REVIEW: Gravity (2013)

Alfonso Cuarón is back, following 2006’s Children of Men, with another thriller with science fiction elements and a whole series of incredible long takes. Gravity is about two astronauts who get stranded in space and who must fight to survive and get back home. It begins with an almost unbearably loud screeching, an early indication that the film may be primarily one of suspense rather than substance. That said, from the opening shot on, it is a brilliantly made and thoroughly tense film.

A lot has already been written about the film’s technical innovations and about the fact that it is best seen in 3D – I saw it in 3D but soon forgot about it so remain unconvinced – though this misses the point. Gravity is not really about the technology that it took to make it, it is simply about the tension, most of which is brilliantly constructed with the virtuosity expected from Cuarón and his fluid camerawork. His camera floats through space, making for a sublimely immersive and believable experience, spinning and moving upside down to recreate the experience of zero gravity. This is best showcased in the 13-minute long take that begins the film, introducing the characters and their jobs before showing a cataclysmic collision and one astronaut floating helplessly out into space all without cuts. Although it seems as if the entire film has been made with CGI, it remains an impressive example of the “unchained camera”.

Given the CG, the cast achieve an extraordinary amount, especially Sandra Bullock, considering the less than inspiring stimulus that they must have been looking at in real life. The characters are rather lazily drawn by Alfonso and brother Jonás Cuarón’s screenplay, which relies rather too heavily on simplistic characterization. It cares just enough to make Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) likable, but develops them little beyond that. Stone is given a backstory that is intended only to reveal her depressive side and allow her to give up much too quickly so that by the end of the film things can get a bit shrill and tacky (though rather moving) when she finally decides to do her damnedest to survive. This is all intended to be Inspiring and it is easy to see through, but most people will go with it, especially since the rest of the film has been so convincing and suspenseful. In other words, Gravity is a pretty comprehensively clichéd work but so well made that it gets away with it.

The visuals are fantastic as well, with a loving focus on what our planet looks like from space – we see sunrises and Aurora Borealis and we can recognise countries by their outlines. Speeding space debris blasts large satellites and space stations into splintered hunks of metal while astronauts try to grab onto anything that will hold them in place – all done with a lovingly attention to detail that it almost distracts from the often nerve-shredding suspense and rather overblown music. The sound is often kept muted, with huge collisions and explosions scored by low, rumbling bass to mimic the fact that sound is not carried in space – another in a series of little details that pays dividends. However, as a result, Steven Price’s blaring score, loud and shrill, seems all the more counterintuitive, a constant distraction from the much more realistically drawn action. Not that Cuarón doesn’t insert a few off-putting elements of his own – such as one of Ryan’s tears or a Looney Tunes character floating towards the camera – which don’t help much either.

Gravity is far from flawless and is certainly not particularly innovative as a drama, but as far as blockbuster entertainments go, there hasn’t been one so visually arresting, brilliantly made and gripping - except, of course, for Captain Phillips.

REVIEW: The Descendants (2012)

  It has been seven years since Alexander Payne’s last film Sideways and while that film is probably good enough for Payne to hang his hat up forever (especially since he also has Election and About Schmidt to look back on), another will always be welcome. The Descendants is his new film, already a big winner at the Golden Globes and one of the favourites at the Oscars. But does it match up with Payne’s greatest work?

  George Clooney plays Matt King, a wealthy landowner living in Hawaii who works tirelessly at a law firm until an unfortunate accident forces him to re-evaluate and reshape his life. Following a speedboat accident, his wife Elizabeth is in hospital in a coma. It is unlikely that she will come out of it, and King must prepare for the worst as well as reconnect with his two daughters Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (Amara Miller) from whom he has become estranged.

  In a way, The Descendants is typical Alexander Payne material, with a normal, middle-aged guy forced by circumstances beyond his control to reassess his life. The film is full of the bittersweet comedy and pathos that one would expect, though The Descendants might just be Payne’s most humanist work. While Sideways puts Miles and Jack through the wringer in order that they might come out the other end with slightly more wisdom than they had before, The Descendants is much more about a character opening up and seizing what is really valuable in life. Where before Payne may have verged on the misanthropic, here he offers a film about a man rediscovering his priorities in life that is much more conventional than his previous films.

  However, The Descendants is far from the typical feel-good Hollywood of forced smiles and empty, hectoring life lessons, if not in its subject matter, then in its approach. Payne underplays everything, not unlike in Sideways. Where certain scenes would surely be loud and hard to bear if played as Hollywood deems they should be, Payne substitutes silences, gestures and a palpable and infectious love and understanding for his characters. The film can be funny and cynical, but it refuses to either judge or sentimentalise. The film does tug at the heartstrings, but it is the kind of film that does so quietly and with subtlety, sneaking up on you rather than pushing the obvious buttons. Ultimately, it is a slow, somewhat melodic film, one to which it would be doing a disservice to assign basic genre categories and conventions. Through great pacing, brilliant writing and great performances, it is a film that defies its simplistic storyline and its generic trappings, becoming a much more profound, truthful and effective film.

  The Descendants works because it is sincere about what it is telling us. It is also beautifully paced and shot and filled with excellent performances from all the actors, working on what might be the best script in the last few years. It will surely divide audiences as many may find themselves immune to its charms, but as a simple, immersive and touching film with real characters and maybe even with something to take away and apply to your own life, it is hard to beat and might very well end up as the film of the year.    

REVIEW: The Ides of March (2011)

  The Ides of March displays a sense of recent post-Obama disillusionment and largely deals with the loss of a young political advisor’s ideals and the impossibility of making worthwhile change in the current political system. It also pleasingly harks back to the brilliant The Best Man and Advise and Consent.

  Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, press secretary to Governor Mike Morris (played by George Clooney, who also directs), an apparently sincere Democratic and Obama surrogate.  Meyers believes that Morris is the best man to run the country, precisely because he is honest and committed to doing the right thing. However, as the race for a presidential nomination heats up, Meyers’ beliefs and ideals blow up in his face as he comes across dirty secrets and corrupt backroom deals.

  To the wary eye, trained on Armando Iannucci’s scathing and hilarious The Thick of It and its spin-off In The Loop, Meyers’ idealism seems entirely naïve and Gosling’s performance slightly unbelievable. The Ides of March initially seems like it might be a silly though sincere attempt to persuade a jaded audience that politics is good and that it works. Which is why it is really rather effective when it becomes a bleak movie about the impossibility of good coming from within the current system. Though it doesn’t go to the extremes of Iannucci, who can get a bit depressing at his most powerful, The Ides of March is surprisingly glum, especially for a Hollywood movie, and even has moments of wry satire. Unlike The Rum Diary, there is no third-act redemption to undercut the power of its critique.

  That said, it remains a Hollywood movie. The film is saddled with a few creaky plot manoeuvres and constantly threatens to wrong-foot itself, most awkwardly in the figure of Evan Rachel Wood. Her character becomes little more than a plot point after a rather good start, something the film’s odd conclusion seems to apologize for. At the film’s end, an intern is introduced with the aim of exposing their casual exploitation during a political campaign. This is an odd criticism in a film that deals with much more serious forms of corruption and much more so in a film that also exploits the intern to develop its convoluted plot.

  Another problem lies in the film’s rather disappointing move from sober political drama into a somewhat overblown political thriller. After a confident though befuddled beginning, Gosling reverts to The Driver and is given to brooding and walking down corridors with a stone face. The thriller elements are what threaten a descent into silliness, which, admittedly, the film does manage to largely avoid. However, it is hard to believe that politics can be this exciting and devious in the real world. Iannucci gets away with it because he uses exaggeration for the purposes of comedy. A seemingly realistic film like The Ides of March can’t help but look over the top if it exaggerates.

  It is a mark of a film having worked when, if it stumbles, you are genuinely worried for it. The Ides of March, despite its flaws, manages to create enough good will to see it through to the end. Though it may be unsure about what tone to take, it remains a surprisingly biting, if not angry, film with mostly great performances, especially Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman. As well as that, it has a point to make and, for once, it makes it well.