GRAVITY (Alfonso Cuarón 2013):

[Chris Knipp]

Alfonso Cuarón: GRAVITY (2013)

http://www.chrisknipp.com/nyff2014/grav.jpg

Dazzling evocation of floating in space, not free of other conventions

When it begins in medias res, an experienced American astronaut, Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), is working with a woman medical engineer, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), who's only had six months of training, and they're setting up to do some work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Kowalski is a jokester and a storyteller. Houston has heard some of his stories before. He is relaxed. But he "has a bad feeling about this mission." And that bad feeling turns out to have been right. Some Russian satellites have disintegrated and a storm of their debris eventually heads toward the US vehicles, and Kowalski and Stone. Before you can say "abort," the vehicles are toast and all crew but our two are dead, contact with Houston lost. The rest of the film's compact but grueling ninety minutes are a survival story.

Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity is an impressive achievement in terms of visuals and the technical side of recreating certain aspects of space travel -- things science fiction strives for. It's also a logical use of 3D, if you like that kind of thing. I don't, because I don't think it creates the illusions it strives for as well as 2D combined with the imagination have always done and continue to do. Technical advances, wonderful though they are, aside, all else remains the same. We have jokes and tears, and two good actors asked to do conventional things. They do them well. But the level of verisimilitude they achieve is not up to the visuals. This film makes the same mistake the recent Europa Report, likewise admirable from a sci-fi point of view equally made, only more so. It tells us that in space there is no atmosphere and therefore there is no sound, and then it proceeds to bombard us with loud movie background music.

Cuarón is one of the exciting new Mexican directors who floated out into the international mainstream in the 1990's, and he's chosen to remain undecided about what his style is. He went from a version of Dickens' Great Expectations to (still by far my favorite) the sophisticated sexual romp Y Tu Mmá También to Harry Potter to the apocalyptic fable Children of Men, the latter, much praised -- a bit too much. It's effective, but there is a lot of other stuff out there like it and the genre is getting more and more overworked. The director has said he always wanted to be an astronaut: so now he has visualized that dream. And no one can say he did not commit to this project.

The title "Gravity" points to what's absent here. Never has nearly an entire film bee devoted to images of zero gravity, where things and people float in space.

Clooney becomes an old fashioned hero in the manner of Errol Flynn, a dashing daredevil ready to sacrifice, but with something else, a sterling practicality. It's a well-conceived character, and also one tailored for the actor. Bullock's character, granted that neither one gets more than the briefest background sketch, conventionally painted in by the device of having Kowalski ask her questions, has a twist that offsets the standard plucky lady she usually gets to play. She has had a terrible loss, a young child, and lives alone. She has a possible death wish: in fact, her selection for this mission might be questioned. But at least the oddly named Ryan Stone ("my father wanted a girl") has some complexity.

What happens? Well, I mustn't tell you that, because this is a new movie. And besides, I don't really know. The finale seems a tad magical. It's safe to say that Cuarón and his son Jonás, who did the writing jointly, show a greater clarity of focus in the setup than in the finale, conventionally satisfying though the latter's final moments are. Let me sum things up by quoting A.A. Dowd and Ben Kenigsberg, from their AV Club (http://www.avclub.com/articles/toronto-2013-day-three-gravity-drops,102584/) review penned at Toronto: "As an excuse for Emmanuel Lubezki to rotate his camera through a bunch of cool-looking 3-D space hardware, Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity (Grade: B-) does its job spectacularly. In narrative terms, though, it’s somewhat lacking, essentially counting on viewers to be so lulled by gorgeous refractions of light and insane long takes à la Children Of Men that they won’t care about dramatic anemia or missed opportunities for tension."

Nothing can take away Cuarón's stunning achievement in the floating-in-space-with-a-camera category. But do not mention this in the same breath with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, or call it an "epic." And do not think that because it's getting a free ride in many of the mainstream reviews, there are not critics who see it in a less flattering light. Among these besides AV Club are others I respect and often look to for an independent assessment, such as Armond White, (http://cityarts.info/2013/10/01/mission-to-nowhere/) Rex Reed (http://observer.com/2013/10/fly-me-to-the-moon-gravity-is-pure-popcorn-munching-fun/), and Mike D'Angelo (http://thedissolve.com/features/postcards-from-tiff/140-day-3-far-out-feeling/) (the latter, like me, unable to climb on the Children of Men bandwagon. He thinks Cuarón still does things just to impress here, but finds the visuals unprecedented, giving Chador's new All Is Lost the dramatic edge). He thinks Cuarón still does things just to impress here, but finds the visuals unprecedented, giving Chador's new All Is Lost the dramatic edge, as I would too, most emphatically). For about maybe forty minutes this is a glorious film, and after starting out a bit uncertainly, begins to really grab you. But then those "missed opportunities for tension" begin to tell, and the ninety minutes begin to seem surprisingly long. And my ears began to ring. The music was not only strangely omnipresent for a film about a place without external sound, but so loud it actually hurt. And as I walked out, they were still ringing. So this was actually a painful experience. And bombastic as blockbusters are, that is an unusual thing to happen.

Gravity, 90 mins., debuted at Venice, showed at Telluride and Toronto, and other festivals. It opened in the US 4 Oct., and will show at the London Film Festival 10 October, open in UK cinemas 8 Nov. (all 2013). With Ed Harris as the voice of Houston control. Opened 23 Oct. in Paris while I was there, to critical raves -- Allociné press rating 4.6. Opened 23 Oct. in Paris while I was there, to critical raves -- Allociné press rating 4.6. But among the French dissenters, I endorse Louis Guichard of Télérama, who wrote: "Alfonso Cuarón . . . attains neither the geometrical perfection, the sublime hermeticism of Stanley Kubrick's '2001: a Space Odyssey' nor the spiritualism, the deep metaphysics of Andrei Tarkovski's 'Solaris'. Compared to those, the scenario of 'Gravity' is miniscule." I hope when the raves have died down people will come to their senses and realize this.

[tabuno]

Gravity begins in a way suggestive of cautionary film producers of movies that offer drastically new, unknown potential, hedging their bets on an unknown audience by incorporating brief written explanations of what actual outer space is like or perhaps that introduce some dazzle as a way to ensure captivating the audience at the start of a movie, like Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) that spent time offering fascinating tidbits of tantalizing visions of outer space and the Starship Enterprise or like even Event Horizon (1997) that offered up the almost by now obligatory space shots of weightless objects spinning in space for the audience’s vicarious space experience. Additionally, George Clooney was provided with an almost by now clique dialogue seemingly formulaic in the same manner as Space Cowboys (2000). And whether or not the Executive Decision (1996) plot element was added as a psychological twist ploy and was even technically accurately portrayed was necessary or not is debatable. Like with Avatar (2009), Wall*e (2008), Life of Pi (2012), or Titanic (1997), Gravity presents its audience with a sharply breaking visual cinematic experience which may in time soften its innovative impact with future generations. But it can’t be argued that this huge spectacular survival story bombards its audience with new amazing visions of space travel and space debris that have not been seen on film that delight and awe.

Interestingly this movie resembles the action version of an earlier lonely space station movie Love (2007) and uses the thrilling action visuals somewhat like Apollo 18 (2011) used its fresh and well edited space dialogue and space behavior that captured the audience’s attention. Gravity retains the same sense of eerie foreign exhilaration of the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) by adhering to the stark ambiance and the potentially frightening personal isolation and dynamically different physical environmental effects of outer space or the monsters of the frozen tundra of The Thing (1982) or duplicating the psychological trying experience of attempting survive one night in a simple haunted hotel room of 1408 (2007), or the technical mysteries and dangers in science of Splice (2010). Overall, Gravity like The Andromeda Strain (1971) presents on screen an amazing compelling dramatic science fiction scenario that is also closely related to the personal survival theme from Touching The Void (2004) that brings its audience into personally experiencing a prolonged harrowing life struggle event. It can’t be argued that this movie brings into full explosive and thrilling life the wondrous terrors of outer space into the darkened auditorium of the theater. It is Sandra Bullock’s performance a little ways into the movie that really shines here (ignoring the early dialogue like Clooney’s that doesn’t seem logically suited to the reality of the situation) that allows one to ignore the unlikely events that occur written for dramatic sake and make this movie into one of powerful presentation of human frailty and courage from a deeply personal place.

[Chris Knipp]

So busy with the NYFF screenings today I can't read this carefully, but it looks good. I agree with your comments on the dialogue, and the comparison to TOUCHING THE VOID is interesting.

[tabuno]

While I likely appreciated the use of 3-D of Gravity more than Chris did, the cinematic photography of both Touching the Void and Gravity brought the audience into a personal universe that offered an intense close and sustained visceral experience with each character. It is hard to really distinguish where and if the 3-D of Gravity helped to significantly enhance the movie as I suspect that ultimately the early use of 3-D effects would ideally be almost unnoticeable in the more advanced and theatrically effective use of 3-D. Instead what both Touching the Void and Gravity shared in common was a singular actor's performance through a seemingly prolonged ordeal of personal anguish and feelings of dread under extremely difficult environmental conditions. The directors of both movies shot each survivalist with many closeups and monologues and background music along with the close connection of space and snow as an accompanying character in the movie. Not very often are audiences and actors called on to sustain a movie by themselves, a most harrowing feat itself.

[cinemabon]

I did see "Gravity" in 3D and intend to write a review. This must be the year for science fiction because we have seen an enormous outpouring of Sci-Fi titles, perhaps more than any year in film history (with several big titles yet to come including "Ender's Game"). Think back over the year and the list is quite long!

As to "Gravity"...

First impression, Chris?

Let's see, I purchased my ticket for the 3D version and in the theater with the largest screen. I bought my usual lemonade vitamin water and small un-buttered popcorn. I sat in the middle of the middle. When I looked down 90 minutes later, the bag of popcorn was untouched and the drink unopened. Then I picked my jaw up off the floor.

[cinemabon]

“Gravity” – produced, written, and directed by Alfonso Cuarón

From the time of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky – the man who inspired an entire generation of writers and scientists on the possibility of travel into outer space – humankind has become fascinated with the idea of leaving the planet and exploring our universe. From the earliest pioneers in Robert Goddard or science fiction writers like Jules Verne, all the way through to today’s filmmakers, we, as a species, are enthralled with the beauty and technology of space travel. However, as “Gravity” points out in the very first words that come across the screen, space is the most inhospitable place we have ever ventured; and without the use of special craft and space suits, we are extremely vulnerable to its harsh conditions of extreme cold, heat, lack of air and one additional quality that makes life on Earth easy for us to maneuver – gravity. For in space, there is no gravity and when moving – as in Newton’s first law of physics – for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So as we turn in one direction, a force is applied to its opposite making movement extremely difficult. The film not only demonstrates this but uses this aspect to a degree never before tried by any filmmaker in a ground-breaking way. This aspect alone would make “Gravity” one of the most technologically proficient space films ever made to date.

In the film, “2001 – A Space Odessey,” director Stanley Kubrick tried in his limited technical way to demonstrate those qualities of weightlessness by a series of camera tricks. Since that time, no film has adequately shown the difficulties of movement in space except for the movie “Apollo 13” which had, again, very limited scope inside a space capsule over a portion of the film. “Gravity” takes place entirely in space with no “ground” game to cut back and forth on. We are focused throughout the film one area and one area alone – the outer reaches of Earth’s atmosphere. Specifically in this instance, we have actors stuck out on the end of the Canadian arm used by astronauts to move satellites in and out of the space shuttle (which stopped flying missions three years ago) and one using the special attenuated “chair” which was used only limitedly for a few missions. STS or Space Transport System was the only means we had to take a massive object like the Hubble Space Telescope and place it into orbit. (We now have a new transport system that went into effect this year). Therefore, “Gravity” is more a look back than it is a look forward, a story that might have happened if this series of catastrophic events ever took place.

The premise is that of space debris coming into contact with the space shuttle or the ISS (International Space Station) could cause tremendous damage to the ship, the astronauts, and disable the space program altogether. NASA has played this scenario out countless times in preparation for the event should it ever occur. But filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón and his son, Jonás Cuarón have written a screenplay where the unlikely event has taken place. The result is a heart-stomping, thrill ride of 90 minutes that literally takes your breath away in a non-stop series of action events that flow so seamlessly from one to another you hardly have time to think let alone breathe for the actors who seem so out of breath from being disoriented in space. The film is not so much a story with a plot (what was the plot of “2001”?) as it is a succession of circumstances that logically flow from one to the next with not much break between.

The level of technical expertise in pulling off this feat is so overwhelming we forget how this is all technically possible in an age where special effects are taken for granted. Gone are the days of spinning models and twisting sets. We can digitally insert things that are not there and trick the mind into believing they are. So Sandra Bullock as Ryan Stone is able to traverse so many alien landscapes with such precision and believability is because this world appears so real (especially when seen in 3D, which I would argue enhances this film greatly when viewed on a large screen with such huge vistas of planet Earth passing as scenery in the background). The floating debris in some of the collision scenes was so complex that no “space” movie has ever tried to simulate the way particles disburse in micro-gravity (some gravity is prevalent in the area of one to three hundred miles above the planet, the area the ISS and STS operated). Technical advisors had to map out the virtual landscapes which took weeks to determine when creating the computer generated special effects – surly the most impressive outer space film in terms of re-creating reality since “2001” tried in 1968.

The plot or circumstances happen when mission control advises that the Russians have blown up one of their satellites as an exercise but the space debris that results from that experiment have entered the orbit of the space shuttle and they are advised to change their orbit at once. This is not as far fetched as it sounds. The Soviet Union started performing this practice, even over the protests of the US government, more than forty years ago when they wanted to invent a weapon that would take out US military spy satellites from parking over their country. Initially, they used a “bomb” that would park next to another satellite and simply explode. This produced a huge amount of space debris that interfered with other satellites and knocked out communications all over the planet. The Soviet Union collapsed and the new Russian space program scuttled the idea of doing that in favor of using an EMP to knock out satellites instead. Eventually, they teamed with NASA and scrapped the entire “space war” scenario, seeing as the Americans invented a laser weapon that could the same thing. Alfonso Cuarón, having heard of this practice, wanted to play out a scenario where it would have affected our own space program at a time when NASA and Russians weren’t so cozy. This is why the film’s scenario could have actually happened and helps to make the entire premise real. There are two main technical flaws that were pointed out quite clearly by astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson. One, all space craft travel from west to east (in the film they were traveling from east to west). The reason is simple – a rocket must travel “against” the rotation of the planet to achieve escape velocity. Traveling with the rotation of the planet would take more than one revolution and they’d run out of fuel before that. The second is that communication satellites are parked out 26,000 miles above the planet in a zone where they can hover over one spot, an area known as “Clarkes’” orbit named after author Arthur C. Clarke. Also, ground to space craft hyperbolic dishes could re-establish communications within minutes should any satellite system fail. This “flaw” was overlooked for the sake of drama and tension. (Just as the flying “dust” on the moon and “flat look” of the painted pictures of space craft along with other flaws in “2001” were over looked).

“Gravity” in my mind and in the mind of most critics is perhaps one of the greatest space movies ever made. While the trials and tribulations of one person are exciting, the prospect of a filmmaker trying to duplicate the real experience of life in space is the greatest achievement in my mind – a lifetime fan of science fiction, an author of a science fiction novel series, a dedicated enthusiast of science fiction movies, and one who has followed the space program in this country since I was a boy in the 1950’s. “Gravity” is not only the finest representation of that culmination of technology and talent, but it is a wonderful film experience that is both exciting and thrilling. No one could possibly be bored unless they were some kind of unfeeling curmudgeon. So much for you, Mr. White! Any takers? Highly recommended as a film, as an experience and please see it on the biggest screen and in 3D and that is a whole hearted endorsement.

[Chris Knipp]

Gravity's science exploded by top astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Head of New York's planetarium takes to Twitter to question logic of Oscar-tipped film but endorse spectacle (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/08/gravity-science-astrophysicist)

He questioned as I did having a medical doctor to work on the Hubble space telescope, also some other basic factual elements of the story (the three space outposts being within sight lines, for example). He noted the producers added explosions to the trailer that would never have been heard. He did enjoy the film though.

[cinemabon]

Here, here, Chris.

I subscribe to Dr. Tyson's lecture series, youtube postings, and listen to his Star Talk radio broadcasts. I studied astronomy while a student at Ohio State University years ago. What we've learned since then has blown the top off the study of cosmology and literally makes practically everything I paid top dollar for back then obsolete. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is probably the world's foremost authority on astrophysics and if he says a thing is true, you'd better believe it.

I'm looking forward to the Christmas season. Would love to see "All is Lost" as you've previously mentioned. Je vous en prie

[Johann]

I'm glad sci-fi movies like this are still being attempted. We need more quality space flicks.
Cuaron's CHILDREN OF MEN was excellent. He's obviously influenced by Kubrick- look at the poster for Children of Men!

I don't know if I can suspend belief for Sandra Bullock & George Clooney as astronauts.
That seems slightly comical. Am I alone on that?
Are they convincing as astronauts?

[cinemabon]

Johann, I happen to know you have an IMAX theater near you. I would suggest you see it there. The exteriors with the planet in background are spectacular to say the least. I know it's sacrilegious to speak of Kubrick in the same breath, but the same feeling of awe I had in 1968, I had with this film. I bought a popcorn and drink and never touched them. That was the fastest 90 minutes I ever spent in a movie theater.

I've been thinking about what Dr. Tyson said about renaming the film "Zero Gravity." However, there is a moment when gravity becomes all to apparent and that I believe is the point of the film. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. It's number one at BO for two weeks running and broke all October release records. Pay close attention to how sound is used as Cuaron, like Kubrick, was obsessed with being accurate.

[Johann]

I'm open to seeing it, but I don't know if I can suspend belief that George and Sandra are astronauts.
I know why they were cast (they put butts in seats) but surely Daniel-Day Lewis & Emma Thompson could've been better as the astronauts?

I didn't believe in George Clooney as Batman, and I definitely have a hard time believing he's an astronaut. (and I've seen Solaris).

[cinemabon]

Having experienced "Gravity" in IMAX, I can say that I must amend my review and my opinion slightly. You were right, Chris. The music does intrude. I was so aghast on my first viewing when taking in the new bar set for special effects that I neglected the pulsating electronic score, which becomes something of an intrusion at times and could have been completely eliminated from certain scenes (especially when Bullock's character first leaves the shuttle). The music dragged on and actually subtracted from my experience rather than enhanced it. I found this nonsensical rhythmic pulsing overbearing and disturbing, distracting my attention from the visuals and robbing me of emotional attachment to Ryan's predicament. For that oversight, I apologize, Chris.

As to the rest, IMAX is impressive and 3D did add to the scenes where debris was flying everywhere. Even my ninety-year-old mother said, "I've got a lap full of space junk." As of this writing, it is the highest grossing IMAX of all time, setting domestic and international records.

[Chris Knipp]

The 3D (and I did see it in 3D) worked and was unobtrusive, which I mean in a good way. iMax is usually a good way to see a movie if it's meant to be an intense in-your-face experience.

Thanks for acknowledging my point that the music is obtrusive. It is in the to my mind considerably superior ALL IS LOST, but less so. They've got to start soft-pedaling music in such film moments, with nothing around.

I greatly prefer and will longer remembrer intense human experiences on screen from this year's films such as BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR or the Liberace movie I just saw in Paris on the big screen last night, BEHIND THE CANDELABRA. Worth seeing it that way for the amazing costumes an sets, not to mention the big closeups of the variously altered faces of MICHAEL DOUGLAS, MATT DAMON, and ROB LOWE. .

[cinemabon]

While he acknowledged it was a good film, as Bill Maher said recently, "Unfortunately, [after seeing "Behind the Candelabra"] I will never get the image of Matt Damon butt fucking Michael Douglas out of my mind!"

[Chris Knipp]

That is an image in his mind, not on the screen. Or maybe not even in his mind and he simply said it for the shock value. I should not comment further but simply write my review but have not had a chance to yet, doing other things, eating and sitting in the sun. Nice weather in Paris today.

[Johann]

I saw this on DVD yesterday and I was impressed with the visuals but the movie was totally ridiculous.

When Dr. Stone (Sandra Bullock) first gets flung away from the station and is rotating over and over, ass over teakettle, the way she is saved (by her co-Astronaut George Clooney) is patently ridiculous. He literally appears out of the void, rocketing toward her. There is no way that would've have happened in real life. She was careening away so far and fast that she was a dead duck. She was dead meat. It was like Poole in 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Poole's retrieval by his partner was believable. It was plausible. It was accurate that she was panicking too much and breathing in too much oxygen, as George tells her to calm down and stop sapping her oxygen supply. That part was believable.
But being rescued the way she was was ridiculous. There is no way George would've been able to get to her- it was doom for her.
But no, like Prince Valliant, he appears and tethers her and "blasts off" back to the station. Everything seemed a little too perfect.
He seemed a little too calm about the disaster as well. He didn't even raise an eyebrow, did he? LOL

The visuals here are of a very high quality, and I love the images of the earth and space that reflected in Dr. Stone's helmet visor- some really cool and Epic shots of outer space. I just wish the story was believable. She seemed totally wrong as an Astronaut and her "inexperience" on a space station/shuttle was cringe-inducing to witness. Maybe that was the director's intent, but I would've liked seeing a story with two experts caught in an intolerable situation, like we saw in Kubrick's Masterpiece.
Here they are like Ney'Tiri says in Avatar: "Like a Baby, making Noise, don't know What to do"

[cinemabon]

shame you didn't see it in IMAX, it was magnificent

[Johann]

I'd watch it in IMAX. (with the sound off)
The dialogue is so corny. George and his "I am devastatingly handsome" quips were retarded. The Cuaron's (father and son) teamed up to write this tripe, and the son even made a short film to accompany the movie which is on the special features of the DVD- which isn't really a short film- it's just another scene in the movie, expanded to include remote shots of Greenland.

All in all, this was a bad movie. The visuals don't save it. It's ridiculous, actually, and I wouldn't watch it again.
My hunch was right: Clooney and Sandra Bullock suck sour frog ass as Astronauts. You just can't believe in them. It's too absurd.

[Chris Knipp]

That's the truth Johann, you tell it like it is. For sure, GRAVITY is to be seen in iMAx. I like iMax just fine. But one can't repeat it too often: special effects and visuals alone can't make a great movie.

[cinemabon]

I respectfully disagree. While the plot and dialogue could have been better (a general claim made about many movies) I found the editing, pacing, and dynamics of the film exciting and thrilling. I believe that was the point. The IMAX experience (I saw the film twice) was outstanding. And while it was no "2001" without the intellectual superiority of a Kubrick at the helm, I thought Cuaron did a decent job. Did I consider him Best Director of the year? No. I wanted others for that coveted spot. I felt there was definitely politics involved. Such is Hollywood.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree with Johann that the casting was faulty.

[Johann]

The visuals are VERY impressive. I don't want to shit on the Cuarons too much. They have talent. But they lost something with this one. They let a potential masterpiece slide into laughability.
TIME magazine said this was the best film of the year? They need to rearrange their headspace and timing.

The opening has a title that says "Life in space is impossible".
That's Correct. Now why did they proceed to show us that the actions in the movie are impossible?
Dr. Stone on the tilt-a-whirl arm of the shuttle with Clooney yelling at her to release her harness- it was impossible.
What exactly are the G-Forces 600KM above the earth? Is the science in this fiction really accurate?
My soul screams no.
This could've been an insanely intense moviegoing experience if only they had stuck with the tragedy and made the astronauts response to it original and inspiring. Who is inspired by Sandra's whimpering? She's blubbering the whole damn movie! Full of fear! you signed up for this, brilliant doctor!
LOL
And what happens to George Clooney? He's like the Teen Angel Frankie Avalon in Grease, "comforting" her, floating above the proceedings like a tool, no cares in the world...