Gravity

[Passdagas the Brown]

In any event, this is shaping up to be a pretty good year for films. It's also nice that Gravity had both popular and critical appeal. That's a sweet spot that is very difficult to achieve.

[Passdagas the Brown]

So, when's Voronwë gonna see it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I saw it last night. I'm very glad that I saw it, in 3D. I would go so far as to say (or agree) that it is the one movie that has to be seen in 3D. Visually, this film is nothing less than astounding.

Other than that, I was more than a little underwhelmed. I thought Sandra Bulluck's performance was okay, good but not great, while Clooney almost played a caricature of himself. I thought the story was trite, clichéd, full of false sentiment, and unbelievable to the point that I stopped caring about the character. I thought the scene in which Kowalsky appears to Stone and tells her how to get the pod to work was laughably ridiculous, as was her ability to use the fire extinguisher to power her way to the Chinese space station, and her grabbing hold at the last second and being able to pull herself in was just silly.

Sandra Bulluck did look good the two times that she stripped off her space suit, however.

Overall, I'd give it a B+ mostly because the cinematography is so astoundingly good that anything else would be too little, despite what I found to be major flaws in the storytelling. It is gripping film, particularly in the first half before it crosses the line into Hollywood sensationalism and cliché, but compared to the similarly-themed Robert Redford vehicle All is Lost (which I am increasingly coming to consider a true masterpiece), this is an amateur effort. (Honestly, I probably would have liked Gravity better if I hadn't seen All is Lost first.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Having seen All Is Lost again, I agree. It is a better film, IMO.

The minimalism of the storyline in Gravity that you disliked is intentional, as Cuaron has noted, and I think it works very well within the context of this story of the thin line between life, and the barren void. So it is certainly not amateur - it was simply a narrative choice.

Though like you, I do wish some of the Hollywoodisms were removed (it is very uncharacteristic of Cuaron to do that, which is why I think he was pressured by WB to make it more popularly appealing).

I think you should watch Children of Men, which has a much more complex storyline, and not a whiff of Hollywood sentimentality.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It sounds like our opinions aren't all that different after all! It certainly is a very worthwhile film; groundbreaking in some aspects.

[yovargas]

When I saw it a second time, I thought they'd just shut up more often (particularly Clooney) the film would've been a true masterpiece.

[Passdagas the Brown]

When I saw it a second time, I thought they'd just shut up more often (particularly Clooney) the film would've been a true masterpiece.

Well said!

[Passdagas the Brown]

It sounds like our opinions aren't all that different after all! It certainly is a very worthwhile film; groundbreaking in some aspects.

Agreed. My issues with the script are essentially minor quibbles in the face of a near-masterpiece.

I'm still holding out hope for a Cuaron LOTR or Hobbit in 2030. He's still a young guy!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I can't say that seeing that movie in any convinced me that Cuaron is appropriate for adapting Tolkien. Sorry.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I can't say that seeing that movie in any convinced me that Cuaron is appropriate for adapting Tolkien. Sorry.

Then watch Children of Men.

In any event, did watching Bad Taste or the Frighteners tell you that Peter Jackson was the right person to adapt LOTR?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I haven't seen either of them, so I can't say. I didn't see Heavenly Creatures until after seeing LOTR, but had I done so, it certainly would not have discouraged me!

I will watch Children of Men some day (as I have told you before).

[Beutlin]

My verdict: A near-perfect film and therefore my favorite Cuarón film (I have also seen Children of Men and Prisoner of Azkaban). A simple, raw storyline incredibly executed. Congratulations to George Clooney and even Sandra Bullock for basically playing themselves while still delivering awe-inspiring performances. “Gravity” is a movie that truly evokes danger.

When I later found out that Clooney’s death was not scientifically accurate it sort of angered me a little bit (a ridiculous reaction!) but ultimately it’s irrelevant.

I have to agree with Voronwë here. Neither “Gravity” nor “Children of Men” gave of a “Tolkien-vibe” too me (if there exists something like a “Tolkien-vibe”). For me both films are “ultra-realistic” or “faux-realistic” artistic representations of strange/foreign settings.
That does not mean I would necessarily be displeased with Cuarón’s adaption of “The Lord of the Rings”. I fear though we will never see such an enterprise. Another film version of “The Lord of the Rings” is highly unlikely to be made before 2040 I would say. And Cuarón is already 52 years old.

Now I know, some would say: “What about those comic reboots? Spider-Man was rebooted merely some years after the third Raimi film. There are already rumors about a new Batman trilogy (not to be confused with the Batman/Superman film).” I would reply that film adaptions of comics are extremely liberal when it comes to their source material. You can use another villain for your super-hero origin-story. You can switch the love interests. You can even change the main themes of the story altogether.

All of this is not possible for “The Lord of the Rings”. A new version of “The Lord of the Rings” produced somewhere in the next two decades would have change the plot dramatically to convince at least some people/critics that it is a necessary film. Something like "The War of the Ring told through the eyes of Sauron".

Could it still happen? I think it is more likely that someone will eventually purchase the rights for “The Silmarillion” – that is if the “Tolkien Estate” were to allow something like this in the near future. And then Passdagas, you could maybe look forward to Cuarón’s take on “The Children of Húrin”.

[yovargas]

Neither “Gravity” nor “Children of Men” gave of a “Tolkien-vibe” too me (if there exists something like a “Tolkien-vibe”). For me both films are “ultra-realistic” or “faux-realistic” artistic representations of strange/foreign settings.

Part of "the Tolkien-vibe" is specifically because it feels very real. Anyone who adapts Tolkien should treat it as a very real world. (I believe overall PJ did this well in LOTR.)

But I believe what PtB means more that the visual style is that the themes Cuaron tends to be interested in exploring align well with Tolkien's themes. I don't think he's wrong.

If nothing else, I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Cuaron is a better and more thoughtful director than PJ, much as I ultimately love the LOTR films.

[Passdagas the Brown]

If nothing else, I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Cuaron is a better and more thoughtful director than PJ, much as I ultimately love the LOTR films.

That's certainly not a controversial statement to me!

And in response to Beutlin, I think both Cuaron's thematic interests AND his visual and directorial style are very well-suited for Tolkien.

Themes: Like Tolkien, Cuaron is interested in life vs. lifelessness (or barrenness/ sterility), and hope vs. despair. In Children of Men and Gravity he also captures the essence of Tolkien's "eucatastrophe."

Directorial style: In all his films, he shoots the environment in a way that most directors don't. He lingers on the broader picture, and isn't as character-obsessed as PJ is, always cutting in to close-ups, and ginning up melodramatic moments. His style is calmer and more fluid - something that I think suits Tolkien well. PJ's style is operatic and loud and nerve-wracking.

Secondly, PJ is the directorial representation of what Tolkien called "the purposed domination of the author." PJ tells you exactly how you should feel and think, and hammers that home with dialogue, camera angles, music, "big" acting, etc. IMO, Cuaron is far more subtle and less intrusive. His camera almost seems like an observer, rather than a storyteller. And that is similar to Tolkien's preference for the "varied applicability of history." The historian may have a bias, but a good one doesn't repeatedly tell you exactly what you should be getting out of the events. He shows you the picture, and lets you decide.

In short, PJ is a heavy-handed storyteller, while Cuaron is more of an observer with a camera.

That lighter touch is the main reason I think he's a better fit for Tolkien.

ETA: In terms of realism, I think that's simply because of the subject matter. Cuaron is certainly very capable of capturing the fantastical as well, having directed Prisoners of Azkhaban (widely regarded as the best of the Harry Potter films) and Little Princess. Plus, while Cuaron's films may look realistic, realism in the story is most certainly not the goal. His films are really elaborate metaphors, and the realistic look simply sells that better. I mean, Children of Men is about mass human infertility, and Gravity displays an incredibly improbable survival story. Not very realistic, really.

In any event, I feel that LOTR could have benefited from a greater grounding in realism in terms of the world-building. PJ got the surface look right for the most part (great sets, etc), but for a variety of interrelated reasons, his world felt thin, insubstantial and stagey. Like a very elaborate and expensive Ren Fair. Cuaron would likely have given us something with greater layers and depth, in that respect. More verisimilitude.

[Smaug's voice]

Lol.
That's why I feel you get too repetituve on subjects PtB. I remember
you mentioning all those points at least twice before.

Anyway, I am quite sure that even if Cuaron makes an LotR-reboot it will
not be quite as succesful as the one by PJ critically or culturally
simply because of the tremendous success of the previous films.

And the focus while filming should be to make a memorable film which also does not alienate Tolkien from it altogether. Which PJ's version managed quite succesfully.

[Smaug's voice]

And as I said. I have no quibbles with PJ's direction (or any other thing) except the script.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Lol.
That's why I feel you get too repetituve on subjects PtB. I remember
you mentioning all those points at least twice before.

Anyway, I am quite sure that even if Cuaron makes an LotR-reboot it will
not be quite as succesful as the one by PJ critically or culturally
simply because of the tremendous success of the previous films.

And the focus while filming should be to make a memorable film which also does not alienate Tolkien from it altogether. Which PJ's version managed quite succesfully.

Um, Beutlin didn't understand how I had arrived at the conclusion that Cuaron would make a good LOTR, so I decided to explain myself again. Just because you've read something, it doesn't mean everyone has!

The short story is that you can't judge a director's style by the subject matter of the film. Just because he has made films set in space and in a dystopian future, it doesn't mean that he can't do fantasy. And in his case, he did do Prisoners and Little Princess.

And I disagree about PJ's success. I think he largely failed at capturing the spirit of Tolkien, AND making great films. I think they are passable films, at best. I'm in the minority regarding LOTR, but it's how I feel!

[Smaug's voice]

Well,
Beautlin just expressed himself saying he can't judge Cuaron's
suitability seeing those 3 films. He didn't ask an explanation though
you were the one who gave one. But I have no problem with this
discussion.
But personally I think you are leaning too much on Cuaron for some reason. Since we can't judge the suitability by previous works why is only him being mentioned? There are loads of other great directors out there.

[Smaug's voice]

And whether you like it or not, PJ's films garnered rave reviews and established one of the largest fandoms today. And they have brought millions of people to the books and are still bringing everyday. It is regarded as a cultural phenomena. Probably one of the most successful franchises at the oscars. And is considered as a bar on how great a given fantasy film is (something that Prisoner of Azkaban isn't). It is even compared to the original Star Wars by critics and fans alike. Pretty sure many years from now LotR would be considered as a classic. So if that is not success, I wonder what is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If nothing else, I think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say Cuaron is a better and more thoughtful director than PJ, much as I ultimately love the LOTR films.

That's certainly not a controversial statement to me!

I don't think it is so much controversial as silly. It's comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit, but different kinds of fruit. Jackson and Cuaron are both directors, with different styles. They both have positive qualities and less positive qualities. Both have had major successes, and some less successful efforts. Personally, I prefer Jackson's work, and largely don't care as much for Cuaron's style, but I would never say that that means that Jackson is a better director than Cuaron. Even the statement that Cuaron is more "thoughtful" that Jackson is nonsensical to me. Jackson certainly has his excesses, but there are equally ways in which he is very thoughtful. And while I thought Gravity (since this is a thread about Gravity) was visually stunning, I certainly would not consider it a demonstration of a "thoughtful" style (for the reasons that I already discussed).

I just find this kind of statement to be unhelpful, at best.