1. Is there any possibility of freedom in the lowest level of the world? The first shot lets you see the reflection of the plane in the sewage, and then the plane appears four, five times, and the righteousness is clear. Although the director said that airplanes and bands were common sights at the time, once they are used in the film, they are used repeatedly and at certain times, so these common sights have new meanings or symbols. According to the director, this is nothing but a His memory and creative inspiration, but the viewer's interpretation must be profound. In particular, from the reflection of the plane in the only looking down shot at the beginning of the film to the only entity looking up at the plane in the ending shot, it describes the woman's move towards independence and freedom, and at the same time praises the greatness of such a seemingly humble woman.
2. The motivating event that breaks the balance of the protagonist's life is the relationship between the nanny and a man. When the two of them were in the hotel room, we saw a smiling her staring at the male lead and chatting, with a deliberately tilted painting behind her (picture 1). The line is especially special: at this time, she is looking at the (virtual) man - the future that she looks forward to but is not reliable, but does not realize that the wave of fate implied by the wall chart on the back of her head is about to hit her, and her fate But it was seen through by the audience. It is worth mentioning that 1. the waves of sewage on the floor at the beginning of the film; 2. At this moment in the film, there is a surging painting behind the babysitter;
Note 1: Water is a specific image that runs through the story, including sewage from washing the floor, tea, laundry water, water droplets on the eaves, running water from the tap, rain, hail, blood, tears, running water from the shower head, steam, and standing water on the shed , wine, milk, fire fighting water, cracked amniotic fluid, alcohol to wipe sunburns, muddy sewage in the village and promises of water conservancy projects from the mouths of government officials; the deformation and elaboration of water reaches the extreme. In addition, the heroine is the Mizteca (Mixteca) among the indigenous people of Mexico, a high-class middle-class community in the southwest of Mexico City in Rome. The local climate is characterized by tropical rainforest, rainy and humid, and the rain god is worshipped in primitive beliefs. object. In the text of Chapter 18 of Robert McKee's Story (Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting, 1997), it refers to the bathroom murder (Les. diaboliques, 1955): the opening credits look like an abstract painting in grey and black tones, but at the end of the credits a truck tire suddenly shoves water from the bottom of the screen to the top, and we realize that what we are seeing It is an overhead shot of a mud pond; the camera then shoots up the rain scene. From this moment on, the image system of "water" is continuously and potentially repeated. This is the most "wet" film ever made. I think that Rome (Roma, 2018) is similar in structure, not much less.
Note 2: Compared with the shooting method of the Dutton brothers chasing the characters, the panning method of Alfonso Courant's lens has caused another phenomenon. The lens comes earlier and faster than the action of the characters, and the lens drives the development of the characters. The impression of the character, before the action of the character, "predicts" the direction that the character will go. This "prediction" feature is also found in many passages in the story. Here, the wall chart is used to predict the fate of the protagonist. In addition, the escape from the tiger's mouth (La grande vadrouille, 1966) is used to predict Fermin's escape. Blue Fireworks (Marooned, 1969) heralds the departure of two men, the disaster of production with the earthquake in the hospital and the breaking of the wine glass, the coming and the failure of the revolution with the shooting of hunting and a fire...
3. The story of the subplot (the female employer) strengthens the development of the main plot (the nanny). The main plot and the subplot are variants of the same predicament. The main plot is quiet but very informative, and the subplot is noisy and brief. The first meeting of the primary and secondary stories, when the heroine sat down to discuss with the female employer after she became pregnant, this was the first intersection of the two development lines, forming the point of no return for the entanglement of the story, the real suffering, struggle, This is where the mutual aid process begins: it begins with two women who are abandoned by men, and these two distant men are echoed by the two men who are later in space on Earth in the blue fireworks shown in the movie theaters.
4. The whole process of pregnancy and childbirth is not a stillbirth, but a mother, and it is a process from a girl to a complete woman, which is the transformation of the heroine's identity; because of this process, look back at the beginning of the story , we found that her first care was just a duty, she kept a polite distance from her employer's children, and the female employer wanted to do the same, giving her errands as much as possible, reminding her to avoid getting too close to the family, for example, letting her cook Tea, expelled from the picture of the family portrait; another example, when the child eavesdropped on the mother talking on the phone, Cleo made an ineffective verbal dissuasion from a considerable distance. At the end of the story, the inexperienced maid not only used her duty, but also her mother's attitude, that is, at the cost of her life (beyond her duty), to save her two children, who became an inseparable whole with her; The female employer embraced her, thanked her, and the family became inseparable from her (Figure 2). She said after landing: "I didn't want to have children in the first place. This sentence, in turn, is: I now know how to be a mother. The reason why this is a profound awakening moment has to go back to the scene where the dead baby is born on the operating table, and at the same time we realize that Corio's difficulties have shifted to a psychological level since the operating table came down, which explains Why was she, who was taciturn, even more silent. The scene on the operating table made many viewers breathe a sigh of relief, especially men, and even Slavoj Žižek, a left-wing sociologist in Yugoslavia and Slovenia, wrote (end of appendix), saying that this time was a good time for Kelio. Got a good new. In fact, the good news is superficial. As far as practical and economic problems are concerned (Zizek's perspective is Fermin's perspective, and generally regarded as a man's perspective), the seemingly solved problems are actually more serious from the perspective of The real level tends to go to the psychological level. The changes in women's pregnancy in October are not only in physical appearance, not only in body deformation and hormone secretion, that kind of mood change is usually not understood by men. Furthermore, many comments use the so-called redemption of self-guilt and original sin in Christian culture to interpret Corio's language. This reference is relatively narrow, especially since she is a Mexican minority, which is not hers. The term faith, salvation is derived from theology and cannot be used arbitrarily. Finally, they went home as a group. We saw the man's departure, and at the same time realized the birth of another family member; a father was missing, but a mother was also added; it can be said that although she was in this family, although She was still paid and took dirty clothes to wash. However, her employment relationship existed in name only, and she had become a family member.
Note 1: Continuing from the above, if this movie is based on the Chinese Wu Lun, Wu Lun is the establishment of the relationship between people in society, including father and son, husband and wife, brother, friend, ruler and minister, the last item can regard the family as a small political field, or Substitute the employment relationship, then, this film talks about the disorder of the five relationships, and then how the new relationship is completely established to achieve a new balanced state of perfection.
Note 2: There are many ways to show the moment when adults truly accept unrelated children. In the kidnapping of the thief family (Wan Yin き family, 2018), the admonition and discipline of the Beacon Paradise (Pájaros de papel, 2010), and the slap of the nanny fan in the absence of parents (2013), the performance is very different.
5. From the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, there were not a few women in such a big mansion. I am reminded of Chu Weige's short story the governess, looking at the changes of an unmarried pregnant governess from the perspective of a child, and realizing the reality and bitterness of the adult world prematurely. While Alfonso Courant’s perspective and attitude are different, Roma (Roma, 2018) recalls and pays homage to a woman who took care of his life in his childhood from an adult’s perspective. The dedication at the end of the film has already explained everything.
6. The story points out the difference between men and women. Men usually strive to stand out under the blind and strong performance of animal power, while women are more in the world behind the scenes. Yes, the formation of dilemmas is inseparable from men, but to get rid of them It's also not difficult to change a car (the American Ford Galaxie is replaced by a French Renault) and a different state of mind, just as comfortable. There is a dialogue between a man and a woman in the last paragraph of the Rufen in the Book of Poetry:
Male: Dory fish with tail, the royal family is ruined. Female: Although it is ruined, my parents are Kong Er.
7. The story mainly tells the story of a maid. Until the end of the film, he said that he was dedicated to a person. The relationship between the director and the protagonist can be understood immediately: this nanny is an important person in the director's life experience. This is important, and we care as much about this woman as we care about Alfonso Courant or the history of Mexico. Furthermore, although the movie is dedicated to one person, we only understand it in the form of a personal letter, which limits the movie and is a small device. When the third chapter of Lessing's Laocoon talks about artistic creation, the creator never stands in the moment of passion, and retains the maximum freedom of imagination and understanding to the audience. In other words, standing in the position of a nanny, this is the director's image creation, but this is not the extreme of his performance. The more profound side he left to the audience, what he refers to but does not need to be made plain, is a story dedicated to all women. Therefore, if the angle of understanding is private, the film will be small, and if the understanding is public, the film will be universal.
8. The film anchors the time sequence with the clock hands, uses multimedia to locate the background and atmosphere of the era, and at the same time indicates the identity and inner heart of the characters. Juan Gabriel's I Have No Money on the radio (No Tengo Dinero, 1971) defines Corio in the laundry; the car plays the nineteenth-century Romantic composer Berlioz's The Fantastic Symphony (1830) marks the doctor's status and affair with the male employer, Mr. Antonia, because Berlioz was a doctor before being a composer, and the Fantastic Symphony was created because of his love for a young woman ; Mexican singer Lupita D'Alessio's cover of My Heart Is a Gypsy (Mi Corazón Es Un Gitano, 1971) illustrates Madame Sofia's self-conscious loss of mind as her female employer rampages into the corridor.
9. Shantih Shantih Shantih at the end of the film refers to ultimate Nirvana, a state where the body and all cells are no longer disturbed. There is a slight taste of oriental thinking in the film. There is a "Buddha" on the low cabinet next to the telephone on the first floor of the house. In the middle of the film, Professor Zowick taught "Yoga" in the village square, and at the end of the film. The reference to "Nirvana" at the end shows the process of the onset and cessation of turmoil. Such oriental thinking is dominated by Theravada Buddhism. Although the ultimate state is to reach Nirvana, the ultimate goal of Theravada is self-interest and self-satisfaction, which is very different from the Mahayana's self-consciousness and purifying all sentient beings. It can be viewed from the two ends of seeking personal liberation and seeking the liberation of all sentient beings. This is also why the Slovenian left-wing philosopher Žižek did not fully understand, and slammed the story's protagonist, Kerio, for being in a position of exploitation and unconsciousness, speaking of her kindness and ignorance as a breeding ground for exploiters (Zizek This poignant statement, misplaced in the movie, would be more appropriate if it were a happy Lazaro piece). As far as a person is concerned, in terms of her personal identity and situation, the most important thing to her is that she is pregnant, her world is about to collapse, what should she do. As an employee or nanny, you don't have to bear the responsibility of saving the country, so you don't have to bear such accusations. The film Rome, whether it is a variant of the subplot story of Mrs. Sofia, or the background of the revolutionary era and natural catastrophe, is a kind of contrast, which is used to strongly present the woman's self-struggle, and the external world is the fact of her life. At the same time, it is also the presentation and projection of her inner psychological state; her inner anxiety is visible to us as the world changes, earthquakes, hail, and forest fires. It can be said that if Alfonso Courant seeks the prosecution of historical justice rather than the detachment of individual spirit, he would not choose this theme. The story is based on individuals, and history and times are just the facts of the background of the archetypal characters; let alone the era of freedom, there is no need to turn a corner to talk about historical issues; since turning a corner in this era of freedom, it is not intended to talk about historical disputes.
Appendix 1:
Roma is being celebrated for all the wrong reasons (writes Slavoj Žižek)
My first viewing of Roma left me with a bitter taste: yes, the majority of critics are right in celebrating it as an instant classic, but I couldn't get rid of the idea that this predominant perception is sustained by a terrifying, almost obscene , misreading, and that the movie is celebrated for all the wrong reasons. After watching Roma for the first time, there is a bitter taste in my mind: yes, most critics praise this contemporary classic, and indeed it is true Well deserved, but I still have a lingering thought in my mind: the vast majority of people's perception of the film actually comes from a terrible, almost obscene misreading, and they praise "Roma" too much. its place.
Roma is read as a tribute to Cleo, a maid from the Colonia Roma neighbourhood of Mexico City working in the middle-class household of Sofia, her husband Antonio, their four young children, Sofia's mother Teresa, and another maid, Adela. It take place in 1970, the time of large student protests and social unrest. Roma is seen as a tribute to its heroine, Corio. She was a maid living in the middle-class Roma district of Mexico City, working for an intellectual family. Among the family members, Corio is owned by Sofia, her husband, their four children, Sofia's mother Teresa, and Adela, a maid who is a close friend of hers. The story takes place in the early 1970s, at a time of rising student protests and social unrest in Mexico.
As already in Y Tu Mama Tambien , Cuaron maintains distance between the two levels, the family troubles (Antonio leaving his family for a younger mistress, Cleo getting pregnant by a boyfriend who immediately abandons her), and this focus on intimate family topic makes the oppressive presence of social struggles all the more palpable as the diffuse but omnipresent background. As Fred Jameson would have put it, History as Real cannot be depicted directly but only as the elusive background that leaves its mark on depicted events. As in Y tu mamá también (Y tu mamá también), Cuarón always maintains a certain distance between the worlds of master and servant. The main content of the film is to present various family conflicts (the male host is the young mistress abandoning his wife and children, Kelio's boyfriend is always in chaos, etc.), and it focuses more on private family topics. The suffocating street struggle became more perceptible, it became a ubiquitous backdrop. As Fred Jameson said, as real history, it cannot be directly depicted, but it can only be used as a background that is difficult to articulate, and its imprint can be left by depicting various specific events.
So does Romathe work has to go on... Many critics felt that "Roma" praised Cleo's kindness and her selfless dedication to the family. On the other hand, she also received the ultimate big love from this spoiled upper middle class family, she was (almost) accepted as one by them, but only ended up getting her physically and emotionally by them further exploitation. But I want to say, is that really the case? Isn't it too lazy to understand this character in this way? In my opinion, "Roma" has many nuances that imply to us that Cleo's kindness is itself a trap. That's an implicit criticism for the character, and it's really about her dedication, which is the result of her ideological ignorance. The reason why I say this is not the obvious disharmony that the family showed when they treated Cleo: the front foot just said how to love her and talk to her "equally", and the back foot immediately made a big change, asking her. Doing chores or doing something for yourself. It was something else that really led me to this judgment, such as the unsympathetic rudeness of Sophia's drunkenness when she tried to park her car in the cramped garage: we saw her repeatedly rubbing Hit the wall, and the paint on the wall fell off. This rudeness can of course be explained by her subjective disappointment (abandonment by her husband), but the real thing to note is that she did it because she was in a superior position, and she could Bear the consequences of this behavior (it's the servants who mend the walls anyway). On the other hand, when Corio encounters something worse than her husband cheating, she simply can't take this "natural" emotional outburst-even if she has to face her personal life that is completely broken down, but the housework Still can't stop... on... Many film critics feel that "Roma" sings praises to Kelio's kindness and her selfless dedication to the family. On the other hand, she also received the ultimate big love from this spoiled upper middle class family, she was (almost) accepted as one by them, but only ended up getting her physically and emotionally by them further exploitation. But I want to say, is that really the case? Isn't it too lazy to understand this character in this way? In my opinion, "Roma" has many nuances that imply to us that Cleo's kindness is itself a trap. That's an implicit criticism for the character, and it's really about her dedication, which is the result of her ideological ignorance. The reason why I say this is not the obvious disharmony that the family showed when they treated Cleo: the front foot just said how to love her and talk to her "equally", and the back foot immediately made a big change, asking her. Doing chores or doing something for yourself. It was something else that really led me to this judgment, such as the unsympathetic rudeness of Sophia's drunkenness when she tried to park her car in the cramped garage: we saw her repeatedly rubbing Hit the wall, and the paint on the wall fell off. This rudeness can of course be explained by her subjective disappointment (abandonment by her husband), but the real thing to note is that she did it because she was in a superior position, and she could Bear the consequences of this behavior (it's the servants who mend the walls anyway). On the other hand, when Corio encounters something worse than her husband cheating, she simply can't take this "natural" emotional outburst-even if she has to face her personal life that is completely broken down, but the housework Still can't stop... on... Many film critics feel that "Roma" sings praises to Kelio's kindness and her selfless dedication to the family. On the other hand, she also received the ultimate big love from this spoiled upper middle class family, she was (almost) accepted as one by them, but only ended up getting her physically and emotionally by them further exploitation. But I want to say, is that really the case? Isn't it too lazy to understand this character in this way? In my opinion, "Roma" has many nuances that imply to us that Cleo's kindness is itself a trap. That's an implicit criticism for the character, and it's really about her dedication, which is the result of her ideological ignorance. The reason why I say this is not the obvious disharmony that the family showed when they treated Cleo: the front foot just said how to love her and talk to her "equally", and the back foot immediately made a big change, asking her. Doing chores or doing something for yourself. It was something else that really led me to this judgment, such as the unsympathetic rudeness of Sophia's drunkenness when she tried to park her car in the cramped garage: we saw her repeatedly rubbing Hit the wall, and the paint on the wall fell off. This rudeness can of course be explained by her subjective disappointment (abandonment by her husband), but the real thing to note is that she did it because she was in a superior position, and she could Bear the consequences of this behavior (it's the servants who mend the walls anyway). On the other hand, when Corio encountered something worse than her husband cheating, she couldn't bear this "natural" emotional outburst——
Cleo's true predicament first emerges in all its brutality in the hospital, after she delivers a stillborn baby girl; multiple attempts to resuscitate the infant fail, and the doctors give the body to Cleo for a few moments before taking it away. Many critics who saw in this scene the most traumatic moment of the film, missed its ambiguity: as we learn later in the film (but can suspect now already), what truly traumatizes her is that she doesn't want a child, so a dead body in her hands is good news. The first time Cleo's real predicament appears in front of the audience is in the hospital, after she gives birth to a baby girl who is not breathing; doctors repeatedly try to save the baby, and eventually The body was handed over to Krio first, and it took a while to finally take it away. Many critics saw the scene and thought it was the most emotionally painful moment in the film. In fact, they fail to capture the ambiguity of the scene: as we find out later (but at this moment in the hospital, as you should be able to guess), what really hurts her emotionally is that she actually She didn't want children, so the dead baby girl in her arms was actually good news for her.
Cleo prepares a load of washing, telling Adela she has much to tell her, as a plane flies overhead. At the end of the film, Sophia takes her family to Tuxpan Beach for a vacation, and she also brings Cleo with her to help her spend the day together. Surviving the bereavement of a daughter (in fact, they just wish they could have a maid by their side when on vacation, even if the latter had just gone through a painful labor). At the dinner table, Sophia told the children that she and their father had been separated, and the reason why she went out to travel was so that he could pack up and leave while they were not at home. At the beach, the two children were nearly swept away by the waves, but Cleo waded to rescue them, even though she couldn't swim. Sophia and the children are so grateful for such selfless loyalty, but Cleo breaks down with guilt and finally says she doesn't want children. When they returned home, the bookshelves were gone, and several bedrooms had changed. Cleo took out a lot of things to wash, and told Adela that she had a lot to say to her when a plane flew through the air.
no dramatic tension between the danger the children are in and her effort to save them, no point-of-view shot depicting what she sees. This strange inertia of the camera, its refusal to get involved in the drama, renders in a palpable way Cleo's disentanglement from the pathetic role of a faithful servant ready to sacrifice herself. After Cleo rescues the two children by the sea, they all (Sofia, Cleo, and the children) hug each other tightly. What I see in this moment is a false unity, but even so, it is the only place in the whole film. It only reassures me that Kleo has completely fallen into the trap of using her as a slave... Am I thinking too much? Is my understanding too exaggerated? In my opinion, when Cuaron directed this scene, he actually gave us a small hint, a hint of film form. The whole scene of Cleo saving the child was shot in one shot. The camera is always moving sideways, and the focus is always on Kleo. When I watched this scene, I thought it had a strange dissonance in form and content, and it was very obvious. In content, the scene is about the pathetic behavior of Cleo, who had just experienced an emotionally painful stillbirth, and immediately risked his life to save someone's child; but in form, we are in a long-term There is absolutely no such dramatic conflict in the camera. As she wades, the camera never switches between her and the boys, they are in danger and she is desperate to save them, but there is no such dramatic tension on camera, and no subjective shot of what she sees. The camera here presents a strange inertia, refusing to take part in the plot, clearly representing Corio's absence: she is not a loyal servant ready to sacrifice herself, she has escaped this pathetic Role. After Kleo rescued the two children at the beach, they all (Sofia, Kleo and the children) hugged tightly together. What I see in this moment is a false unity, but even so, it is the only place in the whole film. It only reassures me that Kleo has completely fallen into the trap of using her as a slave... Am I thinking too much? Is my understanding too exaggerated? In my opinion, when Cuaron directed this scene, he actually gave us a small hint, a hint of film form. The whole scene of Cleo saving the child was shot in one shot. The camera is always moving sideways, and the focus is always on Kleo. When I watched this scene, I thought it had a strange dissonance in form and content, and it was very obvious. In content, the scene is about the pathetic behavior of Cleo, who had just experienced an emotionally painful stillbirth, and immediately risked his life to save someone's child; but in form, we are in a long-term There is absolutely no such dramatic conflict in the camera. As she wades, the camera never switches between her and the boys, they are in danger and she is desperate to save them, but there is no such dramatic tension on camera, and no subjective shot of what she sees. The camera here presents a strange inertia, refusing to take part in the plot, clearly representing Corio's absence: she is not a loyal servant ready to sacrifice herself, she has escaped this pathetic Role.
In the final moments of the film, there is another hint, which is also about her liberation. Kelio said to Adela, "I have a lot to tell you." Perhaps, this meant that Kelio was finally ready to climb out of the trap of "kindness", and she finally realized When she arrived, her selfless dedication to the family represented her enslaved identity. In other words, Cleo is completely ignorant of politics, and only thinks about the attitude of selfless dedication, which represents her ideological identity, and that is how she "lives" ideology. Explaining her predicament to Adela may be just the beginning of her "class consciousness" awakening, the first step, and eventually, she will join those protesters in the streets. And just like that, a new Corio emerges, far more ruthless than the old one—a Corio sent by the chains of ideology.
But maybe it will not. It is very difficult to get rid of the chains in which we not only feel good but feel that we are doing something good. As TS Eliot put it in his Murder in the Cathedral , the greatest sin is to do the right thing for the wrong reason. But it's also possible that the new Corio won't appear. After all, it's really hard to get rid of the chains we're carrying, because those chains not only make us feel good about ourselves, but they also make us feel like we're doing something good. As T.S. Eliot said in Murder in the Cathedral: Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is the greatest sin.
Note: 80% of the content of this article was published on personal Facebook on December 19, 2018, and republished after adding 20%.
View more about Roma reviews
