George Rebane
Fair warning, this little critique of the hit movie ‘Gravity’ will greatly reduce your enjoyment of it, especially if you recall your high school physics. Based on the rave reviews it has been getting (I read Joe Morgenstern in the WSJ), we and another couple went to see it last Sunday. The saving grace of our double date was the dinner afterwards at the Northridge.
The movie deals with the aftermath of an irresponsible Russian satellite intercept test that creates a debris field of satellite and missile pieces which happen to be co-orbiting with the Hubble telescope, the International Space Station, and China’s space station. The movie’s two astronauts (its only characters) undertax the talents of George Clooney and Sandra Bullock; but hey, they had to cast some names to carry a story line that suffers as much damage as do the shuttle, space stations, and the Hubble telescope during this explosion riddled space thriller.
Fair warning, this little critique of the hit movie ‘Gravity’ will greatly reduce your enjoyment of it, especially if you recall your high school physics. Based on the rave reviews it has been getting (I read Joe Morgenstern in the WSJ), we and another couple went to see it last Sunday. The saving grace of our double date was the dinner afterwards at the Northridge.
The astronauts perform feats of stabilization from uncontrolled rotations in freefall that would put a gravity savvy cat to shame. They effortlessly solve orbit matching and rendezvous problems without a second thought. They flawlessly transit great distances in a matter minutes, close and collide with huge space stations at impact speeds that would either crush or dismember mere mortals. And then, and then …
And then when finally, albeit awkwardly, tethered to the ISS, veteran space pilot Clooney forgets Newton’s laws of motion, bravely unhooks from Bullock and needlessly sacrifices himself, purportedly to save Bullock’s life. After that he rapidly drifts away powered by some mysterious force (dark matter?) that seems to be the kin of the one that kept pulling them away from the ISS.
In the meantime, danger lurks in the orbiting debris field which they together, then she alone, must encounter every 90 minutes or so, dictated by some equally mysterious orbital mechanics that included the Russians having apparently launched their target satellite in the wrong direction. But the real mystery is again that mystical force field which has also kept all the space junk tightly bunched. The Russian interceptor’s explosion or impact should have dispersed the pieces over half a continent in less than 30 minutes, yet there they come again, all together like buckshot from a shotgun - no lateral motion, all headed for our intrepid astronaut(s).
More unbelievables happen when in turn Bullock goes into the abandoned space stations. You’ll also be surprised to see that in freefall they use the same kind of fire extinguishers that we use here on earth, but that may be getting too technical. Bullock does take one of them along to use as a thruster on an intrepid feat of orientation while covering impressive distances ‘space walking’ in orbit.
In the climactic finale, everything up there somehow decides to deorbit and start plunging to earth. Maybe they were slowed down by the horrendous impacts every 90 minutes with the tightly bundled space junk, or maybe it was another manifestion of that pesky non-Newtonian force field. It doesn’t matter, because through another series of improbables Bullock is able to land herself in the remaining Soyuz re-entry vehicle still attached to the abandoned Chinese space station. She manages to undock the capsule and separate it for re-entry as everything in orbit around her starts heading down for a spectacular flaming end. Her own Soyuz is spinning out of control in the middle of another awesome field of space station parts all beginning to glow and burn in the thickening atmosphere. Clooney is now long gone, and clearly there is no hope for Bullock as her capsule is not correctly oriented on its descent trajectory. In another few seconds she will be crisp toast, actually a cinder.
And then, true to all that is Hollywood, out of nowhere the marvelous self-stabilizing design of the Soyuz capsule asserts itself. In the final moments we witness a triumph of Soviet engineering as the capsule quits wobbling, and then orients itself properly with heat shield forward to save the day, bringing Bullock safely to a parachute descent into a shallow bay somewhere on earth. We all resume breathing.
OK, so the story was implausible and not so captivating - with no time wasted in extensive character developments, we get right down to the impacts, explosions, and other exciting stuff. But all that aside, what the audience actually buys is one hell of an experience in orbit 400 miles above earth with panoramic well-rendered views of the earth going by down below. I’m not sure how much the 3D (glasses) experience added overall. The fuzzy edge effects of objects floating toward you near the sides of the screen were noticeable, but I guess you’re supposed to keep your attention fixed in the center. Having said that, all the special effects capturing the visual experience of weightlessness (save the mysterious force fields) were done very well, and do advance that part of film story telling. Go see it for yourself.
And then when finally, albeit awkwardly, tethered to the ISS, veteran space pilot Clooney forgets Newton’s laws of motion, bravely unhooks from Bullock and needlessly sacrifices himself, purportedly to save Bullock’s life. After that he rapidly drifts away powered by some mysterious force (dark matter?) that seems to be the kin of the one that kept pulling them away from the ISS.
In the meantime, danger lurks in the orbiting debris field which they together, then she alone, must encounter every 90 minutes or so, dictated by some equally mysterious orbital mechanics that included the Russians having apparently launched their target satellite in the wrong direction. But the real mystery is again that mystical force field which has also kept all the space junk tightly bunched. The Russian interceptor’s explosion or impact should have dispersed the pieces over half a continent in less than 30 minutes, yet there they come again, all together like buckshot from a shotgun - no lateral motion, all headed for our intrepid astronaut(s).
More unbelievables happen when in turn Bullock goes into the abandoned space stations. You’ll also be surprised to see that in freefall they use the same kind of fire extinguishers that we use here on earth, but that may be getting too technical. Bullock does take one of them along to use as a thruster on an intrepid feat of orientation while covering impressive distances ‘space walking’ in orbit.
In the climactic finale, everything up there somehow decides to deorbit and start plunging to earth. Maybe they were slowed down by the horrendous impacts every 90 minutes with the tightly bundled space junk, or maybe it was another manifestion of that pesky non-Newtonian force field. It doesn’t matter, because through another series of improbables Bullock is able to land herself in the remaining Soyuz re-entry vehicle still attached to the abandoned Chinese space station. She manages to undock the capsule and separate it for re-entry as everything in orbit around her starts heading down for a spectacular flaming end. Her own Soyuz is spinning out of control in the middle of another awesome field of space station parts all beginning to glow and burn in the thickening atmosphere. Clooney is now long gone, and clearly there is no hope for Bullock as her capsule is not correctly oriented on its descent trajectory. In another few seconds she will be crisp toast, actually a cinder.
And then, true to all that is Hollywood, out of nowhere the marvelous self-stabilizing design of the Soyuz capsule asserts itself. In the final moments we witness a triumph of Soviet engineering as the capsule quits wobbling, and then orients itself properly with heat shield forward to save the day, bringing Bullock safely to a parachute descent into a shallow bay somewhere on earth. We all resume breathing.
OK, so the story was implausible and not so captivating - with no time wasted in extensive character developments, we get right down to the impacts, explosions, and other exciting stuff. But all that aside, what the audience actually buys is one hell of an experience in orbit 400 miles above earth with panoramic well-rendered views of the earth going by down below. I’m not sure how much the 3D (glasses) experience added overall. The fuzzy edge effects of objects floating toward you near the sides of the screen were noticeable, but I guess you’re supposed to keep your attention fixed in the center. Having said that, all the special effects capturing the visual experience of weightlessness (save the mysterious force fields) were done very well, and do advance that part of film story telling. Go see it for yourself.
I met up with a friend of mine, a retired physics professor, at a bar in NC last week. I asked him if he'd seen "Gravity" and he just rolled his eyes. That told me what I needed to know. I went to see for myself and came away with the same conclusion that you did, George.
Never mind that Bullock, a mission specialist with no previous space experience, is able to hop into the driver's seat of the Soyuz and figure out how to operate it in a matter of minutes. (I guess those manuals she found were conveniently printed in english.) In the second capsule, she just starts pushing buttons, hoping for the best. Right.
Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed the visuals. It's just too bad that they didn't take a little more care with the script. Would've made it a much better film.
Posted by: rlcrabb | 15 October 2013 at 05:39 AM
Not sure if I'll go see it, but I can surely report that the four 12-yr.-old boys I dropped off at the Del Oro on Saturday afternoon definitely had a rollicking non-Newtonian good time. Perhaps this demographic was the target for which this movie was designed?
George, I printed out your review and gave it to my 12-yr.old, with instructions to understand the scientific points being made. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on "Gravity."
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 15 October 2013 at 08:34 AM
MichaelA 834am - That's a great idea. If more parents took the time to have their kids be a bit critical about what they see in the movies, TV, etc - not only about science stuff, but also about other twisted logics or implausibilities - then each such experience would become a learning time, and the young person can develop the attitude of being 'in charge' of what he sees and not just merely lapping it up. Would love to hear your son's discoveries about the movie.
Posted by: George Rebane | 15 October 2013 at 08:52 AM
I had glowing reviews Saturday from three bright adults, 30 to 50 somethings, whose imagination was unfettered by any real awareness of physics.
Posted by: Gregory | 15 October 2013 at 09:41 AM
C,mon folks - it's Hollywood. When has Hollywood cared much about what really goes on? Cowboys and indians, gun fights, fist fights, car chases - it's all fantasy and eye candy, pure and simple. All sorts of historic figures done up as gods. I can remember going to see 'Jason And The Argonauts' with my father at the Tower. All the way home he just couldn't help being a civil engineer and explained to me all of the baloney. He was correct, of course - as is George. But if the movies were really all like real life, I'm afraid the box office receipts would suffer pretty badly. It just has to have enough of the real and familiar to pull us in for the ride. From there it's all just fun. I really liked 'Life Of Pi' even though it was clearly nonsense from the get go. It just had such great visuals and an audacious story line.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 15 October 2013 at 02:41 PM
Scott, "2001" comes to mind but it helps that it was adapted from a book written by the physicist who, among other things, first proposed the geosynchronous orbit that is apparently so featured in Gravity.
George, regarding parents giving their children guidance as to science and logic in popular entertainment, my favorite Will Rogers' quote, 'You can't teach what you don't know any more than you can come back from where you ain't been' applies. Science in K-12 is weak, logic nearly non existent.
If I could wave a magic wand, the standard college prep high school sequence would include a two semester class on probability and logic, about half and half. Maybe integrate in Algebra II topics, or get rid of AP Statistics, or allow as a general math and liberal study topic. The formal logic class I took as an undergrad could be taken for philosophy credit and had no math prerequisites besides enough to get admitted into any one of the local colleges. The probability class was a wobbler upper division math/graduate math class at a CSU but much of it was no more difficult than an Algebra I/II lesson with an algebra much like that of formal logic.
Posted by: Gregory | 15 October 2013 at 04:27 PM
Gregory 427pm - Agreed, Didn't mean that parents should attempt to teach what they didn't know. Yes, teaching probability and logic earllier would stop a lot of stupid notions being uncritically accepted later.
Posted by: George Rebane | 15 October 2013 at 06:04 PM
George, the only reason I took probability and logic was that I wanted to. A problem with the high school curriculum is that probability and logic are entirely missing in action, so we're left with the common knowledge of public school teachers, who also never took formal probability or logic courses.
Ooops.
Posted by: Gregory | 15 October 2013 at 07:02 PM
Scott wrote: "All the way home he just couldn't help being a civil engineer and explained to me all of the baloney."
He did you a great favor. Same favor I hope to have done with my 12-yr.old.
George, he read your review and totally got it. But then we got into a weird conversation, much like what Scott cites above, regarding the marketability of the product. In about the middle of the conversation my son claimed that without the non-scientifically probable post-satellite-breakup, the movie would have come to a screeching halt. This is where we got into a discussion about screen-writing, fiction, plausibility, and a whole variety of sidebars and cul-de-sacs.
We ended up discussing the Surrealism Movement, juxtaposing Dali and Magritte. So, nice work George, and thanks for the catalyst.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 15 October 2013 at 10:30 PM
Administrivia - During the 6pm news segment today 16oct13, KVMR is broadcasting Paul Emery's interview with Sheriff Mack who will be speaking this Friday in the GV Vets Hall.
Posted by: George Rebane | 16 October 2013 at 12:49 PM
You clearly must quit politics and science and become a full time film reviewer. Hilarious!
Posted by: Aaron Klein | 21 October 2013 at 05:56 AM