Four stars. Rating: PG-13, for dramatic intensity, disturbing images and fleeting profanity
By Derrick Bang • Originally published in The Davis Enterprise, 10.4.13
On Jan. 11, 2007, the Chinese
military destroyed one of its orbiting satellites with a ground-based missile.
Although China insisted that this was the best way to “retire” the aging
satellite, visions of a surface-to-space missile race naturally alarmed more
than a few nations around the world.
Saber-rattling aside, the much
more serious issue was the orbiting “debris cloud” of up to 300,000 bits of
satellite that resulted, which still could pose serious danger to other
satellites or spacecraft en route to the moon and beyond. (NASA, worried about
this since 1978, has dubbed the frightening possibility of cascading collisions
the Kessler Syndrome.) For this very reason, the U.S. and the Soviet Union
halted such anti-satellite experiments in the 1980s.
Clearly, filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón
smelled an opportunity. The result, which he directed and co-wrote with his
son, Jonás, is Gravity: one of the very few feasible space-based dramas ever
released via conventional channels. (I say this to distinguish Cuarón’s film
from numerous sci-fi and fantasy entries, or jes’-plain-silly action epics such
as Armageddon and Space Cowboys.)
Gravity is both a suspenseful
nail-biter and an impressive visual achievement: a studio production that comes
close to the on-screen authenticity of an IMAX space documentary. The special
effects are stunning, from the gorgeously depicted EVA mission that opens the
story, to the weightless activity that takes place within a space station.
When Sandra Bullock “swims” her
way from one end of the station to another, passing all sorts of floating
debris along the way — not to mention little globules of liquid, or zero-G
electrical sparks — everything looks absolutely real. We can’t help a “how the
heck did they do that?” sense of wonder, despite our frequent ho-hum reaction
to what CGI effects have wrought these days.
Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki
and visual effects supervisor Tim Webber — and the latter’s company, Framestore
— have done stunning work. Indeed, their efforts are almost too good; at times
it’s hard to focus on the story, since we’re so frequently dazzled by the
on-screen visuals.
But only at times. Cuarón has
orchestrated a taut survival drama that masterfully exploits claustrophobic
terrors, not to mention related fears of drowning, suffocating or simply being
hurled, alone, into the depths of space, able to do nothing but count down the
seconds before the oxygen runs out.
The time could be now, or perhaps
just a bit into the future, under slightly different circumstances that have
allowed our space program to remain robust. A routine shuttle mission commanded
by veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) includes a civilian passenger:
medical engineer Ryan Stone (Bullock), clearly anxious about her surroundings,
despite six months of training and preparation back on Earth.
The story begins with the Shuttle
Explorer docked alongside the Hubble Telescope, as Stone struggles to install a
new scanning system. She’s tense, and not only because of the expanse of space;
the scanning unit isn’t cooperating. Kowalski, meanwhile, is punctuating his
final voyage into space by scooting around in a test-model jet pack that allows
movement unencumbered by the usual tethers.
Kowalski, alert to the rising
tension, lightens the mood by joking with Mission Control — we recognize Ed
Harris’ off-camera voice (nice touch, that) — and sharing oft-heard personal
anecdotes that can’t help raising a smile on Stone’s nervous face.
Then, suddenly, a crisis: On the
other side of the planet, an obsolete satellite has just been destroyed by a
ground-based missile strike. The resulting debris field, on the same orbital
path, arrives much faster than expected; the consequences are catastrophic. To
make matters worse, the debris destroys numerous communications satellites
along the way, and all contact with Mission Control is lost.
Stone and Kowalski are the sole
survivors, and Explorer has been rendered useless. Stone is running critically
low on oxygen, and Kowalski’s prototype jet pack has limited fuel. Their only
hope: a bit of a “hike” to the nearby International Space Station, just visible
to their naked eyes, and the Russian Soyuz capsule that Kowalski knows should
be docked alongside.
Right about now, most viewers
will be biting lips and digging fingernails painfully into palms.
Such reactions, of course, depend
on the degree to which we invest ourselves in this scenario. Cuarón and
co-editor Mark Sanger do a masterful job with this, as well. The characters are
introduced and sketched just well enough to elicit our concern — the script
doing so with “reasonable” conversation, as opposed to dumb dialogue solely for
our benefit — and then things happen rapidly enough that we willingly hang on
for the ride.
The character contrast is well
played and quite credible; Clooney and Bullock deserves plenty of credit,
particularly since they do most of their “acting” via vocal inflection and the
limited facial expressions that are partially obscured by space suit helmets.
Clooney’s calm voice and easy
manner bespeak the seasoned professional that Kowalski obviously is; he’s a
well-trained professional who (no doubt) has long anticipated such a crisis,
while clearly hoping never to face one. Clooney’s tone is light but
instructive, gentle but persistent. Kowalski knows full well that his sole
remaining companion is just this side of total panic, which is bad for all
sorts of reasons ... starting with the fact that a frightened person breathes
more heavily, and wastes more oxygen.
Anticipating this film, I must
confess to having had doubts about seeing Bullock as a space scientist; that
seemed just as daft as casting Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist, in
1999’s James Bond epic, The World Is Not Enough.
I needn’t have worried; Bullock imbues
her character with just the right blend of professional competence and
landlubber anxiety. Her terror is reasonable; Kowalski may be comfortable in
space, and regard it as his majestic back yard, but Stone has no such sang
froid. We can readily believe that she signed on for this mission via a mixture
of excitement and pride, for having been selected in the first place. After
all, who wouldn't want to experience space first-hand?
So most of us imagine, of course,
with the unspoken caveat: As long as nothing goes wrong.
Bullock gives us a character we
both respect and fear for; Cuarón’s skill lies in constructing a credible — if
horrifying — scenario, and then making Stone the ultimate surrogate for our own
resourcefulness. What would we do?
Cuarón has dealt with grim speculative
fiction before, specifically with 2006’s apocalyptic and quite unsettling Children of Men. Despite a premise that was extremely unlikely (we hope),
Cuarón nonetheless drew quite persuasive performances from his cast. He does
the same here.
Lubezki’s gorgeous cinematography
is further enhanced by this film’s 3-D effects, which are real enough to induce
vertigo or even nausea, particularly when (for example) Stone tumbles out of
control, spinning upside-down and sideways, after the initial impact. This film
probably should come with air-sickness bags.
Composer Steve Price’s
electronic-based score is deeply disturbing, operating on a subconscious level
that greatly enhances this story’s fright factor. The sudden crescendos are
enough to make you jump out of your skin.
My one major complaint concerns
the script’s tendency toward crisis overkill. The eventual plot hiccups
represent a single bad-luck day taken to truly ludicrous extremes ... which, in
turn, makes this depiction of human endurance a credibility-stretching
improbability. Those familiar with the space program and EVAs also likely will
balk at the speed with which Kowalski and Stone confront each new problem;
every action in a bulky space suit, operating in zero gravity, should take an
... agonizingly ... long ... time. Cuarón pretty much ignores that little
detail, no doubt claiming dramatic license (and a need to move things along).
In contrast — and to be fair —
the scenario is quite a bit more accurate when it comes to the ghastly
consequences of Newton’s laws of motion.
No comments:
Post a Comment