Gravity merits reputation as a must-see film

is a personal philosophy of mine that films exist for the purpose of entertainment above all else. They are meant to present engaging stories and characters through a visual means. While they may serve some ambiguous “greater” purpose — be it education, art, enlightenment, what have you — films themselves are meant to be entertaining. Consequently, they don’t necessarily have to make perfect sense. Flaws in realism, storytelling, acting and the like are only detriments to the film when they fundamentally detract from the ability of the film to tell an interesting story. In this respect, I feel like many people are missing the point of Gravity.

It’s not often that I’m forced to criticize a film’s reception more than the film itself, but in the case of Gravity, something simply has to be said. Many critics of the film seem to be under the impression that Gravity is a scientific documentary; sadly, no matter how much they may like for it to be, this just isn’t the case. The film, fundamentally, is a character drama, with elements of a survival horror mixed in. Much of the film’s entertainment, therefore, stems from the character’s personal growth, their struggles and how they emotionally cope with horrible situations. However, the film made one critical error: It set itself in space on actually existing structures. With the film so based in realism, it was only a matter of time before the nitpickers set in. And, to no one’s great surprise, Gravity has drawn criticism from general audiences and scientists alike for its “scientific inaccuracies.” Such criticisms claim that specific events in the film are impossible according to both physical laws and the placement of certain locations in space.

To these critics, I pose this question: Why does it matter?

Gravity tells the story of Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), who serves her first mission on the Space Shuttle Explorer accompanied by veteran pilot Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and a crew of other astronauts; as these “other astronauts” have the misfortune of not being specifically named in this review, their story clearly doesn’t end well. While servicing the Hubble Space Telescope, a field of debris from a Russian Missile strike bombards their ship, leaving it defunct, and most of the crew dead. The survivors: Stone and Kowalski. Their ship unserviceable, communications gone and their crew dead, the two must carefully navigate space in order to return home; simultaneously, a doomsday clock looms: The debris will soon complete an orbit of the Earth. If it circles back and hits them again, they will surely die.

Now, the film, by its nature, has to invest a good amount of itself in the astronauts’ journey back to Earth can only be realized through the manipulation of physical laws and their outer-space environment. Admittedly, much of what occurs in the film is impossible; the film features the characters traveling to various spacecraft and structures in orbit around the Earth, including multiple space stations. And, also admittedly, these structures are so far apart from each other and at such drastically different orbital elevations, that achieving such a feat in real life would be utterly impossible. Such impossibilities are but a fraction of the criticism this film has drawn.

And again I question: Why does it matter? How does the impossibility of the character’s actions detract from the film?

Personally, I don’t feel that these inconsistencies matter much because, at its core, this film is not about the science. It isn’t a guide on how to survive being stranded in space, and it certainly isn’t an in-depth look at how science allows astronauts to navigate space. It’s about the characters and their emotional growth. It’s about how tragedy and hopelessness eat away at people following traumatic occurrences. It’s about how people manage to rise in the face of horrible tragedy. Specifically how the characters work their way through their predicament isn’t particularly important; rather, the film places much more emphasis based on how the journey affects them rather than the journey itself.

Also, the film features George Clooney as a veteran astronaut. Science is clearly in the backseat.

Speaking of George Clooney, both his and Sandra Bullock’s performances in this film are stunning. In a film featuring, for the most part, only two characters, the chemistry between the pair has to be extremely strong if the characters are going to sustain the film. Fortunately, Gravity does this quite well; the characters have very distinct personalities, which manage to complement each other perfectly. When they talk to each other, their characters feel like real people. As their discussions peel back the layers of their respective characters, both characters prove to be some of the most well put-together and multidimensional in recent cinema.

In terms of imagery and cinematography, the film is absolutely astounding. The film was clearly made to be seen in IMAX, and it shows. The steady camera and panoramic shots of space really manage to capture both the beauty of the environments but also the vastness and emptiness of the location. In a survival drama like this, one of the most important feelings to elicit is that of being utterly alone; by being alone, the characters must rely on themselves, as there is no one and nothing to save them, making the drama all the more poignant and the stakes of every action so much higher. Gravity captures this emotion in spades; each breathtakingly beautiful shot, from the emptiness of space to the glowing Earth before them, will keep audiences entrenched in the film’s calm, yet desperate atmosphere throughout the entirety of the film.

The film does, though, have a few problems, even disregarding scientific inaccuracies. At only about 90 minutes long, it’s pretty short for a movie — at least by modern standards. The shortness itself isn’t a problem as, in terms of storytelling, the film is exactly as long as it needs to be; however, if you want to see the film in IMAX 3D, as I did, the high price point may drive you to spend your money on a longer experience. Additionally, as good as the chemistry between the characters is, it doesn’t change the fact that they are played by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. That’s the biggest risk of running the film with such seasoned actors. As excellent as his performance is, I look at Clooney’s character, and all I can see is George Clooney. It’s a similar phenomenon which happens to many well-known actors; Schwarzenegger is always Schwarzenegger, no matter his role, and the same is true for both Clooney and Bullock. However, while this phenomenon does draw one out of the film somewhat, the actors’ chemistry and the dramatic writing in the film more than make up for it.

In all, so long as one goes into the film with an open mind, Gravity is a dramatic, emotional movie that will keep audiences hooked through its last scene. Despite some scientific inaccuracies, the film manages to succeed on the level that a film should: It entertains. While Gravity may not pass as a science textbook, it definitely passes as a must-see film.

Overall Rating: 4/5