Given all the critical acclaim and now Oscar-bait, I expected a lot more from Roma. I think of the other films Cuaron has done over the years, and I had such...great expectations...for Roma. Boy, was I disappointed. The only thing I wasn't disappointed about was Yotsuya's spelling of her name as "Cloe" instead of "Cleo", which inspired me to now call the main character "Chloe" instead of her actual name that I was actually going to call her. So, well done.
This film should have been called "Slow Pan: The Movie." Seriously, that was about the only camera movement whatsoever, besides a little editing here and there. Speaking of editing, did we really need to see a two minute scene of her scooping up dog poo and cleaning up after it? There are so many scenes that just went on far too long, and lingered for the sake of lingering. I don't know if it was dramatic effect, but it felt like a few snips here and there would have definitely made it a more enjoyable watch. As it stands, it was nearly agonizing, the lack of anything happening for so long until...something small happened and then we're back to standing around or looking at stuff. Sure, the cinematography was solid, but that actually took away from the scenes we were supposed to care about at times. When she was at the movie theater, I wasn't watching her, I was watching one of the biggest French movies of all time. When she was pregnant and walking around in that field, I was watching everything else play out around her, even if it was completely insubstantial. As she was largely naive to anything major going on in the world around her, the rest of it stays muted. Anytime something really significant happened, it was just a brief little focus on it and time to move on and we'll never speak of it again. Take the water balloon story at the beginning. A little boy is shot by the military because he threw a water balloon, and they shrug it off and that's the end of it. When they don't care, how can we?
The story just killed me. It was just "a rough year in her life" give or take, more than an actual storyline. Sure, biographical films don't necessarily need a plot, but the moments highlighted in this were just a long line of depressing things one after the next. Those events were obviously massively important to the character, and combined with the context of the time in which this took place, it mattered a great deal, but it didn't to me. Mexico in the late 60s/early 70s isn't a time I'm particularly familiar with, and even after watching this I don't see it being incredibly noteworthy. It was the year she fell in love kind of, watched naked karate, got pregnant, lost the baby, almost let the children she takes care of drown, and then finally realizes this is all the family she needs. Ouch.
I don't know if Chloe ever felt like she was a part of the family until that last scene, and for good reason. She wasn't, at least not how the family treated her. She was their servant, and not their ward. The mother kept dumping all of her problems on Chloe (the dog poo freakout, the drunken crash) and she just took it. Not that they didn't care about her, because finding a live-in housekeeper must be tough to trust someone with that sensitive of a position, like taking care of four kids, but it felt more like an obligation than genuine affection. The "we'll take you to the doctor" and buying the crib and all that, to me it looked like something the mother (and by extension, grandmother) felt that it was something they needed to do. Maybe that's six in one, half dozen in the other, but it felt more like employee/employer relationship than something akin to Batman and Alfred. Instead, she was just the silent caretaker. Go get the oatmeal, make me some tea, clean up the place, and whatever.
A big takeaway I kept getting from this is "Men are terrible and will ruin your life, and you can't trust them with anything." All of the non-child male characters in the film were either useless or antagonists. The father lied about taking trips so he could shack up with his mistress. The boyfriend Fabien or whatever was arguably the most compelling/deepest character and he was a pure scumbag (nude Star Wars Kid scene included). The male doctor was a gossip, and when it came to him actually helping, he just bailed. Even the other boyfriend, the one in the band, was next-to-useless, saying "don't tell him I told you where he was." There were also useless men during the big party they had, and that one dude actually just stood around singing while everyone else was fighting the fire. And then we got that line from the drunken mother to tie it all together about how men are useless. What's the audience supposed to think?
And don't get me started on the Professor. By the way, what kind of name is "Latin Lover"? He's a pro wrestler, according to wikipedia, but who uses that kind of stage name in the credits of a film like this? It felt way out of place given how serious this movie was, and then to see in the credits "Latin Lover" for the Professor's name. I did actually pause the movie to see if I could do that pose he made, and it was not as complicated as he made it sound. Held it just fine with no wobbling or falling over, and so did Chloe, but she's a zen master. I'm certainly no wizard, but I was on a carpet and not uneven ground so maybe that made a difference? Nah.
I dunno, I just don't get the overwhelming praise for this film. It's not that I am a contrarian, as I enjoyed critically acclaimed pictures like The King's Speech (even though it was very self-indulgent), but Roma didn't resonate with me. I can appreciate it, but I'm not a massive fan. 6/10.