The Reel Critic: Gravity

“How can you possibly tell a movie-length story about Sandra Bullock floating in space?”

That was the response I most commonly heard after showing someone the trailer for “Gravity.” And the short answer to that question turned out to be, “you can’t.” The long story, however, is “it doesn’t matter.”

The thing about Gravity is it is not supposed to be a plot-driven story. The film follows Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), two astronauts servicing the Hubble Telescope as they fight to survive after space debris from a defunct Russian satellite force them to abort their mission and cut off all communication with Mission Control. Above all, “Gravity” is all about the beauty of the image on the screen, the technology behind that image and the human emotion that drives the story.

The last time director Alfonso Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki teamed up, they gave us “Children of Men,” a beautifully shot story about a future in which all women on Earth have become infertile and the resulting fall of humankind. With such a well-received and gorgeous film in their repertoire, and with a teaser trailer filled with more high-tension action than most summer blockbusters, Cuarón and Lubezki promised to deliver quite a spectacle with Gravity. These expectations were more than exceeded.

Visually, this film is in a league of its own. The film opens with a shot of three astronauts working on the Hubble Telescope. In front of the verdant and blue backdrop of the Earth miles below, Stone works diligently to repair the telescope while Kowalski jetpacks around her through space, telling stories of partying at Mardi Gras and commenting on the beauty and silence of space far above Earth’s surface. As the scene progresses, the camera spins around the crew, artfully capturing the idea that in space, there is no real sense of up or down. What is even more breathtaking about this opening scene is it is all done in a single shot. For nearly 20 minutes, the camera follows these characters without cutting away and it is not until all hell has broken loose that Cuarón finally cuts away. The final image of this first scene leaves us watching Bullock drift out into space.

Like many science-fiction films, “Gravity” is far from scientifically sound, but I did appreciate what Cuarón did with sound. In the vacuum of space, there is no air pressure to carry sound waves so everything is silent, from the sound of ships to collisions and explosions — a fact that films like Star Wars often overlook.

“Gravity,” however, embraced this fact and used sound to push the beauty of the film. Even as the satellite debris tears the ship apart, the only sounds heard are the panicked voices of Stone and Kowalski communicating through their spacesuits. At one point in the film, Stone is trapped in a torrent of water and each time the camera dips below the surface of the water, the sounds of her struggling are muffled as though the audience, too, is trapped under water.

This is not all to say that the film is without its problems. As I said at the start of this review, the story aspect of the plot does not get much deeper than “how many more terrible things going wrong can Sandra Bullock survive?” There is an interesting human element to the plot. Cuarón explores some fascinating themes about how humans respond to fear and isolation. However, if you go see “Gravity” for a well-developed story, you will be disappointed.

Also, while Bullock delivered a fantastic performance, any quality in Clooney’s performance was overshadowed by the grating personality of his character. Thankfully, the focus of the film is on Bullock.

While I do think the “Oscar-sweeping” hype around this film since its release is a little premature and quite overblown, I wholeheartedly recommend seeing it. The film is breathtakingly gorgeous — perhaps the most beautifully shot movie I’ve seen in years. My only regret is that there isn’t an IMAX screen in Vermont and I wasn’t able to see this film as large as it was intended.