Roma (Alfonso Cuaron)

[baby doll]

The third shot in the trailer, of the heroine doing household chores, is a good example of the kind of camera movement I'm referring to. Obviously that's not to say that every shot is distracting, but shots of this kind, in which the camerawork seems to break away from the plot, recur frequently throughout the film (the lateral tracking shot of the line of people walking in the countryside is another). On the other hand, the camera movement in Welles' film always has a narrative motivation.

[Ezee E]

Over time, I've just chosen to never really argue against any criticisms that there's too much focus on cinematography .

[Mysterious Dude]

To me, the long opening take of Touch of Evil does not serve the story. In fact, it distracts from any tension in the scene and just draws attention to itself. It seems to me it was done just for the sake of doing it. But then again, I like flashy cinematography, and I love Touch of Evil, so whatever. I'll just leave this quote here:

"I'd seen the film four or five times before I noticed the story," the director Peter Bogdanovich once told his friend Orson. "That speaks well for the story," Welles rumbled sarcastically, but Bogdanovich replied, "No, no--I mean I was looking at the direction."

Compared to Touch of Evil, Roma's camerawork is positively subdued.

It's too cold. So when we get to the scene that should absolutely shatter the viewer, I felt nothing. There was no connection there.

It shattered me.

[Ezee E]

Roma's one of very, very few movies that made me cry. The focus certainly wasn't on the cinematography at that moment, but it took excellent cinematography to make this more closed-in scene effective.

[

Show Spoiler

The hospital scene

].

[baby doll]

To me, the long opening take of Touch of Evil does not serve the story. In fact, it distracts from any tension in the scene and just draws attention to itself. It seems to me it was done just for the sake of doing it. But then again, I like flashy cinematography, and I love Touch of Evil, so whatever. I'll just leave this quote here:

Compared to Touch of Evil, Roma's camerawork is positively subdued.

For me, it's less a question of subdued-versus-flashy than purposeful-versus-purposeless. Welles' camerawork in the opening sequence of Touch of Evil has at least two purposes: one denotative (a great deal of narrative information is conveyed in a short period of time, beginning with the placement of the bomb in the car; in other words, the camera is always placed so as to give us an ideal view of the action and in that sense is subordinate to the narrative), the other thematic (creating a sense of continuity between the United States and Mexico and of fates intertwined, as Ebert alludes to in his Great Movies article). Cuarón's camerawork may be less ostentatious (though it's pretty ostentatious), but it's also less purposeful.

[Pop Trash]

Roma's one of very, very few movies that made me cry. The focus certainly wasn't on the cinematography at that moment, but it took excellent cinematography to make this more closed-in scene effective.

[

Show Spoiler

The hospital scene

].

[

Show Spoiler

I had a weird experience when they first showed the baby I was thinking, "oh nice one Alfonso, did you get the baby from American Sniper to act in your movie?... oh... oh shit... that's what's going on." And then I felt like a total fool.

]

[transmogrifier]

Don't explain it to him. If he doesn't understand the question, his answer is just going to be some deflection or attitude stricken retort that neither propels the discussions or makes for an interesting dialog. I've just given up trying with him.

I truly didn't understand the question. But if this is your attitude, maybe don't ask me a question in the first place.

[transmogrifier]

Holy shit, you could say the same thing about Scorsese, PT Anderson, Orson Welles, Kubrick, Renoir, Hitchcock, and Max Ophuls.

I disagree. Take PT Anderson for example: his use of three long takes in Boogie Nights - one at the start to highlight the buoyant, bouncy beginning period, one slap-bang in the middle to mark the transition between the 70s and the 80s, from decadence to downfall, one at the end to illustrate calm and acceptance - has a clear thematic purpose. Compare this to Children of Men, where the car scene is an exercise in cinematic logistics more than anything else, and the battle scene expressly has fake blood (or is it dirt?) thrown on the camera lens as a direct reminder that the camera is there. It's all technological wizardry for the sake of it.

[Watashi]

I found it so distracting that all the promotional art and marketing for this movie is straight from the emotional climax of the movie.

[Pop Trash]

Compare this to Children of Men, where the car scene is an exercise in cinematic logistics more than anything else, and the battle scene expressly has fake blood (or is it dirt?) thrown on the camera lens as a direct reminder that the camera is there. It's all technological wizardry for the sake of it.

That's fair. I remember there being some naysayers i/r/t Children of Men's long takes and camerawork around the time it came out. Back when he actually got paid gigs, I read Mike D'Angelo's dissent in Esquire. That movie has aged a little too well, so I'm more positive about it than when it came out (but I did still think it was good back in 2006 or whenever). Anywhoo, I thought we were talking about Roma, here?

[Spinal]

The 2018 critical darling with distracting cinematography is The Favourite.

[Pop Trash]

The 2018 critical darling with distracting cinematography is The Favourite.

I agree, but I didn't think there was as much fisheye as I'd been led to believe. I also thought it worked conceptually with the interiors of the palace, but then I like "distracting" cinematography. I'm a Malick and Scorsese fan, after all.

[transmogrifier]

That's fair. I remember there being some naysayers i/r/t Children of Men's long takes and camerawork around the time it came out. Back when he actually got paid gigs, I read Mike D'Angelo's dissent in Esquire. That movie has aged a little too well, so I'm more positive about it than when it came out (but I did still think it was good back in 2006 or whenever). Anywhoo, I thought we were talking about Roma, here?

Heh, I haven't even seen Roma yet.

[baby doll]

The 2018 critical darling with distracting cinematography is The Favourite.

I wasn't bothered by the cinematography in Lanthimos' film since I understood why he was doing what he was doing (fish eye lenses have been yoked to satiric exaggeration since at least Zazie dans le métro, if not earlier) and since we're not supposed to care very deeply for any of the characters.

[Rico]

del Toro put some thoughts down.

https://twitter.com/RealGDT/status/1084701184110153729

[Grouchy]

Well, this was just bad, wasn't it? Pretentious, overlong, both devoid of any real heart and emotionally manipulative to a fault. Cuarón is devolving as a filmmaker.

[Dukefrukem]

I basically feel the complete opposite. And I'm not a fan of Cuaron.

[Spinal]

I basically feel the complete opposite.

#metoo

[Pop Trash]

Well, this was just bad, wasn't it? Pretentious, overlong, both devoid of any real heart and emotionally manipulative to a fault. Cuarón is devolving as a filmmaker.

[Grouchy]

There's no way they didn't anticipate the memes when they shot that line of dialogue.

[transmogrifier]

There's no way they didn't anticipate the memes when they shot that line of dialogue.

That whole movie is a tired response to memes.

[transmogrifier]

Definitely needed some more slow pans.

[DavidSeven]

I watched this on Netflix. Usually, I feel like people often overrate the "must be seen in theaters" element of some films, but I feel like it may be fully applicable here. It feels like it would work better in a completely immersive environment. At home, on a moderately sized TV and standard audio, this barely feels special at all. My suspicion is that whatever it is about this that works in the theater does not translate to less immersive forms of media. The black and white photography -- while nice -- did not captivate me. I didn't notice anything special about the sound. Without feeling a boost from those sensory elements, it really gets weighed down by its meandering narrative approach.

[Ezee E]

I watched this on Netflix. Usually, I feel like people often overrate the "must be seen in theaters" element of some films, but I feel like it may be fully applicable here. It feels like it would work better in a completely immersive environment. At home, on a moderately sized TV and standard audio, this barely feels special at all. My suspicion is that whatever it is about this that works in the theater does not translate to less immersive forms of media. The black and white photography -- while nice -- did not captivate me. I didn't notice anything special about the sound. Without feeling a boost from those sensory elements, it really gets weighed down by its meandering narrative approach.

Agreed. I feel like I may have said it already, but tried watching again on Netflix and it took a few times. The riot and what transpired was not nearly as affecting.

I'm wondering if this is what it was like for people that got to see Lawrence of Arabia or 2001 in the theater for the first time. Then again, people appreciated those from home as well.

[PURPLE]

I think del Toro makes some very salient points:

1. The film is a fresco, not a portrait. (Point 5)
2. The film follows one character's dramatic arc, and all of the major scenes in the film are moments of portraiture.

This combination makes no sense.

Point 6: Cuaron built HUGE sets and spent a huge amount of time and money building recreations of city streets, something that could be achieved in a contemporary film for free and would not be worth mentioning at all. Strange. It should be noted that the huge city street scene that the boys walk down to go to the theater adds absolutely nothing to the film except for the mere sight of a city street of the time. This is a visual fresco, but nothing else, and not even a creative fresco, merely an "accurate" one. This, to me, is emblematic of the film as a whole: A lot of effort put into appearances, but nothing is there for a reason.

The birth scene is perhaps the biggest example of this. There is nothing added to the film by seeing this lengthy and incredibly well orchestrated scene. In the hands of a great artist, like Mia Hansen-Love or Angela Schanelec, this scene would be completely avoided through ellipsis. This film, which is definitely a fresco, dedicates a huge piece of time to a small moment in this single woman's life of which the outcome has huge reverberations forward and backward, but of which the actual event is entirely meaningless. It doesn't matter how many seconds it took to get her from the front desk to the operating table, it doesn't matter how many times the doctors tried with no hope to resuscitate her child, and it hardly matters how many seconds she holds her child which is born dead. Everything important comes before and after this moment - and yet we sit with this moment for a huge amount of time. A film that is supposedly a fresco of a time and a socioeconomic context and a complex interplay between several lives is completely circumvented to focus on this incredibly unimportant goings-on around a far more important life event.

Now, this is not to say that Cuaron hasn't shown these impulses before. Gravity and Children of Men are Action Films with a capital AF (pun intended). It is true, too, that they have additional stories, but, as has been discussed, all of the camerawork serves the ACTION. They are action films. What even is this film? The film dedicates a lot of time to these ACTION scenes, but to no purpose. The film dedicates a decent amount of time to the greater "fresco" around the central character, but really is only focused on the major events in this character's life. And this character, sadly, is stuffed into a film to show off all of these details only to shove her to the forefront once some dramatic scenes come about. Everything about the film's end is about the character, but everything about the beginning of the film just focuses on everything around her. She is a tool elevated to the status of Most Important Tool, but never elevated to Person. A strange film, the worst realization of Cuaron's impulses.

Compare this film to, say, La Dolce Vita. The main character is a cypher, and he's of no importance, and thus the film is able to be first and foremost a fresco, because the protagonist doesn't matter.

Compare this film to, say, Moonlight. The main character is a cypher, and he is of no importance for the first two thirds of the film because he has no choice and has no chance. The last third of the film, rather than elevating him to a miraculous savior, stops completely and finally allows him to fully utilize his voice and showcase his humanity. One brief cry on a beach simply isn't comparable.

Compare this film to, say, Eighth Grade. The main character is extremely shy and quiet and can never say the right thing, but the film spends the entire film excavating each and every social situation imaginable to figure out exactly how she engages with the world and showcases her ability both to begin to find a truthful voice and to recognize others' struggles, or others' inability to recognize the struggles of others.

Cuaron has made at least two underwhelming films in one: a shallow, unfocused fresco and a poorly realized portrait. There may be other poorly realized films, as well, it's hard to tell when they're poorly realized. So, OK, he made an unfocused film, who cares? Well, it just feels like even more of a shame when so much capability is clearly shown in the showcase scenes, and so much attention has been paid to some of the socioeconomic layering that Del Toro mentions, but it feels like a person making a film for plaudits by hinting at all of these elements merely as an excuse to delve into big set-pieces that are entirely hollow in the final tally. Cuaron is entranced by setpieces, not by people - and this makes his films about people vapid, and his action films incredible.

EDIT - For the record, I think the camerawork works fine for a fresco and for an action film, respectively, within each scene. There's just some narrative dissonance between the narrative conventions utilized in the film, each of which is filmed appropriately but makes no sense in conjunction.