I have a
problem praising the film 'Gravity'.
I saw the
film recently in 3-D, on the giant screen of Imax, Wadala, Mumbai and I was
suitably impressed with the detailing, the 3-D effects, the uncomplicated plot which
does not allow your attention to wander and thus enables you to enjoy the
wonder of special effects bringing out the spacefaring in weightless conditions.
I am neither
a space scientist nor am I an astronaut. So, I am not in a position to comment
upon the arrangement on the control panels, the positioning and the alarms of
the various indicators, the accuracy of the thresholds of the locks and human
endurance, etc. I remember to have read that American astronauts and the crew
of space missions were shown the film and that they expressed satisfaction about
the way all such details were depicted in the film. I tend to trust the news
report as fact and not doubt it as a publicity tactic. I accept that the
authenticity of every detail should not be an issue since the film is not a
documentary; the overall representation and a commitment to scientific truth should
suffice. Moreover, even though the film does not introduce or assume any new
scientific breakthrough, it is set in future and that makes the story 'Science
Fiction' and in SF liberties with technical and technological details are
permitted. I have no problem with that.
The problem
that I have goes beyond these issues.
I have read
a lot of science fiction. For example, stories by Arthur C Clarke. In
'Fountains of Paradise' Clarke describes how the Earth acquires 'spokes' all
along the Equator, extending into space to a distance where there is no
gravitational attraction pulling an object to the Earth. He postulates
development of a synthetic crystal with tremendous tenacious strength. And as
an appendix to the novel he presents plans and schemes of such 'towers' already
put on paper in great detail by scientists and engineers. As a result, a story
which could have been exotic, becomes plausible and comes down into the realm
of engineering projects planned and executed by present-day mortals. In 'Rendezvous
with Rama' he observes (as a part of the story) that not a few spacecraft accidents
are the result of the distraction caused by the unstoppable oscillations in
weightless conditions of the two orbs human females and therefore female
astronauts possess. Clarke is always conscious of the laws of physics which
provide the frame in which everything in his novels happens and so, when the
alien spacecraft accelerates towards the Sun without any apparent push, someone
exclaims, "There goes Newton's Third Law!"
Such attention
to the manifestation of laws of science in
day-to-day life is not an exception in SF. I call such SF as engineering
fiction because in it the exotic, fantastic happenings are subordinated to the universally
valid Laws of Physics. Such references give an air of familiarity to the tale
which then transcends its futuristic setting and attains a sort of contemporary
existence; albeit in a parallel universe.
As an avid
reader of science fiction, I have a second home in that parallel universe. I do
not have to suspend my logical judgment there; all I am required to do is to
accept some new contraption or some such technological advancement which is a
part of the common existence of the parallel universe. What happens in 'Gravity' is commonplace to a
resident of that universe and one does not applaud the commonplace.
It may sound
presumptuous but the film began and in a few moments, I had the feeling of
being 'at home'. There it was, 'home' and someone had created limelight all
around it. My heart swelled. The film being 3-D, I wanted to say 'Hi' to the ones at home, Sandra Bullock and
George Clooney, without disturbing them of course. They were busy with some
repair work and while Sandra was serious and sombre, George was his usual
composed self, spreading the contagion of composure - which is more than
confidence - into others.
During the
interval and after the film, I became aware that I had company. And they near
unanimously praised the ambience and the floating tear drop and the upside down
image refracted in it and the 'normal' of the place being expressed so
evocatively in the never ending slow motion and the bumps and of course the
silence. Their chatter irritated me: this is how my home is, you ignorant guys!
I wanted to exclaim at them.
I loved
George that he was so composed even while saying adieu to life and I adored
Sandra that though she talked to herself a lot - all alone for a million miles
around you; anyone will talk like that - but she did not go into hysterics, was
not even heroic but doggedly went on and
on and on and in the end laughed at herself a little when she had difficulty
standing up in earthly gravity.
I liked the
film for taking me home. Come to think of it, I should say, I adored the film.
The problem is, these words will be so commonplace if I utter them to anyone at
all. They all claim to adore it! How can I explain to them that my joy is
different from their pleasure?
Got to see
Gravity a few more times to notice and then cherish the smaller details, the
nuances one so takes for granted while at home. I just don't want to be in an
awestruck crowd, gawking at some exotic object.
P037154 dated :
04-Nov-2013 [10:09 PM IST]
