MovieChat Forums > Moartea domnului Lazarescu (2005) Discussion > Mr. Lazarescu explained (SPOILERS)

Mr. Lazarescu explained (SPOILERS)

posted 19 years ago by anothem
16 replies | jump to latest

* POSSIBLE SPOILERS *

I've noticed a lot of people didn't understand some things in this movie. For those of you who understood, please forgive me.. This is written to show why I consider this movie so great.
Ok, some facts. Why does Mr. Lazarescu drink? Why does he have three cats if barely has money for himself? Well, because he's lonely and poor. His daughter left the country and hates him. How do we know she hates him? Well, she calls her aunt(his sister) more than she calls her dad. What daughter does that? His wife is dead. His sister cares about him, but she is also old and poor and after lending him some money she gets angry that he doesn't pay back on time. His neighbours hate him. That's why he drinks. Wouldn't you?
One thing many of you did not realise. Why does the ambulance eventually come? The ambulance comes for one and only one reason: they fear meningitis. Meningitis can be lethal AND it's contagious, especially in poor areas. The only reason they come is to prevent others being contaminated. They don't care about him..
His neighbours blame one each other for not helping him but actually none of them really want to bother. They hate him, they'd be better off without him.
The nurse on the ambulance is the only one who cares for him. True, but even she is far from perfect. We see this in a few moments. She does not sit with him in the back as she is suppose to, she doesn't give him water when he clearly asks for it, but drinks it herself, and although he says he needs to go the toilet she ignores him. But she criticises others, like everyone else does.
And I also was dissapointed by the ending, at first, but then it came to me that it's perfect. It doesn't matter if he dies or not. It doesn't matter at all. He is going to die anyway, he has cancer, we are being told that. What matters is the way everyone treats him. Mr. Lazarescu is forsaken by everyone. That's his death. That's the death of all old people like him, here in Romania, and there are many. He is already dead to everyone else.

One more thing. This might be just me, but I started being sad after the first ten seconds. I think I only laughed once or twice during the movie and I can't understand how can people still find the strength to laugh. I consider it to be the work of art of a great director. I say it brings a new beginning for Romanian movies. May it be!

[–] LucasCorso 19 years ago

Hello.
I am a romanian myself (but I live in Belgium now), I didn't see the movie, but I loved your comment about this movie, you made me curious about finding it and see it. Thank you. Your message brought back a lot of memories, good and bad, about my own life... If the movie is as good as it seems from your comment, the time watching it will be well spent :-) Too bad I think it can't be completely understood by foreigners...
Take care...

[–] iliescuion 19 years ago

Good job Cristian.
You should write these at the very begining of the movie.
Now we got it.

[–] Gregoire-2 18 years ago

Im pretty sure I caught most of your points in watching this movie. I do not see what is so special about this kind of filmmaking. This was a depressing and not very engaging experience, and this from somebody who loved Cache, Elephant, The Son and L'Enfant.

[–] raineater777 18 years ago

While for you it may not be "engaging", it is a social semi-documentary of how life is here, in Romania. Maybe stretched out a bit, but the irony remains; you can die if you do not have the right papers and the right luck.
We *live* through stories like that, this style of filmmaking is meant to raise questions, it is a question mark about our humanity. It looks very "real" (when people would expect it's fiction) so that it confronts us with ourselves..
That's how i see things, and while it may *not* be my favourite style of filmmaking, i would definitively say it is great nonetheless.

[–] muzzaofoz 18 years ago

I can understand why nobody could be bothered with him. By the end of the first hour I found myself wishing he would pass away so the movie would get better. Do you think the director purposefully set out to keep him distant from the audience? He didn't evoke much sympathy from me. I suppose it was realistic in that sense. If Hollywood had made the same film he would have been lovable and endearing.....tugging at our heart strings.

[–] sukiyaki8 18 years ago

still, it doesn't make the movie any better.
there are much more than understandable plot to make a better movie,
i'm sorry if i don't agree with you, but i think this movie is far from good.

[–] robbchadwick 18 years ago

I learned a long time ago that certain movie-goers see movies simply to be entertained and certain movie-goers see movies to learn something or to tap into emotions that others consider unpleasant. I enjoy both types of films; but I suppose I tend to prefer the more serious subjects as a rule.

[–] emncaity 17 years ago

Maybe that's part of the point of the film too, or at least it has that effect. Lazarescu really isn't lovable; he drinks, he smells, he won't take care of his own health, and he expects doctors to fix him up after a lifetime of making himself fall apart. He is what he is. If you need a movie to be "engaging" (as one poster put it), forget this one; this one wasn't run through the marketing department, the guys who are good at bringing stuff to you and setting it in your lap, or cramming it down your throat, or making it caress you, or whatever. This kind of film requires a really un-self-centered move on the part of anybody who views it. If you need it to come to you and make you feel good, probably better to go somewhere else. Not that this film is great art--I'm still on the fence about it--but it is true that much great art does exactly that to you; it refuses to come hold your hand and make you like it.

[–] I_donthavefb_lol 18 years ago

Great post.

he's lonely and poor. His daughter left the country and hates him. How do we know she hates him? Well, she calls her aunt(his sister) more than she calls her dad. What daughter does that? His wife is dead. His sister cares about him, but she is also old and poor and after lending him some money she gets angry that he doesn't pay back on time. His neighbours hate him. That's why he drinks

Yeah. A main theme of the movie is to show how prevalent "blaming the victim" is in Romania and how callous society is toward the weak.

Why does the ambulance eventually come? The ambulance comes for one and only one reason: they fear meningitis

Post-communist societies have to deal with the legacy of the past, which is that political leaders had an extremely instrumental, opportunistic attitude toward human beings. It seems Romania is still struggling with that legacy.

She does not sit with him in the back as she is suppose to, she doesn't give him water when he clearly asks for it, but drinks it herself, and although he says he needs to go the toilet she ignores him

The lack of professionalism even by people who are well-meaning enough is truly shocking.

It doesn't matter if he dies or not. It doesn't matter at all. He is going to die anyway, he has cancer, we are being told that. What matters is the way everyone treats him. Mr. Lazarescu is forsaken by everyone. That's his death. That's the death of all old people like him, here in Romania, and there are many. He is already dead to everyone else.

Beautiful comment. All the more reason to bump this thread to the top.

[–] Rurik_Snorri 17 years ago

Bump!

Great film & great thread. Finally watched it tonight and couldn't take my eyes off it mostly through the outstanding performances and direction. Many, many great subtle things that may even require a second viewing to get - but for instance I do recall the impression it made on me how the ER lady nonchalantly drinks water with her drops just after Domn Lazarescu says he's thirsty.

At first viewing the ending infuritated me. Five minutes later it made me very happy. That ambiguity about whether he dies in hospital - that potentially maddening ending as in "WTF" is what I found to be the film's major forte actually. It's not an accident that his name is LAZARescu, of course.

[–] anaire-1 15 years ago

I agree with all of you.
Is it artistic?
But what is art? - one might ask.
One thing for sure, this is a good movie.
Up the thread.
BUMP!

[–] psdhart 15 years ago

The OP is spot on, nobody cared for him, he let himself go

[–] rex_ilusivii 14 years ago

It is meticulous; on the second viewing you get to understand all the subdued, but deliberatly thrown in hints. It is technically successful; it wanted to look like a documentary, and it certainly does. It is poetic; the Divine Comedy symbolism, the Lazarus, the Dante, the Virgil, the Anghel, are all very neatly woven in. It deals seriously with the society: with our egoes, our detachment, our selfishness, our conditional compassion, the disintegration of the family, the bureaucracy. It is subversive. So, of course, it is artistic.

"Because I think that the appeal of real art is to the unconscious and the subversive. Art is always subversive of society. I think that's one of its functions. The relationship between art and society is always uneasy. If civilization and authority are repressive, then art, by appealing to the unconscious, is subversive of civilization. And yet art needs society. You don't create art in a vacuum. And civilization seems to need art somehow as well. They need to go together. It's a strange duality." -- David Cronenberg

no i am db

[–] chuck-526 12 years ago

...A main theme of the movie is to show how prevalent "blaming the victim" is in Romania and how callous society is toward the weak. ...

As a U.S. retiree living my myself with only minimal family support, I'm all too familiar with the the callousness of my society toward me. If there are uniquely Romanian aspects to this film, I missed them, and still I found it quite depressing.

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

I agree with you on every aspect except the drinking one. Yes they needed him to be a drunk for the engine of film to move (first doctors just flush him away as a drunk), but he still would have been a much better character without it in my opinion.
So he is poor, does that mean he should waste even more money on drinking? he is miserable, so he should drink to be even more miserable? he has no friends, drink is surely not going to find him any, he have lost the friendship of his neighboar due to drinking with him, maybe others aswell. No if anything in situation like his drinking would be far from being on my mind.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

[–] jenn4394 8 years ago

depression has no logic. Only self-destruction. I hope it is clear now