Ah, it's one of those signs of the shift in
season. In place of fun popcorn fodder we now have a cavalcade of serious
dramas to remind everyone that winter (and Oscar season) is coming and one of
the early frontrunners in that parenthetical race is Gravity. The hype
surrounding this film is dizzying in itself and that buzz is omnipresent in
just about every form of media but, if you can, you're better off trying to
block out as much of it as possible. Why? Because limiting your expectations
for this film (or, arguably, any film) will increase the likelihood of your
viewing experience being fun or at least entertaining.
Essentially you don't have to end up like me, who
totally bought into the hypnotic narrative of the movie being a cinematic tour
de force, a visual entity crafted with such skill and care it that would
require audiences to recalibrate how films should be viewed. Spoiler Alert: Gravity
is not this. Yes, yes. I'm fully aware this was my own fault and take
responsibility for that. However, I refuse to allow that any personal
disappointments color what is supposed to be at least a semi-objective analysis
for your benefit.
Gravity is a tale of disaster and the
resulting attempts by the protagonists to survive in the harshest of harsh
environs: the vacuum of space. Those unfortunate individuals marooned and
adrift in Earth's thermosphere are veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George
Clooney) and civilian medical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock). Dr.
Stone is a mission specialist trying to make her way through a series of
repairs to the Hubble telescope while commanding officer Kowalski flits about
his spacewalking constituents with the help of a thruster pack. While he revels
in what we learn are supposed to be the last moments of his final mission for
NASA, Stone grits her teeth and battles nausea. Tragedy unfolds in short order
as a Russian missile strike on a defunct communications satellite begins a
chain reaction amongst a mass of other spaceborne debris, sending the latter
cascading towards the shuttle Explorer and her crew. The resulting
damage is catastrophic and leaves Stone and Kowalski with dwindling oxygen and
only a few long-shot options to even hope to make it back to Earth in one
piece.
The premise is fascinating and legitimately
terrifying; watching this movie may shore up any misgivings you may have had
about travelling to space. What detracts from the film's incomparable luster,
which we'll get to in a minute, is the combination of a trite narrative,
blaring gaps in logic, and the continuous, needless use of cringe-inducing
tropes. Yes, we get a 'the fuel gauge only registers as empty when it's tapped
on' and a 'here, let me try to discern my own fate with a game of
eenie-meanie-miney-moe.' There's a point where Dr. Stone blithely ignores a
(very beautifully rendered) fire then, minutes later, seems perplexed as to why
her vessel is engulfed in flame. You'd expect and likely be willing to overlook
these eye-roll inducing moments were Gravity billed as a brainless
action flick, but they actively undercut the tone of a film that takes itself
so seriously.
In terms of the rendering of the few characters
that populate Gravity, it's very
clear that Bullock is pulling her A-game, but Clooney gives a performance so
muted that it borders being one-dimensional. The purpose of his character is
clear, but it's interesting to think about what the film would have been like
without him, focusing instead on just Bullock. In that vein, the narrative
has the same hackneyed feel as some of the interactions described earlier. It's
a fairly clear case of 'less would have been more'. Dr. Stone discloses a
handful of details about her life before she was launched into orbit, all of
which are meant to draw the audience to her character and form a caricature of
the sort of life that most people would want to run from. The thing is that
viewers would care about her just by virtue of what she's going through. The
idea that ingenuity, will, and luck might give this woman even the barest of
chances for survival is enormously engaging. We don't need more than that.
So Gravity isn't going to upend the movie
industry with its storytelling, but that doesn't mean that the film isn't
pioneering in other ways. From a sheer visual standpoint it is awesome in the
very literal sense of the word. The combination of masterful cinematography and
director Alfonso CuarĂ³n's trademark elongated takes will have you agog. The
influences of Kubrick are interwoven throughout the first half of the film in
such a way that will elicit smiles from fans of 2001:
A Space Odyssey. If you partake of the film in IMAX 3D, which you
definitely should, it is as close an approximation as you're likely to get to
being in space. It is perhaps the single finest use of 3D technology to have
graced the screen to date. The instances where the effect comes into play seem
organic and add markedly to the overall viewing experience. The application of
digital interfaces (every time you see the actors spacewalking) is nearly
seamless and there are more than a few instances during which you'll ask
yourself how the shots were done. It is brilliantly immersive and completely
unlike any other movie going experience you could have at present.
The film also manages to get some the science
correct as well. It was refreshing to see the vacuum of space actually be
depicted as frictionless and momentum being applied accurately in a weightless
state. The phenomenon at the center of the drama, Kessler syndrome, is a real
and very possible occurrence. Conversely, there are a handful of instances
where the science is absurdly wrong and, those these are mercifully few and far
between, they unfortunately occur at key junctures in the story.
Whether the spectacle of the visuals have
sufficient allure to overcome the ham-handedness and make paying to see the movie worthwhile is ultimately up
to you. With a run time of only 91 minutes, it's over before the narrative can
grate on you overmuch.
Final
Grade
Visual Effects: A
Story: F
Average:
C/C-
No comments :
Post a Comment