Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio University, August, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

no / Since 1989 Romania has gone from communist isolation under the megalomaniac Nicolae Ceauescu to being a key player in America's war against terrorism. Because of this strategic location it has become a front-line state for nervous Western governments keen to secure oil routes from the Middle East. It joined NATO in 2004 and is due to enter the European Union in 2007-08 despite its economy being unprepared to meet the competition challenges from established members. Tom Gallagher analyses how the country is seeking to recover from a disastrous period in its history while many of the key legacies of dictatorship remain. Having lynched the discredited Ceauescu in 1989, former acolytes have spent the past fifteen years trying to retain a monopoly of control behind the facade of a Western-style democracy. They combined their political ambitions with acquiring the control of vast amounts of private property denied to them by Ceauescu. Political institutions were given a facelift, as in the case of the intelligence services which became a crucial power-base for the ruling Social Democratic Party (PSD). The state continued to be used to serve narrow private interests. Replacing the communist dynasty of the Ceauescus, there is now an oligarchy drawn from the PSD and its satellites in the bureaucracy, major industries, and the intelligence world which grew wealthy through insider privatisation and the looting of the country's banks. Romania is now at a crucial turning-point. In 2004 the mobilisation of civil society contributed to the narrow victory of Traian B sescu in presidential elections. It is unclear whether he can win control over the key levers of state necessary to stem the corruption and abuse of power which have blighted Romania's hopes of breaking free from its communist-era legacy. The PSD is now led by Mircea Geoana, the son of a general in Ceauescu's Securitate. He has recruited a string of Western politicians to block pressure for meaningful change from Brussels and to ensure that accession to the EU occurs without serious reform.

Le sujet de la thèse est Nicolae Ceausescu, le dictateur communiste qui a dirigé la Roumanie à peu près 25 ans (du 23 mars 1965 au 22 décembre 1989). Celui qui m'intéresse ici, c'est le Dirigeant (te Conducator, en roumain) Ceausescu; le terme désigne le personnage qui a été simultanément le chef du parti et de l'État et je l'ai utilisé ici parce que je suis d'avis qu'il définit parfaitement - par sa tradition en Roumanie, par les modèles (stalinien et asiatique) qui l'ont contaminé et par son potentiel symbolique - l'exercice du pouvoir que Nicolae Ceausescu a illustré au cœur de la société roumaine. Le personnage politique Nicolae Ceausescu et son culte de la personnalité sont mis ici en relation avec un certain mythe du Dirigeant - dont la présence dans la culture politique roumaine traditionnelle est également analysée - et ils sont étudiés dans la perspective des représentations qu'ils ont créées. L'analyse de ces représentations et l'investigation du contexte qui les a favorisées m'ont amené à penser que les Roumains ont rejeté seulement le modèle du dirigeant incarné par Nicolae Ceausescu et non pas le modèle d'un dirigeant fort en général. Autrement dit, je crois - et, en conséquence, j'ai voulu le démontrer - que même si Ceausescu a disparu en décembre 1989, le mythe d'un dirigeant autoritaire, d'un Paterfamilias qui guide son peuple avec une exigence maximale est bien vivant. Donc, ce n'est pas le modèle que les Roumains ont rejeté en décembre 1989 mais l'individu qui a joué maladroitement le rôle du dirigeant autoritaire - un rôle que nous trouvions justifié. Dans l'ensemble, mon sujet est l'analyse de cette rencontre, de cette symbiose entre l'histoire, le mythe - du Dirigeant, dans mon cas - et la politique dans un cas particulier : le culte de la personnalité de Nicolae Ceausescu dans la phase terminale du communisme roumain. Mon intention était de chercher dans la culture politique roumaine certains facteurs qui ont favorisé la perpétuation du mythe du Dirigeant pendant le régime communiste et son maniement politique, malgré le fait que, formellement, le développement nocif du mythe sous la forme d'un culte de la personnalité était incompatible avec l'idéologie prétendue marxiste du régime au pouvoir. / Québec Université Laval, Bibliothèque 2014

Notre recherche sur les commémorations comme outils de propagande du régime communiste roumain sous Nicolae Ceausescu, se base sur trois hypothèses principales : i) afin de construire, de représenter et "d'historiciser" la figure de Ceausescu, le Dirigeant, le parti a transformé les grandes personnalités du passé en éléments générateurs de son essence historique et mythique ; ii) l'acte commémoratif a été utilisé par le parti pour assimiler des héros nationaux au Corps politique du Dirigeant ; iii) les héros nationaux qui composent ainsi le Corps politique du Dirigeant sont réduits chacun à une image-type des vertus mythiques attribuée à Ceausescu. Les matériaux spécifiques de la propagande commémorative du régime communiste roumain : discours de dirigeants, programmes et résolutions du parti, articles et études historiques, colloques scientifiques, congrès idéologiques, oeuvres littéraires et oeuvres d'arts plastiques constituent les sources de cette recherche. Ce corpus rassemble donc des écrits, des images et des documents d'archives qui informent sur la manipulation des symboles de l'histoire nationale par le parti communiste. Nous avons structuré notre recherche en deux niveaux. D'une part, l'analyse générale de la politique et de la propagande du parti concernant l'histoire des Roumains et les commémorations des héros nationaux. D'autre part, nous analysons trois commémorations célébrées sous le régime de Ceausescu : Balcescu, 1969 ; Burébista, 1980 et Mircea le Vieux, 1986. Notre recherche des enjeux fondamentaux et des pratiques de la propagande commémorative sous le régime communiste roumain confirme la mobilisation d'importantes ressources matérielles et humaines. La politique du parti, lui a conféré une place privilégiée à la commémoration afin de résoudre la crise de légitimité, forte et chronique, des promoteurs roumains de l'utopie communiste. / Québec Université Laval, Bibliothèque 2014

<p>The conditions for art in Romania have gone through big changes since the collapse of the regime in December of 1989. Under the Communist regime the artists had to work within a dualistic system completely unlike the one that developed in the West during the same period.</p><p>Similar to the other countries of the former Eastern block, the communist Romanian state had understood the great potential that art has as a form of propaganda. Thus the regime secured full control over the art that would be allowed into the public space. In response to the confines set on the artistic expressions, a non-official art began to develop alongside the official art of the state.</p><p>These two layers of Romanian art history were dissolved when Ceausescu’s regime finally came to an end in 1989. The underground art was suddenly available to an audience, while the official art was discredited. Out of the chaos that followed, a new Romanian art was born. During the 1990’s many Romanian artists started to process the past to try to understand their present situation, while others investigated Romanian identity as perceived from the outside.</p><p>The main focus of this paper has been to look at the conditions for contemporary Romanian art under Communism, and how they have changed since 1989.</p><p>My research has been based on literature such as The History of the Romanian People (1970), Primary Documents (2002) and Actionism in Romania during the Commuinist Era (2002), as well as on my own interviews with artists Constantin Mara, Ion Grigorescu, Matei Lazarescu, Kuki Constantinescu and Stefan Constantinescu.</p>

The conditions for art in Romania have gone through big changes since the collapse of the regime in December of 1989. Under the Communist regime the artists had to work within a dualistic system completely unlike the one that developed in the West during the same period. Similar to the other countries of the former Eastern block, the communist Romanian state had understood the great potential that art has as a form of propaganda. Thus the regime secured full control over the art that would be allowed into the public space. In response to the confines set on the artistic expressions, a non-official art began to develop alongside the official art of the state. These two layers of Romanian art history were dissolved when Ceausescu’s regime finally came to an end in 1989. The underground art was suddenly available to an audience, while the official art was discredited. Out of the chaos that followed, a new Romanian art was born. During the 1990’s many Romanian artists started to process the past to try to understand their present situation, while others investigated Romanian identity as perceived from the outside. The main focus of this paper has been to look at the conditions for contemporary Romanian art under Communism, and how they have changed since 1989. My research has been based on literature such as The History of the Romanian People (1970), Primary Documents (2002) and Actionism in Romania during the Commuinist Era (2002), as well as on my own interviews with artists Constantin Mara, Ion Grigorescu, Matei Lazarescu, Kuki Constantinescu and Stefan Constantinescu.

No description available.

Thesis (M.F.A.)--Boston University PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / The purpose of this thesis is to closely analyze some of the individual authorial voices that have emerged from contemporary Romanian cinema. Billed by the international critical establishment as a "New Wave," the recent slate of Romanian productions, while very successful on the international festival circuit, still lacks an apt conceptualization of the precise characteristics that set these new filmmakers apart, not only from other international directors, but also from one another. The analysis focuses on six recent productions: Stuffand Dough (2001), The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (2005) and Aurora (2010) by Cristi Puiu, 12:08 East of Bucharest (2006) and Police, Adjective (2010) by Corneliu Porumboiu, and The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu (2010) by Andrei Ujica, breaking down the individual authorial characteristics and thematic and stylistic concerns of each filmmaker and contextualizing them within the larger history of Romanian film, as well as the trajectories of international art cinema.

Une interrogation sur la nature et les pouvoirs de l’art traverse les journaux intimes de Mircea Eliade, Eugène Ionesco, Mihail Sebastian et Nicolae Steinhardt. Cette interrogation remonte aux débats littéraires de la Grande Roumanie, contexte historique d’où émergent ces écrivains. A cette période est aussi liée leur pratique du journal intime, genre qui caractérise la ‘jeune génération’, groupement de jeunes acteurs culturels lancé par Eliade. Les réceptions (selon le terme de H. R. Jauss) des œuvres d’art que ces quatre auteurs consignent dans leurs journaux intimes permettent d’illustrer trois pouvoirs de l’art mis en relief par leur jeunesse roumaine et leur cheminement après la guerre. L’art a un pouvoir formateur : il les enseigne en leur ouvrant des mondes présentés par les œuvres. Il a aussi un pouvoir nationaliste car, dans le nouvel état-nation roumain, dans le contexte d’une « littérature mineure », l’art tendait à être politisé et l’état roumain pratiqua une politique nationaliste qui n’épargna pas le domaine des arts. Enfin, l’art a un pouvoir thérapeutique car il permet d’aborder des expériences douloureuses telles que celle de la crise nationaliste roumaine, par des voies indirectes et plus attrayantes. Les quatre journaux intimes, établis à partir de textes publiés en Roumanie et en France, font découvrir quatre cheminements qui se croisent et s’éclairent mutuellement, notamment sur leurs relectures difficiles du passé roumain. Le parcours de Ionesco ressort particulièrement comme celui d’une thérapie par l’art et d’un ‘travail de mémoire’, selon le terme de Ricœur, sur son passé personnel et sur le XXe siècle européen. / Reflections about the nature and powers of art pervade the diaries of Mircea Eliade, Eugène Ionesco, Mihail Sebastian, and Nicolae Steinhardt. These reflections stem from the literary debates in fashion in Greater Romania in which all four authors took part. Their practice of diary keeping also goes back to this period. It especially characterized a group of young intellectuals launched by Eliade called the ‘Young Generation.’ The diary genre lends itself well to a type of study H. R. Jauss has called ‘reception.’ The receptions of art in the four diaries illustrate three powers of art. Art has a formative power: it teaches by opening the receiver to the world proposed by the work of art. Art also has a nationalistic power: as an instrument of national-identity building for the new Romanian nation-state, art did not escape the danger of politicization characteristic of so-called ‘minor literatures,’ a term this dissertation discusses, and the Romanian state practiced nationalist policies with regards to the arts. Lastly, art has a therapeutic power: it can help in coming to terms with painful experiences like that of the Romanian nationalist catastrophe by indirect and more attractive means. The text of the four diaries is here established from fragments published in Romanian and in French publications. The diaries reveal four lives that crossed paths and that shed light on each other and especially on the difficult re-readings of the Romanian past. Ionesco’s diary in particular emerges as an example of a therapy by art and of what Paul Ricœur has called a ‘work of memory,’ about his personal history, that of his generation and of twentieth-century Europe.