When I first saw the trailer for Gravity, I turned to my husband and said "I don't see how that movie could be more than two minutes long." How could a person disconnected from any life support systems and drifting in open space possibly survive?
Clocking in at a brisk 91 minutes, Gravity runs full-tilt for almost the entire time in answering that question. It is the sort of movie that is best if you don't know too many plot details, so I will try not to give too much away. It is sufficient to say that the film is stunningly beautiful. If you went only to see the visuals, it would be worth the price of admission.
It's also surprisingly feminist. There is no inherent reason why Dr. Ryan Stone (played by Sandra Bullock) would have to be female. To make her so is a gutsy choice, considering the still-prevalent Hollywood notion that a woman can't anchor a box office success (despite what The Hunger Games suggested with its numbers). It is also an encouraging one; here is a film in which we are limited almost entirely to a single female "focalizer" character through whose point of view we observe the story's events. At times, director Alfonso CuarĂ³n's camera even presents the viewer with shots directly from Stone's point-of-view: we see what she sees.
In other words, Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone is a subject, not an object. Despite sharing the screen with George Clooney, God of Sex Appeal, she is not subjected to that problematic "male gaze" that objectifies women as primarily sex objects even when they're supposed to be intelligent, important characters. As a case in point: consider actress Alice Eve's Carol Marcus being displayed in her underwear for no good reason in Star Trek: Into Darkness. There are two scenes in which Stone is shown in skimpy clothes, but they don't come across as being there simply to show off Bullock's body. (Admittedly, "real" astronauts wear be-tubed long underwear and adult diapers under their spacesuits rather than tank tops and tiny gym shorts, so Stone's apparel is unrealistic, but I can forgive that if only for being spared the sight of Sandra Bullock in Depends.)
I was also genuinely surprised by Bullock in this movie. I've never had a problem with her as an actress, but I've also never thought of her as particularly talented; amiable, sure, but not terribly nuanced. My opinion of her has been completely changed with her performance here. Carrying a movie almost entirely on one's shoulders is something very few actresses are required to do, and Bullock pulls it off. She projects convincing vulnerability and heartbreak, but also steely determination and clear-headedness when it is called for. If she doesn't get an Oscar nomination for Gravity there's no justice in the world.
The word "jaw-dropping" is thrown around a lot; just this afternoon, I saw a sign for "jaw-dropping specials" on produce at the grocery store. I don't think that's appropriate, any more than it is generally so for the movies it's applied to (sorry, Transformers), but it is here. During several scenes my jaw literally hung agape, as I clutched my seat and squirmed and crossed my fingers that things would work. As I watched I was reminded of Ang Lee's Life of Pi; although the two films have very little else in common, I experienced the same sense of visual wonder in Life of Pi that I did in Gravity. I felt in both movies as though I were seeing things that I had never seen before, things that weren't of this world (as indeed, in Gravity they aren't). I have a feeling that images from this movie will stick with me for a long, long time.
Gravity is the only movie I can recall since Avatar -- a laughably inferior product -- in which the 3D seems integral to the film, and seeing it without it would lessen the effect. Cough up the extra money for a 3D ticket, Real3D if you can get it, and sit as close to the screen as possible. Don't check your phone (it's rude anyway). Don't look away. As one of the characters says, it'll be a hell of a ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment