The unrevolutionary middle-class intellectuals and the women in their eyes—the middle class|Glass window|Revolution Alfonso Cuarón, the Mexican-born Hollywood director claimed to use images to describe the depiction of his life in the Mexican Revolution of 1968-1971 And change. This attempt now seems to be a great success, with awards ensuing, and media praise continued. But the Mexican revolutionaries who experienced that period of revolution were probably disappointed and unfair. In any case, the director, as a member of the big middle-class family, always stands on the outside of the revolution to look down and look into the distance. The film 91:50—96:50, this is a five-minute show of the revolution directly, full of superficial imagination of the revolution: slogans, crowds, guns. There are no positive shots of revolutionaries. The revolutionaries are not only aphasia, but also lack a concrete appearance. A group of people who did not know where they came from or where they were going, stood on the street, just marching forward, and suddenly fled back. Next came killings, tears. The woman holding the dead man and crying yelled for the director: "Why?!" Why? Why revolution? Or why kill? The director obviously said the latter. As for the former, he said he didn't know. At a loss, incomprehensible, unreasonable. He and the revolution are always separated by a glass window-car glass, or architectural glass. Note that from 94:40-95:00, the camera pans to show the "commotion" in the street outside the glass windows of the furniture store in front of the audience. This is not a sufficiently "safe" scene, the director knows it well. If you do not use glass windows to isolate the chaotic confrontation from his audience, they will definitely be frightened. This is where the middle class lens should be. In this regard, "Rome" is worthy of the dozen awards it has won. Middle class: Revolutionary masses at home in the furniture store inside the car: Street outside the furniture store outside the car
Next, from 95:10-96:00, the revolution manifested itself as an intrusion: destruction. The pregnant maid Clio and her employer's grandmother bought a crib in a furniture store, but they were interrupted by a chasing and killing of the revolutionaries, and Clio finally gave birth to a dead baby. The defender may have to explain the director’s intentions. For example, Creo’s ex-boyfriend, Fermin, is actually a metaphor for the Mexican dictatorship supported by the United States, and Creo’s dead baby symbolizes the abortion of the revolution. Express sympathy. I do not refute, but sympathy is nothing but sympathy. In fact, sympathy is the exclusive masturbation device of the middle class. Revolutionaries at the bottom have no right to sympathize. If a person is very cold, show it, and don't use anything else to cover up part of it. So what does the absence of revolution mean? It means that the director can tell you the truth he drew from this life experience as an outsider: Revolution-cruel but useless; let us solve the problem in other ways! ("Revolutionaries are not brave, comrades, they will only run away; the opposite is very powerful-92:55-93:20 is a panning long shot showing the power of the police, let's surrender.") Two women| Family|The solution proposed by Mr. Alfonso outside is a woman, a seemingly radical idea.
28. Probably the most "moving" and "tear-jerking" scene in the whole film: Creo, who rescued the employer's child from the waves, hugged and wept with the employer's family. After being comforted, Creo lost his child's heart. Can also be unlocked. This is probably-love, a kind of love that is both unbelievable and difficult to identify with. Using this scene as the poster for the entire movie is also on the cusp. Because the contradiction has never been resolved. The difference in status between the hostess Sophia and the servant Clio will not be smoothed out by a sensational beach show, family dinner, or vacation. The so-called "overcoming the difficulties together" is a rhetoric that the former has to create when the upper strata are in trouble and the use value of the lower strata increases. In the face of her husband’s abandonment, does Sophia have another more economical choice? For Creo, she has been worried about being fired since she was pregnant, and the roots of this anxiety are self-evident. What's more, two different things cannot be shared by each other at all. Note: It is unreasonable to equate the employer’s husband’s abandonment of Sophia with Fermin’s abandonment of Creo. Under the guidance of the director, we seem to be inclined to think that the movie is a story of two women who are also abandoned by disloyal men, whose pain comes from men. But Sofia's husband, as a highly paid doctor (also a white elite) and Fermin, as a rural native, faced completely different problems. Therefore, when the family and Clio embraced and wept, they just cried for themselves and did not understand what was happening on the other side of society. As shown in the movie, there is no revolution in Sophia's world. If we define love as a relationship that maximizes profit and is calculated, then I very much agree with the scene presented by the movie poster, which shows the director's class background. Therefore, this is a feminine utopia created by the middle class. In last year's domestic film "Find You", a short flash of this kind of utopia can also be found. Unlike the nanny in "Find You", Creo, as a young woman, has no marriage and family, which allows her to devote herself to the service of the employer's family more wholeheartedly. This cruel point must be pointed out. Now we can summarize how "Rome" deconstructed the class antagonism with the gender antagonism between men and women. Class antagonism employer/white elite/middle class: Sophia and her husband, servant/indigenous/bottom: Creo and her boyfriend Fermin, gender antagonism, male: Sophia’s husband and Fermin-betrayal, violent, combative, cowardly and arbitrary Women in society: Sophia and Creo - Loyalty, peace, brave and tolerance The family is with the director, and in the end it seems that the second kind of antagonism has defeated the first kind, which makes it more convincing. But it is precisely this kind of treatment that obscures the source of many problems in Mexican society. It is also based on this gender antagonism that women are treated as a passive image curled up in the family, helpless or even dull in the face of social turmoil. Here, the embrace by the sea seems to also mark the reconstruction of the traditional family-the departure of the male host only means waiting for the arrival of another male host. This image of women is not so much feminist as it is a variant of patriarchy, an imagination imposed by men on women. Can we expect a true image of female revolutionaries? This image is absolutely absent in "Rome", even though she absolutely exists in historical reality. Three Revolutions|Love or no love outside of revolution Now we finally talked about the relationship between revolution and love. For director Alfonso, love is a trans-class existence. It finally tried to be proven in the movie. But this article goes all out to oppose this conclusion. Creo did not get love from this middle-class family. 33:40-36:20: Husband → wife → servant × → dog, this is a chain of anger/oppression caused by shit, but Creo, as the bottom end of the chain of contempt, did not throw anger at the dog. What kind of education do the children receive? They often quarrel about a little thing, want the biggest, the most, the fastest, the best. And grandma's solution is to tell them there are more toys and food. There is almost no hope to see their true understanding of fairness (which is the basis of love). The posters (mexico68, mexico70) all over the room describe the glory of Mexico's upper class: the Olympic Games and the World Cup. They don't understand Creo in another world. Just like the director Alfonso would not really understand the maid in his childhood. However, Clio also didn't get love from Fermin. Not only that, Fermin, as a revolutionary (used) suppressor, is a counter-revolutionary even though he is a person in the revolution. The core relationship we see in the movie actually shows the story of a maid outside the revolution and a counter-revolutionary. These people were affected by the revolution rather than positive participants in the revolution. But this shows that even within the same class, if there is no revolution, love is scarce. And this kind of revolution is aimed at all unequal relations, including both class revolution and gender revolution. But "Rome" chose not to show the love story of the revolutionaries. Love is placed outside the revolution and discussed. You know that just in 2018, a new round of movement broke out in Mexico. When will this revolutionary love be presented under the lens?
Finally, I got a few books at the request of Douyou to learn about the history of Mexico and the background of Latin America.
View more about Roma reviews
