During the long period when he led the Romanian Communists, Gheorghe Georgiou-Dej did not practice what could be called collective audience. He was not in the habit of organizing meetings or debates with intellectuals and artists. Which did not mean that he did not have private discussions with favorites, the so-called fellow travelersamong which the actress Lucia Sturdza-Bulandra, who is said to have had a place of honor straight line with whom he addressed simply JOEL or with the handsome Mykhailo Sadovyanu. Day’s meeting with H. Kelinescu, who came to ask for the rights to publish the novel, is somewhat popular black chest, Whereupon Poor Ioanid he was not entirely liked by the party elders.

The situation was completely different during the time of Nicolae Ceausescu. After he used the first three years of his reign to strengthen his position, after he reshuffled the so-called Barons of Dejas from almost all key positions, after in August 1968 in a speech condemning the invasion troops of the Warsaw Pact to Czechoslovakia, he acquired absolute power, unexpectedly even winning the sympathies of some intellectuals who were former political prisoners, Nicolae Ceausescu began an operation aimed at cultivating a personality cult. See Paul Goma’s repeated testimony on this matter. One of them is in a great interview with Noel Bernard and can be heard by going to the website Free Europe. book Ceausescu, literary critic (Editura Curtea Veche, Bucharest, 2007) Cluj professor Liviu Malica anthologizes and comments on the transcripts of four such meetings held by Nicolae Ceausescu with writers, especially after the outbreak of the devastating war. Theses from July 1971, whose ideas were reinforced a few months later. Ceausescu organized these meetings to calm troubled spirits, but it only increased people’s fear of culture and art.

It is often said that the return of the totalitarian night to culture and art was inspired by the extended visits in June 1971 to China and North Korea. book Nicolae Ceausescu and “creators in the field of film art” (Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca, 2022) by Professor Gabriel Moiza from Oradea dispels this myth to some extent. As early as February 1971, Nicolae Ceausescu launched the first phase of an offensive aimed at the fundamental restructuring of art and culture in Romania, an offensive whose ultimate goal was to return the cult of personality to the rank of ruler. The occasion was the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Russian People’s Republic in May. This first stage will last until 1973 (this year, according to Adrian Choroianu, place ofThis ismoire- cf. Se Ceausescu qui hante les Roumains), when Ceausescu becomes a doctor Honoris Causa of all Bucharest universities and when, on the occasion of the opening of the new building of the National Theater in Bucharest, he will be compared to Pericles himself.

Gabriel Moiza’s book is devoted to Ceausescu’s meeting with Romanian cinematographers in March 1971. That is, soon after February 1971, but also after the passing of the law aimed at adopting creators in the field of film art in the work system to the contract A fact that is likely to bring with it concerns such as increased antagonism and animosity in at least two camps within the guild. The book presents an anthology of speeches from a meeting with reason, a meeting that also gave Ceausescu an opportunity broad language. The meeting at which the supreme leader of the Romanian Communists shared the role of moderator with the main ideologist of the party, Dumitru Popescu. Put everything at once Appendices is played The draft thematic plan for 1972. It would be more than beneficial if we were also told how many projects on paper are actually implemented. It is certain that those who would become directors after Lucian Pintilly or David Esrig were swept under the carpet thesis from July and coincidences in the creative life of two great artists.

In some speeches, the writer Mircea Sintimbreanu, at that time the director of the National Center of Cinematography, was a live target, and the most vocal accusers were Sergio Nicolaescu and Elisabeta Bostan. Other speakers express dissatisfaction with the frequent changes in the film management system. Faulty planning, overcrowding, bureaucratic delays, poor distribution, small number of films produced annually, lack of theaters are all there. But there were about 500 of them. How many are there today? You could almost make a show out of it Orchard of the village cherries, the decor of which is inspired by an old movie theater. Concerns about tomorrow’s prospects/security or dissatisfaction with the scope of copyright also shine through.

Nicolae Ceausescu patiently listens to both tributes (each speech begins with a broad bow) and complaints. Signs of impatience are visible in the interludes involving the intervention of director Mircea Muresan.

Gabriel Moiza begins his book with a sequence in which he describes in detail the situation in Romanian cinema up to March 5, 1971. But also after that. Following the Soviet model, the biggest Romanian communists bet on the propagandistic valence of the film. They invested relatively much in equipment, in material base (and these investments started even before Lika Georgiou discovered his star qualities), they developed a cinema network, they controlled ticket prices to guarantee an influx of viewers. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro