It is not a huge surprise when the Academy gave Alfonso Cuarón, one of the most successful and masterful directors in the history of Mexican and Hollywood cinema, his first Academy Award in Cinematography and a second one for Best Directing. Roma is THE best film I 've ever seen in 2018. With its meticulously designed images, it is deserved to be seen on a large screen instead of a tiny (or perhaps not so tiny anymore) mobile screen at home. However, its artfully crafted images in the end seem to give way to the political status quo, leaving its insatiable audience a tinge of dissatisfaction.
Set in the 1970s in an upper-middle class neighborhood (or Colonia Roma , in reference to the film's title) in the Ciudad de México, Cuarón finally returns to his native land Mexico years after his early critically acclaimed film Y Tu Mamá También . But one thing that makes two films distinctive from each other is obviously the passage of time: if Y Tu Mamá También, with a touch of nouvelle vague like Jules and Jim , is a coming-of-age tale of two Mexican young menuring into the advent wild of nature and sexuality, Romafeels much more subdued, thoughtful and polished. While the early film feels to me a rebellious escape from their privileged background and an affirmation of individualism, this film seems to stress collectivity and the importance of family as a unit.
Roma is a tribute to Cuarón's own childhood and his formative experience of growing up in Mexico City in 1960s and 70s. Some details of the 70s can be seen everywhere: from the popular French film La Grande Vadrouille , to vibrant street vendors in front of the cinema, and to the frequent clashes between students and the government on streets. Cuarón really did a fantastic job restoring the intimate details of Mexico City to him in the 70s.
However, despite all the intimacy of his childhood fragments and memories, he chooses to maintain a careful distance between them, thus elevating him to a higher position overseeing the course of time and history. In a scene, the camera pans slowly and horizontally while a group of kids are playing in a corn field. A careful and deliberate distance is maintained between the characters and the camera, as if an old man nostalgically looking back at his childhood memories, while carefully guarding such innocence. Such “distant” feeling is ubiquitous with Cuarón's frequent use of long and static shots that distinctively depart from his Hollywood films. The result is a film clearly “de-dramatized” to downplay conflicts and social problems.
And this is precisely the part where I feel that the film is inadequate. Certainly, it is fine and even common in the realm of art cinema to use politics as a backdrop to tell a personal story. But what I see from here, is an unwillingness, or perhaps more critically, an inability to betray his “bourgeois consciousness” — after all, Cuarón's solidly middle-class background has never really given him a chance to participate in student movements, even though his uncle is said to be a “communist (The Hollywood Reporter). The film frequently hints at various social problems: the poor and the rich, left-wing and right-wing, the white and the indigenous, students and the government. And they all converge and culminate at the point where Cleo's (ex)lover Fermín confronts her in a furniture store and points his gun at her.This is the moment when Cleo and everyone — wrapped in this middle-class bubble — come to a realization of how brutal and inhumane this world can be. However, the film still decides to remain in this bubble of a dreamworld, where Cleo marches against the tides, brings back the kids, and tightly embraces them on the beach — all the social conflicts and problems are again ignored and “resolved” through an embrace, thus reaffirming the political status quo over avant-garde. Of course, the shot is itself inarguably beautiful, touching, and aesthetically pleasing, but Cuarón's method of dealing with these social issues (despite his clear awareness of them) is, in the end, hardly satisfying to a crowd of audience who really knows about his works.brings back the kids, and tightly embraces them on the beach — all the social conflicts and problems are again ignored and “resolved” through an embrace, thus reaffirming the political status quo over avant-garde. Of course, the shot is itself inarguably beautiful , touching, and aesthetically pleasing, but Cuarón's method of dealing with these social issues (despite his clear awareness of them) is, in the end, hardly satisfying to a crowd of audience who really knows about his works.brings back the kids, and tightly embraces them on the beach — all the social conflicts and problems are again ignored and “resolved” through an embrace, thus reaffirming the political status quo over avant-garde. Of course, the shot is itself inarguably beautiful , touching, and aesthetically pleasing, but Cuarón's method of dealing with these social issues (despite his clear awareness of them) is, in the end, hardly satisfying to a crowd of audience who really knows about his works.but Cuarón's method of dealing with these social issues (despite his clear awareness of them) is, in the end, hardly satisfying to a crowd of audience who really knows about his works.but Cuarón's method of dealing with these social issues (despite his clear awareness of them) is, in the end, hardly satisfying to a crowd of audience who really knows about his works.
Nevertheless, the film is still a gem among all films released in 2018 with its touching story and aesthetically masterful cinematography. Moreover, it is ideal for audiences who would like to take a trip to Mexico in the 70s, and perhaps want to know about Cuarón a bit more personally beyond his glaring, fancy Hollywood counterparts. Go watch the film, and make sure you watch it on a large screen.
View more about Roma reviews
