Let's Anticipate Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA

https://www.blouinartinfo.com/sites/default/files/roman-e1534431609359.jpg

A terrible disappointment, an example of nostalgia porn. No reason to be black and white, no reason to make the maid a poor, wronged creature. Yet it's going to clean up year end.

Interesting. I still wanna see it, and I suspect I'll like it, but I'm also remembering back to last year when you were the only one who saw through The Florida Project.

oooh interesting, my most trusted cinematic confidante loved it

Stilted, affected, with so many damn shots calling attention to themselves. A demonstration late in the picture conjures his magic for crowd choreography (a la Children of Men).

Here's what most offended me: it used children twice for suspense.

The Night of the Hunter did so throughout.

The children were the protagonists in Hunter. I felt no squeamishness.

Anyway, as promised.

This was occasionally remarkable, but the overall feeling I was left with was...exhaustion. Calm the fuck down, man.

Felt like it was cooking in Cuaron's head too long and he felt the need to cram in way too much into each one of his precious long takes (with a couple notable exceptions)

Didn't like this at all. Overlong, humourless and, as Alfred has suggested, manipulative (I'd add a third scene of children used for suspense if we count the earthquake in the hospital) . I have to wonder if anyone calling it "Fellini-esque" has ever seen a Fellini film.

Hm. As I said in the original thread (still not sure why this one exists) I really liked it! You guys are making me doubt myself, I need to rewatch - is it on Netflix yet?

xp probably doesn't hurt that Fellini directed a movie called Roma that they also undoubtedly haven't seen

On Netflix as of today.

Hmmmm, should I watch this on Netflix today or wait two weeks to see it in a theatre

most of his films are exhausting, even the good ones (CoM, A Little Princess)

I’m not sure how much the theatrical experience would enhance the film, honestly. I wasn’t even a fan of the cinematography; it looked, to me, like High Def TV with the picture settings changed to B&W.

i was super into the cinematography or at least there are several incredibly beautiful shots that are what have stuck with me more than anything else about it. i was glad i saw it on a huge screen in a packed house... was a lot of the experience for me.

How much of that cinematography was earned, dependent on the characters instead of calling attention to itself?

Earned cinematography feels like a daft concept to me

yeah idk, wasn't really thinking in those terms, just "i'm into looking at this frame right now."

alfred don't read this

everyone else

is this good or bad

Earned cinematography feels like a daft concept to me

― Pierrot with a thousand farces (wins),

a film has to justify its choices, and many of Cuaron's choices were animated by, "I have a camera, and I intend to use it."

Compare this farrago to Shoplifters, for example.

multi-xp to wins - not sure, maybe my earlier thread was too keen, by the feel of ilx's take on the film so far. I've not seen it yet, so am still anticipating.

i thought it was good. the only thing i wanted was more scenes with the protag away from her employers, where she could be more expressive of her interior life. but of course that's what her exterior life doesn't really allow her.

within the dubious genre of "privileged author/filmmaker realizes they grew up having servants and they feel weird about it," i think this does a nice job recognizing some of the unsolvable pitfalls, and that they are unsolvable, and wanting earnestly to do some kind of justice by these second parents. maybe it helped that we'd just watched A Little Princess the week before, idk.

"I have a camera, and I intend to use it."

I mean, it IS a movie.

I liked it but I feel like I saw a different film to the more cinema savvy ppl here - I never got the sense I was watching an ~ambitious~ movie at all, it felt like a change of pace from the recent cuarón I’ve seen in that respect, but with a few really striking sequences/shots (& I’m afraid I didn’t question why anybody felt they had the right to put those in)

nb tho I saw it the other month having basically no idea it existed, it was the “surprise film” that closed our film festival so I came to it super fresh, not even knowing what it was until the title came up (& then I just had the vaguest memory of maybe seeing the title somewhere but no actual discussion). Because it was the last night there was a really good atmosphere, a lot of good feeling in the room so that helped. Maybe on a rewatch I’ll see what’s annoying everyone tho idk

/"I have a camera, and I intend to use it."/

I mean, it IS a movie.

Y'all know what I mean -- it unfoled like Sodebergh's Kafka, every shot an homage to another movie, and after the first ten minutes it's clear the film isn't about anything except the director's cinephilia.

I never got the sense I was watching an ~ambitious~ movie at all,

Watching on Netflix might help attenuate this; on the big screen, the endless slow pans of meticulously blocked vistas with dozens to hundreds of extras just became too much for me after about an hour

it's clear the film isn't about anything except the director's cinephilia

OK even I think that's a bit mean/uncalled for

i like kafka

OK even I think that's a bit mean/uncalled for

― resident hack (Simon H.)

Maybe so if his other films didn't position themselves as Serious Personal Filmmaking. Y Tu Mama Tambien isn't much liked on ILX, but it handles Mexican politics, the tensions between the patrician class and their less secure minders, and cinephilia in a fresher, more generous manner than this stilted thing.

if = but

Is it even worse an offender, in that regard, than Del Toro's latest?

I mean in the "the film isn't about anything except the director's cinephilia" derby.

Would also like to register my disappointment in its detractors for not saying “this film is dogshit”

i didn't catch any of the homages so i guess i'm not *enough* of a cinephile to hate the movie? i was absorbed by the images and, in parallel, absorbed by the story and its unhurried unfolding.

omg there's a clip of Marooned?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6155172/movieconnections?ref_=ttfc_ql_trv_6

Very prominently, yes.

i think i've mentioned i was taken to the premiere engagement as a child, and Gene Hackman's breakdown scene scared the shit out of me

(not literally)

Y Tu Mama Tambien isn't much liked on ILX, but it handles Mexican politics, the tensions between the patrician class and their less secure minders, and cinephilia in a fresher, more generous manner than this stilted thing.

Absolutely. I think its instructive to compare his direction and camerawork in this film vs. YTMT and Children of Men--the earlier films also call attention to their style, but in such a way that the style is a natural extension of the narrative. Here, the slow pans and the close-ups of dog shit contribute nothing to the film's overall attempts to convince me why I should care about the story or the characters, and probably even distract from that aim.

unhurried is a very polite way of putting it...

A terrible disappointment

Oof, yeah. I didn't know it was autobiographical beforehand, and might have soured harder and faster on it if I had. It feels so condescending towards the protagonist, such that it came as a massive relief when she finally says "I didn't want her," but there's no lessening of Cleo's situation afterward. She's going to continue to live with no agency or ability to develop / express any, while the family have had their own pressure lifted, embracing the rearrangement of their lives and their "new adventures."

I normally reject on instinct any huffing that a film would be better shorter, or a double album would have made a great single LP. But this could have cut through better if Cuaron were required to aim for a 90-minute runtime: allow the various tensions within the narrative to actually entwine, build and enhance each other.

That said, I did love many of the long-ass sustained single-shot scenes, and on the Cinerama screen the digital photography looked starkly crisp. He just could have gotten to those setpieces with less dawdling in between.

https://believermag.com/logger/the-spoils-of-love/

This critique has been making the rounds

In line with the extractive process that connects the West with the non-Western world, the sourcing of Roma’s raw material is based on an extractive matrix: the resignification of these memories, and the imposition of a new form—a new narrative—of a different order back onto the original source. This added value process can never be neutral, even when reduced to pure economics. Values added are always symbolically and culturally determined.

In a cinematic equivalent of live action role playing (LARP), Cleo is Cuarón’s appropriation of both Libo’s exterior attributes—her language, her looks, her clothing—and her story. But ultimately what we see is Cuaron gazing at himself—his family narrative as he would like it resolved and immortalized—in her exquisitely wrought reflection.

The hollowing out of Rodríguez’s point of view, and the refilling of that shell with a westernized gaze—Cuarón’s own—remains at the foundation of the narrative that carries the movie and indemnifies Cuarón’s family from any improper mistreatment of Rodríguez.

Cleo looks exactly like Rodríguez, her emotions burst off the screen. But aside from appearances, Cleo and Rodríguez are nothing alike.

Loved this - the slow panning from left to right and back again actually reminded me of Straub/Huillet's Sicilia!

Visual pleasure isn't everything, but it can be something, and its own justification - style in the service of character seems like a literary rather than cinematic necessity.

I'm mystified by multiple people telling me this was "overwhelming." I made a point to see the last showing in a theater today, knowing almost nothing about the movie except the setting and the shot inside the movie theater. caveat: it was playing at a movie palace, but in one of their smaller side theaters (demoted by Mary Poppins). a movie theater still, but it was letterboxed. I wish I saw it in true widescreen but I don't think it would've overwhelmed me. the movie just doesn't look good. it has such a pedestrian digital b&w look and there are maybe 3 shots at most I perked up for: the movie theater, cleo looking out the window at the riot, and cleo saving the kids in the ocean. and that last one was really the only moment in the whole movie that moved me.

we don't know cleo. i feel such a distance from her, this movie is without a protagonist. miscarriage telegraphed with cu of the broken egg an hour before. actual miscarriage scene is horrible, ghoulish, graceless, and, exploitative - no wonder so many critics loved it.

I don't buy the concept of 'earned cinematography' but I have to say I didn't find the cinematography obtrusive or obnoxious or even apparent - this was a thoroughly boring movie in every way, *especially* the cinematography. didn't feel like the same director as YTMT or CoM at all, where I agree the cinematography is a) stunning and b) serving the narrative, part of the narrative. long takes and long pans are not automatically audacious. besides the 3 shots I mentioned I'm having a hard time recalling anything else other than the dog shit.

the slow panning from left to right and back again actually reminded me of Straub/Huillet's Sicilia!

I wanted to avoid this :-(

This was evocative and moving. Y'all some coooold customers, ILX Film Nerds.

tbf nacho libre > roma

I still think about that line in his Get Out review about how Eddie Murphy's 00s comedies "are so personal and brilliant that they transcend racial categorization" and Ned posting "Still taking this in." lmfao

Watched this last night and loved it. Loved the cinematography especially. Very surprised at all the negative reactions in this thread.

Watched about half of this on Nefflix - I'm just gonna go with not as bad or as good as ppl in either camp think it is.

The B&W was fine tbh - quite agnostic about it, most films that get to the stage of any kind of release are 'well shot' and neither was there a nostalgia for it - just muddling through this story set a few decades ago in Mexico. Got bored about and switched off. Might pick it up later, maybe not.

I didn't like this at all. I found it mostly just boring but I do agree with alfred re the use of children in certain scenes, which felt cheap and exploitative. I've surprised myself here because when I noted his objection before seeing the film it seemed like a reach but, no, he's absolutely right - *SPOILERS* The camera not-capturing the possibly-drowning children and, in fact, panning away from them was a gross attempt to create anxiety in the viewer, especially coming after the still-birth of the child minutes before - and what a horribly over-extended and gratuitous scene that was, in itself. It was quite a remarkable achievement to make a film so completely devoid of actual characters but make you shit yourself that some more kids might have died. manipulative crap, frankly but also boring manipulative crap?

I don't mean any offence to alfred, by the way, it's just when i saw it written down pre-viewing i thought it sounded like a reach. it's not.

fwiw, I actually had to text the male half of a couple i know not to make sure him and his partner didn't watch it because of that premature birth scene. i'm not saying that that shouldn't be in a film but it was just so gratuitous, imo.

*SPOILERS* The camera not-capturing the possibly-drowning children and, in fact, panning away from them was a gross attempt to create anxiety in the viewer, especially coming after the still-birth of the child minutes before

otm -- film technique to burn

that made me angry.

but also boring manipulative crap

Sensation without substance.

why is this called Roma?

Neighbourhood of Mexico City it's set in

ah cool, ta.

it made me like Fellini's own dog Roma a little more

I haven't read this thread yet, but I thought this was great.

Don't read this thread

this thread is best viewed on the big screen

Ugh, I'm with jed, Alfred, et al -- this just pissed me off. I remember long ago reading a critique of Frank Zappa -- "a gratuitous display of advanced technique" -- it applies here.

it wasn't really that advanced or impressive cinematographically imo

I was very impressed that they had built such a stable dolly track on sand

I found the quasi-mumblecore first half extraordinary, delectable, precise. Goes wildly off the rails as the action becomes less prosaic and the emotion is amped up. And then it just goes on and on... It had such a good thing going

there was something about the tamped down quality of it that made the heightened emotion of the last part kind of thrilling I thought, the scene on the beach in particular really got to me

the whole thing just felt so in the moment

I liked this. I think it's always kind of hard when someone makes more popular commercial movies and then makes something self-consciously arty. It can feel like an act of imposture. There's a nice myth that arty directors make arty movies because that's the only kind they can make, because that's who they are. We are resistant to the idea that "serious" is just another genre. Especially when someone pulls out all the obvious signifiers: like black-and-white, lack of soundtrack, slow-pacing, long takes, etc. There's something a bit too eager to please, a bit too A-student, about it. On the other hand, it is "just" another genre, but so what. I guess I would have had a lot fewer hurdles to get over if this was made by some European director I'd never heard of before. But none of that really matters. It's hard not to notice that this movie is pretty interesting to look at. The story is fairly simple and affecting. You could summarize pretty much all the plot in a few sentences. But it's mostly everything that would be left out of those few sentences that makes this a good movie.

alfred otm i hated this

although i thought the sound design was incredible, whether it is cuaron or someone else who is responsible for that in his films they all capture ambient noise so well. wind, waves, animals, traffic, children shouting at each other

yes

can't hate this film tbh, it won me over

I rolled my eyes at this film uniformly sweeping all the critics awards, and I can understand people watching this thinking it was boring, but I enjoyed seeing such a beautiful understated film completely immersed in a different world. It’s about time that a foreign language film again became mainstream for US audiences. When was the last one, Crouching Tiger in 2000?

I love Apitchatpong Weerasethakul, Hirokazu Kore-eda, Lucrecia Martel, Claire Denis, Hong Sang-soo, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Jia Zhangke, Carlos Reygadas, Andrey Zvayginstev, Lee Chang-dong and others, but as foreign language directors it seems like films by them are a long way off from appealing to mainstream US sensibilities. I hope it happens. Kudos to Alfonso Cuarón for breaking through

Y Tu Mama Tambien isn't much liked on ILX, but it handles Mexican politics, the tensions between the patrician class and their less secure minders, and cinephilia in a fresher, more generous manner than this stilted thing.

yea I felt the same way (i love y tu mama tambien fwiw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ihtEg_hWIM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film

Liked parts of this angry review

I rolled my eyes at this film uniformly sweeping all the critics awards, and I can understand people watching this thinking it was boring, but I enjoyed seeing such a beautiful understated film completely immersed in a different world. It’s about time that a foreign language film again became mainstream for US audiences. When was the last one, Crouching Tiger in 2000?

― Dan S, Sunday, February 3, 2019 6:23 AM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i def. have that sense.... i didn't love this movie but, like moonlight (a film i did not love but appreciated) it's simply a good thing that a film like this should come across the radars of folks who would otherwise not some into contact w/ its sort of storytelling approach.

i know that's a very Basic sort of take. and i hate when critics attempt to shield a movie or book from criticism because it is the "right" kind of art that they feel should be encouraged. (which seems like what sometimes happened w/ sorry to bother you IMO.) i don't think Roma needs anyone's apoogies. i just (1) am not as personally enthused by it as i had hoped and (2) am heartened by its robust reception.

re that review - interesting to contemplate, but I wasn’t thinking about the current day politics of this when I watched it. it just felt like a complete immersion into Mexico City in 1970, with many memorable scenes. it seemed very real to me

Yalitza Aparicio's almost silent but emotional performance made me love this film more than anything else

she was fine. I hated the move but it's a good performance.

Good point on the silence although it doesn't make up for the deficiencies in conception.

That review comes from a marxist and feminist perspective. The re-framing of the playing dead scene was good.

That review seems unhinged to me. I think people are reacting more to the discussion around the movie than the movie itself. I humbly submit that people have unreasonable expectations if they are expecting a movie to right 500 years of exploitation.

yeah, that review raises many valid points, but they mostly don't apply to the movie itself.

the long takes with an extremely wide angle lens and depth-of-field-to-infinity in every shot gives Roma a feeling of distance, which on paper doesn’t sound great but it was unusual and I really liked it, it had a meditative quality. It made it harder to connect with the characters initially but for me that was corrected with a second viewing.

those tracking shots of the characters walking and running through the streets of Mexico City both during the day and at night were so great, there was something about the cinematography in those moments that made them shimmer. the scenes of the hacienda at night at Christmas were also really really striking

I didn't really get the long scene with the forest fire and people walking around with buckets throwing them at the flames. was it supposed to be allegorical?

the whole extended sequence at the house of the rich relatives was pointing out class differences I thought. it seemed particularly evident during the fire, where the servants and the locals passed buckets to extinguish the flames while the rich family members looked on and sipped their wine, as if they couldn't be touched by it or by anything really. We get to hear an epic song (sung in Norwegian?) by the man dressed as a demon. I read that it was about longing for home, and it contrasts with a panoramic scene with the caretakers and the kids out in a field where Cleo reminisces about her home.

A heartwarming tale of how a movie can move the conversation forward:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/opinion/roma-mexico-workers-rights.html

I loved reading that, thank you

Finally saw this, thought it was good, looked good, etc. A lot of the complaints I missed at the time but have since skimmed (in this thread and elsewhere) seem to channel disappointment that Cuaron is not the Dardenne brothers. But while I do find the discussion of what the film is not to be sometimes educational and some of the criticisms particularly valid - it's for sure indulgent, and definitely thematically diffuse - I didn't think anything in the film was objectionable enough to evoke the utter disdain I saw from some of the more hardcore detractors.

Speaking of which, Soto. I liked what you wrote, but if you're listening, your review way back when references a brief moment of color. Did I miss it?

this will go down in history as a great film regardless of the opinions of ilxors