A good year for astronauts in trouble- 'Gravity' review
I have seen this year's 'Life of Pi': 'Gravity'. Go see it. Go see it twice. It's not a complicated film at all (that, incidentally, is one of its strengths), but it is so beautiful, and effective, it deserves repeat viewings.
The comparison with 'Life of Pi' is not my own, alas, but it is very apt. Both films are about Man and Nature; there is no antagonist. No human one, in any case. I suppose you could point, in both films, to some action of someone offscreen that triggered the events, but that's not important. Both are stories of survival. Both are stories about the transcendent, beautiful, monstrous Great Out There, and of the little island of safety we've made for ourselves.
The result, in both the case of 'Life of Pi' as well as 'Gravity', are stunning visuals and visceral stories. There is not much to put in words. They are so simple to describe, it would do them a disservice. Watch 'Gravity' once if you're a casual film-viewer. It's 90 minutes well spent. Watch it twice (or more) if you want to tell stories yourself.
Some writers (in particular, me) need reminding of how well simple stories work, and the story of Gravity is a great example. The plot: a few astronauts get their mission ruined when space debris collides with other satellites, creating more (and deadly) space debris. Their resilience will now be tested. Will they survive to make it back to Earth?
That's it. There's no shred of conflict between the characters in the film. Not much of a character arc for anyone. No 'deep themes'. No great epiphanies. Oh, sure, there's one moment when a character must decide whether it is worth it to struggle on, to cling to life. Unsurprisingly, the decision is 'yes'. No great revelation that ...
... but seeing it unfold, I cheered. Oh, how they worked for that moment. Space is harsh, and foreign, and counter-intuitive. The little cans we use to keep us safe up there never work quite right. Every step the characters make in their attempts to reach safety are frustrating partial victories that reveal even more problems ...
And still they soldiered on. I cheered. I don't think atmospheric re-entry has ever looked more heroic. Chariots of fire, indeed.
It helped, at least for nurds like me, that the film was in many ways very scientifically accurate. You might know I like spacewalk scenes; they don't need you to play loose with the laws of physics to get something weird. Floating in orbit -is weird- for us, accustomed as we are to living at the bottom of a gravity well.
The main character, played by a surprisingly likeable Sandra Bullock, hasn't had much space training before the mission (that being a bit implausible, but whatever). It shows. She drops stuff unware that it will then float away because there's no floor to fall to, and she gets knocked back when she uses a fire extinguisher the first time. I wonder whether that was a reference to 'Red Planet', but it was a nice detail.
Incidentally, fires burn differently in space, and it was nice to see they thought of that. Well, the film makers even thought of tears working differently in orbit, so it's clear they paid a lot of attention to the physics involved. The story is about survival in a harsh environment after all, and it mattered that they cared to describe just what makes the environment harsh and foreign. It makes it seem real, and not some cobbled up creation made up to have a story.
The inciting event is also a plausible concern, and as a result the various space agencies of the world are trying to set up guidelines for satellite disposal. Very low Earth orbits (around 100km altitude) are 'safe', because of atmospheric drag. Anything left up there will come down on its own, quickly enough. Higher orbits (400-600km altitude; which is still known as "Low Earth orbit") have much less air drag however, and stuff left up there will stay in orbit for a long time. The relative velocities of some piece of junk to another, or to a satellite, can easily reach the thousand kilometer per second range. Unsurprisingly, collisions are a real issue. Could something like depicted in 'Gravity' happen? Seems so.
It was also nice to see the care they took in depicting space equipment; the various tools, suits, capsules and stations. I'm a great fan of Russian tech, personally, and it features in the film aplenty.
You could read more into that, incidentally. The story keeps the number of characters small, and their interaction with Earth is minimal; communications loss, you see. But if the characters get anywhere, it's because other people have toiled to put stuff in orbit too. The collaborators are away, nameless and faceless, but they must have existed. Someone must have put the Soyuz there, with its suit and English manuals. The Chinese space station didn't materialize from nothing. All of that is the sustained effort of hundreds, thousands of people. I get a tingle just from thinking about that, for the same reason that every plane taking off is a religious experience for me: the fact that this metal blob can fly at all is the result of great human effort.
True, what gets the astronauts in trouble is caused by other people as well. It's us, being careless about space junk and pollution, not caring to cooperate, and as a result, forfeiting space exploration for decades. That's what would happen if the scenario of 'Gravity' came true. No one could fly to space again for quite some time.
You could, if you wanted, read all of that into the film. But the core of it is very simple, and that is its strength. It's a few people, and they try to survive against slim odds. Maybe life is that simple, and all the complications are stories we add on top of its messier details.
I did wonder, at the end, wow, this film would be great to showcase the coolness of space exploration ... or is it? Seeing all that, wouldn't Joe Average get scared into not bothering? Time will tell. But this is an excellent film. In between this and 'Europa Report', it has been a great year for astronauts in trouble. Well, let's see how 'Last days on Mars' plays out. Still, Hollywood, could you please leave astronauts alone so I could someday pitch my Bruce all-mighty in space?
The comparison with 'Life of Pi' is not my own, alas, but it is very apt. Both films are about Man and Nature; there is no antagonist. No human one, in any case. I suppose you could point, in both films, to some action of someone offscreen that triggered the events, but that's not important. Both are stories of survival. Both are stories about the transcendent, beautiful, monstrous Great Out There, and of the little island of safety we've made for ourselves.
The result, in both the case of 'Life of Pi' as well as 'Gravity', are stunning visuals and visceral stories. There is not much to put in words. They are so simple to describe, it would do them a disservice. Watch 'Gravity' once if you're a casual film-viewer. It's 90 minutes well spent. Watch it twice (or more) if you want to tell stories yourself.
Some writers (in particular, me) need reminding of how well simple stories work, and the story of Gravity is a great example. The plot: a few astronauts get their mission ruined when space debris collides with other satellites, creating more (and deadly) space debris. Their resilience will now be tested. Will they survive to make it back to Earth?
That's it. There's no shred of conflict between the characters in the film. Not much of a character arc for anyone. No 'deep themes'. No great epiphanies. Oh, sure, there's one moment when a character must decide whether it is worth it to struggle on, to cling to life. Unsurprisingly, the decision is 'yes'. No great revelation that ...
... but seeing it unfold, I cheered. Oh, how they worked for that moment. Space is harsh, and foreign, and counter-intuitive. The little cans we use to keep us safe up there never work quite right. Every step the characters make in their attempts to reach safety are frustrating partial victories that reveal even more problems ...
And still they soldiered on. I cheered. I don't think atmospheric re-entry has ever looked more heroic. Chariots of fire, indeed.
It helped, at least for nurds like me, that the film was in many ways very scientifically accurate. You might know I like spacewalk scenes; they don't need you to play loose with the laws of physics to get something weird. Floating in orbit -is weird- for us, accustomed as we are to living at the bottom of a gravity well.
The main character, played by a surprisingly likeable Sandra Bullock, hasn't had much space training before the mission (that being a bit implausible, but whatever). It shows. She drops stuff unware that it will then float away because there's no floor to fall to, and she gets knocked back when she uses a fire extinguisher the first time. I wonder whether that was a reference to 'Red Planet', but it was a nice detail.
Incidentally, fires burn differently in space, and it was nice to see they thought of that. Well, the film makers even thought of tears working differently in orbit, so it's clear they paid a lot of attention to the physics involved. The story is about survival in a harsh environment after all, and it mattered that they cared to describe just what makes the environment harsh and foreign. It makes it seem real, and not some cobbled up creation made up to have a story.
The inciting event is also a plausible concern, and as a result the various space agencies of the world are trying to set up guidelines for satellite disposal. Very low Earth orbits (around 100km altitude) are 'safe', because of atmospheric drag. Anything left up there will come down on its own, quickly enough. Higher orbits (400-600km altitude; which is still known as "Low Earth orbit") have much less air drag however, and stuff left up there will stay in orbit for a long time. The relative velocities of some piece of junk to another, or to a satellite, can easily reach the thousand kilometer per second range. Unsurprisingly, collisions are a real issue. Could something like depicted in 'Gravity' happen? Seems so.
It was also nice to see the care they took in depicting space equipment; the various tools, suits, capsules and stations. I'm a great fan of Russian tech, personally, and it features in the film aplenty.
You could read more into that, incidentally. The story keeps the number of characters small, and their interaction with Earth is minimal; communications loss, you see. But if the characters get anywhere, it's because other people have toiled to put stuff in orbit too. The collaborators are away, nameless and faceless, but they must have existed. Someone must have put the Soyuz there, with its suit and English manuals. The Chinese space station didn't materialize from nothing. All of that is the sustained effort of hundreds, thousands of people. I get a tingle just from thinking about that, for the same reason that every plane taking off is a religious experience for me: the fact that this metal blob can fly at all is the result of great human effort.
True, what gets the astronauts in trouble is caused by other people as well. It's us, being careless about space junk and pollution, not caring to cooperate, and as a result, forfeiting space exploration for decades. That's what would happen if the scenario of 'Gravity' came true. No one could fly to space again for quite some time.
You could, if you wanted, read all of that into the film. But the core of it is very simple, and that is its strength. It's a few people, and they try to survive against slim odds. Maybe life is that simple, and all the complications are stories we add on top of its messier details.
I did wonder, at the end, wow, this film would be great to showcase the coolness of space exploration ... or is it? Seeing all that, wouldn't Joe Average get scared into not bothering? Time will tell. But this is an excellent film. In between this and 'Europa Report', it has been a great year for astronauts in trouble. Well, let's see how 'Last days on Mars' plays out. Still, Hollywood, could you please leave astronauts alone so I could someday pitch my Bruce all-mighty in space?
Thanks for a good review! :) It already was on my (extremely short) list of films to see. Glad it's worth seeing.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see it, but now I kind of plan to do so. Sandra Bullock? That's probably a 'no' for me - but I might put it on the list.
ReplyDelete