Roma

Roma is a Mexican language Black and white film. It is written, directed, shot and edited by Alfonso Cuaron. The film stars debut actress Yalitza Aparicio in the lead role as Cleo, a domestic help. The film is set in the Roma district of Mexico in the 1970s and follows a year in the life of Cleo and her employers. (a family consisting of a Grandmother, a couple and their four kids)

The best movies and characters mostly are inspired by a writer or a director's real life experiences. The real characters or certain characteristics of theirs is what lends weight to the character or work of art and make it seem real and not reel. But, what if an entire movie was literally taken from memory? Like a faithful adaptation of a autobiography with no aim to make it over dramatic for the screen? Director Alfonso Cuaron has said that 90% of the movie is taken from memories of his own growing up years and a portrait of life in Mexico in the 1970s.

The movie has been presented to us exactly as he visualized it.

I do not understand or speak Mexican which leads me to observe the images on screen even more than I would do had the film been dubbed in English. The subtitles are present on screen, but having been conditioned to witness the subtitles as a tool with which to enhance the audio I hear, the subtitles were lost on screen, as I chose to let the visuals convey the story to me.

The movie is in Black and White, which automatically conditions audiences to the fact that the film is set in the past and leads them to decode the content in a manner quite different from what they would have done had it been in colour.

It seeks to eliminate the distractions on screen thus enabling the audience to focus solely on Cleo and her life inside and outside the house.

Such a character is usually a background filler in stories. Even if they are the leads, films focus just on said characters perspective on the house where they are employed and not their life in detail.


This is a film for cinephiles, as it is filled with excellent camerawork and pans that help drive home what the visuals on screen are indicating. You have to be able to spot it and know what it is. Even if you are unfamiliar with the technical terms you can appreciate it.


The life of the help is mostly associated with the silence of the house for a large part of the day. They are a part of the family, but apart from the family.

Their days are spent doing repititive tasks, up and down and up and down in the same manner akin to the motion of a pendulum. The camera work with its positioning and lateral panning drives home that fact to the audience. The silence in the film followed by the sudden cacophony of noise is a nice touch as well.

The scene in the hospital drives home the fact that we don't really know the small insignificant but highly important things about the servant. Yet without them the day to day activities are incomplete.
Throughout the movie Cuaron let's realisation hit us slowly. Like in real life how light dawns upon us so late and so suddenly.

These moments are very relatable for some.

When Alfonso Cuaron accepted one of the Golden Globe awards for Roma he said "
Cinema builds bridges and tears down walls with other cultures. Understand how much we have in common."

The film focuses on the minute details such as the raindrops hitting the floor, breaking into multiple smaller droplets, the drops of water dripping from the clothes on the string whilst she is washing another set of clothes and the translucent nature of wet clothes through which the sun flashes through, driving home the fact that it is a hot day.

For some this film is overhyped, for something so simple. But, isn't this hype needed? Honestly who would've watched it hadn't it been so hyped up. Of course the Academy would've and probably rewarded it as well (in the foreign language category) and there would have been a furore over the Academy rewarding movies that people don't watch. Moving back to the simple. The movie was hyped up and there was buzz about it and it is just so simple, which is what makes it so extravagant. It doesn't strive to make itself dramatic. Roma is just a mirror of our own lives in some way or the other.

Based on the precursor awards, Roma is a among the frontrunners to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and we already know that it has wrapped up the win in the Best Foreign Langauge Film. The film feels like a documentary and almost is, but Netlfix has presented it as a movie. Focus on the word Netflix. The biggest obstacle for the film to overcome with the Academy seeming averse to rewarding work which deviates from the traditional form of movie consumption in the theatres(Netflix did have a 3 week theatre screening before releasing it on the streaming service). Will It overcome? We shall find out. But until then this film must be observed, appreciated and admired by all. Films aren't more authentic than this.

76th Golden Globe Awards

Hosted by Andy Samberg and Sandra Oh, the 76th annual Golden Globe Awards had it's fair share of surprises. (it is expected from this body of voters) A few new front runners emerged and some others solidified their status as the ones to beat in the race.

A pre show prediction would have been about the hosts having a few digs at the Oscars but that was restricted to just two lines at the top of the broadcast.

"A lucky audience member gets to host the oscar."

"We are the only 2 people left who haven't gotten into trouble for saying something offensive."

They chose to let it stay that way as their roasts were aimed at just getting a light chuckle from the audience rather than say something that may offend someone because everything that is said seems to offend someone or the other.

The Winners
Rami Malek and Bohemian Rhapsody
Malek ticked all the boxes such as portrayal of a real life character, physical transformation (people actually thought that remastered footage of Queen's concerts were used in the film) and he made audiences feel that they were actually watching Freddie Mercury and was rewarded by the HFPA with the Best Actor-Drama win over Bradley Cooper from 'A Star is Born.'
Christian Bale in yet another Christian Bale type of transformation predictably triumphed in the Best Actor- Musical or Comedy race for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in Vice.
Does that mean that Bale vs Cooper has now become Bale vs Malek? Can Cooper make a comeback in this race?

Bohemian Rhapsody beating out A Star is Born and Black Panther to scoop up the Best picture award was met with a huge cheer at the Beverly Hilton Hotel Ballroom. This was hard to believe and the biggest shocker of the night, though it is common for the Globes to reward a popular film. (The Grand Budapest Hotel over eventual Oscar Winner- Birdman in 2015)

Could this sway Academy voters?

The thought process was that A Star is Born starring Lady Gaga (popular choice) could draw viewers to the beleaguered award show, but has a new frontrunner emerged?
The Oscars need to reward popular film to win in an attempt to boost ratings, but,they do love rewarding films based on real people. If the film features a popular actor it does hold it in good stead. This time they could have the perfect option in Bohemian Rhapsody. Rami Malek who has starred in Mr Robot is a popular actor in the TV scene and he plays a highly popular and still beloved character in Freddie Mercury.

Bohemian Rhapsody is a nominee in all the traditional precursors (Rami Malek at the SAG Awards and Bohemian Rhapsody at the PGA Awards) that hold a film in good stead for the Oscars and this win at the Globes may just give it an award season push.
The film also has a nomination under the Best ensemble Category at the SAG Awards. The only two films to not receive a nomination there and win Best Picture are 1995's Braveheart and 2017's The Shape of Water.

Green Book winning was expected once the time came to announce the winner for Best Musical and Comedy as it had wrapped up crucial wins in the writing and for Mahershala Ali in the Supporting Actor Category, it's director and lead actor also had been nominated in their respective categories. Most films that take home best picture have wins in writing wins or nominations in acting.

Alfonso Cuaron won Best Director for Roma. The Mexican filmmakers story about his personal experiences while growing up in Mexico in the 1970s also took home 'Best Foreign Language Picture.' Expect this film to be a major player at the Award shows over the next 6 weeks. (The film was ineligible for Best drama at the Golden Globes as it wasn't an English film)

It's looking like Roma (expected) vs A Star is Born(early favourite/remake backlash)vs Green Book(a strong chance) vs Bohemian Rhapsody (surprise surprise)

Can BlackKklansman or Black Panther have a say or will voters feel that Black Panther' s nomination is equivalent to a win?

Glenn Close's Best Actress- Drama win seems to indicate the Award bodies will be rooting for the veteran actress to win and get the Award for her career. Her main competition is Olivia Colman who won the lead actress trophy in the musical and comedy section for her portrayal of 'Queen Anne' in The Favourite.
Another Best actress contender Lady Gaga seems destined to sweep the Best song award for Shallow just like she did at the Globes.

The tendency to play off winners in smaller categories and TV show awards led to some of them seem like they were rapping as they attempted to thank everyone before the music played them off. I wonder why the playing a winner of stage wasn't done when Regina King and Glenn Close won but was done for Alfonso Cuaron and Peter Farelly?

The show saw something special on the TV side of things. The introduction of the TV equivalent of the Cecile B Demille award,the Carol Burnett Award, whose first recipient was Carol Burnett.

The show was crisp and not much was seen of the hosts apart from the opening monologue and 2-3 short spots during the show. They just completely disappeared until the camera cut to them post bohemian rhapsody acceptance speeches.

This shows that maybe the Oscars going without a host is a step in the right direction as they aim to have a shorter show. This coupled with the decision to present some awards during commercials will work wonders in the Academy attempting to have a three hour show.

The Globes have no members that vote for the Academy Awards as well but it may havw swayed a few fence sitters of the Academy. Precursor awards like the SAG and the PGA would be a much better indicator as to who will triumph at the Oscars.

Mary Poppins Returns

Sequel? Reboot? A guaranteed nostalgia evoking film

Starring Emily Blunt, Emily Mortimer, Lin Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw and Colin Firth, Mary Poppins Returns acts as part sequel, part reboot and entirely a shootout to its predecessor.

The movie also sees Dick Van Dyke (Bert in the original) and Karen Dotrice (Jane Banks in the original) and Angela Lansbury make special appearances.

Mary Poppins Returns picks up 25 years after the events of Mary Poppins. Set in the 1930's depression London, the dark and gloomy mis en scene serves the purpose of setting the mood of the film as well as the time period post which the snow melts and before the first blooms of spring. All the "too dark" complaints are just preposterous.

The plot centres around the now fully grown Michael Banks and his three children, John, Annabel, Georgie Banks, their aunt Jane Banks and housekeeper Ellen. Michael has to pay off a loan amount in five days time. The Banks are struggling... They need help. Enter Mary Poppins.

She descends from the skies, slides up the banisters and helps the children enter a fantasy world where she plants seeds of ideas in their heads with various fantasy based activities.(No I'm not talking about Inception) She then helps the adults with a little bit of magic.

Children are more likely than adults to engage in escapism- the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.

Are all the escapades in the bath tub and the bowl just Mary Poppins telling the children stories? She is literally asking them "Can You Imagine?"

The children in the film engage in escapism, just like Michael and Jane did as children in the original. But now the parent Michael and aunt Jane dismiss such ideas of escapism. Why? The movie shows the evolution of children into adults.

Does that mean Mary Poppins isn't actually magic and only seeks to help others discover the magic through imagination?

Disney appear to have attempted to rectify the discrepancies between the way they presented Mary Poppins in 1964 to the way the character was presented in P.L.Travers series of novels.

Mary Poppins(Emily Blunt) seems a tad stern from Julie Andrews' version, yet it feels uplifting. She is practically perfect, repeatedly checking out her reflection and refuses to acknowledge the existence of a fantasy world. Her character seems exasperated when asked to join in the dancing and then consenting with a "oh very well."

Her presence on screen seems so reminiscent of Julie Andrews(though not so good, so as to make audiences think that this portrayal was better) as well as the Mary Poppins described to audiences by Emma Thompson's P.L.Travers in the film "Saving Mr. Banks." The rather frightening aspect is left out.

All the precursors point towards Emily Blunt receiving a nomination for The Academy Award for Actress in a Leading Role.

Lin Manuel Miranda's Jack the Lamplighter makes the audiences yearn for and miss Dick Van Dyke's Bert the chimney sweep from the original.

Good editing could have seen a good 25 minutes shorter runtime.

The movie could really have done without one of the songs for after the fourth or fifth musical number it just seems tedious to sit through them.

A really funny criticism of a musical. But neither is the music spectacular nor can one easily summon the lyrics from memory. The songs are good but fall way short when compared to songs from the original. Stuff like, "A spoonful of sugar", "supercalifragilisticexpialidocius", "Chim Chim Cheree" or even "Let's go fly a kite" which are still adored and would be adored had we heard them for the first time today.

To be honest, such songs will always be better than anything new as we have been hearing those songs for years. The songs had soul and meaning and were just delightful, unlike the present day where we are flooded with dozens and dozens of songs and "songs."

In the entire runtime I spotted just two songs that feature dialogue lyrics. One song was part of a completely unnecessary scene the other song "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" (I had to use Google to help me with the name) featured the best choreographed song of the movie. Though honestly based on the pattern of the movie, we could see it coming, the setting, the side characters and the way it would start.

If the songs couldn't have been edited out, then surely the unnecessary scene featuring Cousin Topsy (Meryl Streep) could've been done away with. We don't get any closure from that scene nor is it revisited at a later part in the film or relevant to the films climax. The film would have remained the same had that scene not been there and someone else given the two crucial lines in another scene.

Mary Poppins requires every second Tuesday off yet she was working on the day before the visit to Topsy's which was the second Wednesday. Does Mary Poppins forget to take her holidays?

Disney has yet again refrained from introducing Micahel and Jane's siblings, the twins John and Barbara Banks and their youngest sibling Annabel.

Dick Van Dyke' s cameo appearance is one of the moments of the movie that does not fade away with the end credits like the rest of the film would.

Nostalgia in the form of the almost non existent 2D animation and a few characters and even the progression of the story make the film a must watch for fans of the original. The film is also worth a watch for ones wishing to enjoy a light film with good visuals. Kids below 10 would enjoy it.

The acting performances are good, but the singing isn't on par with the original, but on it's own and watched as a standalone, it is a good movie.

P.S. Please do not watch the original immediately before watching this one as you will struggle to like this film. For it is abundantly clear that the magic of the predecessor cannot be recreated.

Rating: 3/5