Film Reviews
For a more believable Joan, one must still go back to
George Bernard Shaw's St. Joan (1923), made into a
film in 1957. For exploration of the class and gender
implications of Joan's story, see Marina Warner, Joan
of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism (1981), and my
own Joan of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman (1986). We
can hope that some future filmmaker will create a new
drama of Joan of Arc that will do justice to these
issues.
ANNE LLEWELLYN BARSTOW,
EMERITA
State University of New York,
Old Westbury
THE DEATH TRIANGLE [Triunghiul Morrii]. Produced by
Oficiul National Cinematografic, Antena 1, Studioul
Cinematografic Bucure§ti, CineTV Film, Filmex; directed by Sergiu Nicolaescu; screenplay by Sergiu
Nicolaescu and Corneliu Vadim Tudor. 1999; color;
176 minutes. Romania. In Romanian. Distributor:
Romania Films.
Romanian filmmakers have not produced a historical
movie since The Mirror (1994), a movie about Marshall
Ion Antonescu, nor an epic historical film since the
good old days of Communist sponsorship for such
expensive endeavors. In The Death Triangle, Sergiu
Nicolaescu attempted (or rather was forced by the new
politics of fiscal restraint) to fulfill an old dream by
making a movie about the Great War, utilizing mostly
private funds. If I were to add that it is the first Dolby
Romanian production, I would reach the end of my list
of the film's cinematographic qualities. An unbearably
dull and long production, incoherently written and
unimaginatively directed, The Death Triangle has nothing to offer the viewer as visual entertainment or
educational experience.
The film's historical interpretation of the Great War
offers an opportunity to discuss the construction of
public memory of the war from Nicolaescu's vantage
point. My comments regarding this aspect of the film
are informed by watching the movie and an interview
given by the director on Romanian television (Antena
1) a few days before the film's premiere. The Death
Triangle offers an entirely personal vision of the war, as
Nicolaescu himself confirmed when he denied using
any historians as consultants for the movie. In fact, he
spoke very proudly of the fact that he had for years
been reading memoirs of the participants in the war
and thus understood the reality of the war better than
any history textbook. He gave as prominent examples
the memoirs of Marshall Alexandru Averescu (the
main character in the film, played by the director
himself) and those of Queen Marie. The movie thus
attempts to provide a fresco of the historical reality of
the war "wie es eigentlich gewesen."
Based on his personal interpretation, Nicolaescu
created an image of wartime experience from which
the diplomatic and political aspects are entirely absent.
Nor is there any reference to the life of the civilian
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
1427
popUlation in the occupied part of Romania or in
Moldavia. lonel Briitianu, the Romanian prime minister at the beginning of the war and the most important
player in the political and diplomatic maneuverings
involving Romania during the war, has no lines in the
film; he simply appears as an extra in several staff
meetings. The only words that deal with the political
aspects of the war are placed in the mouths of a very
suspicious Averescu, who expresses distrust for all
politicians in making wartime decision, and the nationalist poet Octavian Goga ("the poet of our suffering,"
as many Romanians still fondly identify him). Goga
gives a speech that he actually delivered later in life
regarding the corruption of all politicians. In fact,
these two discourses regarding political life seem
intended as a commentary on the current situation in
Romania and a veiled suggestion that authoritatian
leadership would be the nation's salvation.
Averescu is one of the role models provided by the
film. The Death Triangle is the first attempt to provide
a prominent visualization of this important military
player in the war. His stubborn correctness, unflinching loyalty toward the army, and authoritative demeanor vis-a-vis the troops impressed Nicolaescu so
much that he centered the movie on Averescu's own
wartime experiences. For example, the film makes a
point of supporting Averescu's well-known charge that
it was the Mara§ti battle and not the by now far more
famous Mara§e§ti battle that stopped the Central
Powers and put an end to August von Mackensen's
reputation as the unbeatable "front breaker."
Two other characters are constructed as prominent
symbols of patriotic behavior. One is the "Romanian
peasant"-a two-dimensional character who embodies
the motivations, behavior, and morality of the archetypal Romanian soldier. This character is represented
by five brothers who fight and die together at the
famous battle of Mara§e§ti. The director emphasizes,
lest we overlook these characteristics, the fact that they
are literate (contrary to the perception of the officer
rank), extremely religious (the oldest brother carries a
huge icon with him, a fragment of a church wall
representing Christ on the cross), have unquestioning
loyalty and deep love for each other, and are fighting
to defend their family and land. There is no ambition
to kill the other, no hatred for the enemy as enemy,
and no desire for glory among these soldiers. On the
contrary, great words of wisdom occasionally come out
of the mouths of these simple men in the midst of
battle. In this regard, Nicolaescu's portrayal of the
archetypal Romanian soldier fits very well with the
iconography constructed after the war and solidified
during the years of extreme nationalist socialism.
The other important character who helps to define
heroism and provide moments of poetry in the midst of
the battle is Ecaterina Teodoroiu, the Romanian
"Joan of Arc" of the Great War. A charismatic presence in life, Teodoroiu grcw to mythic dimensions
after her death in 1917. The film begins with an image
of her in a wedding dress and ends with a similar image
OCTOBER 1999
1428
Film Reviews
of her floating over the hill on which she perished at
Manl§e§ti. This symmetry suggests that her character
represents an important leitmotif during the movie, an
embodiment of selflessness central to Nicolaescu's
vision of heroism and patriotism in the war. Teodoroiu
adds a note of exoticism to the story, as she is
consistently identified as exceptional; she is the only
woman in the film aside from the queen, another
exceptional figure, who pursues an active role in the
public space.
Teodoroiu also fits the parameters set up by the
director in his depiction of Romanian peasants. She is
educated but comes from a peasant background, and
she remains close to the emotions, the passions, and
the pain of the peasants. But she never grows as a
character. For example, her motivations for fighting
are barely suggested. Her presence is as iconic as that
of Queen Marie. Teodoroiu stands for a type of
selflessness, a type of exceptionalism, but she is never
fully human, never fully developed, in spite of the
director's attempt at one point to show her vulnerable
side.
The film has a strange and definitely unorthodox
take regarding the two figures with whom heroism and
leadership were identified right after the war, King
Fcrdinand and Quccn Marie. The king is represented
as a cariacature of the monarch he aimed at being.
Easily influenced, indecisive, and too formal in his
interaction with people in both public and private, he
is represented as a rather marginal figure in the
decision-making process regarding the daily business
uf the war and the fate of the country in the future. By
contrast, the queen appears as almost unbearably
powerful. She is always present at the meetings of the
chiefs of staff and has a key role in the decision-making
process, both politically and militarily. At the crucial
moment when evacuation from Ia§i to Odcssa is
discussed, she appears as the only one amung all the
military and civilian leaders not paralyzed by fear. This
is certainly one image of the queen that has come
down through some of the memoirs of that period (e.g.
those of Averescu, Constantin Argetoianu, or Alexandru Marghiloman). It is not the only image, however,
and much evidence supports a view that the queen's
influence was subtler, more indirect, though no doubt
significant. At the same time, King Ferdinand did
make the crucial decisions and had the final say on
gcneral military strategy.
The multifaceted nature of the front-line experience
comes through somewhat in scenes where soldiers
question authority, cry for the dead, or are afraid to
fight. Those reactions are presented, however, as passing; the only memorable portrayals are those of the
five fictional brothers. The director alternates scenes
from the soldiers' daily war routine in the Romanian
and German camps, which suggest through their symmetry the similarity of all soldiers' experience. But
Nicolaescu is also careful to suggest some asymmetrics, cspccially with rcgard to motivations for fighting
and the ultimate goal of the war. These dissimilarities
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
are meant to suggest the just nature of the Romanian
effort, internalized by soldiers even in their moments
of fear, in contrast with the German war of conquest
without just foundations.
Thus, what this hapless attempt at depicting the
reality of the Great War succeeds in conveying is a
series of cliche images of the war that reinforce a
certain public memory discourse regarding its meaning. Individual characters are somewhat blurred and ill
defined, but the notion that the Romanian peasant was
a trustworthy, religiously devout (Orthodox), and patriotic soldier comes through very clearly. By contrast,
the officer corps and especially the political elite
receive very poor press. The civilian experience of the
war is depicted only briefly, in a scene of the evacuation of peasant women from a village near Mara§e§ti.
Nicolaescu dwells on the magnitude of the front
experience, the importance of skilled military leaders
such as Averescu, and the loyal rank and file. In this
regard, The Death Triangle does very little to adjust
some of the fundamental narrative lines regarding the
Great War and confuses the audience by grossly
misrepresenting the relationship betwen army and
civilian leaders.
One question remains: who is the enemy here? The
Central Powers are depicted with respect for their
military might. In the end, it seems that the corrupt
political leadership of the country, the enemy within,
was completely other. Here, ironically but not surprisingly, Nicolaescu remains faithful to his own and the
Communist Party's nationalist discourse before 1989.
"Otherness" has changed, however, from the more
clearly defined charge that the enemy within was the
bourgeoisie by virtue of their class interests to a looser
charge of corruption and indifference toward national
interests.
MARIA BueuR
Indiana University,
Bloomington
[Lepa sela, Lepo gore].
Produced by Goran Bjelogrlic and Dragan Bjelogrlic;
directed by Srdjan DragojeviC; screenplay by Vanja
Bulic, Srdjan Dragojevic, and Nikola Pejakovic. 1996;
color; 128 minutes. Yugoslavia. In Serbo-Croatian with
English subtitles. Distributor: Cobra Films.
PRETTY VILLAGE, PRETTY FLAME
In Pretty Village, Pretty Flame, Serbian director Srdjan
Dragojevic depicts the recent war in Busnia from the
perspective of a Bosnian Serb soldier. The film begins
with the story of Milan (a Serb) and Halil (a Muslim),
friends from childhood who soon find themselves on
different sides of the conflict and, predictably, end up
confronting each other in battle. The movie follows
only Milan's experiences in the war, documenting his
transformation from an honorable soldier who initially
protects HaJil's house from Serbian looters into a
Muslim-hating killer who fantasizes from his hospital
bed about stabbing a Muslim inmate with a fork.
Much uf the film takes place in an old railroad
OCTOBER
1999