... And I'll be 35.
It's supposed to be some sort of a milestone, right? The big Three-Five. Time for a mid-life crisis. An age of reflection and celebration of some achievement.
And I don't feel anything different than I did last night. Or last week. Or last year.
I suppose it's time for a reflection - what have I accomplished?
I have a steady paying job.
I have a degree that's kept me employable.
I'm a decent human being.
Yeah.. That pretty much sums it all up - and it's enough, I guess?
Except it doesn't feel like it's enough. Maybe I'm being unrealistic in my expectations.
I've been fantasizing about getting a tattoo, the last couple of months, but as usual, I've fallen behind on actually following through with it. I even have a design in mind (FINALLY) - something symbolic of my personal belief system. Yet, it feels too nerdy and pretentious.
I want something representing the chaos inside me. And a reminder to myself that there's no point trying to control everything in life - because there are too many variables that have brought me to where I am right now.
And what better to represent this, than a Lorenz Attractor?
So, why do I not have the tattoo already?
Is it the expected pain, that I want to avoid? Maybe.
Or is it the fear of committing to something - even if it is as simple as ink on my body?
It's hard to tell. Maybe it's both.
Looking at me, you'd probably not realize this, but beneath the apparently calm exterior, right now, a guy is freaking out, hyperventilating and silently screaming in frustrating dread.
No specifics. Not that I'm hiding, but who needs details anyway?
The second bloodwork report (of the week) comes in tomorrow.
And it will effectively tell my doctor (and me of course), if my current ailment is just a minor thing or a chronic bedfellow I'll have to live with the rest of my life. With a lifetime of careful monitoring and medical regimen.
I'm trying not to sound so melodramatic, but it's hard to express verbally, the roiling waves of worry inside my psyche, without that bit of sensationalized prose.
I guess I need to indulge my drama queen side occasionally after all.
I don't mind the needles. To be honest, I HATE needles, but with the routine of the past year, I'm gradually growing accustomed to them. From a crippling phobia, they've turned into a temporary nuisance, that can be borne with a grimace and some grudging acceptance.
What really scares the bejeezus out of me is the whole WebMD-fueled hypochondriac paranoia about the possible ramifications of a bad-case-scenario bloodwork report. Some serious conditions which could potentially affect the quality of life.
I'm normally an abjectly apathetic person, with an unhealthy disregard for caring about myself (and others, I suppose), but this has been quite the jarring wakeup call. Whatever the diagnosis, I need to get the fuck off my butt and shape up.
Start eating healthier.
Exercise
Lead an active lifestyle
Walk. Or better yet, run.
Get started on that damn bucket list.
Do stuff to be happy.
It's amazing how things like death and disease make you appreciate life more. Nothing like a jolt of hard-hitting negativity to make you crave the positives in life.
No more c'est la vie. No more ennui. No more of that nihilistic bullshit.
So much for THAT resolution. Start a blog I'd write in regularly?
Hah!
I knew I'd never keep my New Years' Resolutions anyway, so I guess it makes sense that I don't do that stuff.
Which really makes me wonder whatever made me think a 30th Birthday Resolution would work. A rare burst of optimism and wistful thinking in my otherwise apathetic world, perhaps.
What the hell was I smoking? (Nothing, really.)
So, as a means of keeping the blog alive (in a manner of speaking), we're putting it on artificial life support systems, hoping there's no DNR form signed (I've watched too much Grey's Anatomy, so bear with me).
Now comes the awkward textual silence. The one where the blog's waiting for something to be said, while yours truly has no idea whatsoever what's the appropriate thing to say. There's something terribly painful about forced writings. Writer I'm not, but I suppose this is what writers' block feels like. A frustrating phase where nothing interesting comes to mind.
But fear not, for here comes BSMan! Part of my education, training and experiences have prepared me for moments like this - make shit up as you go along. (Hey! We've made it to the third paragraph already! w00t!).
So, what's goin' on?
Bloody nothing. Nothing interesting anyway.
It's been three weeks into 2014 and the only thing I have done that feels useful, was attending a 10-day technical workshop in my area of interest.
Oh, and finally deciding firmly to get my ass out of my comfort zone and seriously consider changing my career path. If not moving away from academia towards industry, I now want to at least move to another institution, where my efforts would be appreciated, and hopefully rewarded.
Oh, and just yesterday, one of the two classes I taught last semester, got 100% result in my subject. Granted the question paper was rather easy, but considering just how much the kids were complaining all semester about the subject, and that there are no failures in the subject I taught, I'm pleased as punch. There's to be that obligatory pat on the back and handing over of some tacky trophy - or some equally empty gesture, but that's for later. I will try not to let those cynical thoughts mar my cheerful day.
That's all for now, I suppose. I guess I should that other Oz for reminding me I need to update my blog. Even though he doesn't know (at this point of time anyway) that I maintain a blog (or three).
As the Von Trapp kids are bound to sing,
So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye..
For now.
... And knowing that your actions contributed to it, even if in a very tiny way?
(Reposted from LiveJournal)
Christmas 2013 saw me joining (for the first time) my cousins and an assortment of uncles and aunts in their recent tradition of visiting the Gurukula Vidyapeetha Ashram, a Government-run orphanage-school, near Kengeri, in Bangalore. Tucked away near the satellite town, about a mile from the noisy Mysore Road, is this tiny institution, with a couple of old buildings, a large shed-like structure and a tiny playing field with a few trees around. Any average Indian, on a brief glance at the buildings, would instantly peg it as a typical Government-run educational institution, with all the red tape and neglect that comes along with the mantle. And that wouldn't really be very harsh a judgment either.
The orphanage is home to around 200 kids, ages ranging from around 5 to 20. Poor kids who were abandoned elsewhere, living together, on whatever meager sustenance trickles through to them, without complaints. Kids of all heights and ages, cheerful and smiling at the visitors.
Every year, on the 25th of December, a group of uncles, aunts and cousins have been gathering there, the last few years. It has become an annual tradition, after one uncle passed away. To be honest, I can't remember if it was his birthday or if it was his wedding anniversary (I think it might be), but it doesn't really matter, does it? The bunch of folk (and friends who volunteer) gather there at the Ashram every Christmas day, and everyone contributes something - be it food, some essentials, cookies or chocolate, or just service, and spend the day with the kids there, having fun.
This year, I joined the group for the first time, and I can honestly say I was glad to get out of my shell of apathetic indifference and laziness - at least with this activity. As it turns out, the group gets bigger each year, with friends and more family joining in.
We drove to the place around 11 am, picking up another relative who wanted to come with us, and caught up with the cousins we hadn't seen in a while. I fell in love with the place - it is away from the busy roads, and it feels like a village there - It's in the middle of an estate-like farmland, which helps with the tranquility. There's a rustic feel to the place, and it's a welcome change from the concrete jungle surrounding it. Turns out, it used to be this Gandhian Ashram, started in 1934, and has largely fallen into disarray and neglect (as with most useful Government institutions).
Slowly, the kids started trickling in from their accommodations, and gathered around, visibly excited, forming a neat line. A couple of aunts had planned some simple activities to keep them engaged, and got them all involved in some games. Even the simplest of games we privileged kids scoff at, and patronize - like, say, tossing a ball into a bucket, were met with enthusiasm and gusto by the kids - even the older teenagers. Watching them participate in the games, run around laughing and glad to be a part of it all.
Then, there was this impromptu pick-a-topic-and-speak contest, which a few older kids grudgingly participated in (and actually enjoyed it). Followed by a simple lunch we had organized from a caterer, for all the students, staff and our party - and we joined the kids for a mass lunch in the huge shed-like structure, which, we learned, was the common room.
The students begin lunch with a simple prayer, thanking God for the food, and proceed to eat whatever is on their plate (which they brought along with themselves, from their living accommodations), without complaints or demands. Offer some extra food, and they gladly accept with a smile and a thanks. And there's a heart-warming sense of community and friendship among the kids - and discipline. There are no fights, no greed, no spite. Just satisfaction after a full meal.
After lunch, the kids formed a neat line to collect whatever little we had gathered to give each them - very simple stuff, from our perspective - stuff we take for granted - a mat for sleeping on, a brush to wash clothes with, some stationery, ice cream, fruits, cookies, chocolate, etc (These items were actually bought after consulting with the caretakers there beforehand, after an inquiry about what the kids needed most). It was a treat watching them smile and join one another in glee, laughing and comparing colors and the gifts they got.
As we left the place later, a bunch of the kids who were playing around in groups, came to see us off, and cheerfully waved us all goodbyes, loudly, with huge grins and a lot of gusto. There was joy in their faces - and gratefulness, despite their daily struggles just to get by, just to have what every child deserves - a childhood without care or worry.
I'll admit it was a humbling experience. These are kids who don't have a family to speak of, living in ramshackle old buildings, living on substandard resources that the Government provides - and they often have to struggle for even some simple necessities, like mats and stationery. And yet, they seem content and uncomplaining, thankful for what they have - and joyous whenever they get something more.
I look back at myself, see that I have a functional, caring family (and I complain that they smother me), friends (who I lose contact with), a steady job (which I constantly crib about), a decent financial state (even though I'm always claiming I'm near broke), lots of luxuries (but never enough, yeah?). And yet, I'm not happy. There's always something lacking, that I need to complain about or make myself miserable over. Forget being thankful for what I already have - It's always about wanting more and complaining that the world is unfair.
I guess, when you put things in perspective, life has a lot of lessons for you. I realize my worries and problems are insignificant and meaningless for the most part, compared to what billions of people around the world face. And I should be thankful for that. Despite all my complaints and frustrations, I'm thankful for what I already have and what I take for granted every single day.
And I'm thankful to the family, who got me out of my humdrum daily existence of constant complaints and unreasonable anger at the world, out of my shell (even if it was for the day), and showed me just how good my life actually is. And I'm promising myself I'll be a better person. Vague as THAT sounds as a resolution, I think it's reasonable enough. Less complaints, more proactive initiatives. Help other people. Make them smile. Spread love and joy.
No siree. But for a chronic lazybones underachiever like yours truly, motivating myself to sit in front of a computer to actually pen down my thoughts in a multi-paragraph barely-coherent essay in a single stretch - Now THAT is a challenge.
Let's get some things clarified. (No, Paula Deen - NOT Butter)
It's not as if I run out of ideas. My brain is, for the lack of a better metaphor, like your typical Best Buy store, or Walmart, on a typical post-Thanksgiving Friday. The door barely holds against the pressing mob of ideas and thoughts, opinions and random trivia. Unlatch the door, and the unruly and unkempt disorganized throng of thoughts rush in, full of energy, and ricochet off the virtual corridors of my mind. At any given moment, I'm unable to concentrate on one task at hand - mainly because my brain is almost always host to a pot-pourri of thoughts - imagine if you will, a basket full of chihuahuas on crack, with a sugar rush, each one vying for attention, some worrying your coattails, some nibbling on your ankles, most others just yapping away.
That, my dear reader, is my brain. Luckily, like everyone else, I have a sort of a selective filter in place, which allows me to conveniently ignore most of them for the most part - but for a short while. Any thought running through my head faces an obstacle course, with the path strewn with random pop culture associations, etymological references, tangential ideas and fragments of obscure song lyrics (It doesn't help that I'm terrible at remembering song lyrics - and I end up thanking to the Omniscient Google for Its aid in resolving my frustrations).
So, trying to compose a blog entry on a regular basis, would be like trying to mow a minefield-studded lawn. It's very difficult for me to stay on a single track, resisting all temptations to move away into myriad thoughts and ideas, some straying so far, it's hard to keep track of where I was originally headed.
(If it's any help, this original entry was supposed to be about why I do not/cannot blog regularly. Here I am, instead, on a roll, going on and on with too many unnecessary metaphors about my thought process.)
So, let's assume for a moment, I have my thoughts organized (Hah!) and am raring to go ahead with my entry. As you've noticed by now, I'm not exactly good at precis writing. Less is NOT more with me. More is probably less. Concise writing is not my forte, and for some godforsaken reason, I have this tendency to be verbose. If it were a medical condition, I suppose it might be referred to, rather appropriately, as verbal diarrhea. Ignore the visual imagery it brings up in your subconscious. Bury it deep. The problem is, unless I make a very conscious effort to stop, I just cannot. Despite all the pop-psychoanalysis and introspection, I cannot figure out why I do this - Is it an overcompensation for my introversion and shyness in real life? Probably. It doesn't matter. Except for the poor reader, who has to bear the brunt of my writing. Beware the poor soul who has to forage through my writing, trying to find some theme or content amidst all the inconsequential nonsense.
(Have I explained yet, why I don't blog often?)
Ah, then there is the big daddy of excuses. An abject lack of motivation. I'm lazy. And worse, apathetic. I'm a chronic underachiever, whose idea of excellent is "good enough". When I started this new blog in July, I promised myself I would make an effort to write often. Hah! Sucker.
Wait. I think I did it. I wrote a complete blog post (and a half) about virtually nothing!
Who says blogging is hard? As long as you have motormouth syndrome, bullshitting comes easy!
A full 45 years later, Hollywood has a movie which draws (wrongly at that, in my opinion), a comparison to the seminal sci-fi classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, through the incredible movie, Gravity.
As a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I find myself grinding my teeth and grimacing whenever people compare 2001 with Gravity. Aside from the basic space-setting, there's not much of a similarity between the two. The background music, the pacing, the inherent themes of the movie, the storylines (or lack thereof), the camerawork, the performances, the focus - it's all different in the two movies.
The Theme:
2001, despite it multiple story arcs, and story duration spanning a few million years, focuses on the ever-popular philosophical themes about humanity, our roots, where we came from, and where will we end up. The movie talks about the mysterious Monolith, presumably of alien origin, which seems to pop up at key intervals in humanity's history, and apparently aids (and possibly causes) progress - evolutionarily, technologically or socially. The entire movie is a meditation on sentience and humanity, our evolution (in all senses of the term), on what makes us human, and about humanity's place, and possibly purpose in the universe.
Gravity on the other hand, doesn't really have a coherent theme per se. It does not set out to be a thinking man's movie, holding on to a philosophical or thought-provoking theme. It does not pretend to be an exercise in intellectual enterprise. It is, without pretense, a commercial Hollywood movie, which aims to be a psychological thriller. And it does that fantastically. On a brief inspection, there seems to be a rather obvious, not-very-subtle metaphor for physical-emotional isolation and the need for belonging and connection to the rest of the community, but that's about all. Not that it matters in the end. The movie works just fine without a theme connecting it all.
The visuals:
Where do I begin? Remember, 2001 was made in 1968, a year before man first set foot on the moon (allegedly, as the conspiracy theorists love to add). This was during the peak of the Cold War, with both sides racing ahead, trying to one up the other in all fronts. Science, back then, was revered and held great promise, and with Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick at the helm, 2001 was, for all practical purposes, a shared vision of the future. Gagarin, in 1981 had been the first man in space. So, space, the final frontier, it seemed, was ready for conquest. The world was still drunk on the successes of the space programs, so being an astronaut and living in the promised space colonies and exploring strange new worlds and encountering new species was the dream of the world (the first world anyway). 2001 built itself upon that dream and brought that fantasy to screen.
The "centrifuge" set used for filming scenes depicting interior of the spaceship Discovery (courtesy: WIikipedia)
Despite very primitive special effects, Kubrick managed to achieve some stunning imagery, choosing consciously to avoid using green screens, claiming it produced images with degraded quality. So, all effects were created in-camera. And remember, the movie was shot on 65mm film. Way before computers could process digital images and manipulate them. Some of the ridiculously intricate and well-made scenes including (but not limited to) the spacecraft docking with the space station, the scenes with the spacehostess and later David Bowman walking/running along the walls of the spacecraft,etc, Bowman's journey towards becoming the Starchild, etc, appear so natural and realistic even today - all without the aid of CGI. Kubrick apparently had a huge Centrifuge built just for the movie. On top of that, let's not forget Kubrick was a perfectionist - and with Arthur Clarke along with him, strived to make the movie as scientifically accurate as possible. (Note : Scientific accuracy does not necessarily imply realism. The scientific principles are accurately depicted, even if the structures aren't practically feasible.. yet).
A special "light cube" used for the reflections on the space suit helmets during the Gravity shoot
Gravity, on the other hand, makes complete and efficient use of modern CGI technology. The film is shot on a high definition digital camera, with post-processed and digitally rendered 3D (which might explain why the 3-D effect was not very effective in the movie).Of course, this does not make Cuaron's vision any less impressive. Reports say Cuaron took around 4 years to finish making Gravity, and the dedication, effort and attention to detail are well evident in the finished product. The lighting is natural and breath-taking, and doesn't seem at all fake. The post-processing is pretty good, with a lot of natural-looking finished scenery.
Even with the technology, we see so many movies today, where directors fail to make the best use of it. However, Cuaron stands above most of them, proving he can transcend technology and turn the CGI into an art.
The Sounds:
Ah. This is one section where I personally felt 2001 has an upper hand. Kubrick, being the master director with a strong vision knew instinctively how his movies should sound. Considering just how little dialogue is there in 2001, and how there is no single protagonist, music plays a key role in delivering the impact and message of the movie. Kubrick apparently chose to abandon commercial music, and tailor-made orchestral pieces in favor of popular classical music pieces. And it worked perfectly. Strauss's "Also Spracht Zarathustra" (inspired by Nietzsche's eponymous book, dealing with cyclic recurrences and the rise of the Ubermensch) was a perfect accompaniment to the piece depicting the evolution of apes into violent creatures, presumably man. In another scene, with the spaceship docking with the space station, Kubrick makes us view the careful dance of synchronization, as a waltz, by feeding us the Blue Danube Waltz as the background score. The movie has long periods of silence, drawing the viewer into contemplation and amps up the tension. The space scenes are predictably, silent, to emphasize the isolation. Of course, the iconic voice of HAL 9000 still sends a chill down people's spines with its cold and calculated menace.
On the other hand, with Gravity, Cuaron decides to play safe and sticks to custom-composed music, from Stephen Price. The music doesn't play as big a role as the dialogues (or monologues) in the movie, since we have two protagonists, engaged in conversations or monologues throughout the movie. The movie does have periods of minimum sound or even silence, where tension needs to be emphasized. During one scene where Clooney's character opens the Chinese shuttle's airlock, we go to dead silence, depicting the absolute absence of sound in space. The background score, while interesting, often drowns out the conversation in the movie, and this is one part I did not enjoy at all. In many parts, the voices are pretty low (probably done so deliberately to depict space), and I had to rely on the subtitles to figure out what was being said.
The Performances:
Let's face the facts - 2001: A Space Odyssey is NOT a performance-driven movie. Here, the characters play a secondary role, compared to the theme and message - even the story arc of the movie. The acting is wooden for the most part, and not very commercial-cinema grade. And it's ok. The performances (or lack thereof) doesn't affect the movie on the whole.
Gravity relies heavily on the main actors' ability to deliver a powerful performance. Considering we practically see only two people in the entirety of the movie, both actors would need to deliver some really good performances to make the movie work - And Sandra Bullock and George Clooney definitely deliver. Clooney is just perfect for the role of the veteran astronaut who just wants to bring the rookie scientist, Bullock, safely back home. Personally, I figured Sandra's performance was initially unconvincing, but as the role developed, her character became well-rounded, and her acting started working. All in all, very good performances by both.
The Verdict:
Let's face it - 2001: A Space Odyssey is a seminal sci-fi movie, which has been the inspiration for a lot of science fiction movies in the last 45 years. And with good reason too. It is no accident that most sci-fi enthusiasts agree it is one of the must-see sci-fi classic movies of all time. And there's no denying that it has had a very significant cultural and technological impact on Hollywood in the last four decades. Legendary directors of sci-fi cinema, including George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott have cited 2001 as an influence on their works. So, 2001 has already carved for itself a place in Hollywood history, and I doubt any movie in the future would dislodge it from that. Any movie set in space will inevitably warrant a comparison to THE classic 2001.
Gravity on the other hand, is a brilliant, well-made movie in its own right - and comparing it to 2001 is very unfair to both movies. Obviously, with the available technology, Gravity has far superior graphics, but it has a totally different narrative and theme. It's perfectly enjoyable, and a trendsetter in its own right, and will probably find its own niche in Hollywood history, but it won't be The Next 2001, or be "better than 2001".
Personally, I enjoyed both movies. 2001 has an ever-relevant theme and will speak to a lot of generations, even in the future. Gravity, on the other hand, has its fantastic visual FX and performances as its selling point, and not much else. And I'm guessing, with the rapid advances in image manipulation and CGI, this just might be bested by some other movie, and Gravity might get lost among the other CGI-heavy movies. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie.
I suppose at first glance (and maybe a viewing or two), it's inevitable that Gravity, Alfonso Cuaron's latest movie offering, gets compared to the iconic sci-fi classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, more than any other space-themed movie. I'm not sure what that is due to - probably the fact that most of the movie takes place in space, with the protagonists in spacesuits. That does narrow down the list of Hollywood movies with a similar feel, to quite an extent.
The movie does not pretend to be an intellectual journey or a thinking man's movie. It is advertised as a psychological thriller set in space - and it does its intended job very well. There is no invitation to the viewer to ponder or overthink - All you're required to do, is empathize with the characters, get attached to them, and share their adventure. And it is easy to do all that.
Though thematically empty, the whole enterprise seems to be a subtle-as-a-hammer-to-the-head metaphor for Bullock's emotional distance and isolation from the rest of the world, and how Kowalski (Clooney) helps her through the journey.This is reflected both in Dr. Stone (Bullock) being adrift physically, in space, and emotionally, after the death of her daughter, while the voice in her head, Kowalski, guides her through the healing process, guiding her to safety, and towards the rest of the world, where Stone wants to reach, but cannot find a way to do so. (Can I have my psychology degree now?)
The 3-D seems to be useless here for the most part. For me, personally, the 3D seemed more like a gimmick and didn't really add anything to the feel of the movie (except for the part when the shrapnel hits the space station). I would have loved the movie just as much on a regular 2-D screen, as long as it was large enough for me to enjoy the panoramic views of the earth. As a space geek, and a long-time fan of Ron Garan and Col. Chris Hadfield's photos from space, watching views of the earth from space, had me spellbound, and wishing I was with Stone and Kowalski in space, hurtling debris and all.
Visually, the movie is, for the lack of a better word, stunning. The breathtaking panoramas of earth, sunrise as seen from space, the astronauts, and even the space stations and vehicles seeming tiny and insignificant, compared to the vast emptiness of space, the immense earth serving as the backdrop, the auroras glimmering over the earth - all awe inspiring sights. These are photographs we have seen on the internet and in books - cool and pretty, but not really effective - unless you happen to see them on a big screen, where the awe and even terror gets amplified, proportionate to the size of the screen. It is at moments like this, we begin to approach the awe and feelings of elation (and maybe insignificance) real astronauts in space probably feel every day. It's a feeling both humbling and exciting at the same time.
The CGI is impressive, and the efforts taken to make the movie look that realistic, must have been rather daunting. I can understand why this project has been 4 whole years in the making - the time was well-spent, I feel. The proof of the effectiveness of the imagery was felt by me in the cinemas - the gaggle of bratty loud-mouthed noisy kids were silent throughout the movie (except for a brief while when Clooney reappears and stops Bullock from killing herself). The fact that the movie kept these veritable noisemakers mum speaks volumes about the effect it probably had on them.
The performances are believable, and convincing. Clooney as the wise-cracking veteran astronaut, is easily believable, and he provides the rare, but very welcome humor in the otherwise-tense movie. He's charming, cute with his quips and lovable. Sandra, on the other hand, while not very convincing as a first-time astronaut, is convincing as a frightened drifter, trying to make it back to earth. I suppose this movie is not the best grounds to show off her acting chops or versatility of acting, but she does whatever she was supposed to do, well. I haven't been a fan of Sandra Bullock before, and this was the first movie in which I did not find her character annoying. So, I suppose that is a point for Sandra in her favor. The chemistry between Bullock and Clooney, while brief, is well-played, and easy to relate to. It's hard not to repress a cheer when Clooney comes sweeping in, helping Bullock towards safety. Considering that the selling point of this movie is the believability of performances and the chemistry between the actors, I'm counting that as a success. It works. Rather well.
The music, while good, doesn't really do a thing for me. If anything, it had me distracted and annoyed most of the time. The music is loud and it drowns out a lot of the conversation. Cuaron presumably tries to pull off a Kubrick and use grand orchestral music to inspire a sense of awe and shock, but it falls flat on its face (at least it did with me) most of the time. And half the time, I was left reading the subtitles to figure out what they were saying. Which distracted me from the visuals on screen. Not a good thing.
Like I mentioned earlier, the CGI and special effects - specially the ones in zero-gravity were fantastic to look at - both from the geeky and aesthetic viewpoints. When Bullock enters the ISS, and floats around, I was sitting there, grinning, remembering Col. Chris Hadfield's videos (specially his famous rendition of Bowie's "Space Oddity"). There is one particular scene from the movie which I fell in love with - a scene which still is running through my head as I type this - Sandra, having just entered the ISS, after nearly dying in space, strips off her space suit and just lies there in zero-g, slowly curling up in exhaustion. The scene has her floating gently, Sandra motionless, while her body spins gently, like a graceful ballerina executing a backflip in slow motion. It's sheer poetry in visual form. Ironically, it reminded me of the Starchild in 2001: A Space Odyssey (I know. I know.. I promised I wouldn't compare.. but this I couldn't resist), mashed up with Col. Hadfield's Space Oddity video.
All in all, minor scientific inaccuracies aside (we can let them pass, citing artistic license), Gravity is a spell-binding visual treat, and a first-rate psychological thriller. Just don't mistake it for an exercise in intellectual analysis. What works in its favor is that you don't need to analyze the movie to enjoy it. All you need to do is stay in the moment, put yourself in the protagonists' spacesuits, and have the ride of your life.
For best effects, watch it in IMAX 3D. The sheer size of the screen should make you feel the effects more vividly.
