Minimalism, Realism, neo-Realism – these are the terms most often used to describe the Romanian New Wave in the critical and scholarly discourse. Maria Ioniță describes this ‘distinctive brand of realism’ as a ‘type of realism [that] demonstrates a gift for the patient observation of characters and surroundings, and an attraction towards the more unvarnished, marginal or muted aspects of reality’ (2015: 1 76). This emphasis on different aspects of Realism is definitely a novelty and a defining feature of films produced after 2000, especially when compared to the metaphorical-allegorical mode of expression that dominated the Romanian cinema of the 1980s and 90s. However, one of the main goals of this essay is to transcend the discourse of Realism on Romanian cinema, because if we consider Realism as a general characteristic for the whole New Wave, the meaning of the term will become too broad and the differences between filmmakers will disappear.

Though most scholars agree that despite some similarities, the cinema of Corneliu Porumboiu represents a distinctive voice within the Romanian New Wave, they are still reluctant to abandon the terminology and the theories of Realism. Andrei State (2014), for example acknowledges that Porumboiu’s cinema differs from the approach of other Romanian directors, but will only go as far as analysing his works through a more nuanced spectrum of Realism.Contesting this discourse on Realism, I will argue that Porumboiu is not a realist filmmaker, he is merely theorising the possibilities of Realism, more precisely those of the representation of reality. Although his stories are deeply rooted in the social realities of contemporary Romania, they provide a cinematic and narrative discussion of some major theories of representation. After analysing the most important topics and scenes where Porumboiu’s interrogations regarding representation can be identified, I will briefly investigate on the ‘philosophic’ nature of Porumboiu's cinema. I will try to answer the question whether his films can be interpreted as ‘direct theory’ – a term introduced by Edward S. Small (1994: 5) to describe the way in which experimental cinema can be seen as a kind of implicit philosophical discourse. Furthermore, do Porumboiu's films provide perhaps a substantial philosophy of audio-visual representation in cinema in a similar way as we see in René Magritte's ‘philosophical’ paintings, for example?