[…] The movie is almost a metaphorical journey. Outer space is a metaphor for the …read more […]

We all know that was the part I related least to and hated the most. It took me out of the movie and made the character feel disingenuous and schmaltzy. Additionally, it overtly feminized a character who didn't NEED to be defined by being "a mom," though somehow the studio decided that made more sense than the earlier draft's "single woman with a dog at home," which both felt more real and more relateable (plus adding some nice layers to the "radio call" where she hears a dog in the background). The earlier "small story" worked for me, but the chosen one did absolutely nothing, and ruined my experience of the film. It took me out of it every time she said something weepy about her daughter; I was supposed to (somehow) believe that this otherwise kickass lady who has the balls to fly into space and escape from seriously messed up circumstances gets all teary-eyed over some absent kid? Yeah, next time Tom Cruise cries about his wife stuck at home, or Liam Neeson starts bawling and trying to kill himself in the middle of TAKEN Part 479, I MIGHT start believing it. Here, it felt degrading, essentialist, and reductive, and contributed to ruining my experience. I think "small stories" and "personal stories" are vital in action films (obviously), but I think choosing - carefully - ones that don't alienate your audience or have critics complaining that your dialogue is ridiculous (or wondering how this otherwise seemingly rom-com character made it into space) is equally as important.

Miranda, there were several film critics who called out the 'small story' in Gravity as feeling contrived, manipulative, and as you suggest "ridiculous". As far as I'm concerned, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' when it comes to an individual's experience of a story, so straight off I would say you, like them, have every right to your thoughts and feelings. As I've lived with the movie, I've come to appreciate the 'small story' more. Yes, it's an easy call to give a Protagonist a death in their background to create sympathy, give them a starting point for their metamorphosis, etc. But that in and of itself ought not negate the potential value of this particular narrative element or else what would we do with all the orphan stories out there such as The Wizard of Oz, The Silence of the Lambs, Harry Potter, and so on, or grieving parent stories like The Accidental Tourist or Ordinary People? One final point: Being a parent myself, I would argue the fear of losing one's child in a fundamental way transcends gender, the baseline horror of that very idea of loss is an assault on the psyche of parents, male or female. So while one can certainly make the argument Gravity's 'small story' did in fact turn Stone's character into a "mom," both literally and psychologically, I think it's also possible to argue that it made her a "parent" at least in the experience of some viewers, myself included (that is I projected my own fears onto her experience). I'm curious myself to see where this week's analysis takes us, that's why I was interested in this idea of separating out the 'small story' in Gravity in the first place. More to come.

I teach screenwriting at the MA level. After Christmas this year, rather than start straight into dissecting their thesis scripts, I decided we’d ease in by watching a screener of “Gravity” I’d gotten hold of. The idea was that the whole planet had seen the film on the big screen and most likely in 3D. It was a visual spectacle for the ages and I was curious how much that might be clouding people’s perceptions as to how good a film it actually was. So we watched it on our lovely but modest big screen TV in class and examined portions of the script. Virtually everyone thought, minus the spectacle, cracks definitely showed. They felt the character arc was too simplistic and unconvincing. Like Miranda, once Stone started talking to her dead daughter, it was all too manipulative and smacked of Hollywood schmaltz. Looking at those segments of the script they thought it played even worse on paper. A spirited debate broke out, as often happens. The majority felt that Stone being a woman with dog at home and simply wanting to survive would have been compelling enough, no need for the tacked on manipulation. The scene with the radio is humanizing and feels real. Monologues to one’s dead daughter does not. If one had to have the dead daughter, they felt having the Stone character die in the end and “join” her daughter would have made for the more interesting human drama. Granted, this is a European class of students and that would have definitely driven the story into more arthouse territory. The Hollywood powers-that-be would never sign off on Stone dying, unless perhaps she saved the planet in the process. And even then… The whole talking out loud thing is a purely cinematic device that takes us out of the story. Like the class and Miranda, it completely threw me out of the film and my ultimate feelings about “Gravity” were a shrug of the shoulders. If you wanted to release “Gravity” as a summer film, bravo. I can take simple and entertaining on that level. But putting it in the conversation as an awards caliber film is a bit laughable in my opinion – just a reward for being in the right club and doing massive box office. Is it better than “Fruitvale Station,” which didn’t even make the Best Film cut? You want to talk dealing with a child’s death in human and relatable fashion – go no further than last year’s foreign Oscar nominee “Broken Circle Breakdown,” which, in its own way, might actually be even more cinematically impressive than “Gravity.“

I weigh in with Miranda and Mainshane. My brother bought the bluray and we watched it on his uber huge flatscreen. My sister-in-law and I fell asleep for some of it then when discussing it the next day agreed we had enough of Sandra Bullock bouncing off things within the first 10 minutes of bouncing. 97% on RT? "heartachingly tender" the Telegraph review. I didn't get it. And the whole dead kid plot felt tacked on to me and when I heard it my inner thought was "oh, please" as in "you've got to be kidding". If you hadn't mentioned it was a "metaphorical journey" I never would have guessed and I don't think you should have to explain a film. Hmm. Til today I thought maybe it was just me.

Movies that simply go for the CGI and action get panned for lacking story and character. Now, a film with ground-breaking effects and intense action gets panned for trying to do both... Here's the thing for me: The dialogue between Matt and Ryan, I think, is done exactly as it should have been done. Nearly every line Matt has is a question for Stone. This is a technique EMTs will use with people in shock and on that psychiatrists will use to get their patient to open up. I saw this film on the large 3-D scene and never felt a gap in the ride because of this. This story to me was never about a first time astronaut caught in a deadly storm of space debris. To me the whole cinematic ruse was to cover up a story about a person who has lost their way since the loss of their child and needed to find away to reconnect to her life. So, in short, the dialogue was not superficial to me and was, I think, necessary to tell a bigger story than simply lost in space, how do I get back?

It seems the naysayers are the over-analyzers. I for one, simply enjoyed the film. I didn't really even notice the red shoe internal small story. I think it operates on a subconscious level. Overall the film is highly compelling and successful in every way. For those who have a problem with, it's their opinion. But you have to take pause to realize, this was successful on every level. If for no other reason, that makes this film worth consideration. High placed opinions can not diminish success. More likely, they diminish those with the opinions as close minded.

Movies have multiple layers going on: Visuals, Dialogue, Audio, Themes, Motifs, Talismans, Subplots, and on and on. Sometimes the filmmakers are intentional in doing something. Sometimes the filmmakers may have no idea they have 'included' this or that story element. The latter speaks to the magic of the process. It also speaks to the fact that every viewer brings their OWN life experience to every story. They will 'see' things other viewers don't. So the red shoe may not have made a conscious impact on you, Jon. Maybe it was something that did, as you note, have a subconscious influence. Or some people would make zero connection with it. The fact is, its inclusion in the story was intentional witness the fact the red shoe business is in the script, learned by Sandra Bullock and delivered in such a way it made it through the final edit process. There are likely other things in the movie that happened through the magic of filmmaking. And boy, you are right about the movie being successful - with box office revenues, film critics and big awards. But I'm totally fine with people who didn't like the movie or even despised the small story. As Paul Simon sang, "One man's ceiling is another man's floor." My bottom line about this series is to drive home the importance of every script, no matter how big the plot, must have a compelling 'small' story that works with and supports the plot, something which script readers and eventually movie viewers can related emotionally.