'Gravity' goes galactic with effects

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

In 'Gravity,' seeing familiar actors is occasionally jarring, but the movie is beautiful visually.

Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney) do some in-orbit repair work in ‘Gravity.’

There has rarely been a more entrancingly eerie opening scene than the one that graces “Gravity,” the new space epic starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock as NASA astronauts who suddenly find themselves unmoored 370 miles above Earth.

The first image is a long shot of Earth as a space shuttle eventually makes its way into the frame, ending up in a close shot. Alfonso Cuarón, filming in 3-D, captures in a single, unbroken take the immensity and deafening soundlessness of space, the slow sweep of orbital motion, the power of blackness. It’s a tour de force sequence to rank alongside anything in “2001,” a film this one clearly references.

But “2001” was ultimately a messianic movie about intergalactic imponderables. “Gravity” is far less pretentious, which is both good and bad. It’s nice for a change to see a space movie that isn’t all hyped up about God and Man and What’s Out There.

The accident that sets “Gravity” in motion is much more mundane. Shards of metal debris from an exploding Russian satellite collide with the Explorer shuttle, whose astronauts have been sent up to repair the Hubble Space Telescope. The only survivors are Bullock’s Ryan Stone, the medical engineer, and Clooney’s Matt Kowalsky, a veteran shuttle commander on the final run of his career.

Cuarón and his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, keep the audience in weightless suspension right along with the astronauts. For most of us, “Gravity” is the closest we will ever get to the real deal. Cuarón is more than a technologist; he has a genuinely poetic feeling for the ways in which motion carries through space.

I only wish the film’s screenplay, co-written by Alfonso Cuarón and Jonas Cuarón, were not so weightless. Granted, it’s tough to come up with anything for these characters to say that, given the immensity of the universe, won’t sound clunky. Still, Matt, who looks like Buzz Lightyear and never met a wisecrack he didn’t like, is a bit much. Perhaps the point is that even the vastness of space is a yawn for people who spend their lives floating through it. If so, that’s pretty depressing.

Ryan is given a back story about the loss of her daughter that feels soap-opera-ish in the extreme. Isn’t it enough that she is running out of oxygen and desperately trying to make her way to the International Space Station in time? Cuarón underestimates our empathy for her predicament. This disconnect between the grandeur of the visuals and the ordinariness of the dialogue is a common problem with science-fiction films. Actually, very little in “Gravity” can technically be called “fiction,” notwithstanding the fact that, as several scientists have already pointed out, the Hubble and the space station operate in entirely different orbits.

I almost wish Cuarón had cast nonactors, or unknown actors, in the lead roles. It’s jarring having movie stars work up their Hollywood histrionics against such a glorious backdrop. None of these arguments should dissuade you from seeing “Gravity,” if only because what’s good about it is so much better than what’s bad. Visually, if not imaginatively, it sends you soaring. Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for intense perilous sequences, some disturbing images, and brief strong language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.