boundaries between subject
and representation.58 However the interpretations would be, the direct cinema remains one of the
favorite methods of approaching anthropology.
Another mode of representation often used by the Romanian independent filmmakers,
especially Iepan and Solomon was the ‘interactive’ mode, characterized by the ‘talking heads’
and the participation of the director in the interviews with the characters from the documentary.
Although not present in the footage, the director’s presence is relevant for decreasing the degree
of certainty of the arguments expressed: the director ‘learns’ the details regarding the topic
‘together’ with his audience. It is true that the post-production the director makes his subjective
choices for selecting one line from an interview or another, but he can present two opposite
points of view without being obliged to validate one of them.
Probably the most complex type of documentary uses a ‘reflexive’ mode of
representation, investigating not the topic addressed, but how does the filmmaker approach the
topic. It has a transparent structure and “gives emphasis to the encounter between the filmmaker
56 Bruzzi, New Documentary, 74.57 Stephen Member, Cinema-verite in America ,Screen : 13/2 (Summer), 79-107 in Bruzzi, New Documentary p.7558 Bruzzi, New Documentary, 74.

CEU eTD Collection2727and the viewer rather than the filmmaker and the subject,”59 most of the times in an ironic way.
Impossible to adopt before 1989, the mode was used by Solomon in order to deconstruct the type
of documentaries produced by Sahia, namely Reconstituirea/The Reconstruction.60
In conclusion, the support of the European funds and the television companies
materialized not only in the production or distribution, but also in the decision to adopt different
modes of representation for dealing with a certain topic. While these modes cannot be fully
separated (for example, Solomon uses both a narrative addressed directly to the viewer, an
interactive mode and reflexive strategies), they represent all together a different type of
documentary than the majority of the films produced by Sahia before 1989. One of the
explanations for the change in mode of representation is that the European industries supports
and acknowledges the value of a certain type of documentary and creates a certain hierarchy
whose values were acquired by the young directors and transformed in cultural capital. However,
the contact with the European networks stimulated the creation of a certain type of ‘creative’
documentary, but this implied a series of adaptation with the receipts proposed by the producers.
59 Nichols, Representing Reality, 60.60 The film was also the translated as The Reenactment.

CEU eTD Collection28Chapter 2: From Alexandru Sahia Studio toSahiafilm
T h i s c h a p t e r a n a l y z e s t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e s t a t e – o w n e d s t u d i o , A l e x a n d r u S a h i a , b y
examining the legislation, the influence of the political changes and the strategies adopted by the
Studio in order to adjust to the changes in the film industry. While in the first chapter I have
argue that the agents and institutions who dependent on the political capital during socialism are
p ron e t o l os e th ei r p ri vi l e g es i f th ey can n ot t ra n sf orm i t i n to c ul tu ral or s oci al c a pi tal , i n th i s
chapter I will analyze the causes that determined the failure of Sahia Studio to produce
successful documentaries. My argument asserts that, although Sahia tried to stay on ‘trajectory’
by taking advantage of its economic and social capital, it failed to continue its dominance due to
the exodus of filmmakers to other institutions.
My initial hypothesis was that Sahia Studio failed because it could not adjust its
trajectory, but at least two factors challenged this hypothesis. First, from a legislative
perspective, Sahia changed its status and gained legal independence; despite the end of the
financial support, Sahia started benefiting from its economic capital, by renting its real estate.
Second, the Studio recovered its prestige by producing a series of films dedicated to the
revolution, hence proving to be not just a tool of communist propaganda, but a useful element of
democracy. However, the studio collapsed by 2000 for at least two reasons: first because the rent
for the real estate was been paid and second, because of the departure of the important directors.
Legislation and political background
After manager Aristide Moldovan was fired in 1988, the management of the Sahia studio
was assumed by filmmaker Decebal Mitulescu (who will become the president of CNC in 2000),

CEU eTD Collection29and from 1990, by the young filmmaker Copel Moscu. In an interview from November the same
year, he stated that:
The studio is one of the largest from in the world, with 360 employees, of which 70 are
filmmakers. It has a rather old, but experienced team. Now, when the rationale under which this
studio was founded in 1950,(the communist propaganda) disappeared, but when we still baseon
the finance from the last years, because we are no longer founded (my emphasis) in any way, one
addresses the problem of surviving. Sahia lived very well from the commissioned movies:
commercial, presentation, touristic. Financially, we could resist and even flourish on this formula,
only with reorganization on creation departments, so that each team would be directly responsible
of the quality and benefit. The audience does not know (perceive) us as producers of advertising,
although we have the means and the human capital for this type of production. But our aim is not
only the survival of the studio, but the survival of the genre as cultural act. The documentary film
can not die, as some voices foresee. On contrary, I think it will be reborn, because the expectation
for real documentary is huge. The change of our studio is to make documentaries which would
show what is going on nowadays in Romania.”1
When claiming that the studio is no longer funded, he referred to the Decree 80/February
1990 regarding the organization of the cinematographic activities which was issued by the
Council of National Salvation Front. This decree separated the Studios from the state, responding
to the pressures from the filmmakers willing to take the control of the studios. The decree
proclaimed that “the state guarantees the freedom of the cinema creation, supports and protects
the production and the distribution of Romanian films,”2 mentioned the formation of the National
Center of Cinematography and offered the economic and legal liberty of the Studios.3
“RomâniaFilm”, the main state company involved in the production, distribution and
financing the movies was reorganized as The Department of the Cinema Network and the
Distribution of Movies , and became an economic and legal entity. As for Sahia, the decree
1 Interview with Copel Moscu in România liber ă [Free Romania ] November 23rd, 1990, available online at
http://www.jurnalul.ro/jurnalul-national/marele-ecran-in-1990-filme-putine-debuturi-intarziate-558155.htm ,
accessed May 24th 2012.2Decretul 80/1990 [“Decree 80/1990”], available online at http://www.legex.ro/Decretul-lege-80-1990-1175.aspx ,
accessed May 2012.3Decretul 80/1990 [“Decree 80/1990”]. The first major legislative change after 1989 was the privatization of the
five film studios, given by the Minister of Culture, Andrei Ple úu in the hands of the filmmakers from the Generation
70: Dinu T ănase, Dan Pi Ġa, Mircea Veroiu, Sergiu Nicolaescu and Mircea Daneliuc. Ple úu founded two studios
dependent from the Minister of Culture: one led by Lucian Pintilie and the other (specialized in documentaries) led
by the film critic Bujor T. Râpeanu, Video Publishing House .

CEU eTD Collection30mentions that the Studio “produces documentaries, scientific and didactic movies, newsreel and
advertising ordered by the Department of the cinema network and the distribution of movies and
other customers from the country.”4 According to the law, the Department was not obliged to
fund this studio, but remained the main commissioner. Therefore, Moscu’s position of
readjusting towards advertising on one hand, but also maintaining the profile of the company
seemed viable.
In regards to the Sahia Studio, the Law 486/1991 stipulated that Alexandru Sahia Studio
changed its name to Sahia Film and became private company, by gaining its legal and
economical liberty.5 Article 2 brought an innovation, stipulating that besides producing for and
being financed by the department of cinema network and the distribution of movies , the Studio
“produces documentaries, newsreels etc for the Department of Information of the Government.”6
Moreover, the Administration Council of the Studio was appointed by the order of the state
s e c r e t a r y , w h o w a s t h e c h i e f o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f I n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e R o m a n i a n
Government.”7 Therefore, the state afforded the Studio with judicial and financial independence,
b u t i t m a i n t a i n e d i t u n d e r i t s i n f l u e n c e . W a s t h i s a m e a n s o f t h e n e w r e g i m e t o a s s u r e i t s
propaganda or a welcomed reform for the safeguard of the studio? The first results materialized
in the production of important films dedicated to the Revolution, which will be analyzed further
on.
After the management of Copel Moscu (1990-1991) and Mircea Moldovan (1991-1993),
the new manager Luiza Ciolac (1993-1995) brought into discussion the exhibition of the
4Hotararea de Urgen Ġă 486/1991 [“Law 486/1991”], available online at http://www.cautalege.ro/hotarare-486-
1991-infiintarea-regiei-autonome-studioul-cinematografic-sahia-film-(7F357A93859B8E45).jsp , accessed May 24th
2012.5 I could not establish if the new law 486/1991 was adopted at the proposal of the new manager, Mircea Moldovan,
or due to the law, the former manager had to resign.6Hotararea de Urgenta 486/1991 [“Law 486/1991”].7Hotararea de Urgenta 486/1991 [“Law 486/1991”].

CEU eTD Collection31documentaries in the cinema hall, as Lauren Ġiu Damian recalls: “Immediately after 90, in 94-95,
Luiza Ciolac tried and succeeded to make documentaries…and to assure a distribution in cinema
halls also as a addition for the feature films.”8 However, it is not clear if she succeeded or not
and for how long. The last manager who worked on the basis of the law from 1991 was Mircea
Hamza (May 1995 – May 1997), with no special successes mentioned in the literature I have
examined. Nevertheless, in these years important documentaries were produced, such as Destinul
Mareúalului/The Destiny of Marshall Antonescu (Felicia Cern ăianu, 1994) and 6ă nu ne
UăzbunaĠi/Do not revenge us (Mihai Constantinescu, 1995) the only notable exceptions. In
conclusion, by 1995 there was already a decline of the Studio, which from 360 employees
remained with about 1009 and, although independent on paper it involved in the election
campaign, supporting the Government (1996).10 It is still to be researched if the decision of the
studio to become involved in the election directly prompted some of the directors to leave.
The political change from December 1996 could not overlook the film industry. Director
Radu Gabrea was appointment chief of the Oficiul Na Ġional al Cinematografiei which replaced
theCentrul Na Ġional al Cinematografiei and a new law was adopted (67/1997). At Sahia Studio,
the new Government appointed director Mihai Constantinescu, member of the National Peasant
Party as manager of the institution (May 1997). During his management, Sahia signed a contract
(1998) with MediaPro Pictures , a powerful private company managed by Adrian Sârbu (one of
the former employees of Sahia until the beginning of the nineties) in order to assure a financial
basis. According to the agreement, MediaPro Pictures rented one of the buildings belonging to
8 LaurenĠiu Damian, interviewed by the author, Bucharest, April 22nd, 2012.9 Information provided by one of the employees of Sahia in the discussions during the exhibition of the movies10 Valerian Sava accused Luiza Ciolac in 2001 that she had participated at the electoral campaign of the Social
Democrat Party from Romania and by the fact that she was appointed in the structures of the Minister of Culture
after 2000 when the Social Democrats formed the Government in “Nu. Decalog inspirat de un consilier al
ministrului Culturii”, [“No. The Decalogue inspired by a counselor of the Minister of Cultury”], Observator
Cultural , Nr. 126 (2002).

CEU eTD Collection32the Studio and was supposed to pay a monthly rent of 10,000 euro. This amount assured for a
while the financial support for the Studio. However, MediaPro Pictures stopped paying the rents,
but the contract was re-signed.11 The result was that, without any financial support, the
production of documentaries was zero at the end of year 2000.
The new Government from 200012 imposed a new hierarchy in the Romanian
cinematography. Sergiu Nicolaescu became president of the Consultative Association of
Cinematography (a new-formed institution) and Decebal Mitulescu, the former manager of the
Studio became the president of the National Center of Cinematography. A new law was adopted
in 2002,13 which, among other stipulations, limited the documentary at a maximum length of 20
minutes. Grigore Florescu (2000-2002) and Ioan C ărmăzan (2003 – 2004)14 t h e m a n a g e r s o f
Sahia appointed by the new political leaders could not recover the amounts from the rents owned
byMediaPro Pictures and did not have the financial possibilities to work on new productions.
Moreover, the debt acquired by the Studio reached incredible amounts15 and, at the end of 2004,
& ăr măz a n w a s r e l e a s e d a f t e r a n o t h e r s u s p e c t b u s i n e s s w i t h a n o t h e r r e a l e s t a t e , a n d a n e w
manager, Marcel Iura úcu, was appointed.
11 “Ioan Cărmăzan isi face film in contul datoriei Media Pro Pictures”, “Ioan C ărmăzan produces a film with the
Media Pro Pictures’ debt to Sahia”, http://www.eghid.ro/Monden/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1016 , accessed May
20th, 201212 More about the change in Valerian Sava, “Razvan Theodorescu, Sergiu Nicolaescu, Decebal Mitulescu si
compania – not guilty,” Observator Cultural , 73 (2001).13 Valerian Sava, “Tablele legii si S. Nicolaescu in pustiul CNC-ONC-CNC” ,“The Laws and S. Nicolaescu in the
desert CNC-ONC-CNC”, Observator Cultural 111 (2002), the Law is available at
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=39124 , accessed May 29th 201214 “Sahia, o mireasa urata, dar cu zestre la care ravnesc petitorii ministrului Iorgulescu”, “Sahia, an ugly bride, by
with a dowry wanted by the suitors of the Minister of Culture Iorgulescu, available online at
http://www.infonews.ro/node/71311 , accessed May 29th 201215 The amount was 14 billion lei, (300,000 euro), http://www.infonews.ro/node/71311 , accessed May 29th 2012

CEU eTD Collection33M e a n w h i l e , i m p o r t a n t f i l m m a k e r s d e c i d e d t o c o n ti n u e t h e i r c a r e e r s o n t h e i r o w n o r a t
other institutions. Stefan Gladin chose to move abroad, Copel Moscu and Ovidiu Bose Pa útină16
m o v e d t o t h e N a t i o n a l T e l e v i s i o n , F l o r i n I e p a n w o r k e d f o r a w h i l e a t t h e p r i v a t e t e l e v i s i o n
company ProTV, while Lauren Ġiu Damian was appointed manager of the new established
institution controlled by the Ministry of Culture, Video Publishing House. Nevertheless, almost
a l l o f t h e m d i r e c t e d o n e o r m o r e d o c u m e n t a r i e s i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e R e v o l u t i o n : G l a d i n
directed Sa facem totul /Let’s do everything , a documentary about the contrast between the
official communist propaganda and the images from Bucharest, Copel Moscu investigated the
life of the Romanians that emigrated in Germany in Am ales libertatea /We chose freedom , while
Paútină was among the first to analyzed the events from December in Timisoara 89 , in a series of
i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t h e w i t n e s s e s . D a m i a n e x h i b i t e d h i s d o c u m e n t a r i e s c e n s o r e d b e f o r e t h e
Revolution and directed his first feature film Drumul cainilor /The Road of the Dogs and
Ramanerea/ The Abidance in 1992-1992, while Iepan, a generation younger, directed for Sahia
Zece minute cu clasa muncitoare/Ten minutes with the working class in 1995.
In conclusion, each political change brought a new management to the Studio, which may
have affected the filmmakers who did not want to pursue this path. The strategies were changed
according to the political interests, while the managers were appointed according to the
ideological and political affiliations. These changes affected the cohesion of the Studio and were
one of the explanations for the incoming failure. Second, by using its economic and social
capital, Sahia survived for a while, but the measures taken seemed to depend more on external
factors rather than on a planned strategy. Nevertheless, after 1995, the Studio failed to produce
any documentaries to be selected at Film Festivals and decreased its number of employees from
16 An useful interview was conducted with Pa útină by Adina Br ădeanu: “Toate filmele mele au fost exerci Ġii pentru
acel lungmetraj care trebuia s ă vină” [“All my films were exercises for the feature film that was supposed to come”
Observator cultural, 319 (2006)

CEU eTD Collection34almost 400 to only 2 employees in 2001. It would not be an overstatement to conclude that the
changes from 1990, 1996 and 2000 rather than stopping the descendant trajectory of the Studio,
it affected negatively the destiny of the Studio.
Documentaries about the Revolution
Analyzing the Soviet film industry, Faraday asserts that “all forms of cultural production
are influenced by the immediate social context within which creative workers operate [which]
influences the artistic goals of creative workers, through the operation of formal or informal
system of selection, evaluation and distribution.”17 This is also relevant for the Romanian
documentary industry immediately after 1989. One of the strategies followed by the Sahia Studio
to adjust to the market was the production of films dedicated to the Revolution or to alternatives
histories from Communism. The Revolution caught the filmmakers in the middle of the events:
probably the most important of them, the discussion between the Iulian Vlad (the chief of the
Securitate ) and Stefan Gu úă (the Commander of the Military Forces) from December 22nd 1989,
recorded by Adrian Sârbu was already mentioned earlier. Sârbu quickly realized that he could
benefit from his participation at the events and broke away from Sahia, the studio not being able
to secure a stable future.
The first documentaries exhibited after the Revolution were the so-called arrested movies
produced before 1989. As Damian recalls
“For the while, the films that were exhibited were the censored films of my generation
which were stopped in the years 1987-1990….For two-three years the Film Festivals at Krakow18,
Oberhausen19, a n d L e i p z i g20 r e c e i v e d t h e s e f i l m s a s ‘ a r r e s t e d ’ f i l m s w h i c h p r e s e n t e d a s o c i a l
17 Faraday, Revolt…, 12.18Krakow Film Festival , official website http://www.krakowfilmfestival.pl/en/ , accessed May 29th, 201219International Short Film Festival Oberhausen , more about the festival at http://www.kurzfilmtage.de/nc/en/59th-
international-short-film-festival-oberhausen-02-07052013.html , accessed May 29th, 201220Dok Leipzig Festival official website: http://www.dok-leipzig.de/home/?lang=en , accessed May 29th, 2012

CEU eTD Collection35reality absolutely intolerable in Romania between 1982 and 1989; actually the hardest moments
were 1986-1989, when the censorship became absolutely apocalyptic.”21
Among them I would recall Cota zero /Elevation zero ,Actiunea 7000/Action 7000 ,Maria
7ănase22, by Lauren Ġiu Damian, Intr-o zi ca oricare alta /Just another day by Copel Moscu, Eu
trebuia sa joc Hamlet/I was supposed to play Hamlet by Ovidiu Bose Pa útină and many others.
F rom h i s c a te g ory I wi l l ref e r to on e of th e m ost a c c l ai m ed ‘ a rre s te d ” d oc um en ta ry , Panc by
Sabina Pop, awarded by the festivals at Oberhausen and Bordeaux (1990, 1991).23 The film
follows the story of a theatre band from the village Panc (Transylvania). Between two harvests,
the members find time to prepare theatre plays and go in tournaments around the country.
Apparently not offensive for the Communist ideology, the censors decided to ban the movie
b e c a u s e t h e v i l l a g e w a s i n t h e p l a n of ‘ s y s t e m a t i z a ti o n ’ a n d a n y m em o ry of i t s p a s t w a s n o t
welcomed. Basing only on the interviews with the peasants (who are trying to follow their dream
and become actors, although they barely can read or write) and no voice-over, Sabina Pop goes
beyond the type of propaganda documentaries attached to Sahia.
Besides the ‘arrested’ films, the filmmakers purchased in the recording24 and the
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e R e v ol u ti o n , t a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f t h e f a c t t h a t S a h i a w a s a m on g t h e f e w
owners of technical equipment for recording (video or ‘thin film’). Therefore documentaries
such as De Crăciun ne-am luat ra Ġia de libertate/On Christmas Day we got our ratio of freedom
by CăWălina Fernoag ă and Cornel Mihalache, Ziua cea mai scurt ă/The shortest day by ùtefan
Gladin, Procesul /The Trial by Mircea Moldovan etc.25 w e r e t h e f i r s t t o b e p r o d u c e d a n d
21 LaurenĠiu Damian, interviewed by the author, Bucharest, April 21st, 201222Maria Tănase – Povestea cenzurata /Maria Tănase – The censored story, available online at
http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-film/maria-tanase-povestea-cenzurata-documentar , accessed May 24th
23 Sabina Pop, http://www.cncinema.abt.ro/Personalitati-Detalii.aspx?prn_ID=prn-305 , accessed May 20th, 201224 More details about the participation of Sahia at the Revolution see Mitulescu, Decebal; Chesu, Doru; Popescu,
Mircea D. Filmele revolutiei : [interviu] / cu Decebal Mitulescu, Doru Chesu, Mircea D. Popescu, realizat de
Georgeta Rauta. – Convorbire cu 3 regizori de la studioul "Sahia" , Democratia. – Anul 1, nr. 2, 29 ian. 1990. – p. 2.25 An exhaustive list of these films in C ălin Căliman, The history… , 400.

CEU eTD Collection36exhibited in the cinema halls. I will analyze two of productions from 1990: Timisoara 89 by
Ovidiu Bose Pa útină and Jurnalul liber /The free newsreel with footage recorded by almost all the
documentarists of the studio.
The former, dedicated to the memory of the Revolutionists from Timisoara, presents the
witness’ testimony of the events from Timisoara and it is marked by the intention to know the
truth about the murderers during the army intervention. Either by a juxtaposition between the
filmed and the sound, but most of the time by a complete separation between the testimonies and
the photos shown, with no voice-over and using slow-motion, Pa útină’s movie has, as film critic
Eugenia Vod ă noticed, “the will of style,”26 and differentiates significantly from the propaganda
documentaries, marked by a different approach to the mode of representation and to
documentary’s aim.
Damian mentions that the film “was awarded at Neubrandenburg and won the Award of
the Union of the Filmmakers in 1992, plus [my note-“the Great Award from the Documentary
Film Festival from”] Costine úti. The documentary was selected at the Grand Gala from Tokyo,
where the best documentaries of 1992 were invited.”27 However, the movie was screened in the
cinema halls in 1993, 3 years after of its production. Film critic Eugenia Vod ă recalls this
moment, in the context in which the culprits from the massacres from Timisoara were judged and
considered not guilty.
“What does it mean to have an uninspired screening, or just apathy, which deals
w i t h a f i l m – a s p e c i a l d o c u m e n t a r y , m o r e p r e c i o u s t h a t t h e o t h e r s – a s j u s t a n o t h e r
movie…Unfortunately, the empty cinema hall says a lot about a certain state of mind of
the audience, about the orientation of the interest towards other subject than Timisoara-
December ‘89. This lack of interest signals the moral disaster. If the movie had appeared
on screens in 90, when it was made, definitely the cinema hall would have been full. If it
26 Eugenia Vod ă in Lauren Ġiu Damian, Despre documentar…si inca ceva in plus [“Something extra on
documentary” ], (Bucharest: Editura Tehnic ă, 2003), 203.27 Damian, Despre… 203.

CEU eTD Collection37had appeared in 91, when the people still hoped, it would have been something else. But
it appeared in 1993, in a context of skepticism and reluctance.”28
I could not find out the reasons behind the delay, but the critic mentioned one of the most
i m p or ta n t f e a tu re s of th e d oc um en ta ry , n am el y to d e al wi th i ss u es th a t c an ch an g e th e p ub l i c
opinion.
The second documentary was actually a collective work of the operators and filmmakers
in order to show aspects from the Revolution to the foreign audience: narrated in English, the
film is set at the border between newsreel, TV reportage and documentary.
The Free Newsreel , namely The Romanian Revolution from 1989 represented for Sahia
Studio the “Beginning of the End.” Awaited at the Festival from Berlin from 1990 by a full
cinema hall had a spectacular press conference. It was not a masterpiece of the documentary film.
It did not have aesthetic values. But it had life and drama and was made by some individuals
“released from the nightmare” and who took after so many years “the ratio of liberty”. The hall
breathed at the same time with the movie, flinched at the clatter of the machineguns and watched
helpless at the burning museums.29
From the footage that this 30 minute documentary was produced, director ùerban
Comănescu made an extended version Desprinderea /Breaking away that was shown at the end
of 1990. The footage presents the destruction of churches in Bucharest, images of Ceausescu’s
villa and its ‘capturing’ by the revolutionaries, interviews with the victims of the shooting, while
the leit-motif of the movie is an astronaut who represents the opening quote from Nietzsche “No
matter how far away would go, one will never reach somewhere else than its own self.”
After the initial moment of enthusiasm, the production and distribution did not keep up
with the challenges, such as the competition with the televisions companies, the diffusion of
video tapes. As film critic C ălin Căliman remarked in 2000:
“Sahia produced, in the first year after the Revolution, 65 films. That very few were
shown, that is another problem. But the documentary film remained connected during 1990 to the
28 Eugenia Vod ă in Damian Despre…, 203. In the same article she mentions that, for the screening of the movie, in
the cinema hall minum 15 persons were obliged to enter. As there were only 2, she was obliged to buy 14 tickets so
that she can see the movies.29 Damian, Despre…, 199.

CEU eTD Collection38“hot reality”, and maybe one year or two afterwards. But then? Paraphrasing the title of the
documentary “On Christmas we got our ratio of liberty”, the Romanian documentary, at the level
of its single specialized studio got its ‘ratio of liberty’ and kept silenced.”30
However, these evaluations should be qualified. First, the Sahia Studio should not be
underestimated and judged only as the propaganda studio of the Communist Party. Besides the
propaganda documentaries which were never contested by the managers Aristide Moldovan,
Virgil Calotescu and Pantelie Tu Ġuleasa31, the quick reaction in the first days of Revolution and
afterwards shows the tensions between a new generation of filmmakers who are ready to
experiment (as in the case of Damian or Pa útină) and an old one who searches for a strategy of
staying in the trajectory. Second, the split between institutions and individuals is necessary again
at this point. Indeed, there is no doubt that the institution was politicized before (and even after
1989), but this could not be said about all the filmmakers from the structures of the Studio.
Therefore, it is hard to determine if the documentaries produced after 1989 about the Revolution
represented an individual or an institutional intention.
Analyzing the cause of the collapse of the Sahia Studio, Adina Br ădeanu focuses first on
the macro-economic factors, mainly on the “withdrawal of the state monopoly from the film
production and distribution,”32 but also on the negative memory of Sahia in post-communism:
Once 1989 was over, the memory of Sahia, of its attached community, and, by extension,
of documentary practice itself, became negatively charged…ultimately, Sahia had to ‘die’ on a
discursive and symbolic level in order to allow the film community to separate from the past and
to move forward in the hope of a better and allegedly clearer (political) identity.33
However, it is not sure who ‘prepared’ that death of the Studio. Damian offered another
explanation of the failure naming three factors that led to the collapse from 2000: the exodus of
30 Căliman, Istoria…, 40031 Pantelie Tu Ġuleasa, In sluja Pre úedintelui [“Serving the President”], available online at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46143440/In-Slujba-Presedintelui , accessed May 24th, 2012.32 Brădeanu, “Death” and documentary: Memory and Film Practice in Post-communist Romania”, June 2007,
available online at http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/6/bradeanu.shtml , accessed Feb 17th2012.33 Brădeanu, “Death” and documentary….

CEU eTD Collection39filmmakers (due to the lack of a coherent strategy) and to the fact that the Studio became a
“depository of the political events.”34 Mentioning this last point, Damian recalls the years 1996-
1998 as reference moments when the Studio involve in the political life and determined the
filmmakers to draw back. The third explanation belongs to Decebal Mitulescu (a former manager
of Sahia in 1990 and president of CNC 2000-2004) who considered that, in the case of Sahia ‘the
state proved to be an incompetent manager compared to the private investors.”35
Finally, director Florin Iepan (an employee at Sahia until 1996) brings into discussion
another cause of the collapse of the Studio which can be explained by the technological changes
such as the V.C.R and the ‘recording camera which became more and more used. Iepan claims
that, after 1989, “a sort of caritas36 of the documentary movie was created: any amateur who got
a camera ‘directed’ a documentary. In a few years, the Romanian documentary was
compromised.37 Iepan addresses one issue that was also mentioned by Solomon38, namely that
Sahia did not change its technology, preferring the thin film which slowed down the production
in comparison with the televisions which were more opened to use the video. Solomon explained
that his first choice after graduation from the University of Drama and Cinema was the Visual
Art Foundation both for the people who worked there and for its technical equipment.39 A s a
direct consequence, his first film Strigăt in timpan40(1993) and Cronica de la Zurich [“The
Chronicles from Zurich”] (1996) were experimental video documentaries. The authorities
34 Damian, interview by the author, Bucharest, April 21st, 2012.35Actorii lor úi caii nostri [Their actors and our horses-About co-productions ], available online at
http://www.eghid.ro/Actualitatea/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=551 , 2005, accessed May 29th 2012.36 Reference to the Caritas institution in Romania which promised high profit with little investment.37 Florin Iepan, “Documentarul romanesc nu a murit, dar a plecat in exil,” [“The Romanian documentary is not dead,
but gone in exile”], Formula As , Nr 670 (2005), available online at http://www.formula-as.ro/2005/670/lumea-
romaneasca-24/florin-iepan-6060 , accessed May 29th, 2012. Iepan raises an important, but less research issue,
concerning the distribution of films by video tapes and its impact on the Romanian market. Unfortunately, I did not
encounter any study in this direction to challenge Iepan’s perspective.38 Alexandru Solomon, interviewed by the author, April 26th, 2012.39 Alexandru Solomon, interviewed by the author, April 26th, 2012.40 Alexandru Solomon, Radu Igaszag, Strigat in timpan /Scream in ear drum , produced by Fundatia Arte Vizuale ,
available online http://docuart.ro/documentare/strigat-in-timpan , accessed May 31st, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection40transferred the competences and the practice of using video to the Video Publishing House (with
which Solomon collaborated at his first film), while Sahia continued using the thin film.
Interpreted within the theoretical approach discussed so far, in the long run, Sahia failed
t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f i t s e c o n o m i c c a p i t a l , d u e t o t h e p r o b l e m s i n r e c e i v i n g t h e r e n t f r o m
MediaPro Pictures . In addition, it could not screen its films in the cinema halls in order to assure
another type of income. Neither did with the social capital (transformed in political capital by the
participation and the election campaign). Instead of securing a financial basis, it aggravated the
exodus of cultural capital: the filmmakers continued their careers outside Sahiafilm. The studio
could not adjust its trajectory to capitalism due to the impossibility of transferring its capital in
successful documentaries for guarantee its continuation and prevent its ‘symbolic death’ and
changing its ‘negative memory’ as propaganda machine for the political power.
Distribution and audience
As I mention earlier, the problem of distribution was in the hands of Romaniafilm ,
renamed in 1990 the department of the cinema network and the distribution of movies , which
continued in 1990-1991 to screen documentaries in the cinema halls. However, this practice
came to an end in 1995. The responsibility of exhibiting the films belonged now to the to the
television companies because of the lack of interest from the audience and from the distributors
much more inclined to show Hollywood movies rather than documentaries for economic reasons.
As the television companies had their specialized departments in the production of reportage, the
documentaries produced outside the television studios were neglected and were not supported. In
connection with the different understandings of the documentaries, the producers from the
National Television took the documentaries for reportage which could have been produced with
less financial support.

CEU eTD Collection41I n a n a r t i c l e f r o m 2 0 0 7 , V i o r i c a B u c u r a n a l y z e d t h e r e a s o n s t h e d i s t r i b u t o r s f a i l e d t o
‘exploit’ the genre, asserting that the length of the film (short and medium) does not encourage
the exhibition in cinema halls. On the other hand, the television companies used the
documentaries to fill the empty program slots and “broadcasted at totally inappropriate hours for
their possible audience.”41 During the nineties, the documentaries could not even be exhibited at
the film festivals in Romania: “the festivals that we had before 1990 did not function any more.
Costineúti was over. There were other festivals as well of ranked B, C category. I can hardly say
that the documentary benefited from an organized distribution in Romania.”42
In s tr on g c on n ec ti on wi th th e di s tri b u ti on an d e x h i bi ti on , th e s am e c ri ti c e x am i n ed th e
Romanian audience of documentaries, and divided it in three major categories. First there a
“majority who – ab initio – dismisses the documentary – for them, movie means just an escape
from daily life, an adventure and entertainment,”43 second, there is an audience that watches the
documentaries in the cinema halls before 1989, who considered the genre as propaganda and
avoids the genre and third, a young audience who seek the films at festivals. On the other hand,
referring to the audience of TheGreat Communist Bank Robbery, Solomon mentioned that the
film was shown at the National Television and hand a rating of 7.2%, situating on the third place
at a nati onal level way ahead of soap operas of other TV seri als. He contends that there was a
41 Viorica Bucur, “Nev ăzut, Necunoscut!” [“Unseen, unknown”], Dilema Veche , 188 (2007), available online at
http://arhiva.dilemaveche.ro/index.php?nr=188&cmd=articol&id=6577 , accessed May 29th, 2012.42 LaurenĠiu Damian, interview by the author, Bucharest April 21st, 2012.43 Viorica Bucur, “Nev ăzut, Necunoscut!” [“Unseen, unknown”], Dilema Veche , 188 (2007) More detailed: “For
the first category, movie means just an escape from daily life, an adventure and entertainment. It wants to cry, to
laugh or raise his adrenaline. It is the audience of soap opera, comedies and adventure movies. There is an audience
something more educated, but still refractory to documentary: it was formed from elder persons, most of the times
intellectuals, still intoxicated by documentaries (most of them propaganda movies) that, during communism, were
screened in cinema halls […] or invaded the TV. As a consequence, now it avoids documentaries […] And, finally,
we speak about another kind of public, a minor public, cinephil (mainly youth, pupils, students) who love and
especially appreciate the values of documentaries as genre and seek it at the gale de film or special screening
(organized in cinema halls of cultural institutes…) or at festivals (some of them specialized – as the one from
Sfântul Gheorghe – Covasna, or the anthropologic from Sibiu). As I said, this audience seeks documentary film. But
it must be informed where they could find it.

CEU eTD Collection42public interested in documentaries which provides good audience for channels such as Discovery
and National Geographic which can be attracted by good documentaries, “not as the pathetic
ones from the eighties”44 If we agree with Solomon that there was (at least in 2004) an audience
of documentaries but which is connected to the television, we can explain the collapse of Sahia
as a failure to collaborate successfully with the television companies.
In conclusion, the of ‘circle’ production – distribution – audience has hardly worked after
1989 due both to the lack of interest of the audience in a genre considered propaganda, but also
to the lack of strategy in distribution. Combined with the decline of the state-owned company
w h o w a s re s p on si bl e wi th th e ex h i bi ti on of th e f i l m s , th e d oc u m en ta ri e s h a d l i ttl e ro om t o b e
seen and appreciated.
Conclusions
Evolving from a state-owned studio to a independent company, but highly dependent on
the Department of Public Information, Sahia Studio decreased its production of documentaries
and did not succeeded on the national market, not to mention the European Festivals. Although
in the first years after 1989, the Studio succeeded in presenting the audience films about the
Revolution, thus adapting to a certain ‘demand’ of the public, the strategy couldn’t be followed
in the following years. Contrary to my expectations, the Studio demonstrated that it did not
adjust to the changes in a ‘path-dependent’ way and proved that the documentaries can respond
to a certain interest from the public and the can follow an evolutionary model dominated by
mobility of directors and the variety of funding sources. However, the attempt from 1998 to
adjust by to the conditions of capitalism through renting its locations to the newly formed
44 Alexandru Solomon, “Reflextul capitalismului salbatic”, [“The reflex of savage capitalism”] Dilema Veche, 188
(2007), online at http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=5043 , accessed May 31st, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection43MediaPro Pictures Company proved to be a failure on the long-run, as the rents have not been
fully paid, not even in 2004. Sahia Studio failed to produce films that would really become
competitive in the European documentary milieu. Probably the most important cause was
determined by the departure of skilful directors in their search for autonomy, marking the
impossibility of transferring its social (political) and economic capital in cultural capital. The
memory of the institution was still connected with the Communist propaganda.

CEU eTD Collection44Chapter 3: Independent companies and filmmakers
Background
The present chapter investigates the post-socialist trajectory followed by the documentary
filmmakers who succeeded in the European scene in 2004, triumphs marked by the official
selections at numerous international festivals and the winning of important awards. I chose as a
representative moment the “International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam” (IDFA)1 from
2004. The official selection of documentaries directed by the Romanian filmmakers received
international acclaims and announced a fresh breath in the Romanian documentary industry. The
documentaries Marele Jaf Comunist/The Great Communist Bank Robbery (Alexandru
Solomon) ,2NascuĠi la comand ă: DecreĠeii/Children of the Decree (Florin Iepan) ,3Blestemul
ariciului/The Curse of the Hedgehog (Dumitru Budral ă),4 and Podul/The Bridge (Ileana
Stănculescu)5 herald a new turnaround in the Romanian cinema. Moreover, the latter won the
First Appearance Award , for the best debut, one of the four awards offered by the jury. To this
subjective selection of filmmakers at least one important name can be added, namely the film
director and producer Thomas Ciulei6, whose documentary from 2001 Asta e/Europolis shares
the same features as the other documentaries in terms of production, distribution and financial
support.
1 IDFA is often named as “Cannes of the Documentaries”, representing the most prestigious documentary film
festival in Europe. More details about the festival at http://www.idfa.nl/industry.aspx , accessed May 7th, 2012.2The Great Communist Bank Robbery, available online at http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/3163/Marele-Jaf-
Comunist–The-Great-Communist-Bank-Robbery- , accessed on May, 7th2012.3The Children of the Decree, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w9p7ck3lbY , accessed May,
7th, 2012.4The Curse of Hedgehog, available at the Open Society Archives film archive
http://fa.osaarchivum.org/filmlibrary/browse/director?starting=B&val=80379 , accessed May, 7th, 2012.5The Bridge, available online at http://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=d33c482b-fe4f-4c82-9a25-
71c3a06732ca , accessed May 7th, 2012.6Europolis, available online at http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-cultura/asta-e-documentar , accessed May 7th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection45I will argue in this chapter that the success of these films was determined by the
directors’ refusal to engage with the state-financed documentary studios and by their choice to
s t a r t p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s i n o r d e r t o f u l f i l l t h e i r a i m s . T h e r e a s o n s b e h i n d t h e r e j e c t i o n a r e
twofold: on the one hand, the directors did not engage with the type of documentaries promoted
b y t h e s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s ( i n t h e c a s e o f I e p a n o r S o l o m o n ) , a n d a s p i r e d f o r t h e a u t o n o m y of
dealing in different mode with what they understood practicing documentary work consisted of.
On the other hand, they gradually understood that, in order to do so, they needed more
than a cultural autonomy and embarked upon the adaptation to the new requirements of the post-
soci al i st real i ti es. F or ex am pl e, Sol om on con ti n ued to w ork a t f eature film s i n order to h av e a
financial basis, but simultaneously developed individual projects supported by Visual Arts
Foundation. He explains the reasons of not collaborating with Sahia or Video Publishing House:
I considered Sahia as something belonging to the past and couldn’t go on anymore. A
state-owned structure to produce after a plan seemed to be something out of date…I didn’t want
t o h i r e a s e m p l o y e e a t S a h i a o r a t B u f t e a ;7 In addition, the Video Publishing House tried to
borrow from Sahia’s experience with an organized plan… documentaries can not be directed
between 9.00 and 18.00.8
This adaptation materialized in the founding of private companies and in the appeal to
the growing interest of the European institutions in the Romanian documentary industry.
However, the cooperation with the Romanian institutions seemed inevitable and, therefore, a
com pl ete separati on f rom th em woul d h ave b een i m possi bl e. How essen ti al was th e im pact of
the socioeconomic changes at a European and national level in the development of a parallel
industry will remain a recurrent question during the course of the analysis.
F ol l owi ng th e l ogi c of th e previ ous ch apter, wh ere I an aly zed th e ch an ges th at m arked
the state funded institutions, I will present how the documentary filmmakers developed their
7 Buftea was the town nearby Bucharest where all the feature film Studios were located main (feature) film Studio.
After 1998 was acquired by MediaPro Pictures.8 Alexandru Solomon, interviewed by the author, April 27th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection46projects and what was relation between them and the state-owned companies and later, to the
European programs and television companies. I will conclude that their success from 2004 was
determined by an accumulation of cultural capital after they received the education credentials
from the European institutions such as the Discovery Campus Master School (Iepan, Solomon)
or b y s tu dy i n g a t G e rm an Un i v e rsi ti e s (Ci ul ei an d S t ăn c ul es c u ). Th e c ul tu ral c a pi tal pl ay ed a
decisive role in questioning the hierarchy of the film industry, and forced the institutions that
dominated it (CNC) to finance their productions.
However, there is also a series of disadvantages: both Iepan and Solomon signaled a
problem, namely, a certain framework in which they had to direct their movies. Iepan
emphasizes that “the documentary is mainly dependent on the television and this happens
because of financial support. The extensive number of televisions […] imposes certain film
recipes that restrict the liberty of expression and the originality of the directors.”9 In addition he
added that “the film that I loved the most was “Hotel Ci úmigiu,” (his project during his studies)
because “at that time I was free. Everything that followed until nowadays was a compromise.”10
S ol om on a d d e d a t th e en d of th e i n te rv i e w (wi th ou t m e as ki n g an y ki n d of ex pl an a ti on ) th a t:
“Due to production reasons and to the fact that the financial supporters of my films are important
foreign televisions, I had a reflex to make a show out of documentaries. This makes it far from
theCinéma vérité practiced by these great names.”11
Nevertheless, the contact with the European Programs could not have been possible
without a change in legislation. Although there no specific stipulation about the documentary,
9 Florin Iepan, dialogue with Mihai Fulger, in “Cultura”, 48 (2006), available online at
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=7029 , accessed May 8th, 2012.10 Florin Iepan, interview for Fishington Post , March 2012, available online at
http://www.fishingtonpost.ro/2012/03/13012-invitatul-saptamanii-florin-iepan/#.T8ZdQtWiPmI , accessed May 30th,
2012.11 Solomon, interviewed by the author, Bucharest, April 27th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection47the law from 1997 established the conditions under which the Romanian producers can
participate at co-productions and mentioned for the first time the importance of connecting to the
EURIMAGES Program. Thus, article 28 (c) stipulated that “as for co-productions, the Romanian
side has to participate with at least 51% from the budget of the film, without including the costs
for script, music, staging, producers and main characters, with the exception of the productions
made in the programs established by the Council of Europe, European Commission and the
institutions dependent on them”12, w h i l e t h e ( l a s t ) a r t i c l e s t i p u l a t e d t h a t “ w i t h t h e a i m o f
E u r o p e a n i n t e g r a t i o n , O N C t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e M i n i s t e r o f F o r e i g n A f f a i rs a n d t h e M i n i s t ry o f
Finance will act in 90 days…to the affiliation of Romania to the specialized programs of the
European Union – EURIMAGES, as well as to other international institutions and programs.”13
The law 67/1997 was issued on the background of the political change from 1996, and it was
elaborated by filmmaker Radu Gabrea, manager of the The National Office of Cinematography .
The political change in 2000 announced a new management: the ONC was reorganized
and renamed by CNC and Sergiu Nicolaescu (the new head of the CNC) issued a new law which
re-organized the cinema (Law 630/2002). Alexandru Solomon mentioned he produced his film
Painea exilului/The Bread of Exile , (2002) with the partial funding of the CNC and had to make
two versions: a shorter version (because the law stipulated that the documentaries should not last
more than 20min) and longer one for the film festivals. Moreover, Tudor Giugiu, one of the co-
producers of The Great Communist Bank Robbery mentioned that “we are lucky that we gone
over the period the law of cinema of Nicolaescu who assimilated this genre with the films that
should not last more than 20 min.”14 However, the law had some positive aspects, mentioned by
12 Law 67/October 24th, 1997, available online at http://www.jurisprudenta.com/lege/ordonanta-urgenta-67-1997-
qezvm/ , accessed May 30th, 2012.13 Law 67/October 24th, 1997.14 Tudor Giurgiu, “Prin Oglinda” [“Through the mirror”], Dilema Veche , 188 (2007).

CEU eTD Collection48Ada Solomon (Solomon’s wife and producer of the film): “our great luck that we had in
financing this movie – which has from CNC only 120 000 Euros from 400.000 – was the
enactment of the new law of cinema which allows you to access a series of alternative sources in
the moment when you won the CNC contest.”15
It i s l egi tim ate to ask a t thi s poi n t wh at was th e traj ectory f ol l owed by th e fi rst pri v ate
companies. Reacting to the social changes, the first companies developed after 1989 were mainly
interested in feature films rather than documentaries. The few exceptions were AGERFILM; the
company of film director Nicolae M ărgineanu (set in 1991) which produced both feature and
documentary movies and the “Visual Art Foundation” (set in 1992), the only company
specialized in documentaries and animation film, led by Vivi Dr ăgan Vasile and Velvet
Moraru.16 But they could not satisfy the demand of the directors eager to start new projects. This
led the way, by the end of the first post-communist decade, to the directors’ choice to found their
own companies: Florin Iepan established Subcultura in 1997, Thomas Ciulei founded Europolis
in 1999, while Solomon (who produced his films as Visual Arts Foundation) grounded HI-FILM
Production17 in the early 2000s, specialized not only in documentaries but also advertising or
feature films. Besides these companies, a special mention regards the ASTRA FILM FESTIVAL
(AFF) SIBIU18, a film festival organized from 1993 dedicated to anthropological film from
Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, the Visual Anthropology Foundation produced Budral ă’s
documentary. An important support came from European funds, especially from the MEDIA
Desk program, but it would (later) be financially supported by the authorities. All these
initiatives have in common the disappointment with the state programs or institutions, such as
15 Ada Solomon, “Intre timp facem servicii” [“Meanwhile, we produce services”], Dilema Veche , 320 (2010).16 They have also produced “The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu”, directed by Andrei Ujica in 2010.17 Official website http://www.hifilm.ro/ .18 More details on http://www.astrafilm.ro/despre-aff.aspx .

CEU eTD Collection49the law that limited the length on the documentary, the transformation of Sahia into a
governmental institution or the difficulty in accessing the funding. Nonetheless, we can not
speak about a complete separation from the state institutions. Some of the directors worked in
parallel at feature movies or at the national television and applied for grants at the CNC even
before the protests from 2002-2004.
Screening for Amsterdam: The directors and their films
The documentaries taken into consideration for analysis can not be easily separated from
the directors’ previous films. Solomon started his career in documentaries in 1991 with by
collaborating with the Video Publishing House for producing an experimental film and dedicated
a couple of movies to the Romanian avant-garde: Strigat in timpan /Shout in the ear drum (1993),
Duo pentru Paoloncel si Petronom/Duo for Paoloncel and Petronom (1994), Cronica de la
Zurich /The Chronicle from Zurich (1996) and to a Romanian Jewish photographer Josif
Bergman, Omul cu o mie de ochi /The man with one thousand eyes most of them produced by the
Fundatia Arte Vizuale. In 2002, while working at The Great Communist Bank Robbery, he
received support from ONC and produced The Bread of Exile about Romanian playwright
Caragiale (self-exiled in Berlin in 1906).
Florin Iepan started his career at Sahia, moved to the private television MediaPro
Pictures in 1996 and worked at the National Television. Meanwhile he founded SubCultura ,
and directed before 2004 The One, the Only, the Real Tarzan , a documentary about Johnny
W ei ssm ull er, th e worl d cl ass swi mm er an d th e actor wh o pl ay ed Tarzan . The Children of the
Decree was produced by WESTEND FILM & TV PRODUKTION in co production with ZDF,
AVRO, in association with ARTE, YLE, ORF and the National Television, supported by Media

CEU eTD Collection50Pl u s an d H e ss en In v es t F i l m .19 He participated at Discovery Campus Master School in 2001
with the project The children of the decree.
As for Thomas Ciulei, he completed his studies in Germany (Munchen) and New York
where his father, Liviu Ciulei (renowned director and film critic, awarded at Cannes 1965)
emigrated in 1988. Before Europolis, Thomas Ciulei directed Gratian (1995), a documentary
about a ‘werewolf’ from Transylvania and one about a Romanian actress Lena Constante (1997).
Similar, completing her studies in Germany, Ileana St ănculescu established strong connection
with the documentary networks from Europe and managed to find finance her first film. The only
exception from this group was Dumitru Budral ă did not gain its educational credentials abroad
and produced his previous documentary La drum (O n th e r oa d , 1 9 9 7 ) i n c on di ti on s si m i l a r t o
The Curse of the Hedgehog. Therefore, the “Amsterdam moment” could be understood as a
symbolic event rather than a surprising rupture in the career of the directors.
Intentions and Production
With the intention of finding a beginning of the “Amsterdam moment” a reference to
Thomas Ciulei is inevitable, especially due to chronological reasons. Released in 2001,
Europolis represents one of the first materialized projects of the private companies. The initial
intentions of the movie were “to analyze the new social classes that appeared after 1989: the
unemployed, the capitalist, the liberal.”20 But the intentions of the movie were quickly shifted,
due to the changes in the social structures: “I found characters for these figures, but, when I went
19 More details about the film at http://www.westendtv.com/42.0.html?&L=1 .20 Interview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005) http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-
documentarul-ca-autoportret/ , accessed May 9th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection51t o f i l m th em , th e un em pl oy e d g o t a j ob , th e c a pi ta l i s t w e n t b an k ru p t.”21 In this case, the idea
moved to the concept of generation22, depicting three generations of inhabitants of the Danube
Delta.
The film was co-produced by Ciulei’s own company ( Europolis ), together with ZDF and
the National Office of Cinematography23. In an interview with film critic Mihai Fulger, Ciulei
e x p l a i n e d t h e r e a s o n f o r d o i n g s o . H i s a n s w e r r e p r e s e n t s a m a t t e r – o f – f a c t c o n d i t i o n o f t h e
Romanian documentary film producer:
“I created my own production company in 1999, mainly to produce my own movies. I
don’t know if Europolis will ever produce anything more than my movies and of other few
director, because if I dedicate to the production, I can’t make my own films. Even so, by not
having a producer, I spend a lot of time with production problems. This is an everlasting problem.
in Romania there are no producers, in general, and no producers of documentary films, in
particular; actually this is a problem that a worldwide level. That is why the directors make their
own production companies: to access funding and working a film alone. Producers like me are
named in German „rucksack –producers” ( Rucksackproduzenten ), because they carry a laptop in
their backpack which represents all their office. This is not my job, but I am forced to do it.”24
In addition, Ciulei mentions that “the salaries are very low”, the crew from televisions (in case of
a c o – p r o d u c t i o n ) “ t e n d t o w o r k e i g h t h o u r s / p e r d a y ” , a n d “ t h e r e a r e n o c a m e r a o p e r a t o r s a n d
sound technicians specialized in documentaries.”25
Solomon’s The Great Communist Bank Robbery represents one of the best examples of
the cooperation between the European programs and televisions companies, the (partial)
financial support of the CNC and the private companies of distribution. Solomon’s intended to
21 Interview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005) http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-
documentarul-ca-autoportret/ , accessed May 9th, 2012.22 The title of the movie refers to one of the last lines of the main character, a mixture of surviving according to the
laws of nature and conciliation with the tough destiny, but also a reference to the “real” image of the Danube Delta.
As for the poster of the film, the connection between nature and human is made by a young proud man holding a
huge bird, a metaphor which symbolizes the stressing of the “reality” of the connection and the function of image as
representative for the life in the Delta.23 Established in 1997, the ONC changed its name in CNC in 2001.24 Interview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005) http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-
documentarul-ca-autoportret/ , accessed May 9th, 2012.25 Interview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005) http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-
documentarul-ca-autoportret/ , accessed May 9th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection52bring into public discussion one un-known event happened in 1959, namely the robbery of
National Bank and confront the witnesses and the characters who participated at the events with
each other, in the attempt of finding the robbers’ motivation such an action. On the other, the
documentary tries to deconstruct another documentary26 produced immediately after the robbery,
a product of the Communist propaganda. This led Solomon to the discourse about the role of
documentary and the acknowledgement that, despite the claim for objectivity, every
documentary depends on the perspective and the sources which are used.
Produced in almost four years, Solomon’s film was considered “one of the most
intelligent movies (documentaries and feature films) ever made in Romania; an investigation of
History, made with the “weapons” of the film – a sort of “image against image”.27 The project of
“The Robbery…” started to materialize in august 2000, when a first synopsis was ready, but the
major step was represented by the participation at a workshop in 200128 at “Discovery Campus
Master School.”29 Solomon underlined the importance of the training, especially because of the
pitching session at the end where one could sell the project. Following this, two major
te l ev i si on s , A rte a n d B BC , sh ow e d th ei r i n te re s t i n p rod u c i n g th e fi l m , a s w el l as “ L es F i l m s
D’ici”, (a French company) and France 2. The film was not considered worthy of financing by
the Romanian Producers: the televisions did not engage with it, only the private producer Tudor
Giurgiu (from Libra Film) sustained the project. Initially, the Centre for National Cinema
rejected the project of funding it, but after the lobby of the foreign producers, the decision was
26The Reenactment , (Virgil Calotescu, Sahia Studio, 1959).27 Alex Leo ùerban, “RPR face ordine – Marele Jaf communist”, [RPR makes order – The Great Communist
Robbery”] Atelier Liternet, (October 2005), available online at http://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/2123/Alex-Leo-
Serban/RPR-face-ordine-Marele-jaf-comunist.html , accessed May 11th 2012.28 http://www.alexandrusolomon.ro/ , accessed on Feb 6th, 2012.29 According to its official site, “The Masterschool is a Europe-wide development program offering filmmakers a
unique opportunity to access the international non-fiction market. It is a tailored program in which 15 European
producer/director teams develop their documentaries at 4 workshops across Europe over an intensive nine-month
period before pitching their ideas to commissioners”, http://www.documentary-campus.com/v2/page/masterschool/ .

CEU eTD Collection53modified, and the film received the funding. Concerning the budget of the film, Solomon
mentioned the amount of 400,000 euro, a significant amount for a documentary. Although
Solomon did not involve as a producer in this film, his career will start with the subsequent
documentary, “Cold waves”.
Closely related with Solomon’s Robbery… , in terms of intentions and production, The
Children of the Decree , directed by Florin Iepan had the support of the National Television as
well. The documentary investigates the effects of the Decree 770 issued by the Romanian
authorities on October 1st 1967 regarding birth control by conducting a series of interviews with
the doctors, mothers or midwives who took part in the illegal abortions practices despite the
decree. With a technique of “talking-heads” in a staged set-up and a female voice over, the
narration of the film assures a coherent explanation of the causes, a dramatic reconstruction of
the condition of the women who wanted to have an abortion and the measures they took in order
to avoid the abortion. In an interview with Iulia Blaga, Iepan confessed that this is a “mainstream
documentary, stylistically completely different from what I did so far”30, insisting on the fact that
his intentions were to “provoke a great public debate. I want the name of the movie to be on T-
shirts, music, bands and pencils. I actually want the film to move something in the Romanian
conscience”31, thus placing his movie in the category of the interactive documentaries explained
earlier. Besides Subcultura and the Romanian National Television, the film was also supported
by televisions ZDF and ARTE and by other European institutions such as Westend Film& TV
Produktion GmbH or Jan Wrijman Fund.
30 Interview with Iepan. Liternet , (December 2003), available online at http://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/663/Iulia-
Blaga-Florin-Iepan/Decreteii-e-un-film-despre-generatia-mea.html , accessed May 11th 2012.31 Interview with Iepan. Liternet , (December 2003).

CEU eTD Collection54The Fund is closely connected with IDFA with its own aim of financing the films from
the countries with low-budget32, co-producing Ileana St ănculescu’s debut documentary The
Bridge across Tisza . The other co-producer of her film was the company established by
Stănculescu herself “Art-doc”, located in Bucharest. The perspective proposed by St ănculescu
offers an insight into the life on the border between Romania and Ukraine. Disconnected for
almost 60 years by the lack of a bridge across Tisza, the neighboring communities on the banks
o f t h e r i v e r t r y t o c o m m u n i c a t e a n d c o n n e c t w i t h e a c h o t h e r , d e s p i t e t h e i r d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c
background and the technological limitations. St ănculescu presents the attempts to construct a
bridge using European Funds, which finally comes to a successful end in 2004. The “absurdity of
the political reasoning”33 is revealed by the constant reference of the history of the relations
between Austrians and Hungarians (who built the bridge), the Germans (who destroyed it in their
retreat in 1944), the Russians (who were not interested in reconstructing it), the Ukrainians who
live on the right bank and the Romanians from the left bank of the river. Therefore, the movie
represents a metaphor on the cultural relationships between these nationalities.
Last, but not the least, the anthropological movie earned its ratio of success through the
presence of Dumitru Budral ă’sThe Curse of the Hedgehog34 in the official selection. Produced
by the Foundation of Visual Anthropology with the support of Roma culture Initiative and the
Royal Embassy of Netherlands the documentary follows a community of Roma near the
32 About Jan Vrijman Fund, available online at http://www.idfa.nl/industry/markets-funding/vrijman-
fund/about.aspx , accessed May 12th
33 From the official synopsis of the film at http://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=d33c482b-fe4f-4c82-
9a25-71c3a06732ca34 The title refers to one of the last lines in the documentary, which reminds the belief of the inhabitants of the
village in the curse sent upon them to always find themselves on the road, never being able to work the land. Shot
with a permanent moving camera, which shifts between close-up and a continuous reference at the landscape, the
documentary intends to contradict the stereotypes concerning the Roma minority, by following their rituals
(marriage or the burning of the non-sold merchandise with the aim of avoiding the bad-luck), their personal dramas
(the fire that destroys a house, killing the children of the mother, the death of the donkey, poisoned) and their
aspirations towards becoming businessman and get rid of the poverty.

CEU eTD Collection55Romanian city of Sibiu over a whole year. The intentions of the filmmaker was to contradict the
stereotypes concerning the Roma minority, by following their rituals (marriage or the burning of
the non-sold merchandise with the aim of avoiding the bad-luck), their personal dramas (the fire
that destroys a house, killing the children of the mother, the death of the donkey) and their
aspirations towards becoming businessmen and get rid of the poverty.
In conclusion, the five documentaries analyzed in terms of intention and production share
common features in terms of the European funding either by the involvement of television
companies (ZDF, ARTE, BBC), special funds (Jan Wrijman) or European Programs
(EURIMAGES and MEDIA) and are co-produced by the newly established private companies
and the foreign producers. Basing on the cultural capital that they have gained by being accepted
on the European level, the filmmakers were able to assure the support or Romanian producers
(the National Television and CNC) and gain economic capital in order to finish their movies.
Distribution
As I mentioned previously, the documentaries were no longer screened in the cinema hall
in Romania after 1995. Solomon’s explanation for the absence stands in the false image of the
documentary, both in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the producers: “in Romania the
documentary for cinema, as a genre, does not exist”, he argues, mainly because “before 1989 the
documentary was generally a short-movie that supplemented the feature film in the cinema hall
and consisted of propaganda.” What Solomon tried to do was to conciliate the public with a new
type of documentary, reflexive and captivating and to demonstrate that documentary does not
mean only expository narrative and communist propaganda. Solomon’s Great Robbery … was
distributed in Romania by the private companies Independenta Film and Libra Film , starting,
Sept 30th, 2005 and represented the second documentary screened in cinema halls after Ciulei’s

CEU eTD Collection56Europolis although did not last more than a couple of weeks. The other documentaries did not
manage to enter the cinema halls.
Th e secon d ty pe of di stri b uti on was th e b roadcasti n g on th e tel evi si on s: i n gen eral , the
televisions involved in the production (BBC, Arte, ZDF or France 2) showed the documentaries
and organized debates in the studios before or after the broadcasting, as in the case of The
Children… orEuropolis, while (although not involved in the production), Duna TV (Hungary)
and the Romanian National Television broadcasted The Curse… an d Y L E (F i n l an d ) a n d F OX
International showed “The Bridge”.35
However, the film festivals represented probably the main focus of the filmmakers:
according to the official presentation, Budral ă’sThe Curse was in the official selection at more
than thirty festivals36, while the success of Europolis materialized in the official competition at
numerous festivals37 and a couple of awards. This last term, “success” creates a rather subjective
appreciation of the film, (as in the case of all the other filmmakers), based on the votes of a jury.
This mechanism is itself questioned by the filmmaker: “the juries interest me less, because there
are only a few people who say that a film is better than the other: the awards are highly
dependent on luck.”38
Referring to the question of success, probably the “luckiest” movie is Ileana
Stănculescu’s The Bridge across Tisza , a project that received the First Appearance Award at
35Your online Documentary Cinema, http://dafilms.com/director/7962-ileana-stanculescu/ , accessed May, 31st,
2012.36 It also won a series of awards such as “Best Documentary Award” (Docupolis, Barcelona, 2005), “Grand Prize” at
Film.doc (Romania, 2005), “Special Acknowledgment” International Ethnographic Film Festival (Belgrade, 2005)
and “Dialektus International Film Festival”, (Budapest 2007), but also requested for didactic and research purposed
at different institutions http://www.astrafilm.ro/old/documente/curse_hedgehog_presentation.pdf , accessed May
11th, 2012.37 It won “Grand Prix du Jury Documentaire” (Belfort 2001), “Golden Olive” (Kalamata International Documentary
Festival 2001), “Best Documentary” (Cinema dei Popoli, Firenze 2002).38 Interview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005) http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-
documentarul-ca-autoportret/ , accessed May 9th, 2012.

CEU eTD Collection57IDFA 2004, the award given to the debut section. To stress the importance of the award, I will
recall that jury selected from 2000 movies only 200 in the official competition, and offered only
four awards for different categories.39 Both of them received important prizes40 while Iepan got
his share of success with The Children… at Zagreb, and was screened at more than 15 festivals.41
The success gained at the festivals contributed as well to its transformation in economic
and social capital in order to change the hierarchy in the autochthon film industry, but also raised
the prestige of the filmmakers in Europe. As a direct consequence, Solomon was asked to direct
Clara B. by producers Arte, France3 and Centre National de Cinematography (France), while
Iepan continued to work on a documentary about Bela Lugosi produced by AVRO, Arte and
others.
Audience and Reception
In close connection with the appearance at different festivals, the reception by the
audience and film critics plays an important role in the analysis of the documentaries. It is
probably the most subjective from them all, because of the impossibility to investigate the effects
of the documentaries on the audience that watched the movie either at the film festivals (where
th e audi en ce supposes to b e m ore cri ti cal ), tel evisi ons (wh ere th e audi en ce i s hi gh er) or i n th e
cinema hall (where only a limited number of persons pay the ticket to watch the movie). In
39 For more details about this film festival, visit the official website http://www.idfa.nl/industry.aspx (accessed May,
9, 2012.40 Solomon’s Great Robbery was officially selected in festivals from Romania (TIFF), Italy (Trieste), Bosnia
(Sarajevo), the USA (Minneapolis) and Israel (Jerusalem), it received awards in France (Pessac), Hungary (Grand
Prix, Mediawave/ Gyor), Spain (Documenta/Madrid)41 MasterSchool Film 2008, available online at http://www.documentary-
campus.com/v2/page/masterschool/dcm_films/ , accessed May 13th, 2012

CEU eTD Collection58respect to the reception of the documentaries by the mass media, the film critics were, in general,
favorable to the movies and supported them as members of juries at different competitions.42
The exception is Ciulei’s Europolis , which received negative critics in early the 2000s,
being accused of presenting a negative image of the country. Some of the critics argued that “the
main explanation of the insistence upon the real images and upon the disgusting, enormous,
grotesque aspects, real but marginal, the main explanation of the one-sided perspective lies in the
interfusion of imbecility and dishonesty”,43 while the journalist Emil Hurezeanu wrote that “the
directors manipulate more than the secret police.”44 These two comments refer to the director’s
choice to present to the public an image of the Danube Delta in contrast with touristic clichés,
filmed during the winter when everything is frozen and the inhabitants of the Delta try to resist
the harsh conditions. The film correspondent of Cultural Observatory at the Berlin Film Festival
where the documentary was first screened mentioned that “almost all the Romanian critics who
h av e s e en h i s m ov i e i n B e rl i n b l am e d Ci ul ei f or a l a c k of ob j e c ti v i ty , c on si d e ri n g i t a s f orc e d
generalization and a false reflection of the reality. They have also invoked that he had controlled
the characters, suggesting them some gestures and vulgar dialogues, dotted with atypical
swearing for the population of Romania”45 In a later dialog with film critic Mihai Fulger,
Thomas Ciulei stated:
In my movies, and in the most recent movies Europolis more as in the others,
the characters play themselves. They are always conscious that they have in from their
e y e s a c a m e r a a n d t h a t I w a n t t o t e l l a s t o r y . T h e y e v e n s a y : “ Y o u c a n n a r r a t e
everything you want, we’ll help you”. In this case, if I realized what people can do, I
42 It is the case, for example, of Andrei Gorzo, member of the jury of the National Center of Cinematography who
accepted the financial support for the movie after the initial refusal.43 M. Iorgulescu, in Richard Wagner, “Europolis, un film de Thomas Ciulei”, [“Europolis, a film by Thomas
Ciulei”], Observator Cultural, 107 (2002).44 Hurezeanu in Richard Wagner, “Europolis, un film de Thomas Ciulei”, [“Europolis, a film by Thomas Ciulei”],
Observator Cultural, 107 (2002).45 William Totok , “Debusolare, criza si saturatie. Insemnari de la Berlinala 2001”, [ Disorientarion, crisis and
saturation. Annotations from Belin 2001”], Observaor Cultural, 53 (2001), accesed May, 9th 2012

CEU eTD Collection59am not afraid of using these things, even giving another perception in my movies than
they have in their reality.46
Apparently, the Romanian documentary film critics did not adapt with the same rapidity
to the new standards to which the filmmakers did and still considered documentary in the lines
imposed by the traditional one, as an objective claim of reality, ignoring the various modes of
representation. One of the explanations of a consistent community of critics specialized in
documentaries was the absence of a journal dedicated to documentaries which could have
connected the Romanian criticism with the European one, an absence that still persists.
On the other hand, Solomon’s Robbery received the attention of the film critics and the
well-deserved congratulations: For example, Laura Popescu considers the film “a spectacle, a
film with rare cinematographic qualities that one must see at the cinema hall. A movie within a
movie…One sees with own eyes the interfusion between terror and irony in which some of us
spent their life”.47 Alex Leo ùerban mentions that
Solomon brings one near another the victims and the perpetrators to watch those
images. The young director hopes to provoke a psychodrama, re-making the scene from
Hamlet in which the actors reconstitute the killing of the father and provokes a crisis de
conscience to the murderer-Brother. But the scene does not have the expected result, the
waking of the conscience does not happen – the communist monsters have no
conscience – they have justifications.48
However, Andrei Gorzo has some doubts about the irony and the mise-en-scene .:
I am not sure that his discrete irony is helpful in this context. Maybe it was better
to have a more direct humor. And I am even less convinced concerning the effect of the
purification rituals which he conducts, bringing together the survivors to see the movie
46 Interview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005) http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-
documentarul-ca-autoportret/ , accessed May 9th, 2012.47 Interview with Alexandru Solomon, HBO Magazine , (November 2005), available online at
http://agenda.liternet.ro/cronici/marelejafcomunist.html , accessed May 11th, 201248 Alex Leo ùerban, “RPR face ordine – Marele Jaf communist”, [RPR makes order – The Great Communist
Robbery”] Atelier Liternet, (October 2005), available online at http://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/2123/Alex-Leo-
Serban/RPR-face-ordine-Marele-jaf-comunist.html , accessed May 11th 2012.

CEU eTD Collection60from 1959 or bringing the cameramen to the filming places and letting him film once
again. 49
Solomon was also among the few that realized that once that, due to the changes in the
production and distribution, the film addresses now a European audience, underlying the
similarities between the post-totalitarian Romanian context and, for example Spain.
It is amazing how easily a foreign audience can understand things which are, at
the first glance, familiar only to us. I have experienced this communication in Spain, a
country which knew Franco’s dictatorship. The association between stupidity and
bar ba ri ty , be twe e n lie and te rro r i s k nown to the m , as i t i s f o r us. I n the sam e tim e , I
consoled myself observing that they did not speak about this for a long time – about the
responsibility for what had happened.50
Iepan’s Children … had probably the largest impact due to the interest in the subject of
t h e m o v i e a n d t h e f a c t t h a t w a s b r o a d c a s t e d b y t h e N a t i o n a l T e l e v i s i o n . W h i l e f i l m c r i t i c
Valerian Sava attacked the movie considering it too close to the model promoted by Discovery51,
other critics realize the impact that the film had (or can have) to the generation born after 1967
and the fact that Iepan “succeeds in identifying a universal conclusion.” 52 As for The Curse …
andThe Bridge t h e i m p a c t i s e v e n m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o m e a s u r e , a s t h e y d i d n o t h a v e t h e s o l i d
distributers (such as television companies) behind the other documentaries. The reviews of The
Curse concentrated more on the originality of the characters and their actions53, while The
Bridge was hardly noticed by the Romanian critics.
49 Andrei Gorzo, “Reconstituriri – Marele Jaf Comunist”, [“Reconstruction – The Great Communist Bank
Robbery”] Dilema Veche , Sept 2005, available online at http://agenda.liternet.ro/cronici/marelejafcomunist.html ,
accessed May 11th
50 Interview with Alexandru Solomon, HBO Magazine , (November 2005), available online at
http://agenda.liternet.ro/cronici/marelejafcomunist.html , accessed May 11th, 201251 Valerian Sava, 2006: “The National Television does not represent a stimulant agency…but rather an enemy…on
the scheme of talk-shows or of the reformed propaganda, with the supreme model the Discovery channel (see
Iepan’s “children of the Decree” in “We have to forget about Sahia Studio’s tradition”, Cultura , 48 (2006), available
online at http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=7029 , accessed, May 13th.52 Laura Popescu, “Ne place documentarul”, [We like documentary”], Observator Cultural , 289 (2005)53The Curse of the Hedgehog , http://www.astrafilm.ro/old/documente/curse_hedgehog_presentation.pdf , accessed
May 13th

CEU eTD Collection61To conclude, the relationship with the audience differs from on film to another in terms
of institutional practice, but they all have in common the intention of changing the attitude of the
audience. Either confronting with the Communist past as in case of Solomon or Iepan, or arguing
against the stereotypes concerning the Roma (Budral ă), and exploring the life in tradition
communities beyond the clichés (Ciulei and St ănculescu), the first audience of the movies are the
characters themselves, aware of their role as witnesses and narrators of the reality. The positive
reviews that were addressed by the film critics invoke both the mode of representation chosen by
the filmmakers, but also the role of the documentary as a voice in the public debate.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the success of the movies was due both to the social changes in the
national background and the possibility to find an autonomous alternative to the state-funding
institutions, as well as to a couple of reforms at the European level, manifested in the creation of
special funds for the co-production of the movies. All five movies analyzed in this chapter were
produced or distributed by European institutions. The economic factor was not only one
determinant to the evolution of the documentary industry, but also the cultural capital that the
filmmakers gained after winning the international awards. Based on it, the filmmakers could
convince the national institutions to support their projects, as the co-habilitation with the state-
funded institution couldn’t be permanently interrupted. The price paid by the directors was a
certain limi tati on in the m ode of representati on and the adaptati on of the techniques of the TV
documentaries encouraged by the foreign televisions.
The choice of founding private companies in order to ease their communication with the
European markets proved to be the winning card for the young directors, whose trajectory
transformed them from directors to producers and distributors. Succeeding on European level

CEU eTD Collection62meant the accumulation of a symbolic capital which materialized in other projects, this time with
the support from the public institutions.

CEU eTD Collection63Final Conclusions
Engaging with the Bourdieu’s theories regarding the field of cultural production and the
types of capital represents one the keys in understanding the documentary film industry in post-
communist Romania. In strong connection to these theories, the concept of ‘trajectory
adjustment’ proposed by Eyal, Szélenyi and Townsley enabled us to look at the transition from
state socialism to capitalism paying attention to the role of institutions in implementing
capitalism without neglecting the role of the agents from these institutions. At a national level,
the production, distribution and exhibition did no longer survive in the terms before 1989: the
new laws adopted by political power regulated and imposed another models and approached the
Romanian legislation with the European industry.
In the light of the ‘trajectory adjustment’ theory, my initial hypothesis according to which
the state-dependent companies followed an ‘involutionary’ transition proved inexact. First, Sahia
was not just a simple propaganda machine of the Communist Party, but also the depository of
talented filmmakers who produced valuable films even in the harsh condition of censorship.
After 1989, their Studio and its filmmakers engaged with the production of films concerning the
Revolution, adapting its type of capitals to the political changes that followed.
H o w e v e r , o n t h e l o n g r u n , t h e s o c i a l ( p o l i ti c a l ) c a p i t a l p r o v e d t o p l a y a g a i n s t i t s o w n
interest, when the involvement in the political campaign determined important filmmakers to
leave the Studio by 1996. As a direct consequence, Sahia remained with the valuable ‘cultural
capital’ and the production of documentaries to reach the national or European market stopped.
In front of the new challenges, Sahia Studio tried to take advantage of its economic capital, but it
f ai l e d to d o s o , b e tra y e d b y th e rul e s of c a pi tal i sm . F i n al l y , th e p ol i ti c al ch an g e s af f e c te d th e
Studio and could not save it: by 2000, Sahia had only one employee.

CEU eTD Collection64On the other hand, the ‘trajectory adjustment’ concept allows understanding the career of
the filmmakers as a mobile positioning between the Romanian institutions on the one side and
the European programs and tel evisi on com panies on the other. Disappointed wi th the ‘ty pe’ of
documentaries produced by Sahia (Solomon), or the absence of a significant festival dedicated to
documentaries (Budral ă), the young filmmakers searched for new patrons in order to continue
t h e i r c a r e e r s . W o r k i n g i n p a r a l l e l a t t h e s t a t e c o m p a n i e s o r a t d i f f e r e n t p r o j e c t s t o s u s t a i n
themselves, they founded their private companies which eased their contact with the producers
form the West.
The direct collaboration with the European programs and television companies
materialized in the accumulation of cultural, economic and social capital. At a national level,
they imposed a new hierarchy where the independent filmmakers became intermediaries
between the European networks and Romanian cinematography. Using their cultural and social
capital, they have successfully protested against the rejection of the distribution of resources by
determining the members of the established elite to change the laws and to financially support
their productions.

CEU eTD Collection65Bibliography
Books
xBourdieu Pierre, The forms of capital , first published in J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood)
xBourdieu, Pierre, The field of cultural production: essays on art and literature
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993)
xBruzzi, Stella, New Documentary, (Routledge, Great Britain, 2006)
x&ăliman, Călin,Istoria filmului romanesc 1897 -2000 , [The history of the Romanian film
1897-2000 ], (Bucharest: Editura Funda Ġiei Culturale Române, 2001)
xDamian, Lauren Ġiu,Despre documentar…si inca ceva in plus , [About
documentaries…and something more ], (Bucharest: Editura Tehnic ă, 2003)
xEyal, Gil, Szélenyi, Ivan and Townsley, Eleanor, Making capitalism without capitalists:
class formation and elite struggles in post-communist Central Europe, (London: Verso,
1998)
xFaraday, George , Revolt of the filmmakers (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2000)
xFinney Angus, The international film business: a market guide beyond Hollywood ,
(London, New York: Routledge, 2010)
xIordanova, Dina, Regan, Rhyna, Film Festival. Yearbook 1 – The Festival Circuit, (St.
Andrew Film Studies, Great Britain, 2009)
xJäckel, Anne, European Film Industries , (London: British Film Institute, 2003)
xMatei, Alexandru, Mormântul comunismului românesc, [The grave of the Romanian
communism ], (Bucharest: IBU Publishing, 2011)
xNichols, Bill, Representing reality: issues and concepts in documentary, (Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Press, 1991)
xReu, David, Secvente din istoria tarii [Fragments from the history of the country ],
(Bucharest: Editura Reu, 2009)
xSakwa, Richard, Post-communism , (Philadephia, Penn: Open University Press, 1999)
xSârbu, Adrian T., Polgar, Alexandru, Genealogii ale post-comunismului, [Genealogies of
the post-communism ], (Cluj: Idea Publishing House, 2010)
xSava, Valerian, Istoria critic ă a filmului românesc contemporan , [The critic history of the
Romanian contemporary film ], (Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1999).
xStark David, Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe
(Ithaca, N.Y.: Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, 1991)
xTuĠuleasa Pantelie, In sluja Pre úedintelui [“Serving the President”], available online at

xVerdery, Katherine, National ideology under socialism: identity and cultural politics in
Ceauúescu’s Romania , (Berkely: University of California Press, 1991)

CEU eTD Collection66Filmography
xAlexandru Sahia Studio (collective) Jurnalul liber/The Free Newsreel , (Romania, 1990)
xAlexandru Sahia Studio (collective), C.A.P Reca ú/The collective farm from Recas
(Romania, 1973)
xAlexandru Sahia Studio (collective), In luptă cu nămeĠii – Marele Viscol/Fighting the
Snow – The Great Snow Blast, 1954) available online at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhezZGfFNDs
xAlexandru Sahia Studio (collective), Ultima Primavar ă la Ada-Kaleh/The last Spring at
Ada-Kaleh (1968), available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmqEHsd-eT8]
xBudrală, Dumitru, Blestemul ariciului /The Curse of Hedgehog (2004), available at the
Open Society Archives film archive
http://fa.osaarchivum.org/filmlibrary/browse/director?starting=B&val=80379,
xCalotescu, Virgil, Reconstituirea/ The Reenactment , (Sahia Studio, 1959)
xCernăianu, Felicia, Destinul Mare úalului/The Destiny of Marshall Antonescu (Romania,
1994, Sahia Studio)
xCiulei, Thomas, Europolis (2004) available online at http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-
cultura/asta-e-documentar,
xCiulei, Thomas, Gratian (Romania, 1995), excerpts at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEAONVFQ7U
xComănescu, Serban Desprinderea/Breaking away (Romania, 1990, Sahia Studio)
xConstantinescu Mihai, Sa nu ne razbunati/Do not revenge us (Sahia Studio, 1994)
xDamian Laurentiu, Maria Tănase – Povestea cenzurata /Maria Tănase – The censored
story, (Romania, 1987) available online at http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-film/maria-
tanase-povestea-cenzurata-documentar
xDamian, Laurentiu, Ramanerea/ The Abidance (1992)
xDamian, Laurentiu. Drumul cainilor /The Road of the Dogs (1991)
xDe Crăciun ne-am luat ra Ġia de libertate/On Christmas Day we got our ratio of freedom
by CăWălina Fernoag ă and Cornel Mihalache,
xFootage from the Revolution filmed by Adrian Sarbu available online at

xGladin, Stefan Sa le facem pe toate/Let’s do them all , (Romania, 1990)
xIepan, Florin Nascuti la comanda: Decreteii: The Children of the Decree, (2004)
available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w9p7ck3lbY
xIepan, Florin, Zece minute cu clasa muncitoare/Ten minutes with the working class,
(Sahiafilm, 1995).
xIliesiu, Mirel, Barajul Bicaz/The Dam from Bicaz (Romania, 1960, Alexandru Sahia
Studio)
xMesaros, Titus, Stuf/The reed (Alexandru Sahia Studio, Romania,1966),

x=15&feature=plpp_video
xMoscu, Copel, Am ales libertatea /We chose freedom (Sahia Studio, 1990)

CEU eTD Collection67xPintilie, Lucian, Reconstituirea/The Reenactment , Romania, 1969
xPop, Sabina, Panc (Romania, 1987, Sahia Studio)
xSaucan Mircea, Casa de pe strada noastra/The street from our house (Romania, 1957,
Sahia Studio), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKlOw3o41u4
xSolomon, Alexandru, Cronica de la Zurich/The Chronicle from Zurich , (Romania, 1996
Fundatia Arte Vizuale), http://docuart.ro/regia/alexandru-solomon
xSolomon, Alexandru, Duo pentru Poloncel si Petronom/Due for Paoloncel and Petronom
(Romania, 1993, Fundatia Arte Vizuale), available online at
http://docuart.ro/regia/alexandru-solomon
xSolomon, Alexandru, Igaszag, Radu, Strigat in timpan /Scream in ear drum , (Romania,
1993, Fundatia Arte Vizuale) available online http://docuart.ro/regia/alexandru-solomon
xSolomon, Alexandru, Omul cu o mie de ochi/Man with one thousand eyes , (Fundatia Arte
Vizuale, 2001), http://docuart.ro/regia/alexandru-solomon
xSolomon, Alexandru, The Great Communist Bank Robbery, (EURIMAGES, CNC, 2004)
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/3163/Marele-Jaf-Comunist–The-Great-
Communist-Bank-Robbery-
xStănculescu, Ileana, Podul/The Bridge (2004)
http://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=d33c482b-fe4f-4c82-9a25-
71c3a06732ca
xVertov, Dziga, The man with the movie camera (U.S.S.R, 1929),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fd_T4l2qaQ
Websites
xAGER FILM, independent film company, http://www.agerfilm.ro/
xAlexandru Solomon’s website, http://www.alexandrusolomon.ro/,
xAstra Film Festival, http://www.astrafilm.ro/despre-aff.aspx.
xBBC, “The history of the Reith Lectures”,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith/reith_history.shtml
xDocumentary Campus Masterschool, http://www.documentary-
campus.com/v2/page/masterschool/masterschool/,
xDok Leipzig Festival official website: http://www.dok-leipzig.de/home/?lang=en,
Gladin directed Sa facem totul /Let’s do everything ,
xHiFilm Production Company http://www.hifilm.ro/.
xhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-
capital.htm
xInternational Documentary Film Festival, Amsterdam, http://www.idfa.nl/industry.aspx,
xInternational Short Film Festival Oberhausen , more about the festival at
http://www.kurzfilmtage.de/nc/en/59th-international-short-film-festival-oberhausen-02-
07052013.html
xJan Vrijman Fund, http://www.idfa.nl/industry/markets-funding/vrijman-fund/about.aspx,
xKinokultura , New Russian Cinema, http://www.kinokultura.com/index.html
xKinokultura, New Russian Cinema, Special Issue 6: Romanian Cinema (May 2007),
http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/6/romanian.shtml (including Br ădeanu, Adina

CEU eTD Collection68“Death and Documentary: Memory and Film Practice in Post-communist Romania”,
http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/6/romanian.shtml,
xKrakow Film Festival , official website http://www.krakowfilmfestival.pl/en/,
xSabina Pop, http://www.cncinema.abt.ro/Personalitati-Detalii.aspx?prn_ID=prn-305,
xWestend TV, http://www.westendtv.com/42.0.html?&L=1.
xYour online Documentary Cinema, http://dafilms.com/director/7962-ileana-stanculescu/,
accessed May, 31st, 2012.
Journals
xMoveast , International Film Periodical, 8 (2002)
xCultura 48 (2006)
xFulger Mihai, Sturza, Mihai, “Documentarul românesc: între Sahia úi
Discovery”, [“Romanian Documentary: between Sahia and Discovery”] 48 (2006)
xIepan Florin, dialogue with Mihai Fulger, (2005) available online at
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=7029,
xSava Valerian, “Trebuie sa uitam de traditia studioului Sahia”, [We have
to forget about the tradition of Sahia Studio” 48 (2006), available online at
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=7029
xDilema Veche, 188 (2007)
xGorzo Andrei, “Reconstituriri – Marele Jaf Comunist”, [“Reconstruction –
The Great Communist Bank Robbery”] Dilema Veche , Sept 2005, available
online at http://agenda.liternet.ro/cronici/marelejafcomunist.html,
xBucur Viorica, “Nev ăzut, Necunoscut!” [“Unseen, unknown”], Dilema
Veche , 188 (2007), available online at
http://arhiva.dilemaveche.ro/index.php?nr=188&cmd=articol&id=6577,
xSolomon Alexandru, “Reflextul capitalismului salbatic”, [“The reflex of
savage capitalism”] Dilema Veche, 188 (2007), online at
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=5043,
xGiurgiu Tudor, “Prin Oglinda” [“Through the mirror”], Dilema Veche , 188
(2007).
xSolomon Ada, “Intre timp facem servicii” [“Meanwhile, we produce
services”], Dilema Veche , 320 (2010).
xObservator Cultural (2000-2004)
xWilliam Totok , “Debusolare, criza si saturatie. Insemnari de la Berlinala
2001”, [ Disorientarion, crisis and saturation. Annotations from Belin 2001”], Observaor
Cultural, 53 (2001),
xSava Valerian, “Razvan Theodorescu, Sergiu Nicolaescu, Decebal
Mitulescu si compania – not guilty,” Observator Cultural , 73 (2001).
xWagner, Richard, “Europolis, un film de Thomas Ciulei”, [“Europolis, a
film by Thomas Ciulei”], Observator Cultural, 107 (2002).

CEU eTD Collection69xValerian Sava, “Tablele legii si S. Nicolaescu in pustiul CNC-ONC-
CNC” ,“The Laws and S. Nicolaescu in the desert CNC-ONC-CNC”, Observator
Cultural 111 (2002),
x “Nu. Decalog inspirat de un consilier al ministrului Culturii”, [“No. The
Decalogue inspired by a counselor of the Minister of Cultury”], Observator Cultural , Nr.
126 (2002).
xAlexandru Solomon, Ileana St ănculescu, Dumitru Budral ă, Florin Iepan,
Scrisoare dup ă IDFA [Letter after IDFA ], published in Observator Cultural, No
251/December 2004, available online at http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Scrisoare-dupa-
IDFA*articleID_12418-articles_details.html,
xLaura Popescu, “Ne place documentarul”, [We like documentary”],
Observator Cultural , 289 (2005)
xECRAN Magazine (1991-1992)
xNoul Cinema/The New Cinema (1990-1998)
xProCinema (1998-2000)
Interviews
xDamian Laurentiu, Bucharest, Casa Presei Libere/The House of the Free Press, April 21st,
2012
xMargineanu, Nicolae, Bucharest, Agerfilm Office December 18th, 2011
xSolomon, Alexandru, Bucharest, HiFilm Productions Office, April 27th, 2012
xInterview with Florin Iepan, for Fishington Post , March 2012, available online at
http://www.fishingtonpost.ro/2012/03/13012-invitatul-saptamanii-florin-
iepan/#.T8ZdQtWiPmI, accessed May 30th, 2012.
xInterview with Ciulei, Mihai Fulger’s blog, (2005)
http://mihaifulger.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/thomas-ciulei-documentarul-ca-
autoportret/, accessed May 9th, 2012.
xInterview with Copel Moscu in România liber ă [Free Romania ] November 23rd, 1990,
available online at http://www.jurnalul.ro/jurnalul-national/marele-ecran-in-1990-filme-
putine-debuturi-intarziate-558155.htm, accessed May 24th 2012.
xInterview with Iepan. Liternet , (December 2003), available online at
http://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/663/Iulia-Blaga-Florin-Iepan/Decreteii-e-un-film-despre-
generatia-mea.html, accessed May 11th 2012.
xInterview with Solomon, available online at http://atelier.liternet.ro/articol.php?art=2801,
accessed May 28th, 2012
xInterview with Florin Iepan, “Documentarul romanesc nu a murit, dar a plecat in exil,”
[“The Romanian documentary is not dead, but gone in exile”], Formula As , Nr 670
(2005), available online at http://www.formula-as.ro/2005/670/lumea-romaneasca-
24/florin-iepan-6060,
xInterview with Pa útină: “Toate filmele mele au fost exerci Ġii pentru acel lungmetraj care
trebuia să vină” [“All my films were exercises for the feature film that was supposed to
come” Observator cultural, 319 (2006)

CEU eTD Collection70Legislation
xDecretul 80/1990 [“Decree 80/1990”], available online at http://www.legex.ro/Decretul-
lege-80-1990-1175.aspx
xHotărârea de Urgen Ġă 486/1991 [“Law 486/1991”], available online at
http://www.cautalege.ro/hotarare-486-1991-infiintarea-regiei-autonome-studioul-
cinematografic-sahia-film-(7F357A93859B8E45).jsp,
xLegea 630/27 November 2002 , [“Law 630/2002”]
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=39124, accessed May 29th 2012