On the motion of Bullock in an orbit: Gravity

IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL.

As an astrophysicist, I never quite know how to approach the science in movies. For works like Contact (thankfully written by an esteemed scientist), there's a clear and story-serving divide between the real world and the entertaining fiction inspired by sciency ideas. You can see where the fictions have developed from, and accept them as plausible extensions of reality. I appreciate that scientific accuracy is often rightfully discarded in search of a good story - I'm not puritanical. But movies like Gravity still make me a little fidgety in the science department.

Before I go all Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I should probably review the movie as a whole for a bit. The rumours are true - it is stunningly beautiful. I've previously mistrusted 3D conversions (why fake information that isn't there when everybody else just films in 3D?), seeing them as a dirty way of studios cashing in on a novice public's lack of discernment by not doing things 'properly' in production, but I'll now happily eat my words. When done right (all but the last scene of the film are entirely virtual sets, which helps), conversion is indistinguishable from reality. Artistically, the visual effects in this film are flawless - everything looked utterly and completely real, with unusually tasteful use of 3D (with the exception of some gratuitous water drops on the lens, which just felt like showing off).

Cinematography in general, ignoring the 3D element, was masterfully done. The shots clearly framed to show off the 3D (yes, movies still haven't got over that) would have worked just as well in 2D to show off the beautiful art and lighting. Focus depth - a critical element in stereoscopy, where the camera must anticipate where in the frame the audience will be looking so as not to lose the 3D effect and cause headaches - was entirely natural. The lighting was accurate as well as pleasing, motivated and not falling into the teal and orange trap. The opening master shot (didn't count but it must have been at least 8 minutes long, though with the use of motion control and compositing I doubt was done in a single take) soars beautifully between perspectives to convey the tranquillity of the setting without cuts - if I recall correctly, cutting only begins when the tension escalates to the first crisis plot point.

The sound design, likewise, was brilliant. The right claustrophobia, the right presence, the appropriate technique of low and subtle sounds in space - defying the purists' expectation of total silence by conveying sound as the felt vibrations of machinery. While the mildly overused screaming crescendo of noise did grate slightly, it wasn't entirely inappropriate for the moments it was employed. Music was a little on the generic side, with a touch of Zimmer (but what escapes that in the dramatic genre these days?) but often appropriate in the slower moments.

But while a simple feast for the eyes and ears, by the time the signal reaches the brain there isn't much food to be found from Gravity. The setting is original enough (upgrading components on the Hubble Space Telescope, yet again, on a Shuttle mission a few years into the future), and the two leads didn't ever get boring for me - despite their being the only two living faces in the film. The story progression just doesn't move far, Chekhov's guns in the script are painfully obvious, the characters drop in and out of believability and plot holes (for the scientific and unscientific alike) abound - thought fortunately some obvious ones were avoided.

The real view from the real ISS: Tracy Caldwell Dyson gazes
out of the cupola in September 2010.

The International Space Station and Hubble are 120 miles away from each other, vertically, orbiting at different speeds. Bullock, a payload specialist, is bolting electronics into the Hubble Space Telescope on a space walk while the professional astronaut with space walk experience is joyriding a jetpack in the background, then she lands a Soyuz. Bullock's oxygen supply nearly completely runs out as she's being towed along, then somehow lasts the next five minutes of frantic exertion and gasping when they hit the ISS. Why, when the stationary (relative to the ISS) Clooney let go of the tether, did he start drifting away again? For some reason, the fire in a highly oxygenated atmosphere moves slower than Bullock. Most staggering of all, she just happens to enter the atmosphere with a successful trajectory and miraculously puts down in water in a hospitable landscape. And of course the tendency to blame the Russians for everything is present once again.

These are all little post-show niggles of the part of my brain with no sense of fun. In terms of filmmaking accomplishment, Gravity was sensational. The story didn't entirely do it for me (but that's not due to the science), but it's still well worth seeing and for the makers to be proud of. My goodness is it beautiful. And Ed Harris was the voice of Mission Control, which was a lovely touch.

I hope Gravity's almost completely accurate portrayal of life in space inspires a lot more people to look up there and consider what humanity's doing about our future. With the end of the Shuttle programme and space funding cuts, more people should care about that world.

EDIT: On the subject of learning more about human spaceflight through jaw-dropping footage, you've got a day left to watch the most excellent NASA: Triumph and Tragedy.