Roma

THE GIST: A year in the life of a middle-class family's maid in Mexico City in the early '70s, with all its heartaches, hopes, tribulations, and defeats.

When I first heard that Alfonso Cuarón had made a new movie I was very excited, because he has become one of my favorite directors. Then I heard that it was a black-and-white, semi-autobiographical, intimate look at his own childhood growing up in Mexico City, and I was even more interested.

Then the movie started getting rave reviews and winning awards all over the world, which raised its profile so much, it was heralded as a shoo-in at the following Academy Awards. So far, so good.

Then it was revealed that Netflix had bought its distribution rights, and the ploy was clear: after years of winning primarily technical awards and pining for more prestigious recognition, Netflix had purchased its golden ticket of admission to the top echelons of the Oscar Pantheon, since Roma was almost guaranteed to win the top prize.

I've written before about Netflix's negative influence on movies' distribution. Netflix, being a streaming company, is primarily interested in having people watch movies (or TV shows) at home, via its service. They don't gain much from theatrical distributions, so they tend to go for the minimum required (one to three weeks) and continually press to shrink it even more. Because of that and totally justifiably, movie theaters, which make the most of their income the longer a movie is playing in theaters, rebelled and some chains (AMC, the largest one, first among them) refused to carry the title outright. I wholeheartedly support their stance.

I've heard some supporters of the Netflix model praise it because it widens the audience to include those who don't live near a movie theater or can't afford to go see a movie there. That's such a risible argument I can't believe it's allowed to stand. Since the advent of television, movies have always played in theaters and then eventually moved to the small screen. If you have no access or can't afford to go to the theater, then just do what you've always done: wait for the movie to be shown on TV, as usual.

Rather, if anything, Netflix's method ends up limiting the worldwide audience, because before there were many channels that would eventually transmit the movie, while now, unless you have a subscription to Netflix, you'll never, ever, ever see it. So the "wider access to the title because Netflix is all over the world" argument is a moot point if not just plain wrong.

On this topic I'm firmly in agreement with Steven Spielberg, who stated that there are already awards for movies only shown on TV screens, they're called the Emmys. Netflix should submit its titles there. Oscars are for movies shown in theaters, for as long as people are willing to purchase tickets to see them.

So, fortunately, I'm one of those people who can afford a Netflix subscription, and therefore I got to watch Roma; it's hard to state the disappointment. I found it boring, way too long, and even a bit pretentious.

Sure, the cinematography is gorgeous, probably the best thing about the movie, and the acting is good too, especially on the part of Yalitza Aparicio in the lead role, on account of her not being an actress and never having acted before (as others in the movie, if I'm not mistaken).

The screenplay isn't bad, and the story it tells is certainly not devoid of interesting events, but I just don't share the enthusiasm for the film. Like I said, I found it boring, ended up watching it in pieces (because I kept falling asleep -- never a good sign, and no, I wasn't tired), and couldn't wait for it to be over.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Occasionally, I come across a movie that has a big reputation, and I come away very disappointed (1972's Solaris comes to mind). This is one of those times. I'm doubly glad it didn't win the Best Picture Oscar. Skip it.

Grade: 2.5