Log in

No account? Create an account
Off in the distance
my journal
May 2016

The Bellinghman
Date: 2014-01-23 13:14
Subject: On Gravity
Security: Public
So on Tuesday we finally caught up and went to see the film Gravity. Only about 10 weeks late, but what the heck. The screen was reasonably full, and dorispossum/Kate and bdikkat/Malcolm came in and sat behind us. (At the time they came in, bellinghwoman was out of the room and I was buried in an article on my phone, so I didn't note their arrival. Oops, and sorry!)

The film itself was pretty damned good. We were in the 3D screening, and it's fair to say that if you want to see how well 3D can work, this is the best I've seen: it's stunning. Sound is done well too - the film makers have really thought about the fact that sound doesn't carry through a vacuum, so there are parts where it is totally silent.

(This made the slightly late arrival of one viewer particularly noticeable.)

The music was a bit overloud, but that could be fixed by turning down the volume.

But what about the content?

Well, this is going on my Hugo nomination list (as and when that opens). It's the best space-based film I've seen yet. It's very much a single person film, and Sandra Bullock shows just how flexible she is as an actor. We already know how well she does kooky comedy, and she's also done action, but this is different: it's serious, her character is the only survivor from a five-man shuttle mission, and her chances of survival are remote. At about halfway through the film, she's given up and is literally sitting back waiting for death. And then from somewhere comes a determination to fight all the way, to not give up after all, no matter how pointless it all seems. And the anger when the universe seems to be conspiring against all her efforts seems real.

Bullock truly deserves her Academy Award nomination for this.

There are some phony physics moments in it, mostly to do with Hollywood timing.
  • The initial disaster — a Kessler syndrome situation — would not develop that fast.

  • The 90 minute collision period is dodgy, assuming that it would happen once per orbit whereas a debris ring would be crossed twice per orbit. (But I only realised this later, and there may be some orbit which did permit a 90 minute period)

  • The closeness of the Hubble, the ISS and the Chinese station is unlikely. (We're in a slightly alternate universe anyway, what with a Shuttle not from the original fleet)

  • When George Clooney's character dies heroically, that whole bit requires some force dragging him and her from the ISS when there is no such force.

  • Fire in zero-G actually has extreme difficulty keeping going at all.
But while I spent those scenes mentally going "it wouldn't work that way", the rest was done so well that I was happy to forgive these issues.

So, I'll give it 90% right, and concede that I'm not sure how I'd fix the issues I've mentioned without breaking the story. The inside/outside helmet view switches make for a beautiful dramatic device, something that wouldn't work in other films but that does here. This is a film that I'll be wanting to see again.

It totally fails the Bechdel test, but then we've only got two actors in it whose faces we see. Like Pacific Rim, it's an example of how while that test is a good rule of thumb, it's not infallible.

And then, because the film was only about 90 minutes long, and 3D showings have fewer ads, we wandered downstairs to Frankie and Benny and had (in my case) coffee and drinks with K&M and chatted for a while.
Post A Comment | 8 Comments | | Flag | Link

The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2014-01-23 13:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I don't get the eye strain or motion sickness, but with many I can feel a slight feeling of unnaturalness. None with this.

I do so hope other 3D film makers can pick up from this.

(I'm not about to rush out and buy a 3D TV though. Not for the one film, but if other films were commonly this effective I might change.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: pir
Date: 2014-01-23 13:35 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I react badly enough to 3D that I have a couple of pairs of these: http://www.2d-glasses.com/
Sometimes I'll switch between them to get a break or see if I can cope with the 3D in a given film. Never had zero side effects other than this.

My TV was bought recently enough (to replace the one I bought in 2005 that didn't do 1080p) that there wasn't much choice in getting 3D. I have it turned off, though.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2014-01-24 11:39 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I'd not realised that the incremental cost of 3D had dropped so far that it wasn't a disincentive if you didn't actually want it.

And the 2D glasses was an obvious idea, but I'm glad someone is actually doing it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link