ROMA (2018)

ROMA (2018)

Roma is a technical tour de force in search of a compelling story. It’s impressive that one man, Alfonso Cuaron, could write, direct, and photograph a film that looks as good as this one. Notably of the three, he is certainly a gifted cinematographer. The selection, construction, and framing of the scenes, especially the outdoor panoramas, are award winning material, as good as any in recent memory.

Unfortunately once fixed on a scene, he tends to linger on it too long, which not only compromises the dramatic impact of the action, but bogs down the film with too much time. It’s as if he wants to make sure that we’ve appreciated the artistic significance of each setting. At 2 hours and 15 minutes, trimming the run time by 20-30 minutes would have made a leaner film with more impact.

There were so many panning scenes of the interior of the home, especially the upstairs bedroom area, that it felt like a reality show. And in fact the entire movie had a documentary feel to it. The time spent on the visual portrayals often seemed to imply impending payoffs, but more often merely segued into another similar section: visual crescendos followed by repeat crescendos.

The story was not without activity. It’s just that the events did not support the time that was taken to arrive there. This is one of those slice of life movies that neither asks nor answers any questions, make any statement, nor come to any conclusions. We’re simply presented with what in our modern times is a fairly banal story.

The acting was good. Of special note was Yalitza Martínez, who, although a novice actress, played the central figure: a maid named Cleo. The veteran actress Marina de Tavira had a strong performance as Sofia, the mother of the family.

So while Roma’s production values are first rate, one is left to wonder what all the excitement is about. Alfonso Cuaron has the talent to direct a great film, but if Roma is any indication, he’ll need a more interesting script.

Doc’s rating: 6/10

Although I haven't seen the film my impression of it is that he is trying to replicate a slower film style akin to Tarr or Diaz though probably not to there level. So basically I think he is purposefully lingering on scenes for a long time to achieve the effect of slow cinema.

__________________

I don't understand how so many people are thinking that this movie will be looked back on as the best movie of 2018.

You might be right. And there were certainly some Fellini influences on display as well. But I think he over shot the mark a little on the pacing. Common among criticisms is that Roma is too slow.

I'd be curious to get your impressions once you've seen the film.

~Doc

I have to agree. I saw this recently and while there's a lot of artistry to it, I wouldn't have guessed this was an Oscar favorite. Beautifully shot, with some absurdly powerful moments, but it's all pretty few and far between.

I can appreciate the minimalist slow cinema approach, but I don't know if it entirely worked here. Certainly not a bad film, it's too well-made even just technically, but my expectations were a good deal higher.

THAT SAID, I did enjoy thinking about the obvious aerial symbolism. No less than Guillermo del Toro expounded a bit on it in this thread (click through to see the other tweets):

Triple post, sorry.

The analysis there is really exceptional and if you've seen the film you must click through it. It makes me appreciate the film more, but I still think there's a failure there, in that this kind of deep symbolism is almost all there is. It's more impressive than enjoyable. That's okay, sometimes films are like that, but I wish Roma had managed to be both deep and lasting and more engaging in the moment.

Just a heads-up: the Twitter link doesn't appear in the post, but it does appear when the post is quoted.

I'm not sure where del Toro gets his notions. He had nothing to do with the film that I could see. He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but deep meaning explanations always put me in mind of comments about abstract art. They are limitless, and mostly intellectual babble.

Not that GdT might not have some points. It's just that to me when things have to be dug for and explained, then what is the purpose of the symbolism? Art for art's sake? Nothing wrong with that, but most folks are simply looking for a good enjoyable film.

~Doc

Not sure I follow. The link or the tweet? It should be an embedded tweet, unless you have Javascript turned off, or some kind of adblocker is interfering with it.

I'd be surprised if he didn't literally know Cuaron a bit. Anyway, the analysis sure seems to fit and is interesting regardless (and it's an interesting question whether a filmmaker deserves credit for creating art that makes those interpretations possible, intended or not), even if like you I wish the act of watching all that layered symbolism had been more enjoyable in the moment.

Re the tweet: the tweet nor the link doesn't appear for me. It may be as you say-- I may have something turned off.

Del Toro's notion of Cuaron's deeper meaning intentions may be true. We'll likely never know. I'm not familiar with Cuaron's other work. Perhaps he's known for symbolism in his films.

Symbolism is perfect for the arts crowd because no one ever need know what it is. Sometimes only that it's assumed to be present is sufficient. Once people accept the premise, there is really no limit to it.

I spent many years in the avant-garde, and I can tell you that nothing can be hipper than something that's not obvious. The viewer suspects that he must have some sort of artistic deficiency if he doesn't get it. The default response is appreciation. The deep meaning is always much more gratifying than what is represented.

David Tudor had a famous answer to a question about art: "If you don't know, why do you ask?"

~Doc

In my opinion Roma is stylistically somewhere in between the symbolism/formalism of Tarr and the social realism of Diaz, in that it attempts to fuse the best of both worlds (European and East Asian) in an accessible manner for the audience. "Slowness" has become a catch-all phrase for both, although it tends to masks deeper underlying differences amongst the films that fall under its label.

I would agree with those saying it was more impressive than enjoyable. But I'm not sure enjoyable is what it sets out to be, exactly, and I found it fascinating to watch all the same. I think the somewhat detached wide, long shots and almost reality/documentary feel were deliberate. It's like a window onto a time and place and set of relationships you can't fully understand (even if you were there).

I really like what del Toro says about it being "a mural, not a portrait". We don't completely get to know Cleo, even though we're looking in on her world, she doesn't get to be really part of the family, despite some moments they seem to come together. The scene with her standing while they're all sitting on the bench was the most telling.

I liked the foreshadowing in this movie too.