Truth be
told, when there is this much hype about a film, I worry. I mean, it’s hard to
explain but you get caught up in the “aura” of the film and then… Well then you
expect it to be life changing. Utterly “the ground moved” amazing. I mean I do.
But then… Then it falls short and you get disproportionally upset with the
whole affair. That’s why I was curious but cautious as I went to see Gravity
the other night – in 3D I might add. I hadn’t actually revved myself up not to
like it but I was trying to get my expectations down… And you know… My
expectations can go all over the shop sometimes and that isn’t much good for
anyone. I am very pleased to report however, that in a lot of ways Gravity
exceeded my expectations… I needn’t have worried. Not in this case. However… There were bits that disappointed me a bit. I will try and explain what I mean further down but
first the story. You know, just in case you’ve been living under a stone or
something…
Gravity is
the story of Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock)
who unexpectedly find themselves drifting in outer space, tethered to each
other but virtually nothing else. Dr Stone is just a mission specialist; a
medical doctor who is specifically working on this mission and this one only –
in other words “a civilian”. Kowalski however, is a veteran of “infinity and
beyond”. His buoyant spirits and knowhow do indeed carry them both for a while
but ultimately, is it enough? I don’t want to tap into my ‘80s soul and say “in
space no one can hear you scream” – but they can’t you know… No air…
Ahem.
Moving swiftly on, I want to give you one word: the photography. Oh. My. God. I
have never seen anything like it, Cuaron proves himself a true technical master
in this one. And rest assured, I mean it
in more ways than one. First of all, the shots of space are stunning. There is
a very sharp reminder in the opening sequence alone that we are a very, very
small, insignificant part of the universe despite our rather warped view that
we are the centre of it. And philosophical messages aside, Cuaron uses his
camera to suck you right into the film. I was reading on Twitter that one
person felt as if they had “just got back from a space mission themselves”
after seeing that film. I can relate. Cuaron uses the psychology of video games
as much as anything else to make us feel we are personally “part of the
action”. He does this by using a lot of POV shots, straight from the eyes of
our main protagonist Ryan Stone. I was particularly fascinated by the fact that
there are a LOT of these POV shots, but they do not jar at all- possibly
because, even if we don’t all play “first person shooter” type games, we are a
lot more used to the concept. I remember that back in the ‘50s or ‘60s – if memory serves –
one director tried making an entire film from the POV of the protagonist – it was
a dismal failure. But these days, what with genres like “found footage” type
horror films, more artistic endeavours like Sokhourov’s Russian Ark our
tolerance for it seems to have grown considerably. The ever present video
games- genres like first person shooters etc – also help to up our tolerance.
All in all, the POV shots actually “make” the film as opposed to breaking it, I
found. You slip directly into the characters skin and it gives the adrenaline
that already pervades the film that little bit of a push…
Of course
herein lies the need for a good balance. Because you can’t really rely on POV
shots alone to get the audience to “bond” with a character – they need
backstories. They need to be real. Kowalski is a typical “good old boy” with
lots of stories to tell and an almost insatiable appetite for telling and
re-telling these stories – we get to know about him quite quickly. Ryan Stone
is a bit trickier. (This is not technically a spoiler but you may want to look
away at this point if you’re really allergic to them skip to the next
paragraph)But she quickly wins us over
when we find out she is still trying to cope with the loss of her four year-old
daughter who died, of all things, from falling and banging her head in the
playground. I loved that touch – not something complicated like “childhood
leukemia” just “one of those things”, tragic in its simplicity and minimalism...
Now, I have nothing against them having backstories – they’re pretty much
essential. But there comes a point in the film when Ryan gives up and decided
that she might as well prepare to die saying she “hopes to see her daughter
soon”. Then, of course, she decides to
fight for her life (that one last push that will naturally prove to save her
life ultimately) and in the course of that decision she pretty much seems to
get over the death of her daughter and land on earth healed and ready to start
anew – complete with a “conquering heroine” shot of her from round about her
ankles making her look like a leviathan at the end.
Humm… I
guess what I’m saying is (welcome back if you skipped that paragraph) that
backstories and character development aren’t Gravity’s strong points. But
that’s kinda ok you see, because you don’t really go to Gravity for character
development. Or I mean, you shouldn’t.
You should see the film either in 3D or in IMAX and really get immersed
in the action – and amazed at the beauty of the photography. It’s fascinating really, because I
really wonder if this film would be as successful without technology such as
IMAX, 3D, HD and all the other “visual enhancements”. It would certainly be
possible. It might even be good. It would, however, simply be an action movie.
Even the POV shots wouldn’t have been enough to make the film so breath-takingly
exciting. So this, in my view, is a true
21st Century film- if only in the sense that it wouldn’t essentially
be what it is today without 21st century technology. I will also
have to argue that it is a distant cousin of AVATAR in the sense that while it
is perfectly possible to enjoy it in 2D it’s just… Not the same.
My gut
reaction when I finished watching AVATAR was “this is not a film”. It’s
something between a film and a fair-ground ride (don’t get me wrong, this is
not meant as an insult. My argument is that it is a completely different, far
more “participatory” genre than a film and this is neither good nor bad. Just
different). Now, I have to admit GRAVITY
is not so simplistic. Calling it “something like a fair-ground ride would be
very unfair to Cuaron whose photography is a true work of art… They are, however, quite closely related. The
fact that you are (at least I was, and so were others from what I gather)
breathless, dazed and a bit confused when you exit the cinema is a testament to
this fact.
So we can
conclude that Gravity is a technical triumph. Just possibly not a
“philosophical” triumph. That said, does every film need to be? No. Is it well
worth your money to go and see it -, and heck, shell out a bit of extra for the
3D? Yes. Enough said. Now go book your ticket ;)
Kayıtlar
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder