Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)

[flyonthewall2983]

I do hope Cuaron wins the director prize, he really earned it.

Agreed, and I'll reiterate that I'll just be as happy if that happens as if it won Best Picture.

[criterion10]

I really liked this when I first saw it in theaters back in October. So much that I even praised the 3D for it and went to see the film a second time a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, as I had somewhat expected, it definitely was not nearly as powerful as on a first viewing. It's still beautiful to look at, once you get past the visuals, there isn't much else to grasp, at least in terms of its narrative.

I still really like the film, very much so; it made my top ten of the list and Cuaron should be absolutely praised for the film's various achievements. That being said, it's more of a one and done experience as opposed to something like Children of Men which I could return to quite often.

[domino harvey]

It's still beautiful to look at, once you get past the visuals, there isn't much else to grasp, at least in terms of its narrative.

This isn't a puzzle film, so why can't you just enjoy its functionality again? I think clarity of vision and the bare narrative are the film's greatest achievements and saying there's nothing there just because it's laid out in an uncluttered fashion is not giving the film enough credit. Here's a movie version of To Build a Fire

Spoiler

Well, with a happier ending and in space, but you know what I mean

that strips a familiar story frame down into next to nothing but a series of calamities, fiascoes, and tests of endurance that appeal and play as (expensive-looking) primal survival. Great art can be concise and function and excel without all the window-dressings and baggage. Gravity is one of the cleanest and clearest uses of a streamlined narrative I've ever seen, especially coming in the guise of mainstream entertainment.

[criterion10]

This isn't a puzzle film, so why can't you just enjoy its functionality again?

On first viewing, most of what blew me away was the visual effects, the feeling that I was truly up in space, floating around with these characters. The problem on a second viewing was that the magic of the visual effects had worn off; thus, I was left struggling to grapple with the story or the characters, and there was little here to appeal to me.

To be honest, it's the sort of film that I wish I hadn't watched again, because it really worked so well for me on a first viewing, arguably to the point that I would've wanted to see it win Best Picture myself.

I'm very interested to see how it functions further on repeat viewings in the comfort of my own home.

[FerdinandGriffon]

How is a narrative that includes ponderous and melodramatic character histories, blithe romantic chit-chat with a guardian angel/deus ex machina, talky expositional set-ups for its ticking time-bomb sequences, and dream sequence resets streamlined? Gravity has all of the window dressing and baggage of just any old Hollywood thriller, despite the fact that at its core it's maybe something more, and doesn't need or have use for accessorizing. The movie that everyone talks about (and that who knows, might be possible with an internet superedit) is great, but it's not the movie that Cuarón delivered. I mean, does anyone who claims to love the pared-down-ness of the film not agree that it would be better without Bullock's weepy backstory?

Spoiler

Isn't falling through space scary enough in the film without it also summoning the memory of a dead child?

[domino harvey]

No

[FerdinandGriffon]

Why?

[warren oates]

So let me get this straight FG, you're going to pin your long list of nitpicks to the one that's easiest to agree with? Yeah, her dead kid backstory is silly. No it didn't totally ruin the film.

Everything else you're saying makes much less sense, but especially when you start in attacking how clearly the film sets up its world, as if that's some kind of fault. How are we supposed to know what's going on or how they think they're going to get out of it without all of that exposition, most of which was about as well done as it could have been. This isn't All Is Lost. It's not a straightforward matter of a boat sinking or not. So, if it's really that crappy a choice and that easy a fix, I await your proposal for a completely dialogue free re-do of Gravity's crucial exposition.

[swo17]

I think many people agree that the non-visual element here is not the strongest, but I tend to put a lot of that on Jonás Cuarón's relative inexperience as a screenwriter, which I'm mostly willing to give a pass because I think it's pretty cool to let your kid help you write a major film like this.

[The Narrator Returns]

Especially when the end result isn't Sharkboy and Lavagirl.

[FerdinandGriffon]

So let me get this straight FG, you're going to pin your long list of nitpicks to the one that's easiest to agree with? Yeah, her dead kid backstory is silly. No it didn't totally ruin the film.

Everything else you're saying makes much less sense, but especially when you start in attacking how clearly the film sets up its world, as if that's some kind of fault. How are we supposed to know what's going on or how they think they're going to get out of it without all of that exposition, most of which was about as well done as it could have been. This isn't All Is Lost. It's not a straightforward matter of a boat sinking or not. So, if it's really that crappy a choice and that easy a fix, I await your proposal for a completely dialogue free re-do of Gravity's crucial exposition.

They're not nitpicks, they're aspects of the film that , hate'em or love 'em, dominate the action to a great degree and fundamentally change the shape of the narrative. I'm not saying the film is ruined, I'm saying that it is not streamlined or stripped down, and that it would have been a better film without these elements.

The exposition of how Gravity's world works is inseparably tied to the "ticking-time bomb" type scenarios that they explicate and enable. Both sides of the equation come into the film at once. They can't be separated from each other. So the question is not whether the film can have one and not the other, but whether the film should have both, and how these elements relate to the other more expositional aspects of the narrative.

In my opinion, they're useful and suspenseful on their own terms, wacky physics and all, but that added together with various other manipulations and narrative dead weight like the Clooney relationship and Bullock's history they seriously upset the balance of the film and undermine its best and most radical aspirations.

[warren oates]

The exposition of how Gravity's world works is inseparably tied to the "ticking-time bomb" type scenarios that they explicate and enable. Both sides of the equation come into the film at once. They can't be separated from each other. So the question is not whether the film can have one and not the other, but whether the film should have both, and how these elements relate to the other more expositional aspects of the narrative.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

[matrixschmatrix]

The physics on Gravity are actually really remarkably good and the Clooney relationship is a delight?

Like the story is about someone put into a dangerous situation with no expertise in how to survive it, if you take Clooney away there's literally no way for this movie to be telling that story.

[Red Screamer]

They're not nitpicks, they're aspects of the film that , hate'em or love 'em, dominate the action to a great degree and fundamentally change the shape of the narrative. I'm not saying the film is ruined, I'm saying that it is not streamlined or stripped down, and that it would have been a better film without these elements.

Since when were rich characterizations baggage? The back story of the character fits into and enhances the themes and action that are occurring onscreen. Gravity is not a feat of human survival in which the actual humans are interchangeable but the other way around: characters who shape the story and drama throughout. I believe this is referred to as "cinematic amplification" where the onscreen action externalizes the psychological state and internal struggles of the characters. Gravity is not about a human struggling to survive, but this human struggling to survive.

[StevenJ0001]

How is a narrative that includes ponderous and melodramatic character histories, blithe romantic chit-chat with a guardian angel/deus ex machina, talky expositional set-ups for its ticking time-bomb sequences, and dream sequence resets streamlined? Gravity has all of the window dressing and baggage of just any old Hollywood thriller, despite the fact that at its core it's maybe something more, and doesn't need or have use for accessorizing. The movie that everyone talks about (and that who knows, might be possible with an internet superedit) is great, but it's not the movie that Cuarón delivered. I mean, does anyone who claims to love the pared-down-ness of the film not agree that it would be better without Bullock's weepy backstory?

I agree with a lot of this--in fact you've captured my disappointment with the film quite well. I really wanted to go with the spare narrative, which could have been fairly radical for a mainstream star vehicle, but the wordy exposition and very contrived character clutter distracted me almost constantly. Also, the actors' conventional performance styles, especially Bullock's, seemed at odds with the more streamlined aspects of the film some of you have been impressed with. I didn't feel much at all for Bullock's predicament, which I think was a result of her character being over written and her performance being out of place in the film.

[FerdinandGriffon]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

The film has many scenarios where Bullock must get from point A to B and push such and such button before she misses an orbit/something explodes/she runs out of air/etc. They're smart updates of the age old thriller convention of the ticking time bomb that the hero must reach and defuse while navigating various environmental obstacles. But they require exposition in order to function properly, and that exposition has a cumulative relationship to the rest of the exposition in the film. I am criticizing the Cuaróns for choosing to employ in tandem so many narrative elements that require talky exposition in a film that everyone seems to agree would work best in a stripped down form.

Like the story is about someone put into a dangerous situation with no expertise in how to survive it, if you take Clooney away there's literally no way for this movie to be telling that story.

She has expertise, and she learns more as she goes along, from Clooney, but also from experience and hard thought. In the second half of the film, without Clooney, that's the only way she can learn. A guardian angel is only a narrative necessity if you want a commentary describing the action to help the audience understand it. Also, the problem with devices like Clooney is not their existence but the way in which they're used.

Spoiler

It's never a necessity for there to be a romantic angle or for dream pep talks to occur.

The back story of the character fits into and enhances the themes and action that are occurring onscreen. Gravity is not about a human struggling to survive, but this human struggling to survive.

Yes, your first statement is quite true, but to the film's detriment. Do you think that Bullock's predicament reflects the manner of the child's death or the other way around? The answer seems obvious to me. It's tied up and symmetrical in an extremely sentimental way that undermines the reality of both Bullock's backstory and her struggle in the present, and that does not add meaningly to either beyond creating pat illustrations of the precariousness of existence.

[warren oates]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

The film has many scenarios where Bullock must get from point A to B and push such and such button before she misses an orbit/something explodes/she runs out of air/etc. They're smart updates of the age old thriller convention of the ticking time bomb that the hero must reach and defuse while navigating various environmental obstacles. But they require exposition in order to function properly, and that exposition has a cumulative relationship to the rest of the exposition in the film. I am criticizing the Cuaróns for choosing to employ in tandem so many narrative elements that require talky exposition in a film that everyone seems to agree would work best in a stripped down form.

It's like you're in complete denial that an audience needs to understand what might happen next in order to care about what's going to. I think you'd be surprised to discover how many of your supposed problems with the exposition in Gravity could apply equally to, say, A Man Escaped, which is probably an even talkier film when you get down to it, since we hear Fotntaine's voice-over practically nonstop.

It feels like both you StevenJ0001 really just wanted to see 90 minutes of Bullock floating away into the darkness of space until she dies -- and in one long take!

[StevenJ0001]

It feels like both you StevenJ0001 really just wanted to see 90 minutes of Bullock floating away into the darkness of space until she dies -- and in one long take!

Is that really too much to ask for?

Actually I do think I was expecting one thing and got something else, and for that reason I'm suspending further judgement until I've had a chance to see the film again.

[FerdinandGriffon]

Talking. Exposition.
Emotion. Melodrama.
These are not equivalent concepts.

The voiceover in A Man Escaped has nothing in common with any of the aspects of Gravity I'm complaining about beyond that it's a verbal element. I don't see your point at all.

[warren oates]

Go back and watch A Man Escaped again and then try and explain how it is we don't learn all manner of complicated exposition -- details vitally necessary to follow the story, to form expectations about what's happening now and what might happen in the future, to assess the dramatic stakes and the protagonist's current status -- from Fontaine's exceptionally talky wall to wall voice-over. Even in the most minimal scenarios, unless you've got a situation like All Is Lost or The Naked Prey where the antagonist(s) and the central problem itself are logistically/technologically uncomplicated and almost primally straightforward, then you'll invariably need to resort to some form of dialogue or voice-over to set things up throughout the narrative.

[Cold Bishop]

Spoiler

Isn't falling through space scary enough in the film without it also summoning the memory of a dead child?

I though this was brought up before in this thread, precisely due to this complaint, but isn't the whole narrative one long Rebirth narrative, the task of survival forcing her to restart her will to live. While I may have rolled my eyes at what seemed to like "easy" characterization when the scene first occured, I think the film does a good job building on that and integrating it into Stone's more immediate hopelessness.

[FerdinandGriffon]

Go back and watch A Man Escaped again and then try and explain how it is we don't learn all manner of complicated exposition -- details vitally necessary to follow the story, to form expectations about what's happening now and what might happen in the future, to assess the dramatic stakes and the protagonist's current status -- from Fontaine's exceptionally talky wall to wall voice-over. Even in the most minimal scenarios, unless you've got a situation like All Is Lost or The Naked Prey where the antagonist(s) and the central problem itself are logistically/technologically uncomplicated and almost primally straightforward, then you'll invariably need to resort to some form of dialogue or voice-over to set things up throughout the narrative.

You're taking details of my argument and removing them from their context so as to render them ridiculous. I never said exposition was inherently bad, or that Gravity doesn't need any. I said the structure of the film was distorted by the combined weight of many expositional elements, some more necessary and better handled than others. I get a bit exhausted with the time bomb sequences but I think they work; I would not say the same for any of the other issues I mentioned. And you're radically oversimplifying Bresson's use of voiceover so as to make it somehow equivalent to Gravity's verbal elements. Sound and dialogue in Bresson have a contrapuntal relationship with the image and action. They balance it. They're not just doing narrative work. He put an enormous amount of effort and thought into making sure that this relationship was different from conventional norms, and it makes no sense to equate his methods with those (to my eyes most conventional aspects) of a major Hollywood thriller without explaining why.*

*Though Bressonion Hollywood thrillers exist (Public Enemies, to name a recent example) and the man himself confessed a love for Bond films.

[FerdinandGriffon]

PS: As many have said, the opening twenty minutes of Gravity are superb. None of the issues I've pointed out rear their heads until after this point. My ideal Gravity is not wordless, or an audience unfriendly art film, or an ambient experience. It's just a film with the rigorous dramatic standards of that opening volley applied to the rest of the running time.

[mfunk9786]

I suppose the only issue I have with the exposition is that the conversation between Clooney and Bullock takes place as if they weren't on their final day of being cooped up in space with one another. I find it rather hard to believe that, comforting as it is in that moment for both of them, they haven't already discussed very rudimentary details of their personal lives (where they grew up, kids, etc) yet. But the film can be forgiven this, as far as I'm concerned, because it's the best way to introduce the audience to this information, and it adds a level of unhinged will-to-die to Bullock's decision-making later (even if it's only temporary and she comes around to the idea of trying to save herself).

[warren oates]

FG, you've been preaching to the converted all along over here when it comes to dead kid (a)motivational monologue (reportedly suggested by Bullock herself as a fix to the first-draft cliche of living for the living kid back home), and the Ghost Clooney "don't give up!" figment coach. Cut those out of your super edit and lock the changes.

But what else? It feels like you've walked back your position quite a bit. Suddenly the ticking time bomb aspects of the space junk cloud have become grudgingly tolerable. And now everything that happens in the first 20 minutes or so, including the talky exposition, is okay. But what happens after that and how would you let the audience in on it? What are those rigorous dramatic standards that precipitously slip? And how is what you're asking for still not some sort of space Gerry? (Worth noting again here how "lost in the desert" problems like "imperiled at sea" problems are way more intuitive and require much less exposition than space problems).

*The fact that Public Enemies is a "thriller," let alone a "Bressonian" one is news to me.