Gravity (2013)****½/5: Great film from a technical viewpoint but let down by its trite message which has been covered sufficiently before

Gravity is a great film from a technical standpoint but the message about the main character learning to let go is fairly common in movies. This element dragged it down to a lower level and distracted from the superb technical attributes of Alfonso Cuaron’ s direction and his editing with Mark Sanger. The metaphor of a crisis in space that allows Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) to realize that she must let go is merely dramatic from another perspective. Life of Pi (2012) embraced the same message last year and this film does not surpass that film visually although it is on par and offers new insights from a technical standpoint. The new insights from a technical standpoint are the first person narrative, much like they do in video game shooters, and extended shot sequences to emphasize the vast magnitude of space, the final frontier.  The visuals of earth itself were less remarkable but the perspective of Stone that allows us to comprehend the unfathomable depths of space is a clear stand out. 

Is this new? We had 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) which was also a technical marvel although it got some things wrong in the prediction about what space would be like. Gravity seems to get more right from a technical perspective about the actual realities of space and that is because Cuaron has experts who know what it’s like up there. Kubrick never had a vast array of consultants for his masterpiece. The film is confined to reality while delivering its message but it is not as profound as 2001 because it does not allow the visuals to convey anything more grand. It does not push limits and seems quite confined whereas 2001 did push limits which is why it is great. There is only one out of sorts sequence that breaks the tedium of Dr. Stone’s plight and the film needed more scenes like that to break the deadlock associated with the rigours of space exploration. He probably would have needed more money for that, I am not sure. I am merely trying to say that because Alfonso confines himself to being true to the laws of space exploration he neglects other fantastic elements that could have really pushed this element because it’s not based on a true story like Apollo 13 (1995). It is one thing to portray accurately what life is like in space but that should be your foundation for something more grand particularly when the visuals are so superb.

The film is about Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra bullock) who is the sole survivor of a aborted space mission, to do  some repairs on a satellite in space, which is impacted by scattered shrapnel from a destroyed Russian satellite. How convenient that it happens to be Russian. The film also features Matt Kowlaski (George Clooney) , who guides Stone through the early stages of her plight. He is supposed to be the quirky character in this film.

Positives

The technical achievements place it among the stars in filmdom, without a doubt. What most impressed me were the extended shot sequences that conveyed the grandeur of space and the first person viewpoint that conveyed  Stone’s dread as she battles to stay alive. Filmmakers that use 3D should experiment more with the first person viewpoint. How interesting would it be to watch a film entirely from that perspective? I can’t dwell on that now but will come back to it later in a commentary. These technical elements help to push the film’s message about putting your feet on solid ground because of the topsy turvy nature of life without gravity. Life itself cannot function in space without some material elements to ground it and so here we have the space stations, the satellites( Kowalski reminds the viewer that satellites  brings us our facebook), the shuttles etc. I admired the various transitions in explaining Ryan’s survival and it involved moving from one space station or ship to the next. It was well documented and conveys the surety one must have before engaging in such an activity. The first scenes were effective in creating dread because she lacked that stability that we all need when things go wrong. This is why the presence of Kowalski is important for the early scenes because he acts as the stabilizing factor. I do not think that it is purely a romantic element but it is his emphasis on being stable which is something that only comes with experience. Even if he dies he is not wound up tight because you should be prepared to die when things go wrong. You must accept your fears, embrace them or you will never move forward. When you hear him speak of the Ganges in India you will understand by then.

I am no expert on space exploration but much of the dialogue in this film seems to be convincing, for the more demanding viewers of our generation, that this is an accurate portrayal of space. It bogs the film down a bit but it is impressive that they took the time to ensure some level of accuracy. This is a major improvement on 2001… which got a lot of things wrong. There are no credibility issues here for they even have a handbook to guide Stone in some troubling sequences. Unless you are an expert it makes no sense to challenge that aspect of the film although audiences are much more sophisticated and demanding today. This might be why Cuaron wished to emphasize the accuracy of tenets associated with space exploration. He even does that in the opening shot but this cannot be described as original but merely sticking to the rule book. It is Bullock’s experience that  is the original element here.  The dread experienced in space is accurately conveyed particularly when one loses their bearings amidst the vastness of eternity, which is not really eternity but a vast frontier which man must strive to subdue as he has spent centuries subduing nature on earth. 

The film has one quirky moment featuring Kowalski that really lifts the film. This is so because after a certain period in the film you become accustomed to the series of incidents that undermine Stone’s security. It becomes predictable where she encounters another trying episode especially when she thinks all is well and then we are made to understand that it is another sequence designed to continue the momentum of the film. So , for instance, if she made it on the Russian station she boarded,following the decimation of the American spaceship and station, which was ripped to pieces by the shrapnel, then the film would be over more or less. When you think that she has made it they throw in another twist to push momentum. This is why it becomes predictable until that one quirky moment with Kowalski. It is that scene that elevates the film amidst the technical humdrum. The film needed more quirkiness like that which would have emphasized the true instability of life. The series of incidences revolve around technical aspects but the character of man is what will make it shine through. If it were not for that scene with Kowalski then the film would be completely purist. His character makes the film more interesting as a matter of fact because Bullock’s predicament is sort of predictable. She is a character wound up tight and must learn to make the juices flow. This is what Kowalski does for her. He is the effective contrast, the happy go lucky figure.

Sandra Bullock gives a good performance about someone wound up tight and who learns to let go or to engage once again in the process of creation which is the epitome of the life force. I heard what she said about her training for the role and it is well executed here. No doubt about that.

I liked the presence of other nationalities such as the Russians and the Chinese who are the great competitors of the US.

When Stone lands on earth it is rewarding despite the underwhelming feeling of the message. This is due to Bullock's superb performance as she sheds her emotional baggage.

Negatives

The message that the film wants to convey, placing your foot on solid ground amidst the chaos, is trite and even mediocre. From that perspective it has not superseded 2001… which was certainly more grand in its ambition. People talk about the fetal posture of bullock in one particular scene but that is also trite and uninteresting because it is so obvious. Yes she is like a little baby and therefore… Kubrick, in 2001…, was able to convey a message about man as a species in his space opera saga whereas Gravity focuses on one individual which grounds the message in the mediocre. This is why it will always entertain some discussions particularly when people debate the final scene of that film (2001). In Gravity the message is laid bare and it does not challenge what we know about humanity. This must go down as a weak point regardless of the technical proficiency. The technique is important but it is subservient to the actions of man in the process of creation. Emphasizing the technical aspects is one thing because it should be a given however when it comes to art which is a social construct emphasizing the activity of  man then we have to get something that appeals to the universal while it appeals to the typical or the particular. It never highlighted, for instance, why man goes into space? What are we trying to achieve with exploration? Are we really prepared for the hazards that come with space exploration? Are we really prepared for the next frontier  and its vastness? Kowalski would have been best placed to emphasize these points. Without these grand universal themes it just seems like another space mission gone wrong end of story.  If it were based on a true story then I would have understood but because it is fiction cuaron needed to take more risks in his portrayal about what we know about space. Kubrick gave us the star gate sequence which was symbolic of man pushing boundaries. Cuaron gives us dead logic or what we already know.

I would like to see a follow up to this film regarding the fate of Kowalski. They could have spent more time on his fate. Cuaron does not want to lose focus, I get it, but when Kowalski sees the Ganges why can’t we see it or is it that they can’t portray it. They could have given us a first person viewpoint similar to Bullocks. The structure would not have been affected because when he speaks the camera would switch to him and his perspective. When he loses connection then they could have emphasized how he responds knowing he may die. It would have made the film more interesting.  Two perspectives would have made the film quite eccentric and then it would be heavily criticized etc. I do believe that it would have worked because different viewpoints give us different perspectives on life. I would love to see his first person viewpoint and they missed a chance in portraying that. The quirky moment I spoke of initially would not have been affected by this.

The series of calamitous incidents experienced by Stone becomes predictable and the sense of dread is lost however this is lifted by the quirky moment mentioned earlier. 

Great film from a technical perspective but it seems more like dead logic from the emotional side or the impactful side. It does not offer anything new from the perspective of the life force or man’s place in the universe. Even Blade Runner was able to convey this without us seeing space in the tears in rain sequence. High ratings for the technical aspects. It suffered the same fate as Zero Dark Thirty (2012) which had the necessary elements for greatness but could not deliver true impact.