2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) vs Gravity (2013)

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.

They. Are. Not. Similar.
(Repeat after me)
They. Are. Not. Similar.

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.

Movie Review : Gravity (2013) - English

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.

Movie Review : Lucia (2013) - Kannada

I don't really care enough to write movie reviews for the most part - apart from a brief paragraph or two on Facebook, but sometimes, some movies, on rare occasions, drive me to think more and write about them.

Turns out, this is my first Kannada movie I wanted to review.

After a long delay and failed schedules, I finally got to watch Lucia at the cinemas yesterday. Watching a Kannada movie, on a Sunday evening in a multiplex was a bit of a surreal experience for me - I rarely watch Kannada movies (I just find them repetitive, formulaic and too masala-laden to interest me), and when I do, it's usually at a cheap local "talkies". But here I was, at 4 pm, and the movie was running to a packed house, the third week or so of it being at the cinemas - another shocker for me.

As for the movie - I loved it. It wasn't perfect, and it could have done without the masala song-and-dance sequences (but that's a personal preference), but I guess it was necessary to draw in the general audience. And since I'm not a fan of Yograj Bhat, my excitement with the songs was so-so. On the other hand, the slower tunes were beautiful - something I kept humming long after the movie was over. So, it's a fine balance I guess.

The movie has its flaws with the script and storyline - it's not perfect, but it's well-paced, and the story moves along smoothly, without much hitches. There are points where the director, Pawan Kumar sacrifices logic and continuity in favor of drama and "artistry", but on the whole, these are negligible and don't really make a noticeable dent in the movie.

Visually, the movie has some fantastic camerawork in parts - Shot on a shoestring budget (It was Kannada's first crowdsourced movie after all), it manages to achieve some impressive and eye-catching shots very well. The lighting and colors so vibrant in one story, contrasted with the black-and-white sequences of the other sequence, offer a subtle visual metaphor for the moods and themes of the story. Personally, I fell in love with the camerawork more than anything else in the movie.

The performances are very good - as long as we're talking about the main characters - Sathish Ninasam as the insomniac protagonist, Nikhil, Shruthi Hariharan as Shwetha, his love interest, and Achyuth Kumar, Nikhil's mentor and friend. The three main actors' acting is just impeccable, with Satish Ninasam delivering a very convincing and powerful performance.
While the rest of the cast have tried, I personally felt their performances were barely convincing, and overly done. Their acting seems hammy and is a bit painful to watch. Thankfully, their roles are limited and not very consequential to the movie.

As for the story, it's probably not the most original of stories, but I believe it's a first for the Indian cinemas. The story/theme appears to have a wide range of influences, from movies like Inception, The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor. Of course, the themes of dreams and reality seem to be rather popular in Hollywood, given our penchant for escapist entertainment. Stylistically, I saw quite a bit of influences from one of my all-time favorite movies, Requiem for a Dream (if you haven't watched it already, don't miss it). The capsule-preparation scene reminded me of the heroin-injection scene from Requiem.. And I guess I'm a part of the minority, but while I was pondering this, during one scene, there's a very brief flash cut-scene sequence with a TV showing a paranoid Ellen Burstyn from a wide-angle distortion scene from Requiem. I nearly squealed out in glee during that one brief moment. I suppose, to my obsessed mind, this was a tiny bit of a validation. I know it doesn't really make sense, but then again, neither do I, for the most part =/

Personally, while I absolutely loved the movie, I am still ambivalent about the ending. I know we Indians (or anyone in the world I suppose) are suckers for happy endings, and hate it when a movie leaves on an unresolved note. I, on the other hand, love to keep guessing, and don't mind unresolved (anti) climaxes. I suppose it's one of the reasons I utterly love No Country For Old Men.

Anyway, back to Lucia. I'm impressed by the movie. And the performances. The music too (the parts I loved anyway). And of course, I doff my hat  to the director, Pawan Kumar for this wonderfully enjoyable movie.

If the directors in the Kannada film industry went ahead and made more enjoyable movies like this, rather than the "rowdy-turned-hero" or "boy-girl-fall-in-love-end" or "college-kids-romance" or "poor-boy-rich-girl-bad-dad" kinda formulaic movies, or worse, remakes of movies from other languages, I'd gladly watch more Kannada movies. 

Ruminations on our Educational and Employment System.

While talking to a student of mine earlier about his prospective project opportunity at a reputed research facility, I was asked to recommend a few areas in which he could select his project. I ended up telling him to choose one which would get him a good job. Considering just how diverse the ECE course is, and with all the job opportunities allegedly available to an eager graduate, I figured this would be easy.

And then I realized the irony of the situation. Me, a college (assistant) professor, telling a youngster how to land a good job. I'm not sure if I should be quietly amused or indignant at myself, to be honest. It's not like I actively hate my job - I enjoy the core aspects of it. Being a teacher allows me certain freedoms - Relaxed working hours, no overtime, interacting with human beings on a daily basis, communicating ideas and concepts to (occasionally) eager minds, and on the rare occasion, involving myself in new projects. But, along with the positives, come the inevitable metaphorical hemorrhoids of the profession - Unnecessary and redundant paperwork, the clerical work which nobody ultimately bothers about, but apparently NEEDS to be done, the perpetual red tape and frustrations dealing with the academic bureaucracy, and the forcibly enforced target of "completing the syllabus" to ensure the students get good grades, at the expense of actually learning something.

Being a cynic at heart, I have always maintained that our education system is messy, archaic and needs a lot of change. Now that I've been involved with the system, and having seen it from the inside, I see just how rotten the core is. We emphasize so much on rote learning and examinations and grade-oriented studies, on fixed syllabi and University-wide standardized examinations, on theoretical courses with attached labs focusing on a predefined set of experiments to be dutifully performed, and eventually forgotten. We have stubbornly stuck to our heritage of Asian Education Model™, emphasizing discipline and memorizing, spoonfeeding and coddling our youngsters, so they excel in learning the facts needed for their jobs.

We are stuck in the old mindset of Job-oriented education - which would explain why most of our popular course choices are targeted towards the lucrative job markets - Engineering, Medicine, Business, Commerce or Arts and Design. Pick a course which would teach you something about the esoteric and the aesthetic beauty of the world, while not actually preparing you for a traditional job, and you would have your family, friends and neighbors pointing fingers at you and wondering where you went wayward.

Back to the point, I'm reminded of why I chose to be a teacher - Because it's convenient. I'll be honest and admit getting back into academia was not my first choice of a career. It still isn't. While I admire the people voluntarily choosing this profession, it was more of a fallback option for me.

What I really wanted to do was get into "industry", into a job which was "not software". A job which allowed me to engage in some kind of research and development, where I could exercise my creative mind and work on solving real world problems, and run my brain and get something useful done. I am easily bored, and I know I'd would be hating myself and the world (more than usual) if I ended up a desk jockey or a code monkey. That just isn't me. (The code monkey part, that is. I have the self-loathing part down pat).
So, when I returned home and looked at the job prospects, noticing the abundance (albeit slowly shrinking) of software-oriented jobs, I figured I'd give up and jump on top of the next okay-looking job I could find - And I ended up a faculty member in a new Engineering college back home.

Over the past three years at the same job, I've often considered jumping ship and looking for a new job - but I've always held myself back. Whatever the reason - be it fear, apprehension, lethargy or just plain apathy - I've hated myself for it - for lacking the self-respect to stand up for myself, for not listening to my logical brain which keeps telling me I'm better than this, or simply for not doing anything. Like I said, while I don't hate my job, it doesn't make me happy. It is one of those things which has turned into something of a necessity and a basic need for my daily existence, than something which provides joy. ( I suppose this is true of  large number of people all over the world - So I can't really claim monopoly on work-related ennui).

I know I deserve better - And I know I CAN do better. I just need the more-often-than-occasional swift kick in the butt (or a kindly whisper in the ear from the angel on my shoulder), reminding me to respect myself and go out and achieve something I can be proud of, and happy about.

They say change starts from within. Ugh. Does it have to be this hard?