Skip to main content

Cuarón’s Expert, Moving Portrait of a Caregiver Touches the Soul


Written and directed, shot and edited by the man who’s upbringing it’s loosely based around, Roma is the textbook definition of a personal project. And yet, it’s in no way self-indulgent. The filmmaker stretching his auteur sensibilities here is Alfonso Cuarón, one of the greatest directors of the past twenty years, best known for his Oscar-winning Gravity, the one truly great Harry Potter film, and his dystopian masterpiece Children of Men. Yet Roma is his first Mexican film since his brilliant 2001 coming-of-age story Y Tu Mama Tambien. And what prompted his return was to tell a story, certainly with biographical elements, but not about himself or a thinly-veiled surrogate, the likes of which you’d see from Truffault or Fellini (who also made a movie called Roma). Roma is rather a touching love letter to his childhood nanny.
Set between 1970 and 1971, it’s the story of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), the live-in housekeeper for a family in the Roma neighbourhood of Mexico City. She looks after the home, cares for the four young children, cleans up after the dog, and performs various other duties while the mother Sofia (Marina de Tavira) works, and the father Antonio (Fernando Grediaga) a doctor, is away on business trips to Canada. However her life and prospects change when she discovers she’s pregnant. All of this is set against the backdrop of the turbulent political climate in Mexico at the time.
From the opening credits where an airplane is seen flying overhead reflected in soap-water on a cobblestone driveway (the airplane and its symbolic purpose in fact bookend the film), it’s clear this is an expertly made movie. Cuarón takes his time to familiarize the audience with the geography of the house in which Cleo and the family live, and even beyond the opening minutes uses as few cuts as possible in individual scenes, preferring slow pans and where necessary, holding on shots. There’s one long take towards the end that follows a similar tonal trajectory to the famous car sequence from Children of Men, and it’s just about as flawless a single-shot sequence as any of the scenes from Birdman. Cuarón’s quite fond of the long take, utilizing it often in this film, and has obviously learned a lot from his regular cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. But it doesn’t distract, nor is it and his other methods used as a gimmick, in fact there comes a point where you barely notice them. But the result of these techniques is to emphasize the utter realism of the piece. It’s clearly influenced to some degree by the Neorealist tradition, and specifically reminds me of Satyajit Ray films like the Apu Trilogy and Mahanagar. And perhaps that’s the reason for its black-and-white photography, which like the long takes, you forget about after a while.
The film has a notable political commentary running throughout. And the nuances would definitely be more resonant to those aware of the political context and history of Mexico in the early 1970s; but it is nonetheless relatable to a non-Mexican audience. Cuarón is very critical of then President Luis Echeverria and the authoritative policies of his government. Reference is often made to family lands being seized, and the 1971 Corpus Christi Massacre is re-enacted with terror and violence. More subtextual though is what Roma is saying on race and class. Cleo is of course indigenous while the family she works for is white. The family associate in circles that allow them to spend New Years’ at a hacienda with Americans (where the mostly native help celebrate in a bungalow beneath the estate), while the home village of Cleo’s boyfriend Fermin, which is not too dissimilar to her own, is barren, dirty, and incredibly poor. Perhaps most notable is Cleo’s fear that she’ll be fired for being pregnant, a fear embedded in a history and reality of white peoples’ relationships with their non-white employees. And as much as the family does appreciate her, they can be tone deaf to what she’s going through and can never really understand for themselves. It’s only when she ends up in a compatible situation that Sofia shows real respect for Cleo.
And as for Cleo, it is a godsend that Cuarón was able to find Yalitza Aparicio, a twenty-five year old first-time actress for his leading role. In fact she had just completed her education to be a teacher when she got the part. Cuarón’s skillful direction, cinematography, and script would be admirable regardless, but the film wouldn’t mean much if Aparicio wasn’t giving one of the strongest performances I’ve seen this year. And it’s not a grand or highly passionate performance either, it’s restrained and subtle, but evocative and very very honest. This is an introverted character and it’s a lot harder than people think to convey inner pain and confusion while trying to maintain a humble, unperturbed demeanour. Yet when she must be emotional, she is abundantly so. Aparicio achieves this complexity astonishingly without any formal training in the craft and if you don’t love Cleo as much as Cuarón does by the end of this movie, there’s something hard in your soul.
The rest of the cast are also newcomers. Grediaga is good, as is a thoroughly detestable Jorge Antonio Guerrero. But de Tavira shines among the supporting cast, as Sofia goes through troubles of her own; and the children are all quite likeable, the youngest daughter and son (Sofi and Pepe) are especially adorable.
Roma is searingly beautiful, heart-wrenching, and mesmerizing, but it’s the kind of movie that on its surface looks pretentious, conceited, audacious, and showy, to the point it’d be difficult convincing some people it’s sincere. It’s unlike any movie Cuarón’s ever made, not only his most personal, but his first reflection piece. That he makes it objective and tells someone else’s story is part of what makes it special. Libo was the real-life Cleo, to whom Cuarón dedicates the film. She was a woman who clearly had a big impact on his life and he loves her as a mother. Roma was his way of sharing her with us.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day