Mini-review

I'm a little divided on this film, but would like to give it a second chance. I think there is a lot of context to this film that doesn't really come across immediately if you aren't Romanian or eastern European? I came into this thinking it was darkly humorous vampire tale (a lot of positive reviews have pitched it as such). It really appears to me at least to be primarily about the historical plight of Romanians and their land rights; the vampire is really just an allegory. That being said, I don't think it was properly presented for me to understand, and the entire vampire story didn't really work and had an anticlimactic ending.

This is my quick take on the what I think the film is trying to say: Romanians are people who historically have been abused and their lands stolen from them. In this way they are 'strigoi' or undead forced to live on land that is no longer theirs though by right it should be. I can make this connection to the underlying theme, but as an American I don't think I have the background to understand the context and maybe the film could have explained it better. As far as the vampire plot-line this is what I come away with: There are many types of vampires. Terascu was just the latest foreign type coming to take their land. Even the Romanians admit they themselves are vampires. The living kind that take back their land. I just kinda don't get it as well as I think I should. I don't see how vampire metaphor really translates to foreigners stealing land but I get that this is the metaphor that is being presented.

Although this film is in English, I think there is a barrier beyond language that would prevent an American from fully understanding the context of the film as presented. I really only think I have a glimmer of the metaphor, but it doesn't quite work out right, so I think I am missing some finer points.

Also, they say vampire occasionally, yet strigoi in other situations. Is there a purpose to this? My understanding was that a strigoi WAS a vampire. Again, I feel like I am missing out on a lot of the dialogue of this film, even though it is in English. This isn't a fault of the film-makers, just a cultural-barrier I believe.

Edit: I would like to add, that as an American with really zero knowledge of the history of Romania I did enjoy this film. Though, outside of some obscure knowledge that Vlad III (who became historically established as a demon and the basis for the dracula legend) was infact a hero who fought back an ottoman (foreign) invasion against incredible odds. Not only was he a brilliant tactician, but he was betrayed MANY times...and still came back again and again to fight for his people. Maybe this has some purpose in the greater context of the film. Vlad III being commonly associated as Vlad the Impaler or identified as Dracula, vilifies a hero and is sort of like calling Washington, Washington the Butcher to Americans.