Enescu, Skinned Alive

Bad acting, bad cinematography, bad editing, and no script, but besides all this it's very good - I'm kidding!

The dialog is almost entirely made up of quotes, and it shows: it doesn't flow and has no logic. There is nothing in this film about the real Enescu, one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. Why is he a great composer? One can never find out about it from this film.

Of course, the film makers are only interested in gossip and his love life. And this wouldn't be so bad if they showed the contrast between the greatness of the artist and the flaws of his married life, which would have been a real subject for a good film.

P. S. In the end credits, the pretentious filmmakers wrote the name of one 'L. W. Beethoven'. So much for the accuracy level of this lame flick.

I saw this movie in a glamorous setting, at the Romanian Atheneum and I could tell from the get go that this was going to be bad. We've had a 40 mins introduction by a guy in a bow tie who asked the public for applause for like 7 or 8 times, for the brilliant acting, directing, screenwriting and so on and so forth. Everything needed to be applauded - at one point I thought we're going to honor the fact that we are still alive through this painful intro with a round of clapping.

The movie is atrocious: there is no narrative line, the characters lack any depth, the dialogue is grotesquely cliche, filled with pompous phares that have no meaning. We got out after 20 mins of projection. What a waste of time and money!

I honestly think Elenescu Skinned Alive was terrible and didn't deserve any of the awards it got. I went in with high expectations because of all the hype, but it felt like a complete waste of time. The pacing was painfully slow, and the plot, if you can even call it that, was confusing and pretentious for no good reason. The characters were flat, and it seemed like the director was trying too hard to be "artistic" rather than telling a story that actually made sense. Half the time, I found myself checking the time, wondering when it would finally be over.

The cinematography was dark and shaky in a way that felt forced, and the dialogue was either too quiet to hear or so strange it was hard not to cringe. I didn't feel connected to any of the characters, and the film's attempts to shock the audience felt cheap rather than meaningful. I genuinely cannot understand how this film managed to win awards when it didn't deliver on basic storytelling, emotional connection, or even visual coherence.

Honestly, the best part of the entire experience was the comfortable seats I was sitting in, which at least made it bearable to sit through the mess unfolding on the screen. Other than that, I would not recommend this film to anyone, unless you're looking for an example of how a movie can fail while still pretending to be dee.

Exceptional! I'm not sure if I dare make such a comparison, but it felt to me very much like Enescu's Oedipe-birth, rise, deception in place of triumph, downfall, and death. Sublime! It tells the story of Enescu's life, portraying him not just as a genius, but as a man-with all his struggles and depth-framing his tumultuous relationship with Maruca within the arc of his career. I learned so much about Enescu's life, and I really appreciate the message it conveys: to cherish our cultural values, not just by remembering great names from the past, but by truly understanding their journey, their sacrifices, and the legacy they left behind. It's a powerful reminder of how important it is to honor and preserve the richness of our heritage. I'm truly glad Romanian films are being made on such meaningful themes.

Romanian cinema seems to feel uncomfortable with George Enescu, the most important Romanian composer and one of the most appreciated musicians of the 20th century. Violinist, conductor, educator, but above all composer, who in addition to a few hits (especially the rhapsodies) also composed a lot of profound and difficult music, a challenge for performers but also for listeners, Enescu traveled a winding path throughout his life, from his appearance in the world of music as a child prodigy, going through a sentimental life often in the focus of the scandal press, to the end of his life as an exile from Romania that had became a communist country, marked by illness and disillusionment. Paradoxically, no film has been dedicated to him so far. Director Toma Enache worked for many years on the construction of the project that became the film 'Enescu, jupuit de viu' (English title - 'Enescu Skinned Alive') which fits well into the trend of biographies of great composers that seem to enjoy success on screens in recent years. The result is one of those films that polarizes opinions, declared by some as a masterpiece or art film, criticized by others as 'soft porn' and blasphemy against a national cultural icon. I will try to share what I felt while watching it, my impressions being also a combination of contradictions.

Enescu's biography is presented in somewhat chronological order, although there are many 'flash-back' and 'flash-forward' insertions. For the Romanian viewer, somewhat familiar with the composer's biography, the exposition does not present any problems, but for less initiated viewers I think there will be quite a few difficulties in placing some episodes in time and especially in context. The emphasis is placed on the passionate love story between Enescu and Maruca Cantacuzino, which unfolded over the course of several decades. However, a problem arises here that I am not sure if it is technical or a directorial decision that is difficult to explain. Toma Enache uses very little makeup, or if he does, it is clumsy. Enescu seems frozen in an eternal allure around the age of 50 while Maria Rosetti Cantacuzino looks about 20 years younger. In reality, the two were quite close in age, Maruca being about three years older. Problematic decisions or executions, because, for example, the relationship of the woman about 50 years old with the philosopher Nae Ionescu over ten years younger is difficult to understand based on the way the protagonists look.

I cannot avoid the comparison with the film 'Boléro' by Anne Fontaine, made in the same year, which tells the story of the life of Maurice Ravel, Enescu's contemporary. In both movies the scripts center around the gestation of the major mature work of each of the two composers - Ravel's 'Bolero' and Enescu's opera 'Oedipe'. In my opinion, we learn much less about Enescu's masterpiece in this film. Is Oedipus' suffering meant to be a replica of the musician's love pains, passionately loved but occasionally deceived by the capricious princess? We learn too little about Enescu the man and his relationships with the world around him. Toma Enache built sets, used authentic locations when he could, and created luxurious costumes to reconstruct the world of the Romanian aristocracy before World War II, but the image seemed as brilliant as it is superficial. The music is, of course, formidable, with Enescu performed by the Orchestre National de France conducted by Cristian Macelaru, but the spoken text does not always work well and sometimes sounds more like a precious documentary commentary. I was not enthusiastic about either the choice or the acting performances of Catalin Bocirnea and Theodora Sandu. They look great in the love scenes, but from a film about Enescu I expected something completely different. More about the soul and music, less about the flesh. The producers chose not to release the film in the commercial cinemas in Romania, limiting themselves to special screenings and now to broadcasting on television. Perhaps it would have been more successful in cinemas. If I'm wrong, 'Enescu, jupuit de viu' may even become a cult film, not just one good for anniversary screenings.