 |
| 2001:A Space Odyssey - Alien - Wall-E |
Alfonso Cuarón stands on the broad shoulders of the great science fiction movie directors of the past to achieve his feat in Gravity, his latest film. Here and there in this movie we perceive little bits and pieces of films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, against which all science fiction films are measured, given that Stanley Kubrick's film was made in 1968; Riddley Scott's Alien, against which all women-heroines-in-space-defeating-the-odds films are measured, since that film was made in 1979...there's even a little idea-steal from Disney's Wall-E, as movie viewers that have seen both films will realize. Although Cuarón's film is not technically science fiction, given that the science he shows in the film already exists, it ends up playing that way because of how implausible everything that happens in the movie is. This detracts from its great visual and cinematographic achievement.
I went to see the film both because I've enjoyed Cuarón's films in the past and because of the outstanding reviews it received from practically all the major critics. I was disappointed While it is absolutely true that he has done an amazing job transferring the experience of the gravitylessness space to the viewers, everything else in the movie is weak. The dialogue is as cliche and corny as they come and the same can be said of the characters that say the lines (you yearn for all the silence in Kubrick's 2001). George Clooney's character, Matt Kowalski, is old fashioned suave macho, straight out of a Hemmingway novel or Clint Eastwood western. He doesn't skip a heartbeat, not even when he's floating off into deep space; he plays his country music and gives Dr. Stone, Sandra Bullock's character, calm survival tips.
 |
| Sandra Bullock in Gravity |
Sandra Bullock, the one that has the critics handing her an Academy Award already, reminds you with her acting how much better a comedic actor she is than a dramatic one (her best film this year in my opinion was The Heat alongside Melissa McCarthy). She's supposed to be the very intelligent medical technician out in space, but has to be reminded by the always debonair Clooney character to not gulp up the little oxygen in her tank by panicking. To be sure, she is no Rippley (Ridley Scott's heroine in space character from Alien), just maybe a more somber version of her role in Speed, where she had to drive that bomb-rigged bus to safety. We have read, in newspapers and magazines and the movie reviews, how Bullock and Clooney had to be tied into their space suits for hours on end in order for director Cuarón to use his new technology to get the gravity less effect of the movie. It is maybe this that everyone is admiring, the actors'stamina while making the film under duress Strange how Kubrick got such great effects without that much effort way back 45 years ago.
Alfonso Cuarón is a good director. Children of Men, a true science fiction, is a much better movie than this one, despite not being as technologically sophisticated in the making. There the story line is unique, there's a message to be gained (the extremes of anti-immigration policy), and the acting was really much better, in particular Clive Owen and Chiwetel Elijofor. He has also made various other good films, including Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
 |
| Children of Men |
However, in Gravity it seems Alfonso Cuarón got caught up in playing with the new technology (we saw it in XD - 3D) and forgot that a movie is also about a good, original story (a plausible one, if it's not science fiction), realistic acting, and maybe, just maybe, a little bit of a message or lesson to be learned; all the missing elements that end up weighing this movie down.
Great comments Amalia. I must say that I enjoyed several other things in the movie, beyond the special effects. The film is amazing with Lubesky's work behind the camera, but that is not the only thing to see. Perhaps if you are watching the movie expecting too much more from the lack of gravity, and the sense of solitude and insignificance in an what if situation. We just watched the IMAX show on how we are trashing the space with debris, and that itself gives to the movie a point beyond just mere science fiction, but actually a real potential near future. Images are also important when Sandra Bullock, yes, the better comedian than dramatic actress, stands alone and looks at and misses the earth, which is there, so far, and so close.
ReplyDeleteRecurrent mentions of the history of the "space conquest" appear, with obvious references to all those films that have, again and again, brought the same topic to talk about. You mention Kubrick's 2001, being the most obvious. But there also appears Georges Méliès' A Trip to the Moon (1902), and no mention Fritz Lang's Woman in the Moon (1929). And the collections goes and go... This is a similar approach that movies such as Cast Away, with Tom Hanks, Or Into the Wild, or, Life of Pi... After all a reflection on what if... and with it, the impotency, the incapacity. And then, the realization of how insignificant individual's life is while confronting the unknown, that for what we are not ready ever. I really enjoyed the movie. Not thinking on an Oscar for Bullock, but yes, for Cuaron, and Lubezky.
Saludos Amalia.