Andrei Ujică believes that lucidity is a rare form of courage. In a world dominated by the flow of dangerous images and nostalgia, the director talks about the fragility of collective memory and how hard it is to face historical truth without sugarcoating it.
Andrei Ujică, author of several documentaries about communism. PHOTO: Getty Images
Honored at the Transylvania International Film Festival (TIFF) with the Award of Excellence for his contribution to cinematography, Andrei Ujică (74 years old) remains one of the most lucid and challenging voices of Romanian documentary. Author of cult films such as “Videograms of a Revolution” and “The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceaușescu”, the filmmaker has been exploring, for over three decades, the way in which the image rewrites history and how reality is transformed before our eyes into a spectacle. Established in Germany since the 80s, but always attentive to the pulsations of Romanian society, Ujică today looks towards a world in full digital metamorphosis, where truth, fiction and propaganda mix in a new language of the screen.
In an interview for “Weekend Adevărul”, Andrei Ujică talks about how artificial intelligence will change not only cinematography, but also our perception of reality, about the nostalgia for authoritarianism that reappears in the Romanian public discourse and about how difficult it is, however, to look at the history of communism without turning it into a convenient story.
“Weekend Adevărul”: I am reminded of a phrase written by film journalist Richard Porton about “The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceaușescu”: “This film made most fiction films seem trite and boring.” It was happening the year the documentary was presented at Cannes. Do you think that today Romania still offers the possibility of such a documentary, besides which fiction films seem banal and boring?
Andrei Ujica: It is difficult to answer this question. On the one hand, we are now in another historical moment, we are on the threshold of another epochal change that we do not yet understand. And on the other hand, we are in the midst of a technological revolution: what AI brings in particular is still incalculable. It may only be vaguely approximated, but it will be a radical shift from the industrial to the humanistic and artistic realms. So, very soon, the relationship between fiction and non-fiction in general, or fiction and documentary, will be reformulated, and in a transitional period there will also be a confusing time when that difference will almost disappear.
Extreme politicians, “some ephemeral derailments”
How do you see the socio-political situation in Romania – the elections and the success enjoyed among the electorate by bizarre leaders who promote elements of communist, ultra-nationalist and even fascist ideology?
We are again linked to technological, medial, mediatization aspects. The new social networks have opened the way for direct democracy, which is no longer mediated through media tools. In Romania, due to the very large number of people working abroad, i.e. temporary emigrants, elderly relatives left in the country are taught to use TikTok, Facebook or Instagram to communicate more quickly. This opens up the possibility that at this level or in these environments populist, simplistic messages of all kinds can be spread, conspiracy theories that catch the population more easily, at certain times. And in terms of cinema, I have witnessed situations where very bad telenovelas or series also caught a very large audience, much more than quality films, I’m even talking about quality commercial films. So here too. And then, suddenly, a kind of counter-revolution appeared, coming from below, anti-modern and with anti-democratic accents. The democratic and enlightened world should seriously consider this problem. It’s a kind of nostalgia for an authoritarianism in general that gives certain people more security. It’s not just that some communist ponces are being reactivated; surprising is that Legionnaires’ disease is reactivated. In fact, fascists in the way they were cultivated by the late nationalism of the Ceaușescu regime, which had acquired the label of nationalist communism. That’s what happened.
Scene from “The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceaușescu”
What is slightly strange, slightly embarrassing, in Romania is the fact that, I don’t know why, on the contemporary political spectrum, we offer more embarrassing characters than in other parts. I mean, our far-right people, I don’t know how, are even more ridiculous and disturbing than those in Poland, Germany or Italy. And that should give us food for thought. Just as those in power are pitiful, so are those in the anarchic opposition, it’s just as embarrassing. And it is very strange that a man of this type with mystical protochronist derailment, like Georgescu, can catch the world, fascinate so many people, like a kind of neo-evangelical pastor in America, who brings I don’t know what communities in moments of ecstatic hysteria.
Do you think these characters would make good material for a documentary?
Yes, sure. In principle, there would also be non-fictional film characters, of course, and sarcastic and satirical film characters that are great in the realm of fiction. It’s a little too early to deal with these things, especially since you don’t even know if we should give them any real importance or if they’re just temporary derailments.
What connects us to the past
It is very interesting that these films about the revolution, about communism, continue to arouse interest. We had two very successful films related to the revolution, “Anul Nou care na bost” by Bogdan Mureșanu, and “Liberty” by Tudor Giurgiu. Why do you think stories from this period still pique people’s interest?
I don’t see anything special in this interest. This always happens with major historical events that, once they take their place in the historical flow, arouse interest for a very long time, you can always return to them. At the global level, after the Second World War, for 50 years films were always made, books were written, plays were written about this event, as well as about the French Revolution. The implosion of the Soviet Bloc in 1989, exactly 200 years after the French Revolution, is not only an extremely important historical moment, but still very recent, and it can be analyzed, decoded and reflected on for a long time, and it will. So it’s a natural thing.
Andrei Ujică, honored at TIFF with the Excellence Award. PHOTO: Nicu Cherciu
People’s interest is also natural, because man is always willing to pay special attention to important historical moments. And if it’s even a major historical moment, recent, then it’s even more interesting, because it’s linked to one’s own memories or, in very young generations, to memories and the implications on one’s own family, on one’s parents.
Do you think that Romania is ready today to look at its own history honestly, as you do in the documentary?
In general, unfortunately, countries are rarely and only temporarily prepared to look honestly at their own history. There is this approach in moments of great emotional turmoil that usually occur after a rupture or after a historical change, but the natural tendency of the man and the historian is always to romanticize a little.
Does this help?
Unfortunately, it doesn’t help much. It’s emotionally comfortable, but it doesn’t really help.
The subjectivism of being
From this school year, the “History of Communism in Romania” will be taught in the twelfth grade. What do you think this discipline should look like?
I have no idea how the Ministry of Education thought about making the curriculum for this new discipline and what kind of textbooks will appear, who wrote those textbooks. The history of communism in Romania, like the history of any era, can be written in many ways. It depends on the idea that there would be a historiography, so a historical, objective science, which is dedicated only to scientific neutrality, which is an illusion. Each historian is in turn the product of a social context and an ideological influence, etc. A very good example is, for example, to read a biography of Napoleon in parallel: one written by a Frenchman, the second written by a German, the third written by a Pole and the fourth written by a Russian. You get the impression that they are four completely different people. So it is with the history of communism. It is only to be hoped that those who will write the respective manuals will make efforts for objectivity. It’s an era that had its complexity and it’s not so easy to label and put aside. It cannot be presented only in a black and white manner. Finally, I hope that those who have thought about the introduction of this discipline and those who will put it into practice will do so with all seriousness.
You know that now movies have an increasingly important role in shaping mentalities. It was the series “Adolescence” on Netflix, which the Prime Minister of Great Britain decided to broadcast in all high schools considering the very current message. Can the History of Communism be taught through films?
The new generations are undoubtedly much more visually fixated than the literary-centric generations before the 70s, for them the film has the same effect that the books had for the previous generations. So to the extent that there are a number of serious historical films that can be shown in school on the subject in question, it would be very well if they were shown. I don’t know how to tell you here that I haven’t researched. I don’t think, however, that there are enough films to explain to today’s young people the entire communist period, the 45 years in Romania. “Ceaușescu’s Autobiography” can explain them quite well up to a fairly distant point and with the guidance of a history teacher who will explain various things to them. The documentary could very well be used, but for certain isolated stages of that era. For other moments I don’t know if we have a movie yet. We probably don’t have a real, balanced historical film like that about collectivization or the political processes of the 1950s. It would be good, it is certainly necessary and, on the other hand, it goes without saying that in the teaching of history today, film is also attracted along with written materials, i.e. books and history treatises.
