WORDS: Eva Short

I couldn’t help but wrinkle my nose in distaste as I was handed a pair of 3D glasses on my way in to Alfonso Cuaron’s latest sci-fi offering Gravity. Pinching the thick, black plastic frames gingerly between two fingers, I felt my expectations of the film drop dramatically. I’ll say in unequivocal terms that I detest 3D – it’s a tacky gimmick that provides a vague dizzying effect and contributes absolutely nothing else to the cinematic experience. Gravity has forced me to eat my words. This claustrophobic, thrilling magnum opus of floating camerawork and breathtaking cinematography is only strengthened by the 3D effects. Unable to be contained within the boundaries of a cinema screen, IMAX 3D allows this films to spill out and envelop its audience in the tense drama that pervades.

Sandra Bullock plays medical engineer and space-novice Dr. Ryan Stone to George Clooney’s veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski. The two are dispatched by NASA, along with others, on a mission to adjust one of Earth’s many satellites in a way that is never specified to us, when, in a dramatic turn, debris starts to hurtle towards the astronautical crew, Bullock and Clooney find themselves stranded in the vast abyss of space trying to make their way back to Earth. Many were sceptical about this casting – they’re not names one expects in a sci-fi. Audiences have grown accustomed to seeing Bullock talking too fast in various rom-coms opposite vapid and blandly handsome co-stars (looking at you, Ryan Reynolds), and are not used to seeing George Clooney on the presumption that he is off somewhere on the Côte d’Azur having a light-hearted champagne fight with swimsuit models. It is particularly strange, as Bullock has even expressed, that Cuaron decided to cast a female lead in a genre of film that is arguably traditionally masculine. All these curiosities, however, succeed beautifully – Clooney and Bullock have a pleasant dynamic that works well within the context of the film. Their relationship occasionally provides a brief reprieve from the almost suffocating atmosphere without falling into sentimentality. The success of this casting could also be down to the fact that while in many ways Gravity draws on traditional science fiction tropes, the film more so concerns the psychological effects of catastrophe than it does the trials and tribulations of deep space. Apollo 13 fans may be disappointed at the relative lack of heavy, technical astronautical jargon that normally characterises space features.

My sole quibble – that is, the closest thing I have to a mark against the film – is the dialogue. At times patchy and prone to cliché, there are moments where some hollow lines threaten to disrupt the film’s flow. One fact must be made clear above all else though – while the aforementioned aspects are worth mentioning, they’re rendered irrelevant; Gravity is less a film and more an experience, a constant and well executed engagement with all the senses.

Masterful CGI effects and cinematography bring us a visual experience that needs to be seen to be believed – with stunning gradients and horizons that stretch so far back the audiences would almost risk tumbling into them. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki cannot be faulted in his rendering of the stratosphere. This is probably helped by the well-established rapport he has with Alfonso Cuaron after working with him on films such as Y Tu Mama Tambien and Children of Men. In sound, British film composer Steven Price takes plenty of risks with the soundtrack, all of which pay off. Most notably, there is a constant sound of a heartbeat, presumably meant to be Sandra Bullock’s that also rings in the ears of spectators and echoes their own quickening paces.

I have always maintained that it is a crime to raise people’s expectations to unattainable heights, as this is often the mother of disappointment. That being said, it is hard to overstate Gravity – do not be afraid to believe the hype.