Did You Put Some Underwear On?
A Review By Ben Hunter
3½ Out Of 5 Stars
October 4, 2013
“GET TO THE POINT
BEN!”
The visual effects and cinematography are down right
AMAZING! But it becomes smoke and
mirrors that mask a not so amazingly written story. The film lacks character development; particularly with the
lead character that we follow, alone, for the majority of the story and can’t
get behind to root for and truly engage with what could’ve been an incredible
journey. Instead it’s a decent and
okay one. Even bringing out
thematic elements to visually convey the messages of the film only goes so
far. A weak story is a weak story,
making those thematic elements add more to the smoke and mirror effect more so
than the adding on to/making greatness aspect.
 |
| Sandra Bullock in Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity. |
Earth, in all its glory fills the screen to its max or its
IMAX. We hear only what one would
in space, nothing. Faint sounds of
mission control slowly come into recognition, as a small ship slowly becomes a
big one to take up the IMAX.
Director Alfonso Cuarón (Y Tu Mama También, Children of Men, Harry
Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) raises
the bar of filmmaking with his classic style of long takes and holding to cut
as we become introduced with veteran astronaut George Clooney and the newcomer,
medical engineer Sandra Bullock.
For the next 15 minutes, roughly, Cuarón takes us on an unbroken, uncut
shot; all in one length as we circulate the ship and follow the astronauts as
they work, chit-chat and find out a little about who they are. Sandra Bullock is extremely nervous and
doesn’t want to ruin the mission.
George Clooney is his charismatic self that he is in real life, as his
character needs to be this way because he’s the veteran and this is all
normal. Trouble soon strikes and
the crew separates, leaving only George & Sandra due to debris. Tethered together, George Clooney and
Sandra Bullock now must fight for survival and make it to a nearby space
station before they run out of oxygen.
Dazzled up with some of the greatest special effects and cinematography
mankind has EVER witnessed. Cuarón has definitely raised the bar of filmmaking
and I’m happy he’s done such, taking Clooney & Bullock with him for the
wild and adventurous ride that is Gravity.
George Clooney and Sandra Bullock made a great team … …
George Clooney and Sandra Bullock … … … wait, what were their characters’ names
again? … Oh that’s right, Matt
Kowalski (Clooney) and Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock). I felt a little too disconnected to their characters, especially
Bullock the lead, that I kept calling them by their real names … as that’s who
I saw on screen, sorry about that.
In a better sense, when I viewed Will Smith in The
Pursuit of Happyness (2006), playing the part of
Chris Gardner, I cheered for him when he found joy, I felt sad for him when he
couldn’t find a proper place to sleep for his son, I darn near cried when he
did when he genuinely found true happiness (little did I know I’d embark on a
similar journey myself a couple years later); in fact, all throughout the movie
I kept going “come on Chris, you can do it, come on Chris … I know you can make
it! …” not ONCE did I call him “Will Smith”, but Chris Gardner. I was engaged into the story, rooting
for the hero. A well developed
character, say what you will about the movie.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
Detrimental to a story’s success or failure, without it, I’m
either ROOTING for Chris Gardner or OBSERVING Sandra Bullock (instead of
rooting for Ryan Stone). Character
development, just like with Inception
(2010), was my problem with Gravity
and ultimately why I feel it subdues to the gravity of overall, true, cinematic
accomplishment.
 |
| George Clooney in Gravity |
Well I loved it Ben, I thought it was so suspenseful and
I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. I actually rooted for “Sandra Bullock”.
Okay, well allow me to retort.
Let’s start with the universe and work our way into things.
“I'm a seeker, too. But my dreams aren't like yours. I
can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better
… than man … Has to be.” – George Taylor
(Charlton “Chuck” Heston), as he’s just landed on “a strange planet” (insert
smiley face).
Gravity kicked off
Oscar season, my FAVORITE time of the year! What a way to start things off with such a grandiose film! Harvey Weinstein (The Weinstein
Company) has gone on record to say that this year (2013) is one of the most, if
not the most; competitive seasons for cinema he’s EVER witnessed! Gravity has received so many good ratings amongst the few
that had seen it early, James Cameron is so happy his Avatar paved the way for it and that his buddy Cuarón has
now given him the ball back in his court to raise bar with Cameron’s next film
… yet all I could think of during the end credits is “somewhere in the 2013 universe
… there has to be something better … than this … Has to be.” Not about how gripping the suspense
was, or how everything was animated but the faces of Clooney & Bullock and
how that’s some darn good animation, or how AMAZING and tight knit the cinematography
and special effects were, I mean, give them an Oscar right now for that … all I
could think of … was, “I can’t wait for 12 Years A Slave (the other #1 frontrunner this year next to Gravity)”, or Saving Mr. Banks (a new frontrunner at the time of Gravity’s
release), The Monuments Men, will Captain Phillips sink in its debut the next week, … Almost anything
BUT how “amazing” Gravity was. My palms weren’t “still sweaty” as the
girl in front of me was ecstatic about at the end.
Why?
THE CHARACTERS WERE UNDERDEVELOPED! I couldn’t get behind our lead, Sandra
Bullock, to root for her, to feel sad when we learn about Bullock’s family, or
to feel joy when she overcomes obstacle after immediate obstacle. Where’s the emotional depth?
I should’ve been saying, “Wow! That movie is SO heart clenching! It’s now my favorite movie this year, maybe of all time, IT
WAS SOOO GOOD! I don’t know how 12
Years A Slave could even possibly top
this! We’ll see! I can’t wait!”
Instead, I said this, “Yeah that was good, but there’s
something better this season. I
think 12 Years A Slave just might top
this. It feels like one of the
many Oscar films on the very near horizon has it in them to be the best this
year and overcome Gravity. We’ll See! I can’t wait!”
And now I know, the character development is why I couldn’t completely connect with this simple story.
Just like with Inception, but
this time without an overly complicated story, but with an overly simple one.
 |
| Trouble continues to stir. |
For starters, the connection to Bullock’s back-story was
absent; I couldn’t buy into it AT ALL.
It was such a stretch! I
feel that because Cuarón kept the entire story in space, the “niche” or with
how I feel about the film, “the gimmick” of the film. This is why there was no connection to the back-story of our
lead. It felt EXTREMELY
forced! “George and Sandra are
floating along in space so we have to have them doing something right? Hey let’s sneak in some dialogue about
where they come from and such. The
audience can learn about who they are more this way! Clooney is already charismatic, he can just start asking
Sandra questions!” So when it’s
time to “get behind” Sandra who decides now to fight for her life and for her
family’s survival, it all came off as clichéd. “Just put your feet on the ground ... and move forward. Tell my daughter, Momma’s coming home!”
When I don’t really know anything about or care enough about any of that which
was just said … cliché! No amount
of special effects and brilliant cinematography (that was some amazing camera
work by the way, loved it) will save a poor and weak story, this is filmmaking 101. Why do I keep calling Kowalski &
Stone, Clooney & Bullock? Well
because it feels like I’m pushed back to sit and observe instead of float along
with our heroes and experience with them as they experience. “Kowalski & Stone” felt like name
tags and not identities to relate and connect with. This is the essence of the film’s low
score in my book.
In the beginning of my film school term, I’m talking
screenwriting 101, we learned you have to “show don’t tell” your audience new
information. Use dialogue as a
crutch or basically not as much as visually revealing new information to
introduce new plot points and such to your audience, “show, don’t tell/less is more”. In Gravity we have to be told this in conversation amongst our
Astronauts, or with Sandra Bullock talking to herself, to learn about her and
“this is why we now care about her and the trouble she faces”. Well, this is EXACTLY why there seems
like NO connection whatsoever to her back-story and why I couldn’t follow her,
thus, hardly liking this story.
“… … But there are some really cool special effects!” … Come
on now.
Well what about movies that are dialogue driven? Or that only take place in one or few
locations and are ONLY driven forward with dialogue, like your favorite movie
of all time Ben?
Well, their characters are better developed to get me into
the story to want to stay in that one room or few locations and follow them all
throughout! THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I
LOOOOOOVE my favorite movie of all time!
… Come on now.
Well come on Ben, look deeper than these surface level
observations that you’re making.
The film carries more weight than you’re failing or choosing not to see
because of all the bigger themes that it deals with: life, existence, human nature, the will to survive and to
want to live your life and not be defeated. You can relate to that, you struggled, as an upcoming
filmmaker in Hollywood didn’t you?
Come on, you had to be at a loss for words when the main thematic
element of the film “rebirth after adversity” is brilliantly conveyed when
Bullock finds her center of control within her spirit as she cradles into the
fetal position after almost dying to get oxygen, and finds her focus to fight
onward. I mean, come on Ben, that
alone speaks volumes on SO MANY LEVELS in addition to ALL the other brilliant
visual representations of thematic elements; so much more than words could ever
explain! This film is just SOOO
MASSIVE on all levels of intellect than how little you’re putting it down to be and
failing to see it as.
… *Sighs* … Okay … let me put it this way.
In director Zack Snyder’s recent Superman film there’s a lot
of symbolism. In fact, the symbol
on Superman’s chest is indeed, the second most recognizable symbol ON THE
PLANET (second to the Christian Cross).
In the movie, there’s a shot of our beloved hero hovering over a
government military base, ready to surrender himself, in order to save mankind. It’s such an AMAZING shot that brings
out the kid within me (upon countless other “cool shots” that do exactly the same). He’s hovering above the
base, looking heroic, cape blowing perfectly in the right direction; I
instantly became a giddy little schoolgirl each time I viewed this scene! This scene is SOOOOO POWERFUL and it’s
built up perfectly to create this majestic and simply breathtaking moment! I couldn’t help but think,
“oh my gosh, something so amazing is about to happen!” The energy that flows through it is
quite awe inspiring and magical to experience, time truly does stand still as
the hero of all heroes displays why he is that hero of all in that moment with
just visuals. So many things could
be said about this scene, how it looks, how he’s positioned upward and the
soldiers are looking up towards him to possibly symbolize how we as humans can
be still in a perfect moment of focus to find our direction in life, be still, look up, and know a solid direction to your life is coming and already
in the works; in the movie, Superman was that direction … … annnnnd then this
brilliant scene JOLT cuts to a familiar shot from the trailer where Superman is
in handcuffs surrendering.
WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE! ... Okay, take a step
back. What the heck just
happened?! This brilliantly built
up scene … just … stopped. Yeah,
the reason for the edit makes sense but it disrupts this AMAZING scene and
completely destroys the power from it that was just created (which was my
problem with this entire film, the editing and the pacing to relay an overall
feeling and mood towards it). So a
not so good scene was just experienced.
It could’ve been SOOOO MUCH better! Instead, we get decent mediocrity …
 |
| Questioning Survival |
… But it alludes to such powerful themes about the human
race and how we can find our purpose and direction if we accept destiny or
choose to create one, making the film accessible to everyone and makes the
simple plot and forced dialogue as you say acceptable and makes the film stand
out amongst the many other top contenders this season yada yada yada …
Come on now!
Don’t give me that! I don’t
even think I need to answer this now.
Oh, and you want to talk forced?
Alfonso Cuarón:
“Okay let’s hold on the fetal position shot for a couple of extra
seconds than necessary, I REALLY want the audience to get it!”
But Ben, this is SUCH a POWERFUL scene! It alludes to all kinds of bigger
themes in life that we can relate to, which makes it stand out and become
something much bigger in its short space; which we see was all that was
actually needed.
Okay, I see I do need to answer this.
Alright, in Superman, did you not just feel how awkward of
an editing cut that was? Why did
this amazing mood and feeling that this scene brilliantly portrays, all of a
sudden just … stop? Go back and
finish the scene to properly segue to the next scene. THEN add on other things as you see fit.
“But it alludes to all kinds of amazing themes and messages
which make it stand out amongst others and gives it a bigger purpose …”
DID YOU NOT JUST SEE HOW AWKWARD OF AN EDITING CUT THAT
WAS?!
Okay, yes, I see how cool of a shot this fetal position and
countless other shots are. Such as
the brilliant cinematography of perfectly transitioning from third person
observant to first person present, perfectly easing inside of Sandra Bullock’s
helmet to then only hear and see what she does, to then ease back out of her
conscious back to third person to observe her float away, all in one, long,
fluid, Alfonso Cuarón-esk/trademarked shot. It’s darn good cinematography, and I loved it … but you have
to put on your underwear BEFORE you put on your pants, at least most people do,
and I think we all can agree this is something we all should probably be
doing.
So, in Gravity, were
you told about Sandra Bullock, or do you actually know her name, TRULY
UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE’S COMING FROM and CARE about her?
“Well, okay,
the story’s structure isn’t as good as most screenwriters or average people
would say, yes you’re right about that; but the movie as a whole alludes to
bigger themes of life that help to make up for the weaker story which balances the
equilibrium and having the visual effects and cinematography only to serve as
the cherry on top and not so much for overall credibility.”
WERE YOU TOLD ABOUT SANDRA BULLOCK, OR DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW
HER NAME, TRULY UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE’S COMING FROM AND CARE ABOUT HER?!
 |
| "Don't Let Go" |
There’s so much tension created in this story and I can’t
truly experience any of it because of the story’s lack of development,
particularly with the lead, Sandra Bullock. A true testament to how I know this is true is because I
keep saying “Sandra Bullock & George Clooney …” and not “Ryan Stone &
Matt Kowalski”. Now we want to
talk about an Oscar nomination for Bullock and not being surprised if she ACTUALLY
wins?! That’s an entirely whole
new review in and of itself. But
have we completely forgotten about Cate Blanchett? The ONLY contender for the Oscar at the time of Gravity’s
release? The only TRUE emotion I felt in Gravity, 100%, is with Clooney’s character “arc”, if you
want to call it that. In fact,
with as little as Clooney was involved in this story and with all the time
consuming hell Cuarón went through, I wouldn’t be surprised if Clooney demanded
to be written out of the movie quickly.
He does have a writing credit on this project.
I don’t care how artistic, alluding, and deep you are with
your shot selections. Does the
audience know that person A is talking to person B? Does Person A’s mouth sync with the words that are coming
out of it? Do you properly end the
scenes? Or do you JOLT cut from one
scene to the next because as a writer/editor in film school, you were taught to
“get in late and leave early”.
Does the audience PROPERLY know enough about your characters to
want to get behind them and cry when they cry, get into trouble, and lost in
space? Or do you force and stretch
the back-story because you have so many technicalities to deal with in all of
the cinematography and visual effects? Write a sound story first, with solid
characters, AND THEN raise the bar for filmmaking technology wise. Put your underwear on FIRST!
But Ben, the director is examining the human Psyche
and how our role in this massive universe can take its toll on our
existence. This is what makes the
film so much bigger than it is and why it’s so powerful.
Were you paying attention at all to what I just said?! Did you put on your underwear before
you put on your pants? You socks
BEFORE your shoes? BEFORE you
started layering your scenes with all these amazing themes and super cool
shots, do we know the names of your characters? Or did you briefly mention it a couple times (because you’re
so sly with your writing) when you forced it on us? Do we know anything about these characters to care if
they’re going to make it through all these cool shots of avoiding space debris, or floating above a military base, or while in space? “You’re too caught up in layers onion boy that you’re afraid
of your own feelings!” – Donkey, Shrek PROPERLY express your feelings
with a well-written story FIRST and focus on the technical SECOND.
He may be examining the human psyche and how we play our
part in the universe, but I’m not invested enough in this universe he’s created
(pun intended) to care about how amazing of a concept this actually might be! I JUST DON’T CARE enough about the
characters or this world to want to truly experience it all. I was just observing.
Put on your underwear BEFORE you put on your pants.
Come on Ben, it’s a heart clenching film; my palms
were so sweaty by the end. You’re
just being too harsh.
You’ve forgotten, this is an Oscar film. So that means the film critic hat goes
on extra tight and EVERYTHING is examined under a microscope. Cuarón seemed to have thought of
everything anyways with all the technical work that went into this film. It’s the writing of the story that
suffered (which is ALWAYS most important). I wish I could feel the
passion most people do with this film. Maybe if
“Dr. Ryan Stone” wasn’t a name tag but a tangible, complex character, that felt
like a real person who I could get behind, root for, and put my all into, to
feel what she feels and experience what she does, I’d probably feel that same
passion and talk of where it ranks on my list of favorites as its newest
entry. Instead, it was Sandra
Bullock, not Ryan Stone, going through some serious stuff. Stuff I was removed from, observing the
entire experience, and not going through it with her. I wanted a fully fleshed out character, not a nametag, or to
not feel like a showpiece for a celebrity to show off her perfect body. I wanted to get lost in the story with
her, calling her by name, like I did with Chris Gardner.
Gravity is a nice
ride overall … but in no way is it a best picture. It’s got nice little
moments, but the movie as a whole doesn’t work for me as a true cinematic experience, just a decent film. I just hope the film doesn’t take up
more credit than it deserves. For
this is how those more deserving get overlooked and disrespected, like with Ben
Affleck last season.
So now it’s time to move onward to the next stop on the road
to the Oscars!
But before you head out of the house to that next stop, remember, put on some underwear first!
Gravity
Sci-Fi, 91 Minutes, PG-13
Written by: Alfonso Cuarón & Jonas Cuarón, and
George Clooney (collaborator)
Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Cast:
Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, & Ed Harris
Comments
Post a Comment