"Gravity" Might Make You Puke...in a Good Way.

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, written by Cuarón and Jonás Cuarón, starring Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, and Ed Harris - Rated PG-13

 

This might not look like much of anything, but this is a Darth Vader.  That's him hurtling through space after the Death Star blew up.  Thought it was fitting...



Writer-director Alfonso Cuarón caught my attention with Children of Men, my favorite film of 2006. That criminally under-watched film was science fiction at its best: realistic, suspenseful, and meaningful. Also, I was beyond impressed with Cuarón’s complicated long takes. These takes, which go on for minutes with intricate stunt work happening throughout, are not just gimmicks; they immerse you in the film. You almost have to hold your breath as you watch a film like that, which makes Cuarón the perfect director for a film like Gravity.

Gravity, one of the most effective films I’ve seen in recent memory, is a great vehicle for Cuarón because it’s basically a survival story set in outer space. And the best way to present a survival story is to make the audience feel like they are part of it.

Without giving away too many details (not that the previews haven’t set the film up anyway), Gravity is about newbie astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and her disastrous first mission working on the Hubble Telescope. The film is a series of (nearly literally) breathtaking and often beautiful events as Ryan tries to survive.

The experience of the film overshadows any story, but that doesn’t mean it’s an ineffective or trivial plot.  The film is about more than just survival.  As with most serious sci-fi films, there are undertones and themes at work.  The most dominant theme of Gravity involves rebirth after a tragedy.  There is also religious imagery scattered throughout, so the film leaves you with something to think about after you watch it, which is much more important than simply looking and sounding pretty.

Themes about survival, religion, and moving on are great, but it is important to actually care about the characters, too.  Gravity, through minimal background information and great performances, makes you care about the two main characters even though we only know them as they go through an extreme situation.  Even though most of the film is about getting problem after problem solved, I still found myself connected with Sandra Bullock’s character.  She is identifiable to the audience because she is new to space.  She is not all that calm and collected at the beginning, much like most of us would be if on our first trip.  More than that, Bullock is a likable presence.  She’s never annoying, and her reactions to the disaster around her felt real.  This is not the loud performance that won her an Oscar for The Blind Side.  It is simply her best performance.

George Clooney is the only other character that we get to see (or hear) for more than a few seconds.  While he’s not breaking new ground, there’s no one better to play the cool, collected astronaut who treats the dire circumstances with a matter-of-fact certainty.  He’s basically just being George Clooney in space, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It was also great to hear Ed Harris as the voice of NASA command.  It brought back memories of Apollo 13, and Ed Harris just sounds like someone who should be working the radio at NASA.

Now on to what is getting Gravity all of its praise: the experience.  First off, this is one amazing film, visually speaking.  Cuarón has said that roughly ninety percent of the film is computer-generated, which is remarkable.  I’m not saying you’ll ever think this was actually shot in outer space; you might forget that every now and then, though.  At no point did I feel like I was watching some overly animated action film.  When things explode or break apart, it is incredibly detailed.  The fact that hardly anything goes “BOOM” adds to the beauty of it.  Since the film takes place in outer space, which has no oxygen through which sound can travel, the film has to rely on great visuals, slight vibration noise, and a musical score.  It all comes together to create perfectly tense moments.

Gravity is more about making you feel like you’re there than it is about making you say, “Wow.”  I watched it in IMAX 3D, and I feel confident saying that is the optimal way to see this.  The 3D actually matters in this film, as a sense of distance and depth is integral to the struggle.  (And just when I had given up on 3D…curse you, Cuarón!)  But the large screen, dizzying camera movements, lack of gravity, and the 3D can be a recipe for an upset stomach.  I heard someone a few rows away fight off vomiting for a few minutes, and I felt my stomach do a flip or two during some scenes.  Normally, that would be a red flag (and I’m sure it still is for many people), but that reaction is not accidental.  When that person near me started to retch, it was during a moment in which Sandra Bullock’s character was fighting the same urge.  If that’s not placing you in the film, I don’t know what is.  There are certainly more pleasant ways to involve the audience, but it’s still effective.  (For the record, the person was fine, and it sounded like dry heaves more than anything.)  None of this is to say that the film cannot be enjoyed in regular theaters.  Any sci-fi fan should check this out however they can.  It’s just that the IMAX experience is pretty extreme.  A truly tense film will be tense no matter the screen size or 3D.

Any film that attempts to put you through a harrowing experience and accomplishes that gets my highest marks.  I always feel stupid when I praise a film this highly, though.  The cruel internet film culture demands that anything that is critically or publicly acclaimed (or both, as is the case with Gravity) must be nitpicked to the point that a person must be ignorant to flat out love a movie.  I still have a love of film, despite the toxic online environment surrounding the culture.  A lot of the vitriol is from fans of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Apparently, you can’t love a film set in space unless you also make it clear that it sucks compared to 2001.  I like Kubrick’s film, and I still find it to be a beautiful and impressive experience.  Is Gravity better?  I don’t know.  It’s different, that’s for sure.  They are not attempting to do the same thing, so I find the comparison moot.  As for the technical side of the films, both are impressive, and I imagine both will influence film for years to come.  2001 influenced so many filmmakers that I find it hard to imagine Gravity will have the same effect, but who cares?  I just need to stay away from the IMDb boards…

Regardless of all that, the impressive work of Cuarón is hard to deny.  It’s unfortunate that he chose a project so time consuming, but it was worth the wait.  I just hope he makes something a little simpler next time so I’ll have a new film to watch in less than five years.  All of his work has paid off, though.  If it wasn’t clear by now, Cuarón has definitely solidified his role as a premiere director, and he should be mentioned quite often during the upcoming awards season.

Cuarón deserves so much praise because he has made a film that is harrowing, breathtaking (breath-holding, I should say), sickening, and entertaining.  Gravity will put you through an experience, and you’ll be glad you went through it.

"Demolition Man": Product Placement Done Right

I have been eagerly anticipating Morgan Spurlock’s latest documentary about product placement in movies. I live in what is politely known as a small market (or no market at all if I’m honest) so I have not had a chance to see the film yet. But the discussion about product placement has always intrigued me. Is it inherently bad for film? Is there a time and place for it in film? For the record, I’m cool with product placement. I fall into the category of people that actually like it because it makes a movie seem more realistic because, let’s face it, we are surrounded by ads in our everyday lives. I didn’t think I had anything to write about the situation since I was so blasé. But then I revisited Demolition Man and realized that there was definitely something to say about all of this.

First off, let’s get into the mindless fun that is Demolition Man. I feel the need to admit that I first watched the 1993 movie when I was nine years old. In other words, I’m a lifelong fan because this movie left a stamp on me that no thoughtful criticism can erase. Anyway, I want to write about the ridiculous awesomeness of the film before I delve into the product placement issue.

Demolition Man is awesomely stupid. (There will be SPOILERS throughout for this film, by the way.) The whole setup of the film, that violent criminals are sent to a “cryo-prison” to be frozen until the future is a delightfully idiotic plot point. Let’s take the worst of our society and freeze them so they can terrorize future generations. Who really thought this was a good idea? Also, who cares? It happened.

Whatever. So John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) is wrongfully frozen along with the hammy villain Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) after an explosion in a violence ridden 1996 Los Angeles. They are both “thawed out” in 2032 San Angeles, a society in which violence (and all physical contact for that matter) has been outlawed, along with meat, alcohol, salt, cussing, and anything else that is “bad” for you. This fascist setup is completely implausible, but let’s go with it. It’s okay to accept the setup of this film because it’s one of the last classic action films of recent years. Demolition Man came out at a time when an action movie could be over the top without blatantly letting the audience in on the joke.

Stallone gets to spout off one-liners and Snipes to gets to guffaw at the very idea of being evil. These elements could only work today if the filmmakers made the movie so over the top that the film could only be a joke or if they acknowledged the audience multiple times. But 90s action movies were great in that they could be over the top without feeling guilty about it. Maybe this is nostalgia speaking, but I really wish action movies were still that simple.

Demolition Man is definitely one of those “future” movies, though. There are plenty of comedic elements that still make me laugh. The machine that tracks cussing is great. The new terminology everyone uses is hilarious. The use of “boggle” for “problem”; “tick tocks” for “minutes”; “joy joy” for “happy.” The air high-fives were a nice touch, and who can forget the three seashells? I still have to sit and contemplate that infernal riddle after every viewing.

Then there are the really dumb elements. Why does a museum keep a full armory of guns, let alone copious amounts of ammo? Did they not see the possible security problems? For God’s sake, they have a functional Civil War-era cannon in that museum! And how about the “scraps,” the underground starving ruffians? Yeah, they are so hungry, which is why they have food stands that sell “rat burgers” and beer. They even have enough surplus food to have beer nuts on the pub tables down there! Watch it again if you don’t believe me. You can even see that freedom fighter Edgar Friendly (Denis Leary) snatch a handful at one point.

Okay, okay, my love is obvious and I could honestly go on for at least another thousand words, but I’ll get to the point. “Demolition Man” actually has a lot to say about product placement if you give it a lot more thought than it deserves. First off, the future is almost completely devoid of advertising. There are no logos on clothing. The cars are all kind of plain and were not cars that you could actually buy in the present. (Unlike Steve Buscemi’s truck in The Island, for example, which was available to purchase when that film was released.) All of the video screens are provided by the fake company “FiberOps.” There is not a billboard in sight. In short, advertising is not necessary in this utopian future.

At this point those of you who have seen the film are shaking your heads and yelling, “Taco Bell!” I know, the fast food chain Taco Bell is actually part of the plot of Demolition Man. That is definitely product placement. But it’s product placement that says something. Taco Bell is not just a restaurant in the future…it is “the” restaurant in the future. As 1990s loving Lenina Huxley (Sandra Bullock) states, “Taco Bell won the franchise wars.” Hmm, franchise wars or the bidding war? Either way, in the world of the film, Taco Bell does not advertise. Sure, we the audience have to suffer through a strange Taco Bell commercial in which 1990s MTV dude Dan Cortes inexplicably cameos as a jingle singing pianist, but the characters never see a commercial.

Speaking of jingle singing, Demolition Man has more up its sleeve than just a clever excuse to have the characters eat at Taco Bell. It turns out that in the future popular music (as well as musical attention spans, apparently) has gone extinct. Everyone just listens to old commercial jingles. Brilliant! It fits the bland future’s simplistic nature while also giving the film an excuse to promote some products.

Which brings me to the actual advertisements in the film. Just because there are no current ads in the future does not mean they are nonexistent. Huxley loves the past, which means she loves ads. Some of the first ads we see are in her retro office and home. Those jingles are all from the past. Demolition Man represents a world that is above advertising to the point that it is only used for entertainment. The signs in Huxley’s office and home aren’t selling anything. Who would be the audience for that (ignoring the actual audience watching the film, obviously). And the jingles? Some of the products would actually be outlawed. I know some people would question the meat value of Armour hot dogs, but the company claims they are meat and meat has been banned in San Angeles. What good are ads for an illegal product? When was the last time you saw an ad promoting heroin in the present?

There are more ads in the film, but they are underground with the scraps, literally beneath the rest of humanity. The scraps are a poor group, but they still have enough electricity to power up their Bud Light neon sign. They have also painstakingly kept a 1970 Oldsmobile in tiptop condition and Pennzoil helped out a bit since a sign for the company is featured in the background. Strangely enough, it’s the Olds that melds the advertising of both worlds. When Huxley and Spartan burst above ground in the car to give chase to Phoenix they find themselves in the middle of a…you guessed it: Oldsmobile dealership. A dealership may not be an ad but it does prove that there are still competitive car companies and competition means advertising. We don’t see it, but it has to be there.

I’m not claiming that Demolition Man is without its corporate influence. It obviously is. But it is the rare movie that understands the necessity of product placement and plays around with that fact. What’s most impressive is that the film doesn’t get meta about it. The filmmakers didn’t have the opportunity to be meta back then since that new subgenre of film didn’t exist yet. Instead, they had to find a way to use product placement in an interesting way. That deserves a bit of credit. Just compare this film to other futuristic films. Minority Report is great but that film is swarming with product placement. Hell, at one point Tom Cruise goes to a mall to hide out. And how about the holy grail of futuristic films: Blade Runner? Coca-cola, anyone?

Looking back, Demolition Man may not be a classic example of an action sci-fi film. It may not even be a “good” movie. But when it comes to product placement, the filmmakers made it work in efficient and amusing ways. Nostalgia makes the film a classic in my eyes, but the film’s treatment of product placement deserves some attention no matter your opinion of the film itself. But give it a try anyway, because it’s a very fun movie…even if you hate Taco Bell.


Random Thoughts…because I just have more to comment on.

Jack Black is in this in one of his “blink or you’ll miss it” 90s roles.

Aren’t the names great? Spartan, Phoenix, Friendly. Do they mean anything? Maybe, but who cares?

Another product placement: As soon as Spartan thaws out, one of the first things he asks for is a “Marlboro.” Not a cigarette, but a specific brand. What a Neanderthal.

The film itself isn’t meta by today’s standards, but it is interesting how Huxley serves as the audience. I still laugh every time when it gets to the scene in which she exclaims how great it was when Spartan paused to make a “glib remark” before he killed a scrap.

I loved how Benjamin Bratt, the quintessential future man, was so easily turned to the dark side of advertising and decadence. In one scene he’s disgusted. In the next, you can’t tell him apart from a side performer like Jesse “The Body” Ventura.

And finally, Friendly, that future man with a past sensibility, gives a rant in which he mentions Jell-O and Playboy. How fitting than outcast should mention brand names.