ligia-groza-16-892471 Maybe an explanation of the long duration is this: the duration of the movie is part of the message of the movie. I grew up partly during those times in Romania. Having watched this movie now reminds about the dread of many moments that I lived through, especially of the repetitive propaganda that we all had to listen to every day (2 hours of TV program daily, 90% of the time with his face on the screen). The title of the movie – autobiography – suggests that this is how the title character would have made this movie: in the same egotistic way that he ignored the Romanian population during his dictatorship.

R-Clercx When watching this 'documentary' (which isn't accurate as this is more a linear collage of archival footage), I kept wondering when will the director take a stand or provide in some analysis? 180 minutes is long, very long to keep staring at footage most interested in social history will have seen before.But, this is literally what it is and remains: 180 minutes of archival footage back to back without any narrative what so ever. If one watches this docu hoping you'll learn more about the life of Ceausescu you won't because most interested in this topic will already have seen thetypical news footage. What is missing is in depth analysis, interviews, arguments pro and against. Basically anyone, given enough time and resources can collect a whole bunch of video footage about a certain person, collage it and then you'll get this result. If anything it makes the figure of Ceausescu more confusing than clear and those who don't know any better might even think he wasn't that bad at all and was set up in the end to fall.

deschreiber This film may have some interest for people who lived in Rumania through the Ceausescu era, as it shows many of the films and television footage they will have seen over the years. But for anyone else, it is a terrible, terrible film which adds nothing at all to one's understanding. And it is overwhelmingly, excruciatingly dull. The most you can say for it is that it familiarizes you, far more than you ever want, with the face of that ridiculous man.It opens with the footage most people around the world have seen of the dictator and his wife sitting at what appear to be little schoolroom desks. They are being confronted with charges, as if in some sort of court, and being asked to enter a plea. He steadfastly refuses. All we hear of his crimes is someone off camera accuses him of ordering the shooting of people in a crowd and of bringing the country to the brink of ruin. The scene lasts only a few minutes, then switches to the funeral of his predecessor, the first of many official events and ceremonies. Footage of long lines of people outside the building, shuffling into the building, moving up the stairs, down the corridor, into the room where the body lies, footage of ordinary people viewing the body, footage of this dignitary and that dignitary viewing the body, footage of people leaving the building, footage of the body being carried out and placed on a stage, footage of Ceausescu giving a funeral speech, all this goes on for what seems like forever, conveying next to nothing to the viewer. For nearly three hours we are shown extended--painfully extended--official footage of state events, parades, speeches, dinners, visits by leaders from other countries, Ceausescu visiting other countries. There is really nothing else in the film other than these long, almost meaningless pieces. The nearest thing to drama comes in a scene in the last half-hour or so at a national party congress. A party official takes the podium and accuses Ceausescu of manipulating the event to have himself re-elected. Someone in the audience shouts it's a lie, and immediately the entire room rises, shouts, and chants, calling for Ceausescu to be re-elected. That is the extent of understanding we are given of the dictatorship. Why on earth was he so reviled that the people rose up against him? Was the country struggling? Were people hungry? Was there injustice and corruption? We have no idea. Was the regime repressive? Not a word is given. At one point we see Ceausescu touring a couple of well stocked food stores. My guess is that a Romanian might watch that and scream that it was all a set-up and that the real stores were empty and the people were starving. But nothing like that is told. Why are we watching him tour the stores? No explanation, just more dreary official footage.It boggles the mind how anyone could put together such a pointless film as this. It adds nothing to one's understanding of the man, the nation, or the times he presided over. It's simply official archival material strung together chronologically. And, just to be clear, this is a million miles from high-art Leni Riefenstahl material. As a complete outsider, who only knows of the revolution against Ceausescu from news reports at the time, I could have done a better job of shedding light on the life and times of Ceausescu. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary as bad as this before.For this to get a rating of 7.9 is absurd. Surely the people involved in the film have been here to rate it highly. I give it 1 for Awful because there is no lower rating.

Metin Cavus Autobiografia lui Nicolae Ceausescu (2010) is a feature-length documentary derived only from archive footage, from images mostly taken by official camera crew of Ceausescu. It covers the years of Ceausescu reign, between 1965 and 1989. From the footage and camera angles we can easily understand that in most of the occasions more than one camera were used for documenting, and that cameramen were given a broad freedom, even shooting the most intimate moments of the Ceausescu couple.The role of the director here is mainly to edit the images which are mostly arranged in chronological order, but this is where the brilliance of Andrei Ujica starts to shine! He implements wonderful editing skills, often using montage technique to enrich the narrative. Moreover, in most cases shot/reverse shot is brilliantly used as if this is a well-designed fiction.For me, this phenomenal documentary, among other things, presents two main issues to remember. First, it shows how the life and people of Romania were seen by a president. How a president lives and how he perceives his country visually. This is because the lens of the camera in most cases can be metaphorically leveled with the eye of Ceausescu. That is why the title of the film is so ironic! We all know that the conditions in Romania were not the same with the images documented by Ceausescu cameramen. And second, it sadly presents how this big communist utopia, this all-happy-people real communism slowly vanishes. It is sad because initial happiness of people really looks like was coming from the heart.In conclusion, this is a must see documentary, a real cinema pleasure, which bears a potential of numerous discussions, not only about Romania or the so-called communist bloc, but also about the nature of governing and making history.