Roma

Overwhelming, confounding, peerless. To watch Roma for the first time is to know that you’re in the presence of something special, an artist at the top of their game, a feat of formalist, analogue filmmaking, the kind of great movie that only comes along once or twice in a decade. It’s a year in the life of a family in Mexico City 1970-71, and particularly Cleo, their maid, as director Alfonso Cuarón takes the opportunity to provide the audience with an experiential roller coaster of set pieces, through high and low society, political upheaval and intimate chamber moments.

This approach has led to critical rapture (including 10 Oscar nominations, tied with the most ever for a foreign language film) but questions have also been raised about the minimisation of a largely silent maid by an upper-middle-class filmmaker. You might find those problems too, but this is a film searching for answers, rather than the open ignorance of your problematic fave. Every time Cleo seems to behave as an organic part of the family unit, by joining in conversation, or sitting with them while they watch TV, it’s stopped dead by someone giving her an order.

Cuarón never allows you to forget about the master/servant relationship, and that’s the point. Especially when the film’s exploration of Los Halcones and the Corpus Christi Massacre becomes the focal point of the narrative, these contexts of power are revealed to feed into each other. True, Cleo doesn’t talk much, but no one does. And when an outburst does finally come toward the end of the film, it is crushing, snapping Cleo’s entire psychology into place and questioning how much we have actually known about her interior life. Gladly, the Academy has seen enough in what Yalitza Aparicio and Marina De Tavira as the family matriarch do to reward their subtle work.

You have to look at this as less about a particular character than it is about the place, the time, the memory. You might think of Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Weerasethakul, 2010), or Distant Voices, Still Lives (Davies, 1987), how the camera monitors these ghosts as though unbound by time. That distance is the major change in Cuarón’s style. Where he once relied on the Chivo driven, Steadicam heavy technique as means to immersion, here his distance, heavily detailed production design and costuming, and a well-timed cut creates, funnily enough, a stronger bond with the film than those twirling camera moves of his past few films.

And it’s the details that transport the movie into a poetic realm where we really do feel as though we are watching memories projected: like a man being shot from a canon, a car driving through marching band, children at a New Year party running from a man in a bear costume. The cinema scenes grabbed me. Curtains closing on a film as soon as it ends, so the credits still project onto velvet, is a little touch that puts you into the mind of a young Alfonso Cuarón. The director inserts you into his brain by inserting images from his other films, like locations from Y Tu Mamá También (2001) and a clip of an astronaut from Marooned (Sturges, 1969), which nods to Cuarón’s inspiration for Gravity (2013).

And then there’s the motif of water, from a bucket washing away dog poop to those climactic waves. Cuarón uses them like Woolf did, as a visual expression for bouts of pain and depression. But at times in Roma, water can mea n the very opposite. Because it’s a film of rhymes both visual and audible. The maximalist sound design plays a large part in how we experience and are immersed into this world. The direction is so muscular, it’s a vast undertaking of David Lean proportions where they’ve built full streets and inhabited them to create the most epic experience. That appeals to the Film Twitter bros, and Cuarón always has the tendency to lean into that stuff. But if we accept immersion as his aim, then each moment is imbued with an honest to God purpose that pays off in a way that his other similarly bloated compatriots, ‘The Three Amigos’ do not with their own recent grandiose epics. The Revenant (Iñárritu, 2015) delivers shot after shot of impact, without any camera motivation between shots. The Shape of Water (Del Toro, 2017) is like an episode of Riverdale, empty pop culture references softening the patronising social message. Roma is imposing, it loudly pronounces its cinematic lineage (the Neorealists shout loudest, Fellini and Pontecorvo especially). But it’s the real deal.

I have now seen the film three times: in the cinema, on television, and on my laptop. To complete the cycle, I really need to stream it on my phone, as Cuarón (or at least, Ted Sarandos) intended. I can’t pretend that there isn’t a best way to see it. As with any film, cinema is king. But see it wherever suits you, whenever suits you, just make sure you see it. Because this might be one for the history books.

Roma is available on Netflix and in Curzon Cinemas now!

Glory (Slava)

It’s not obvious until about half waythrough, but the title of Glory refers to the wristwatch belonging to one of its central characters. Tzanko Petrov (Stefan Denolyubov) is a none too bright but nonetheless conscientious employee of the Bulgarian state railway system who attempts to report his fellow workers for siphoning diesel oil from trains at the taxpayer’s expense. Such a scandal would be inconvenient for the transport minister Kanchev (Ivan Savov) who ignores Tzanko’s allegations. But then doing his rounds tightening nuts on the tracks with his heavy spanner, Tzanko stumbles upon a pile of banknotes spilling out of a bag which he promptly reports to the authorities.

Under the micromanaging eye of government PR guru Julia Staykova (Margita Gosheva), he’s invited to the country capital Sofia for a simple ceremony which doubles as a photo op aiming to show that current state polices produce good, honest workers. In order to present Tzanko with a new watch, she has him remove his own, very ordinary but reliable timepiece so he can be presented with a new one. But in the chaos caused partly by Staykova’s work pressures and partly by the stress from her and her partner Valeri’s attending a fertility clinic to have their potential embryos frozen for possible birth at a later, more convenient time, she mislays Tzanko’s watch. Which, it turns out, is a perfect timekeeper given him by his father and inscribed with the legend, “to my son Tzanko”.

This loss will become the catalyst for Tzanko to talk to investigative journalist Kiril Kolev (Milko Lazarov) about not only the watch but also the corruption which starts with his thieving workmates and goes right up to the minister at the top who can’t be bothered to sort out the problem – the one conversation Staykova is desperate to prevent.

Although Tzanko could easily have been treated as a pathetic figure of fun – witness Staykova and colleagues laughing at unusable talking head footage where he explains his find of the money with a stutter that makes delivering the explanation extremely difficult for him – the filmmakers are clearly on the humble worker’s side. This is a lowly and simple man concerned with running to time, telling the truth and making sure his beloved pet rabbits are well fed and cared for.

By way of contrast, Julia Staykova constantly wastes the time of everyone around her – for instance, the health professionals who are trying to help her when she takes ‘important’ work phone calls in the middle of a meeting with them. This is no different to suddenly having Tzanko remove his watch to facilitate a presentation designed not to serve him but to make her political masters look good. There’s no denying she’s under a lot of pressure, but it’s hard to like Staykova whereas the values for which Tzanko’s largely unremarkable life stands are admirable making one immediately sympathetic to his plight.

Indeed, the two characters embody the underclass and the overclass – the honest, conscientious worker and the highly pressured government employee out of touch with not only those around her but also the mass of ordinary people to whom her work is supposed to be of benefit. I was reminded of the contrast between UK‘s self-serving Conservative politicians who set up the EU Referendum assuming people would vote Remain, and all those UK voters who suddenly had the chance to tell their political masters exactly what they though of them by voting Leave.

Clearly there are parallels with the political class in other countries too. There may well be many ordinary people who are far less honest – and they’re visible in the tale’s background – but it’s the political elite and those around them who come off worst here. Glory touches a raw nerve in the West and elsewhere: at the time of writing, the film has notched up some 31 awards as well as being nominated for Bulgaria’s Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. It’s not hard to see why.

Glory is out in the UK on Friday, January 5th. Watch the film trailer below: