If you follow my writing, you know that I only write about a film when I feel strongly compelled to do so — and that doesn't happen very often. In July 2014, I wrote about Richard Linklater's Boyhood, a deeply moving coming of age story and a wildly ambitious 12-year-long act of filmmaking that eschewed special effects make-up in favor of filming the same actors as they aged in real life. And in October 2016 I gave accolades to Barry Jenkins' Moonlight, before it was nominated for any awards, calling it "the most human film of the year," "a contemplative masterpiece of filmmaking, and a profound and subtle meditation on the fragile construction of masculinity." Moonlight went on to win Best Picture in the 89th annual Academy Awards.
In December 2018 I was in New York City, and Alfonso Cuarón's Roma was playing in two theaters. I knew little about the film except that it was made by the director of Gravity, and that it was about his childhood in Mexico City and was mostly about his nanny. What I knew most of all was, "YOU HAVE TO GO SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN!" I was told this several times by a friend who had a slightly wild look in her eyes when she said it, impressing upon me the urgency of making every possible effort to see it in the theater. And so, on our last night in New York City, I cajoled my husband into venturing out in the bitter cold to see Roma at the Independent Film Center in Greenwich Village. We left the theater feeling stunned by what we had just experienced, full of joy and sadness and awe. We walked through the quiet streets of downtown New York on a cold week night, talking for an hour and a half about the impressions the film had left upon us.
Last night I experienced Roma on the big screen for the second time, at Coral Gables Art Cinema in my hometown of Miami. I say "experienced" because 'watched' or 'saw' would be a poor way to describe what has transpired for me both times I've experienced Roma.
I have never felt more viscerally immersed into any film, as if I were physically pulled into the world depicted on the screen, transported through space and time to 1970s Mexico City. I became an invisible observer within the film itself, seeing every visual detail, hearing every sound near and far, I felt as if I could almost smell the scents in the air and feel the textures on my skin that were felt by the characters in the film.
I cannot imagine that this immersive, multi-sensorial experience happens for the majority of people who see Roma at home on Netflix. Last night's screening was in 70mm printed film format, with eight reels of film that were mounted and played in sequence by the theater's projectionist. Even the screening itself seemed to take me back in time, to an era in my own childhood when cinema was an analog experience, not a digital file download that could be projected by a computer at the touch of a button.
Among Roma's many technical achievements, one of the most astonishing is that there is no musical soundtrack, no composed score to manipulate your emotions by heightening the narrative or foreshadowing events. Paradoxically, the absence of a score makes sound one of the film's most viscerally gripping aspects. The sounds you hear in Roma are the real sounds of life in Mexico City in the 1970s: children playing games and fighting with each other, dogs barking, birds singing, street vendors selling their wares, soldiers marching, students protesting, dishes clattering, car engines idling and horns honking, radios playing, jets flying overhead, the whistling call of the knife sharpener walking through the streets, passersby chattering in Spanish or in one of Mexico's 68 indigenous languages.
Roma intertwines emotional storytelling and social commentary on a vastly ambitious scale. The narrative centers on Cleo, a sweet-tempered if somewhat naive young indigenous woman from a rural village who now works as a maid and nanny for an upper-middle-class white family in the 'Roma' neighborhood of Mexico City. The family's troubled dramas unfold around her as Cleo undergoes her own troubles, having become pregnant by a man who leaves her. Circles within circles within circles, Cleo's story unfolds within the family drama that unfolds in the household in which she works, while outside the walls of the family's house, larger stories unfold about the troubles rocking Mexico City during that era — sometimes literally, as in the scene when an earthquake strikes while Cleo is peering through the glass at newborn babies in the maternity ward. The fragility of life, always at the mercy of the violence wrought by nature and by mankind, is one of the film's persistent, aching themes.
Critic Richard Morgan, writing in The Washington Post, attacked Cuarón as being heavy-handed with his own directorial voice and creating a world of shallow female characters who are not allowed to express their own opinions. "While it’s visually stunning, it’s emotionally stunted, with a script that allots very little space for her — or any of the characters — to express an opinion." Morgan stopped just short of calling Cuarón a mysoginist, but only just.
I can't help but wonder if Morgan and I watched different movies, because Roma is a profoundly feminist film. Men and boys pass in and out of the story, generally leaving in their wake a trail of personal chaos, violence, and destruction wherever they go. But the film itself is more concerned with the struggles and triumphs of its female protagonists. The voices of these women are muffled by social customs and the overbearing machismo of the society in which they live, but make no mistake: women are shown here as the real creators of life, the ones who lovingly (and sometimes through their own heartbreak and tears) nurture life and hold it together while the men around them seem hell-bent on doing their best to screw it up and tear it all apart.
There is a moral arc to the stories in Roma. From the start, the women in the film are beholden to the men in their lives, sycophantically dependent on them for approval and support. The men in their lives — a pack of buffoons, liars, cowards and assholes, one and all — keep betraying them, molesting them, impregnating them, lying to them, threatening them, and running away from them. But by the end of the film, the women who are central to the story have found some hard-won peace of mind through realizing their own strength and establishing their independence from these men.
Another critic, Richard Brody, in an utterly tiresome review in The New Yorker, attacked Cuarón for failing to turn Roma into an astute political discourse. One of the film's pivotal scenes unfolds on the day of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June 10, 1971, a terrifying day in Mexican history when longstanding tensions erupted between leftist student protesters and the U.S.-backed right-wing government and its CIA-trained paramilitaries. 120 people were killed, many of them hunted down by the paramilitaries and shot in their hiding places in stores and hospitals. We see this horror unfold through the eyes of Cleo and the family's grandmother, who have ventured out on the day of the protests to buy a crib for Cleo's soon-to-be-born baby. Brody harangues Cuarón for not providing viewers with enough of the political backstory to understand the subtleties of the United States' covert involvement in the massacre — but, to Brody's chagrin, Roma is a feature film, not a documentary. Cuarón's intent was not to provide a history lesson or expound upon the complexities of the political violence that unfolded on that day, but to place us right in the midst of the horror and let us experience it as people did in the moment — with complete bewilderment and fear — not as academics standing back and commenting upon the action and discussing the intersectionality of Mexican racial relations and economic disparities with geopolitical interference. When Cleo's water breaks and she has to be rushed to the hospital in the midst of this terror, it brings us rushing back to the innermost circle of the film's narratives, the one centered on Cleo's personal story. Brody seems disappointed that Cuarón didn't 'splain to us the meaning and political complexities of the violence and social chaos we witness — and on another day I'd be happy to watch the documentary that Brody seems to wish Cuarón had made — but Brody's misplaced expectations are wildly out of sync with the feature film Cuarón actually did make.
Roma is a breathtaking masterpiece of cinema, with an astonishing degree of attention to every visual and sonic detail, and a narrative that unfolds on multiple scales, both personal and epic. The film leaves an indelible impression on one's heart that lingers for weeks afterwards. It's also filled with small moments of magic, even mysticism, like the times when the youngest member of the family, Pepe (who seems to be a stand-in for Cuarón), recounts to Cleo memories of his previous lives, "when I was older." Cleo lovingly laughs off Pepe's stories as the fancies of a child's imagination, but this is the wisdom that can only be spoken by a child, by one who is innocent, one whose mind has not yet become complicated and fogged over by the brute ways of the world in which he is bound to grow up.
There are now two Alfonso Cuaróns: the one before Roma, and the one after. Before Roma, Cuarón had already established himself as a great, technical Hollywood filmmaker, taking Best Director for Gravity. That is also the Cuarón who made the sexy and scintillating Y Tu Mama Tambien, and the same one who brought us the apocalyptic, dystopian vision of our future in Children of Men, a film that now seems uncannily timeless and increasingly prescient with each passing year. But with Roma, Cuarón has quite simply transcended ordinary filmmaking, creating a bold and unapologetic work of art that will be remembered and reflected upon for decades to come. With one tremendous step forward, Cuarón has entered the hall of giants that is home to immortal filmmakers like Bergman and Fellini.
If Roma is playing on a big screen near you — in a darkened theater, in its full 21:9 aspect ratio, with surround sound — you must go see it. If it is not, you should perhaps consider getting on a plane and flying to a city where it is.
Showing posts with label boyhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boyhood. Show all posts
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Monday, October 31, 2016
"Moonlight" Is the Year's Most Human Film
I don't write film reviews very often. A film has to be strong enough to haunt my imagination, and compel me to speak about it. The last time I reviewed a film was over two years ago, for Richard Linklater's Boyhood. Ironically, that film has certain themes in common with the film I reviewed today at The Huffington Post. Here's an excerpt from my review:
"Moonlight" is a contemplative masterpiece of filmmaking, and a profound and subtle meditation on the fragile construction of masculinity. It’s a shattering tour through the aching vulnerability of boyhood, and the glowing embers of boyhood that continue to smolder inside the cooler pretensions of manhood. It explores how we piece together a makeshift identity for ourselves from the alternating threads of trauma and tenderness with which adults and other children pierce our hearts as we grow. And it turns a fierce, compassionate light on the ways that we boys and men armor ourselves against the emotional and physical violence of homophobia, and how the armor we grow to protect ourselves becomes a hardened shell in which we live out the rest of our lives, seemingly protected but actually trapped inside our protection.
Click here to read the rest of my review at HuffPo.
Go see "Moonlight." It's in limited release this week, and opens nationwide next week. And while you're at it, come follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Pinterest. See you around!
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Boyhood
There is a moment in Richard Linklater's new film Boyhood when the film's main character, Mason — caught deep in the throes of the most awkward transitional years of high school — realizes that growing up is not necessarily the guaranteed outcome of getting older. In a pensive, philosophical conversation between Mason and his girlfriend — the kind of intelligent, emotionally engaged dialogue that has become like Linklater's filmic signature — Mason reflects on the fact that his mother, who has worked hard to be as grown up and responsible as she can be, still seems as lost and confused about the direction of her life as he is about his own.
Boyhood is unlike anything else I've ever seen in cinema, just as Linklater is unlike any other director working today. Over the course of the film we watch Mason grow from a shy, introverted six-year-old into a shy, introverted young man going off to college. But rather than using multiple actors or special effects to depict Mason and his family aging across the years, Linklater filmed the same group of actors repeatedly over the course of 12 years. As Mason's character ages, so does the actor playing him, along with his family members. The effect is that, although Boyhood is a fictional story, it illustrates the joys and pain of childhood and growing up in a way that is profoundly authentic and true-to-life.

But what does it even mean to grow up? Who the hell really knows? It seems to have a lot to do with taking responsibility for ourselves, getting with the program, and becoming successful in life — at least that's the message that the adults in Mason's world keep preaching at him. Do your homework, complete your chores, get ahead in school, find something you're good at and excel in life. But for all their good intentions and rhetoric, those very same adults keep struggling to find their own way in the world, and repeating mistake after embarrassing mistake. Mason's mother keeps marrying the wrong guys, and his father seems stuck in a perpetually rebellious childhood phase of his own.
Boyhood is unlike anything else I've ever seen in cinema, just as Linklater is unlike any other director working today. Over the course of the film we watch Mason grow from a shy, introverted six-year-old into a shy, introverted young man going off to college. But rather than using multiple actors or special effects to depict Mason and his family aging across the years, Linklater filmed the same group of actors repeatedly over the course of 12 years. As Mason's character ages, so does the actor playing him, along with his family members. The effect is that, although Boyhood is a fictional story, it illustrates the joys and pain of childhood and growing up in a way that is profoundly authentic and true-to-life.
But what does it even mean to grow up? Who the hell really knows? It seems to have a lot to do with taking responsibility for ourselves, getting with the program, and becoming successful in life — at least that's the message that the adults in Mason's world keep preaching at him. Do your homework, complete your chores, get ahead in school, find something you're good at and excel in life. But for all their good intentions and rhetoric, those very same adults keep struggling to find their own way in the world, and repeating mistake after embarrassing mistake. Mason's mother keeps marrying the wrong guys, and his father seems stuck in a perpetually rebellious childhood phase of his own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

