Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Roma (2018)


football forum

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, nudge said:

I think it's a bit of a niche genre; a sort of "slice-of-life" movie, so it's more focused on being a portrayal of a place and time (in this case daily life in Mexico of the 70s) rather than telling a compelling story with a clear narrative. I understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but personally, I really appreciate them for what they offer - a unique opportunity to immerse in a different society and culture by simply observing seemingly mundane daily lives of common people for some time from a distance. I get really engrossed in that for some reason when I'm in a right mood. I think it also has something to do with the existentialist angle those movies tend to have; it's the same in Roma's case. As you said, "these events happen and then the story just keeps going", "they just happen for the sake of it happening". I think that is purely deliberate by design; both larger scale events happening in the background and characters surviving their own personal crises and tragedies and moving on are used to subtly show the futility and absurdity of existence as both life and death are presented in a simple matter-of-fact manner all throughout the movie; both in dialogues and the portrayal of events as well as the general feeling of detachment created by the unmoving camera and the nature of shots. 

I also disagree with you about lack of character development; especially when it comes to Cleo. She doesn't have a voice in the movie because she doesn't have one is society either. She might not have a lot of "meaningful" dialogue but by showing us Cleo’s story the movie gives a voice to all domestic workers and servants in a Mexican society of the 70s whose desires, wants and needs often get pushed aside in favour of the wants and needs of the families they serve. Her story is so generic on purpose - it could literally be any other indigenous house maid with a different name working for a different family; I think the audience is not supposed to care particularly about Cleo but more about millions of people with similar lives and similar stories. So it's both detached and empathetic at the same time. I think there are a lot of observations about the society, culture and relationships in the movie and that's kind of the point of it.

As for Cuarón in general, I didn't like Gravity but Children of Men is one of my favourite movies ever. Highly recommended if you loved the cinematography of Roma (which I think is absolutely amazing!) but want a proper story to go with it.

Cheers for the last film recommendation - that sort of cinematography (which you're right, it is fantastic) but with a proper story is something that I think I would enjoy.

As for those complaints I had that, seem to be deliberate design choices by the storyteller... maybe that's just one of those things that to me I just can't get into with films. Because I do like books that are a bit like that. Having said that, one of my favourite films of all time is No Country for Old Men, where events happen but ultimately the story keeps going with no real justice... which I remember coming out of the cinema after seeing that with a group of friends and my good mate said "wow. I can't believe there was no justice at all there" - I'm not sure if that film would count as something that falls into the "slice of life" genre... personally... I don't think it does at all (but I don't know lol). But it's an example of a film that I think shows that the border town there in Texas was "no country for old men" before the film... and remained "no country for old men" after the film - nothing ultimately changes after all of the events we watch. But I feel it told more of a story. At least one that I could understand better.

I do wonder if I'm just not smart enough to really get films like Roma. Because what you say all makes sense to me, especially what you said about character development. But I never would have figured that out on my own without you spelling it out to me - not in a million years. I do think I'd have picked it up if it was written down in a book I was reading though, so maybe my brain just doesn't process films the same way? Fuck if I know though.

Still don't like the film, even with my new appreciation of it coming from you xD - should I rate the films we watch? I'll give Shawshank a 4/5, this one gets a 2/5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Subscriber
1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Cheers for the last film recommendation - that sort of cinematography (which you're right, it is fantastic) but with a proper story is something that I think I would enjoy.

As for those complaints I had that, seem to be deliberate design choices by the storyteller... maybe that's just one of those things that to me I just can't get into with films. Because I do like books that are a bit like that. Having said that, one of my favourite films of all time is No Country for Old Men, where events happen but ultimately the story keeps going with no real justice... which I remember coming out of the cinema after seeing that with a group of friends and my good mate said "wow. I can't believe there was no justice at all there" - I'm not sure if that film would count as something that falls into the "slice of life" genre... personally... I don't think it does at all (but I don't know lol). But it's an example of a film that I think shows that the border town there in Texas was "no country for old men" before the film... and remained "no country for old men" after the film - nothing ultimately changes after all of the events we watch. But I feel it told more of a story. At least one that I could understand better.

I do wonder if I'm just not smart enough to really get films like Roma. Because what you say all makes sense to me, especially what you said about character development. But I never would have figured that out on my own without you spelling it out to me - not in a million years. I do think I'd have picked it up if it was written down in a book I was reading though, so maybe my brain just doesn't process films the same way? Fuck if I know though.

Still don't like the film, even with my new appreciation of it coming from you xD - should I rate the films we watch? I'll give Shawshank a 4/5, this one gets a 2/5.

I mean people have different tastes; there's nothing wrong with liking or disliking a certain movie... I definitely see your point regarding No Country for Old Men; I wouldn't say it falls into the "slice of life" genre either but there's definitely similarities in terms of pacing and inherently existentialist nature of the ideas behind the story and the characters so it absolutely makes sense to bring it up. I loved it too and I think it's definitely more accessible for sure.

Also no, it definitely doesn't have anything to do with you not being "smart enough" lol xD  Films (or any art form in general) speak to different people differently; thus different interpretations and different emotional responses. I think it's pretty neat. My interpretation might make sense to you (and I'm glad it does) but it's not necessarily "right" and the storyteller likely meant a different thing altogether. But I just think it is the beauty of art and also the best part of talking about movies in a "film club" as it lets you see a different perspective and see things in a different light. Also I'd say a book leaves much less things unsaid compared to a movie and is by far more straightforward as it relies on words to describe everything and pass a certain message whereas visual and audio cues in a movie make it much more open to interpretation by default.

As for the ratings - I'll play along and give Shawshank 6/10 and Roma 8/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished watching this, so I'll attempt to write you my thoughts and reviews. 

I'll start off my saying that I knew nothing about this movie going into it, other than it won some awards at one of the film Awards Show. I did know it was in black and white, and I assumed it was set in Italy. 

Alas, here is my review with Spoilers. 

My first thoughts are that it was a brilliant movie. It was one of the most real movies I have seen in a long time. From the beginning it just felt 

real.The actors and actress didn't look like anything in Hollywood, and nothing about this movie was over the top or so crazy to think that this couldn't actually be real events filmed in real time. 

I thought the film had a great mix of humor and tragedy. After my wife and mine's scare with our beautiful daughter, I really had a hard time watching the hospital scene, as it brought back minor PTSD emotions, and my first thought was the pause the film, wake up my daughter, and just hold her. 

The depth of the journey we see of Cleo is memorizing. We see an absolutely change of character that feels natural, yet sad, and ends with everyone admitting a lot of hard truths. The beach scene had me initially feeling very worried for Cleo, but ending with making me want to hug her and console her. She is a very naive, but likable character, and the actress did a marvelous job with connecting with the role and showing the growth in the character. 

The funny parts with me revolved around the parking of the car, I think the director did a great job with the silly humor that we had with both Antonio and Sofia attempting to park that car, and how it became this reoccurring scene that gave us a break from the growing tension that was going on elsewhere. 

I also applaud this movie because I think it accurately touches on the stages of grief. There is obvious sadness and despair, and then trusting Sofia with the truth that she didn't want the baby to begin with, and then it ending with Cleo smiling, starting to become more social, and ending with mentioning to Adela that is has, 'a lot to talk about'. 

Absolutely beautiful movie, and one that I am happy I watched. However, this isn't one of those movies that I can watch multiple times. 

Overall, I'd give his a 8.5/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think I mentioned character development... and here's I think my biggest flaw with this beautiful film with it's long and (imo) uncompelling story. Cleo barely speaks the whole film - and most of what she says isn't really important to driving along the plot. And by the time we are given insight into Cleo's desires/wants/personality... it's so late in the film that I didn't care about her as a character.

I'll speak on this because I found this film the complete opposite. We start off by seeing Cleo as just a maid, and then we move into her deeper relationship with the children, and the 'motherly' role she takes with them while the parents deal with their drama, we then she her get pregnant and become more mature with the drinking scene, and the way that mostly (outside of the weird running scene with luggage) she begins to guard the unborn child and become almost motherly. 

Then I think it changes when she finds Fermin and he denies the child and threatens her, and then I think we see an obvious change in her character to where she maybe beings to resent being pregnant. She begins to get distracted and disinterested, she didn't care about shopping for the baby and was very disconnected from the crib they were buying. 

And then baby is born still born, and she is torn between losing this baby that she is now holding (and a girl nonetheless which is what she wanted after hearing the kid talk about having a sister and the camera showing Cleo smiling), and not wanting this baby. 

Then, we have Cleo become a recluse in her mind. She gets asked if she is mute because of the shift, yet she continues to do her job. It's clear she doesn't want this beach trip, but is guilt tripped into it for the 'kids' sake. But it's when she sees the two kids drowning that we see her natural motherly instinct ramp back up. The rushes into the water when we know she can't swim, to rescue one kid, and then go deeper to recuse the other. Back on the beach, with their mother and Sofia learning that Cleo saved two of her children, Cleo becomes comfortable with this family, and her growth, and she is able to open up to Sofia in front of the kids, even if they don't grasp what she is actually saying. 

And then it ends she Cleo ready to talk about with her best friend, which shows that she has mentally come to terms with what has happened is beginning to see the light again and become more of who she was in the beginning of the film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I know I basically rehashed the entire story line, so I will be spoiler tags if need be, but I think when you take all of the events of Cleo's life, you see a dramatic change that appeared to be more subtle or even nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 hours ago, nudge said:

Also I'm disappointed with @Tommy for not taking part in this :(

I'm sorry. I completely dropped the ball on this one. Just yesterday I checked the topics and thought "ooops". I'll watch Roma tonight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Okay, I just started this movie, and the opening already bugged the shit out of me. How many buckets of water did she need for one corridor? 30? I thought she was trying to fill a pool. Will continue now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'm sorry I'm late, so I'll give you my opinion about this film.

 

It was good. Not bad, not great, but good. The cinematography was phenomenal, and the acting was very good most of the time. Especially the child actors surprised me. As for the story. It kind of felt like they've tried to make a novel into a movie without converting it intro a proper movie script first, if you know what I mean. So it certainly felt slow at times, and had a lot of unnecessary side-stuff in it that they cut have cut out just as well. 

In the end it felt nice that Cloe had a bit of a positive by saving those children. I swear, if they would have drowned, I'd never watch any of the movies you guys suggest ever again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 26/02/2020 at 22:29, Dr. Gonzo said:

Cleo barely speaks the whole film - and most of what she says isn't really important to driving along the plot. And by the time we are given insight into Cleo's desires/wants/personality... it's so late in the film that I didn't care about her as a character.

I agree on that one. From the get go she wasn't exactly a character you'd root for based on charisma. But the whole movie wasn't exactly build on certain characters. They just told their story, and the individual characters kind of fell flat, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...