Now that Mark has a full-time job, and I am, once again, a full-time student, it looks like these blog posts are going to grow increasing infrequent. There's really nothing we can do about that. But we are going to keep it going nonetheless.
Today we talk about Gravity, a film currently in theaters, starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, and directed by Alfonso Cuaron. It seems sci-fi is back in style these days, and this entry seems like the formal invitation to a new era of the genre; once again humanity is at a juncture where the window between reality and science fiction (and breakthrough filmmaking techniques) is as transparent as ever, and Cuaron is obliged to shove our faces through it for a look at the other side.
(I'm not sure if I just made a metaphor or something. My point is, watch out for broken glass. Just kidding, it's actually that there are no screens on the windows at Alfonso Cuaron's house. ...Hey, here's a review for Gravity. Enjoy.)
Dylan: Wow. It’s been a while. Let’s see if I remember how to do this. So I just saw Gravity, in 3D, in theaters. And that’s really the only way to see it I think. It’s one of those movies where the 3D plays a role in building the world we’re thrown into (or out of). And that is one aspect in which this films holds nothing back. They clearly set out with an idea of what they wanted to do, and they went and did it as perfectly (and accurately) as possible. I’m not saying the movie was flawless; don’t get me wrong. But the detail that went into the parts that were done well was pretty seamless.
Mark: Gotta agree with you completely. I was blown away by the depth that the 3D brought to the movie. This is one of the cases where the 3D immerses you in the environment; it’s not just going for gimmicky shots of things flying towards you, but rather to make you feel like you’re floating around in space with the characters. And damn, Cuaron really makes the most of it, especially in those first 15 minutes, effortlessly moving you around the ship. Did you know that was all one take? Makes it all the more impressive to me.
Dylan: Well, it depends on what you mean by one take? Much of that scene was just faces added into an entirely CGI render. Or at least that’s what it seemed like. But the fluidity of it all was very impressive. And in response to what you consider 'gimmicky' 3D, I argue that a lot of times the 3D effect are very purposefully gimmicky. For example, in every single scene of Bullock inside of a ship there was a pen floating past her face. Did she take the pen along with her? Why did the American, Russian, and then Chinese crafts all have the same pen drifting around the cockpit? (Maybe it was a 2001 reference.) Anyways, there was also the water and the fire and what not. But the thing is, while these are here EXACTLY for gimmicky purposes, they still work to illustrate the physics and chemistry of this bizarre and unnatural setting, which is perfectly juxtaposed at the end when we return to Earth and everything is somehow familiar but also foreign.
Mark: Alright, let me clarify my two points. By one take, I mean that there was no editing, no jumping from person to person when they speak, or to another area around the ship. The camera floats, as if in space, all around the immediate environment. yes it was all on green screen and whatnot, but never once does it edit. For me it helped draw me in to the world so much more. And as for gimmicky, I meant like the only times 3D is being used is for things to fly at the camera. And things do, like the pen, or water droplets, or rocketing satellite debris, but it's to add tension or for the purpose of making us feel more involved in this world. I think the one time they really did it is when Clooney’s character let go of something and reached out to grab it. But that was really it. But no matter what issue or problem there might have been with a moment in the film, the pace that it kept throughout, with the tension never giving up from the moment it started, made sure I was always enthralled. That and the absolutely gorgeous visuals.
Dylan: That’s what I really loved about it. First of all, from a physicist’s perspective, you know I would go into this thing analyzing every detail. The title was a challenge for me. And I haven’t seen that much detail go into outer space since 2001, and that was done fifty years ago. In fact, I would have left just left out the introduction in the beginning about how nothing can survive in space. It's the 21st century; hopefully we are all aware of this fact by now. The visuals were incredible, and, as Clooney’s character occasionally states outright, the horror of space and the astonishing beauty are one in the same. It’s an uninhabitable hell, and yet you can’t help but envy the view. The scenes of moving debris were phenomenal.
The only thing I found a little annoying was the first person perspective inside Bullock’s helmet, specifically when she’s spinning or breathing heavy enough to fog up the window. I’m not entirely against the idea, but there were a few shots that went on just long enough to make me look away from the screen, a little dizzy. I understand that we are being immersed in her reality, but if it forces you to look away, it’s forcing you back OUT of that reality. So that’s my main complaint. The other uses of first person -- climbing along the outside of the ship, trying to escape debris, etc. -- were really cool.
Mark: I didn’t have as much difficulty with those scenes, but I can see where you’re coming from. They really play the disoriented feeling of what she’s going through, which is perfect, but I can see it being a little too perfect. And the other thing that I loved about how this movie progresses is how it’s really quite terrifying, but it’s not trying to be a horror movie or anything. The fear comes from how real it all is; that something like this could happen. That in space, the smallest mistake or failure is so much worse. And those moments when Bullock’s character is moving as fast as she can, trying to figure how to continue, you know that time is running out. And this is when things become truly terrifying: the lack of sound. We all know that there is no sound in space, but this movie plays it perfectly. There is a scene when she is working to open a hatch, and we see that debris is flying past, but she doesn’t know. There’s nothing to alert her. And we’re stuck in this tension; will she get it? Will she get hit? Knocked off? And that pulls you in more. And because no sound is there to add effect, the score pulls double duty, and holy shit does it create a whole other level to the tension.
Dylan: Yea, the score really was well done. Very subtle; nothing distracting. I’m not sure what the casualty report is for people in space. How many astronauts have had to deal with untethered slingshotting through space? I can’t think of any disasters like that. And this one is a real doozy. Russia fires a missile at one of their own satellites, but they do a shitty job, and cause a chain reaction that seems to destroy every other satellite in orbit, creating a massive debris field. This is a pretty catastrophic situation that sounds like it’s going to affect most of humanity. I’m kind of curious what’s going on on the ground during all this. But yea, I guess the drama in space is interesting too hah. Anyways, my point is, unless something goes really, really incredibly wrong, situations like this hopefully do not happen. Which is why, having seen this movie, I am more interested than ever in going into space; I think it would be awesome. But, maybe that’s not what I was supposed to take away from it all.
Mark: Yeah, because I was feeling less than interested at going into space after seeing this. And I was thinking that everyone on earth was seeing absolutely nothing. Based on what was happening, they had to be totally communication blackout, since most satellites were gone. But that’s not the story here. As for our leads, I have to say I was really surprised by Sandra Bullock. I always thought she was an alright actress, better with comedy than drama, but she totally owned this role. For the most part, it’s all on her, and she carries really well. And Clooney was, well, he was Clooney, but damn he does that well. It’s not very often that you get a movie that’s very much original, heavy, with spectacular CGI, that’s carried by a single person. And I just realized that Life of Pi was that in a way, but I would consider this so much more than just a pretty movie. All of its parts are great, and together it’s damn near brilliant.
Dylan: You said it on the acting. I’ve never been a fan of Clooney or Bullock. But while Clooney seems to play the same character in every movie, I am starting to fall for his charm. Bullock I have even less respect for, but she seems to be reworking her career in a very good way. Also, I did not see Life of Pi. But since you brought it up, what are your thoughts on Gravity’s possible performance come Oscar time? It definitely excels in a number of categories, not just effects. And it’s also impressively dominating the box office these past two weeks.
Mark: I was thinking about that, and honestly, the way that this is both a critical and commercial success, I can see it going up for a lot. While there will be competition, this will be the frontrunner for most if not all the technical awards. I think that the score was as important to this movie as the CGI, so that’ll probably get some love. And on the major side, I would love to see Cuaron go up for directing. He’s always done well, but this is doing so well that I can’t imagine they’ll ignore him. And really, I think Bullock deserves at least a nomination. This is all her. And like I said, she carries it well. What about you?
Dylan: The reason I ask you is because you’re much more in tune with the awards season drama than I am. I usually don’t even see the major contenders until the following year. But since so much of 2013 has been pretty crappy in the movie department, I am trying to stay interested on developments over the next couple months. Thinking back, this may be my favorite movie of the year so far. Certainly the most original. But who knows what the 'academy' will think.
Mark: One behind-the-scenes thing I found interesting, which you may not be aware of, is how much Cuaron had to fight to keep his vision of this film. The executives wanted a male lead as well as a love interest. I believe the love interest came into play more once Cuaron wouldn’t give in and kept his female lead. It was just interesting thinking how different this could have been. Do you think it would have changed how you viewed this movie if the executives won out?
Dylan: I’m going to say yes. Only because it became excruciatingly obvious to me the point the director was trying to make with a female lead, specifically at the very end when Bullock stood up, and the camera, level with her ankles, panned up to show her sculpted, heroic body fresh out of the water. The survivor. The heroine. It reminded me of Ellen Ripley, but that’s probably because I kept thinking of the tagline “In space no one can hear you scream” from Alien. But yes, I think it made a difference having a woman. And I did not have a problem with it.
Mark: I agree completely, and I also got the Ellen Ripley vibe from her, and from the whole movie. And it worked perfectly.
----------------------------------------------------
And there it is, kids. Go see Gravity. It is one of the best movies of the year, and possibly one of the most original films of the past couple of decades -- especially in the science fiction department -- not just because of the story and subject matter, but because of its manipulation of modern filming techniques to present a story in a way we haven't really seen before (fuck Avatar). On top of that, as we discussed, it will resonate not just with critics, but with audiences as well. And I think this film is going to be remembered as a turning point in filmmaking and storytelling on many levels.
