The 113-minute film tells the story of Otilia's day from morning to late night in chronological order, without any flashbacks, episodes, or flashbacks. The narrative point of view is limited to Otilia's first point of view, and there is no parallel evolution of multiple clues, and no cross-cutting to create dramatic conflict. The only trick is that the cut-in time at the beginning of the film is after Otilia promised Gabita, so the audience doesn't know what kind of story the director is telling in the first 30 minutes. The rhythm of the whole film is not obvious, and it can't be said to be a succession. It's just the arguing between the doctor and the two girls in the hotel and Otilia's handling of the fetus's corpse that can be called a climax from the plot, but the director didn't use much special audio-visual language to reinforce these paragraphs to create a narrative. "relaxation". The first shot started with a close-up of about 10 seconds and lasted for more than 2 minutes; the second shot had a similar length, the difference was only from the back and the lens; the lens was shot on the shoulder and did not use Steadicam There is a little shaking, and this lens processing method basically runs through the entire film. Very few extreme scenes such as large close-ups, large panoramas, etc. are used, and they are rarely switched between scenes with large spans. The composition and angles are also mostly quite satisfactory. Heel lenses are used a lot, but there are very few lens movements such as push-pull panning. The overall tone is relatively dark, and there is no bright color in the whole film. Whether it is a large bouquet of red flowers in the scene at the birthday dinner or a small red flower on the table in the hotel, the color looks more like a solidified blood color, while other scenes are simply rare in such embellishment colors, only blue , green, gray, white, etc. The effect of the simultaneous recording is a bit exaggerated. The sound of slippers walking in the dormitory, the ambient sound on the street, and the sound of the toilet in the house make the audience more and more uncomfortable. Especially when Otilia was dealing with the fetus in the middle of the night, her rapid breathing and some messy steps made the audience who had just been shocked by the footage of a long fetus corpse also have lingering fears. Except for the theme song that plays during the subtitles at the end of the film, no silent music is used, and the music with sound source only appears dimly in the background in the hotel restaurant at the end of the film. All of this makes the feature film look more like a documentary, and it's no wonder that some viewers who don't like the film call it a "Romanian poor film" with "no artistic refinement". Or put the judgment aside first, and then look at what the film expresses in this way. Characters: Otilia and Gabita, the characters of the two main characters are very clearly displayed in front of the audience. Otilia is outgoing, brave, decisive, Kind; Gabita is introverted, somewhat weak, and often indecisive. Plot: This uncomplicated story, the director speaks very clearly. After reading it once, except for individual details, the audience will basically have nothing to understand. Background of the times: In fact, the expression of the background of the times is scattered and hidden. I believe that if there is no subtitles in front of the first camera to prompt 1987, few foreign audiences can locate the specific era of this film reflecting the content. But obviously the director carefully conveyed a lot of information about the background of the times: ubiquitous foreign goods (cigarettes, detergents, cosmetics, coffee), strict and inefficient hotel accommodation management, gradually affluent material conditions... You can see To the point, the film doesn't express anything labelled, it just presents a story. The commentator can "sensitively" interpret the direction of political oppression and metaphors in the context of the political changes in Eastern Europe. Of course, it is not wrong; but if the audience only sees the struggles and helpless choices of the two girls, when they see Ottilie Ya's complicated state of mind when she is helping her roommate to solve the problem of her love future is indeed part of the expression of the movie. However, one thing needs to be clarified. If only because the basis of the plot design is "the Romanian abortion was illegal at the time", it can be extended that "this is the reason why two girls were sexually blackmailed by unscrupulous doctors", and then it can be concluded that "the movie is in the To criticize Ceausescu's dictatorial communist government" is too far-fetched. The following is a detailed analysis of the approximately 37-minute video clip from Otilia taking the doctor into the hotel room to when she leaves the room. No. Shot length Screen content Scene-by-scenes voice 1 28 seconds The doctor and Otilia enter the door, Otilia and Gabita have a brief conversation, and then Gabita draws a close-up voiceover Gabita is chatting with the doctor 2 5 minutes 38 seconds The doctor understands Gabita's specific situation, Otilia understands the operation process, and the three have a dialogue; the doctor is dissatisfied with the room reservation and other issues. After several months of pregnancy, the tone of the conversation began to become severe; the subject of a panning shot turned into a doctor and Otilia. When it came to money, a dispute began, and the doctor made a sexual request. After the panorama camera pans, Gabita turns into a voice-over 4 After a brief silence of 3 minutes and 35 seconds, the conversation resumes, which soon turns into a quarrel, with Gabita's pleading in between. The starting frame is Gabita's medium shot, and then begins to follow the movement of the main body of the frame, with a brief close-up over-the-shoulder shot in the middle (Otilia in the foreground, focus on the doctor), and finally pushes As a close-up of the doctor, the camera continues to move with the subject. Motion camera vocals 5 17 seconds Otilia began to sit on the bed to undress, and the doctor also began to slippers Panorama 6 1 minute 05 seconds Gabita escaped from the door, ran from the background to the foreground of the screen, and borrowed a loan from a passing tenant Smoke (shake the camera), go back to the background, smoke, open the door and enter the house Panorama 7 20 seconds Gabita hides in the bathroom, smoke, turn on the faucet Medium scene The sound of water is loud 8 12 seconds Gabita widens his eyes and breathes a little The sound of rapid water flow continued for 9.18 seconds. Otilia rushed into the bathroom and turned on the faucet in the bath. Gabita looked at her, and when she was about to go out, she came back and turned off the faucet of the sink, and slowly opened the door and went out. There is room for the sound of panoramic water. Sensation change 10 16 seconds Otilia sits down in the bathtub with her back to the camera and starts to wash the sound of water flowing in the panorama wash 11 6 seconds Otilia is still washing, the side shot is the sound of water flowing in the close-up wash 12 12 seconds Ottilie A close-up of the clock ticking with her back to the camera 13 21 seconds Otilia washes her face by the sink, the audience sees Gabita rushing into the bathroom in the mirror, and then comes out of the painting; Otilia looks at her, goes out of the bathroom (out of the painting ) took the pants, (into the picture) put them on before going out. Close-up of Gabita's crying voice-over 14 3 minutes 20 seconds Gabita started to make the bed, the camera panned, Otilia got up from the chair, started to look through the doctor's box, found a knife, the doctor went out of the bathroom and began to prepare for the abortion Panorama Voice-over of the doctor flushing the toilet in the bathroom 15 2 minutes 47 seconds The doctor gave Gabita an abortion. Panoramic dialogue 16 2 minutes 4 seconds The subjective shot of Gabita, with her own legs in the foreground and the doctor and Otilia in the background , the doctor explained the precautions while packing up the things, and then went to the panoramic dialogue 17 4 minutes 20 seconds Otilia began to blame many people and things, the picture only has her side close-up dialogue, but Gabita is a voice-over 18 2 minutes 41 seconds Otilia got up to help Gabita pour water and adjust her posture, saying that she was going to go out to her boyfriend's mother's birthday party, exhorting some things, and then going out to have a panoramic dialogue. This paragraph is the key point of the whole film's story. Tilia came and went, busy and busy, Gabita was a little nervous, and the audience couldn't guess what was going on. In the second shot of this passage, the subject of abortion is The words told the audience and confessed the information that "abortion will be sentenced to a heavy sentence". The following conversations also revealed a lot of supplementary information, the process of finding a doctor, raising money, etc. In fact, there are many ways to explain this information. If it is a TV series, it will definitely do a flashback and start from the beginning slowly, which will only make the audience hate the movie for wasting the first 30 minutes. Therefore, although the dialogue conveys these "factual" information, what the audience can feel more clearly from these dialogues is the character of the characters, from their tone of voice, from the content of the words and so on. Although the dialogue completes the function of narrative, the narrative is hidden behind the characters, and the audience is led by the emotions of the characters, and unknowingly finishes watching the nearly 40-minute movie in this small space. Judging from the rhythm of the shots, this passage is obvious. There is a quick transition between shots in the middle. Both the front and the rear are shots of more than 2 minutes, and there are even shots of 4 minutes and 6 minutes in length. Moreover, the splitting of the shots is not due to objective reasons such as subject movement. The two sets of shots of Gabita and Otilia in the bathroom are all single characters in the same space. Both sets of shots have accent shots such as close-ups or close-ups. These two consecutive sets of shots brought the audience's concerns and emotions about the fate of the characters accumulated within the first 50 minutes of the film to a climax. Correspondingly, there are a total of 7 dialogue shots at the beginning and the end. In order to emphasize the tension between the characters, the director deliberately maintained a panoramic view of the two or three people for a few minutes, instead of using a counter attack, he only used a similar Over-the-shoulder shot. It can be seen that it is not just a single "abortion" theme that can win the Palme d'Or in Cannes. The independently produced "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" carefully controls the elements of the film to convey information and emotions. The documentary style and realism do not mean that there is no artistic processing and refinement. . With such a sensational theme and a plot design that is not complicated but challenges the audience's psychological bottom line, the director chose a calm way, but the audience can have a strong reaction. Coincidentally, "The Elephant", which is also a Palme d'Or film, also chose the same expression, but it was calmer to the extreme. (81 minutes of film, 60 minutes of seemingly insignificant fragmentary records, 20 minutes of real carnage, The sudden ending of 1 minute,) and the theme are more explosive, and it is even more embarrassing to watch. However, "Elephant" is very different from "Three Weeks and Two Days in April". The whole film does not have too many dark tones. Basically, the autumn sun is shining, the campus scenery is pleasant, and the classroom windows are bright. Even if the sky is the same color as the clouds at the beginning and end of the film, the filtered colors are dim but still pure. If it is said that "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" is passed If the bright parts are erased to express this difficult theme, then "Elephant" achieves the same purpose through huge contrast, more brutal and impressive. Delaying and thinking from this direction, "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" implies "the other side". In other words, as long as no unsatisfactory things happen, things will not end so badly. In "The Elephant", there is no hope, things happen for no reason, and death occurs suddenly without any cause and effect, like "the elephant appears in the living room". Of course, as a low-budget film, "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" won the Palme d'Or as well as wide acclaim. There is a long list of awards on the official website, and the Western mainstream media has applauded. ... But when I think back to this movie, I still feel very incomprehensible, why a close-up of a bloody fetal corpse lasts for several minutes. And many times, the lens is shaking slightly from the first second, but in fact, even if the camera is carried on the shoulder, it can remain stable for a few seconds at the beginning of the lens, and it will not be shaking every second. Perhaps, there is only one reason for the explanation of these phenomena, and the director is doing it deliberately. Based on the overall perception of the whole, it is difficult to understand such an approach as a necessity for the performance of the film, but more should be considered for publicity stunts, or to add some "materials" to this art film. Returning to the discussion of film themes and metaphors, it is hard to believe that the creators had no expectations for the politicized interpretations of Western media, even if this interpretation was not the original intention of the film, it was an expected by-product. Thus, we find a lot of dialogue in the film that can lead to this interpretation but is not clear. Whether it can be considered that the director is letting go or even strengthening the possibility of such a political interpretation by the audience in some ways. As a result, the audience saw a very real background of the times. But on closer inspection, these truths are specific aspects of life that have been carefully screened. The biggest consequence of this is that the audience tends to attribute the fate of the characters to the "real" background of the era, while reducing their focus on "people" as individuals. Of course, different audiences will have different interpretations. The analysis of "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" is like Ottilia glancing blankly at the camera at the end of the film, and there is no final answer. So bad. In "The Elephant", there is no hope, things happen for no reason, and death occurs suddenly without any cause and effect, like "the elephant appears in the living room". Of course, as a low-budget film, "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" won the Palme d'Or as well as wide acclaim. There is a long list of awards on the official website, and the Western mainstream media has applauded. ... But when I think back to this movie, I still feel very incomprehensible, why a close-up of a bloody fetal corpse lasts for several minutes. And many times, the lens is shaking slightly from the first second, but in fact, even if the camera is carried on the shoulder, it can remain stable for a few seconds at the beginning of the lens, and it will not be shaking every second. Perhaps, there is only one reason for the explanation of these phenomena, and the director is doing it deliberately. Based on the overall perception of the whole, it is difficult to understand such an approach as a necessity for the performance of the film, but more should be considered for publicity stunts, or to add some "materials" to this art film. Returning to the discussion of film themes and metaphors, it is hard to believe that the creators had no expectations for the politicized interpretations of Western media, even if this interpretation was not the original intention of the film, it was an expected by-product. Thus, we find a lot of dialogue in the film that can lead to this interpretation but is not clear. Whether it can be considered that the director is letting go or even strengthening the possibility of such a political interpretation by the audience in some ways. As a result, the audience saw a very real background of the times. But on closer inspection, these truths are specific aspects of life that have been carefully screened. The biggest consequence of this is that the audience tends to attribute the fate of the characters to the "real" background of the era, while reducing their focus on "people" as individuals. Of course, different audiences will have different interpretations. The analysis of "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" is like Ottilia glancing blankly at the camera at the end of the film, and there is no final answer. So bad. In "The Elephant", there is no hope, things happen for no reason, and death occurs suddenly without any cause and effect, like "the elephant appears in the living room". Of course, as a low-budget film, "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" won the Palme d'Or as well as wide acclaim. There is a long list of awards on the official website, and the Western mainstream media has applauded. ... But when I think back to this movie, I still feel very incomprehensible, why a close-up of a bloody fetal corpse lasts for several minutes. And many times, the lens is shaking slightly from the first second, but in fact, even if the camera is carried on the shoulder, it can remain stable for a few seconds at the beginning of the lens, and it will not be shaking every second. Perhaps, there is only one reason for the explanation of these phenomena, and the director is doing it deliberately. Based on the overall perception of the whole, it is difficult to understand such an approach as a necessity for the performance of the film, but more should be considered for publicity stunts, or to add some "materials" to this art film. Returning to the discussion of film themes and metaphors, it is hard to believe that the creators had no expectations for the politicized interpretations of Western media, even if this interpretation was not the original intention of the film, it was an expected by-product. Thus, we find a lot of dialogue in the film that can lead to this interpretation but is not clear. Whether it can be considered that the director is letting go or even strengthening the possibility of such a political interpretation by the audience in some ways. As a result, the audience saw a very real background of the times. But on closer inspection, these truths are specific aspects of life that have been carefully screened. The biggest consequence of this is that the audience tends to attribute the fate of the characters to the "real" background of the era, while reducing their focus on "people" as individuals. Of course, different audiences will have different interpretations. The analysis of "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" is like Ottilia glancing blankly at the camera at the end of the film, and there is no final answer. It will shake every second. Perhaps, there is only one reason for the explanation of these phenomena, and the director is doing it deliberately. Based on the overall perception of the whole, it is difficult to understand such an approach as a necessity for the performance of the film, but more should be considered for publicity stunts, or to add some "materials" to this art film. Returning to the discussion of film themes and metaphors, it is hard to believe that the creators had no expectations for the politicized interpretations of Western media, even if this interpretation was not the original intention of the film, it was an expected by-product. Thus, we find a lot of dialogue in the film that can lead to this interpretation but is not clear. Whether it can be considered that the director is letting go or even strengthening the possibility of such a political interpretation by the audience in some ways. As a result, the audience saw a very real background of the times. But on closer inspection, these truths are specific aspects of life that have been carefully screened. The biggest consequence of this is that the audience tends to attribute the fate of the characters to the "real" background of the era, while reducing their focus on "people" as individuals. Of course, different audiences will have different interpretations. The analysis of "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" is like Ottilia glancing blankly at the camera at the end of the film, and there is no final answer. It will shake every second. Perhaps, there is only one reason for the explanation of these phenomena, and the director is doing it deliberately. Based on the overall perception of the whole, it is difficult to understand such an approach as a necessity for the performance of the film, but more should be considered for publicity stunts, or to add some "materials" to this art film. Returning to the discussion of film themes and metaphors, it is hard to believe that the creators had no expectations for the politicized interpretations of Western media, even if this interpretation was not the original intention of the film, it was an expected by-product. Thus, we find a lot of dialogue in the film that can lead to this interpretation but is not clear. Whether it can be considered that the director is letting go or even strengthening the possibility of such a political interpretation by the audience in some ways. As a result, the audience saw a very real background of the times. But on closer inspection, these truths are specific aspects of life that have been carefully screened. The biggest consequence of this is that the audience tends to attribute the fate of the characters to the "real" background of the era, while reducing their focus on "people" as individuals. Of course, different audiences will have different interpretations. The analysis of "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" is like Ottilia glancing blankly at the camera at the end of the film, and there is no final answer.
View more about 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days reviews
