Skip to comments.Drowning in the Digital Abyss
Posted on 10/11/2013 2:18:21 PM PDT by Borges
Floating free from their damaged space shuttle, the astronaut protagonists of Alfonso Cuaróns Gravity, rookie Sandra Bullock and veteran George Clooney, seem to swim (or drown) in an immeasurable fish tank. Depth and volume are illusory. Mass has no weight. In this 3-D spectacle, best seen on the outsized IMAX screen, Cuarón promotes sensory disorientationor better, reorientation. The title is ironic. A post-structuralist might have put it under Derridean erasure: Gravity.
A survival drama set almost entirely in the unfathomable abyss of outer space, Gravity is something now quite rarea truly popular big-budget Hollywood movie with a rich aesthetic pay-off. Genuinely experimental, blatantly predicated on the formal possibilities of film, Gravity is a movie in a tradition that includes D.W. Griffiths Intolerance, Abel Gances Napoleon, Leni Riefenstahls Olympia, and Alfred Hitchcocks The Birds, as well as its most obvious precursor, Stanley Kubricks 2001. Call it blockbuster modernism.
(Excerpt) Read more at nybooks.com ...
I’ve been debating whether to see this or not. The trailers for the movie are truly awful with Bullock floating through space sounding more like she’s faking orgasm than terrified out of her mind.
I can't stand the trailer.
I saw it and think it is pretty well done as a movie. Some critics think this may be the first science fiction movie that will win best picture at the Oscars. It is doing unusually well at the box office. In my opinion, the visuals are as good as Avatar but with a much better story line.
While it is not Christian or conservative, I don’t think it is particularly hostile to Christianity or conservativism.
The main character stuggles with a past loss that has left her trying to make sense of life and longs for a spiritual dimension and meaning. At at one point she asks for prayer and wishes someone could tell her how to pray because no one ever did. There is a transformation from anger and cursing to peace and gratefulness.
These are positive qualities, especially compared to most of what Hollywood puts out.
I agree with the article that it should have left out the hokey ‘back story’ and just focused on the existential dilemna. Kubrick in 2001 had the right idea by doing just that and casting two bland virtually unknown actors who wouldn’t distract the audience with their own baggage.
She's no doubt had a lot more practice at the former.
It's fantasy, so I roll with it. I never heard of the movies he quoted except for 2001. It's more like “Red Planet” which they gave 3 stars, I give it 5 stars or Maybe “Marooned”, there's an old one.
With all the pieces and parts flying around I do recommend paying the extra bucks for the 3D. I won't give it away, but one thing came all the way out to my seat
Remember she was playing M.D. not an astronaut.
I disagree the back story was important, but “2001 A Space Odyssey” is in a category of it’s own. It’s an iconic film. WAYYYYYYY ahead of it’s time.
I read the spoilers and however good it might look, the action of the plot is completely impossible. You might as well watch Gru steal the moon.
I read the whole piece after your response. I have to disagree. The backstory made me care whether she survives. It might have been improved if whether she survives affects others as profoundly.
SPOILER ALERT for those who have not seen it... A couple of times she does not even want to keep fighting and wants to give up and die. The backstory is important for this and her transformation to make sense. Without it, it would be just an action flick that bounces from one peril to the next.
I prefer written fiction. A good thing, since I don'twant to have to look at total morons like Clooney and Tom Hanks, knowing that I am supporting them. Works for me!
No one this ditsy, poorly trained, and inexperienced would NEVER be sent on such a mission.