MOVIES: "Gravity" (Contains Spoilers)

[colliric]

*** Spoiler Alert*** Do not read if you have not seen the movie!!!

Gravity is a masterpiece, in the vein of Moby Dick. As Moby Dick is not just a story about a man’s hunt for a rare white whale, Gravity is not just a story about fighting to survive a disaster in space.

Remember first of course that every single thing on screen, every single sound we hear in a movie was carefully chosen and purposefully put there by the director to subtly reveal its theme.

Gravity celebrates the “gift of life”, and the God who gave it to us. The jaw-dropping scenes of space – the vastness of the stars contrasted with the smallness of Sandra Bullock’s character as she tumbles away and out of sight of Clooney’s character show God’s power. The aurora borealis dancing over the beautiful earth – the reality, the pure majestic awe of the creation on display in this movie like in no other before it serve to show the greatness of our Creator. The complete harshness, emptiness, and loneliness of space we see in the movie serve as a backdrop to show us the wonder of the garden of Eden God gave us that we call ‘earth’.

And then we get to the allegory in the movie, the symbolism that serves to subtly reveal this theme. Ryan (Bullock) is spiritually dead, just going through the motions of her daily routines. She is empty, without hope, without love, she is “dead” ever since the tragedy years earlier. When she is not working, she just gets in her car and drives – because she was driving when she heard the tragic news of the so simple stupid accident. And she has never stopped driving – she has never moved passed that moment. She died at that moment when she heard the news. (Later Clooney tells her to ‘Let go.’)

Bullock represents all of those who are spiritually dead; all of us who have let the downside of life ‘kill’ us. Clooney represents those who see all of life, its ups and downs, as wonderful. Told he will not break the Russian rival’s space-walking record, he shrugs it off. His last words to Bullock spoken when he knows he is going to die: ‘You should see the sun over the Ganges.’ He loves life, all of it. All of this makes one think of Jesus’ words that tell us to not worry about tomorrow for it will take care of itself, to live for today with its joys and failures and sadness – this is enough, He advises each of us:
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life…Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span…Your heavenly Father knows that you need them…Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.” (Matt 6:25-34)
The whole act of trying to survive the disaster transforms the ‘dead’ Bullock. We see her literally and symbolically born again, of fire (Holy Spirit) and water.

*Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit [Fire]. (John 3:4-5)*

We see Bullock in the womb curled up like a fetus (right after she removes her spacesuit upon entering the Soyuz – note the brief scene, with the airlock symbolizing the womb, her fetal position the child in the womb). The re-entry is her baptism by fire, her swim in the water her baptism in water, her shedding of the spacesuit under water the shedding of her old self, her first gulp of air as she pops up out of the water symbolizing a newborn’s first breath. Her first stumbling steps that of a newborn.

We see Bullock’s character reborn with hope and a zest for life, she echoes Clooney when she says ‘either I am going to survive and have one helluva story to tell, or I am going to burn up, but either way, it’s been one helluva ride!’ the ride of course, is the journey through life.

Note the theme of “The Wonder of Life is God’s Great Gift to Us” coming to the surface briefly as Bullock mentions prayer and dying. But it comes right at us when the camera briefly zooms in on the holy card of Christ inside the Russian spacecraft, and again on the Buddha statue in the identical Chinese spacecraft.

Gravity is a masterpiece because it uses a driving, compelling surface story to succinctly tell us a profound truth - life with all its ups and downs are a beautiful gift from God to each of us. And so, fittingly, newly born Bullock’s last words in the movie are to God: she says, “Thank you” and takes her first toddling steps in the plush garden of Eden, the new earth - as seen through her new eyes as she looks at it as if for the first time, scooping some dirt in her hand, a transfigured person, born again with a zest for life.

This movie is, in a word, perfect, a sheer joyous celebration of the wonder of life, and the wonder of God.

God bless you.

P.S. I saw it in real 3D, and then wanted to see it in IMAX 3D so I did. (I don’t usually go to movies, but this one I saw twice already, it’s that good!) This is one movie that justifies the price of 3D and even IMAX 3D if you have an IMAX theater nearby.

Don’t wait too long because it will leave the theaters and won’t be the same on blu-ray on the TV.

There is a lot more symbolism in the movie that reveals the theme, but this post would get too long!

1. Can I share this lovely review? Perhaps on Facebook?
2. I’m 100% certain the Film will return to Cinemas next March, as most Academy Award nominations return for a second run. So if you do miss out, don’t worry, you won’t wait for too long before you get a second chance.

 

[beehumble]

1. Can I share this lovely review? Perhaps on Facebook?
2. I’m 100% certain the Film will return to Cinemas next March, as most Academy Award nominations return for a second run. So if you do miss out, don’t worry, you won’t wait for too long before you get a second chance.

Sure, share it where ever you like!

God bless you.

 

[beehumble]

Hi Robert Anthony,

…
As an aside – and I will get to your “masterpiece” question – but my larger point is that when considering whether Gravity is a masterpiece, the stunning visual feat that it represents is not the only criteria one must take into account. One must consider writing and acting and a whole host of other considerations. Don’t get me wrong: I really liked Gravity. It really is a stunning visual feat but the writing, for one, is weak. As for what I am saying not resonating with most people … well … that doesn’t matter. I’m not talking about popular appeal and I didn’t think you were either. I thought we were talking about the quality of the film and whether that warrants the designation “masterpiece”.

… but another feature of the masterpiece consideration is the ambition of the picture. Does it set out to be one and can we evaluate what we are given based on that ambition?
…

POSSIBLE SPOILERS - READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!

I found and read a wonderful, completely detailed analysis of the movie Gravity, sort of like a Cliff Notes kind of thing with all its details of the allegorical symbols and what they all mean etc, here:

awhilelonger.com/gravity/

After reading that (I downloaded the PDF, the complete analysis is not yet online just the beginning but all of it is in the pdf) , I think you missed the deep allegory of the movie. Gravity’s ambitions are extremely high - to quote from the analysis:

The plot is a perfectly played allegory of the Christian salvation story, stripped down to its essence to more visibly show how much God loves us. Cuaron intends we who are “in the blind” to “see”.

That analysis shows, as it says, the film’s allegorical narrative arc spans the entire Christian salvation story from the first line of Genesis to the last vision of Revelation.

It addresses how Cuaron brilliantly executes a Deus Ex Machina so that his allegory remains perfectly aligned with the Christian salvation story, by having Matt (the Christ figure) return to Ryan (the Eve figure and by extension all of humanity) when all seems lost, just as there will be a real Deus Ex Machina moment in salvation history called the Second Coming of Christ.

A masterpiece for sure, maybe one of the best movies ever made, the likes of a Robert Bresson film but with lots of action too!! And it has a great Christian theme about God’s love for us, His creation.

God bless you.

 

[Kelly_Wilson]

Hi “beehumble”,

You offer your impression that I perhaps missed the deep allegory of the movie. I am not so sure that I have.

1. On the question of whether “Gravity” is a masterpiece, however, my unostentatious contribution to that conversation was simply to state that there are criteria other than “wow, this really resonated with me” or “wow, this was beautifully made”. In my view the only reason – only** reason – we are talking about whether Gravity is a “masterpiece” is because of the cinematography. I am trying to remind enthusiastic admirers that if they want to throw “masterpiece” around, a more holistic assessment is needed.

As I wrote in an earlier comment, the writing of Gravity is not particularly good. There are brilliant scripts and there are horrible ones. I am sure you have experienced both kinds. Gravity lies in between. That matters when we can talk about whether Gravity as a masterpiece. There are tired and unoriginal clichés here: In my view, implying that this is going to be the last mission of Kowalski, and then having it really be his last mission by making him die, is a pretty egregious example of what I am talking about.

Please don’t get me wrong: I really enjoyed the movie. It had tenderness and I found it emotionally affecting. I just don’t think it is a masterpiece and I have identified reasons why. Those here, who are saying Gravity is a masterpiece, have confined themselves to an identification of a supposed theme of the picture. Well … that is not sufficient.

1. On the question of whether I have missed the point of this film, I do not think I have. I know a thing or two about this filmmaker, and also about the Mexican school of thought out of which this picture emerges. I see Gravity as, literally, about one person’s emotional rebirth. I see that as spiritual.

Talk about Kowalski being a Christ-figure and Stone being an Eve-figure is interesting – and I think it is really cool that the film has generated that kind of conversation – but ultimately that language is imposed onto the film. It is not intrinsic to the film nor, obviously, intended. That, in my view, does not make such conversations wrong but it does mean that in the interpretive process, person bring something of themselves. In drawing the conclusions you have, you reveal something of yourself and not simply something of the film. I have no issue with you doing this but “beehumble” and say “this is what I took from the film” rather than the far more difficult to substantiate “this is what the film is saying”.

Take care.

KW.

Here are reactions I have written to the last two films by Cuaron: Gravity & Children of Men.

 

[beehumble]

I don’t have to time now to break it down to show Gravity’s being both a single person’s journey to salvation and allegorically humanity’s journey. Hopefully I will later. As noted in the pdf: while this is an archetypal salvation journey, the redemptive arc of one character, it is at the same time allegorically a universal story that applies to man collectively. It is both the story of each of us, and all of us.

While the individual archetypal story is obvious, the Cuarons have kept the allegorical level more hidden.
**
In checking that website to see if they have added more info, I see they have uploaded a newer PDF of the full analysis and it now has pictures in it!! I took a look and the pics explain it more:**

awhilelonger.com/gravity/Understanding_Alfonso_Cuarons_Gravity.pdf

So I recommend people read that to understand *Gravity *on a deeper level.

**The simplest way to begin to understand the underlying allegory in *Gravity ***is:
Ryan’s daughter Sarah fell and died; God’s daughter Eve “fell” and “died”. Matt is allegorically God, particularly Christ, and Ryan is allegorically Eve and by extension all of humanity, us. The conversation between Matt and Ryan in the ethereal glow of the spacecraft is a conversation between God and Eve, and us - Cuaron has God talk directly to us, as a loving Father - a masterful move by Cuaron to help propagate his theme. Hopefully I will have time to post more about Gravity.

As for Cuaron using religion in his themes and religious imagery to propagate those themes, Cuaron’s previous great work, Children of Men, is purposefully loaded with Christian symbolism. From Wiki:

Cuarón explains how he uses this imagery to propagate the theme by cross-referencing fictional and futuristic events with real, contemporary, or historical incidents and beliefs:

They exit the Russian apartments, and the next shot you see is this woman wailing, holding the body of her son in her arms. This was a reference to a real photograph of a woman holding the body of her son in the Balkans, crying with the corpse of her son. It’s very obvious that when the photographer captured that photograph, he was referencing La Pietà, the Michelangelo sculpture of Mary holding the corpse of Jesus. So: We have a reference to something that really happened, in the Balkans, which is itself a reference to the Michelangelo sculpture. At the same time, we use the sculpture of David early on, which is also by Michelangelo, and we have of course the whole reference to the Nativity. And so everything was referencing and cross-referencing, as much as we could.
According to Cuarón, the title of P. D. James’ book (The Children of Men) is a Catholic allegory derived from a passage of scripture in the Bible.[35] (Psalm 90 (89):3 of the KJV: “Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.”) James refers to her story as a “Christian fable”[16] while Cuarón describes it as “almost like a look at Christianity”: “I didn’t want to shy away from the spiritual archetypes,” Cuarón told Filmmaker Magazine. “But I wasn’t interested in dealing with dogma.”

The film has been noted for its use of Christian symbolism; for example, British terrorists named “Fishes” protect the rights of refugees.[38] Opening on Christmas Day in the United States, critics compared the characters of Theo and Kee with Joseph and Mary,[39] calling the film a “modern-day Nativity story”.[40] Kee’s pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, when Theo asks Kee who the father of the baby is she jokingly states she is a virgin, and when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with “Jesus Christ” or the sign of the cross.[41] Also Gabriel Archangel (among others divinities) is invoked in the bus scene.

To highlight these spiritual themes, Cuarón commissioned a 15-minute piece by British composer John Tavener, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church whose work resonates with the themes of “motherhood, birth, rebirth, and redemption in the eyes of God.”
​

God bless you.

 

[meteoric]

While I haven’t seen the movie (and probably won’t get to see it in the theater) I did attend a talk by Kate Rubins, a class of 2009 NASA astronaut. During the question period, she was asked about the movie, and said that she and a number of other astronauts went to see it while they were furloughed. She enjoyed the visuals and the movie generally; felt the story was weak, and the science wrong. But she still encouraged seeing it for the beauty of it.

Tom A.
When I asked her about a cleaning problem one of the Skylab astronauts mentioned 25 years ago, she said that most of the astronauts are men, and that there is a mandatory 4 hour cleaning session every week.

 

[beehumble]

Well, very few people find the movie weak, most leave inspired - hence its extremely high 97 rating on the critic-aggregator RottenTomatoes.com .

rottentomatoes.com/m/gravity_2013/

Two astronauts** who were actual consultants on the movie** said watching it “with the big format , the beautiful views - it brings back a lot of good memories”, and the female astronaut consultant (who looks a little bit like Bullock) says,

“When you go to the movies, when you walk in that door and you sit in that seat, you are asking for someone to take you somewhere and probably somewhere you can’t go by yourself. With a film like this…you get to go.”

The video with the two astronauts speaking about *Gravity *is here:

youtube.com/watch?v=39w4Ow5QDGQ

Of course keep in mind it is as director/writer/producer Alfonso Cuaron says, it is a fiction. This is not a documentary about space. It keeps close to what it is like in space, but cannot and does not intend to get it perfectly exact, but as the astronaut consultant said after watching Gravity, “somebody did their homework”. The whole disaster, while possible in some ways, is not expected to really happen. The movie *Gandhi *did not get it all right, *Lincoln *did not get it all right, no Hollywood entertainment movie intends to do so, to be mistaken for an historical documentary.

It’s a movie!!! But it manages to simulate what it’s like to be in space very well, so say those who have been there!

God bless you.

 

[beehumble]

Well so I have read that pdf linked previously that uses Ryan as Eve, as the interpretative key for the allegory underneath Gravity’s surface story.

*** SPOILERS ****

I have come across one that argues the interpretative key is Ryan as “Peter” and that makes a lot of sense too; it is here:

citizenbezner.blogspot.com/2013/10/reading-in-zero-gravity.html

And that idea is discussed here:

thinklings.org/posts/understanding-gravity-as-an-allegory-of-the-life-of-peter

So, thinking more on it, it is possible and I now think the interpretative key is a hybrid of Eve and Peter, and that is why Cuaron has the character Ryan as female, yet with a male first name and a last name that is evocative of the Rock, Peter. “Eve” and “Peter” are symbols for all humanity - first as children of Satan (“Eve”), and then as children of God (“Peter”).

Eve (Ryan) becomes a child of God, she becomes “Peter” once she encounters Christ (Matt). She moves from being a child of Satan to being a child of God again, as she was before the Fall.

Ryan’s encounter with Matt, symbolic of Eve’s, and her children’s, encounter with Christ is transformative. Ryan becomes like Matt in many ways, and thus even talks like him as she is re-entering the Garden, and uses the fire extinguisher like Matt uses his jet pack - children of Satan (Eve) become the children of God through the intervention of Christ into the fallen world.

The encounter with Christ changes the fallen world, first the Apostles with Peter as the head and then through them the Church under “Peter”, out to the world, to all of Eve’s fallen children, humanity.

The transformation of Ryan happens as Matt (Christ) is 'ascending into the heavens", when he says, “What kind of a name is Ryan for a boy?” And Ryan responds, “My father wanted a boy.” After that we see Ryan shed her old garment - the spacesuit - and become a fetus in the womb, and then exit the womb reborn (she exits from the space station tunnel into the communications area) , and then we see both her and her reflection in the glass - flesh and spirit - “Eve” (humanity) has been made whole again. She is now “Peter”, a child of God. Of course as in the Bible Satan comes again and tries to destory “Eve’s” (humanity’s) restored hope and faith.

God bless you.

 

[beehumble]

While I haven’t seen the movie (and probably won’t get to see it in the theater) I did attend a talk by Kate Rubins, a class of 2009 NASA astronaut. During the question period, she was asked about the movie, and said that she and a number of other astronauts went to see it while they were furloughed. She enjoyed the visuals and the movie generally; felt the story was weak, and the science wrong. But she still encouraged seeing it for the beauty of it.

Tom A.
When I asked her about a cleaning problem one of the Skylab astronauts mentioned 25 years ago, she said that most of the astronauts are men, and that there is a mandatory 4 hour cleaning session every week.

As one said, and I second:
Saw Gravity opening weekend in 3D.
The extra cash is worth it for the 3d.
Awesome movie. It’s not just a movie. It’s an experience. Go see it while it’s still in theaters in 3d. Seriously.

I don’t go to many movies, this one i have seen a few times and don’t mind at all paying extra for 3D. It simply will NOT be the same on a television screen.

I recommend people to see this one in 3D at the movie theater. To each his own, of course!

God bless you.

 

[Kelly_Wilson]

Fair enough, Beehumble. We all have things to do other than discuss Gravity so I understand if you cannot devote all that you would like to this conversation.

Your difficulty, though, surrounds not the insights this film has provoked in you. Rather, your difficulty surrounds the intentionality you attribute to the filmmaker. To see Kowalski as a Christi-figure, for example, is one thing, but to associate that with the intentions of the filmmaker is quite another. You have not defended the latter association. If you think Kowalski was intended as a Christ-figure, then defend that by pointing to, for example, an interview wherein the director communicates this. Until you can, you are reading something into this film. If you were interpreting a biblical text I would say you were doing “eisegesis”.

Further, religious imagery in Children of Men is irrelevant. Cuarón, there, is adapting the novel of someone else. Surely the fact that he is adapting the novel of a deeply Christian author is the explanation to there being religious imagery in Children of Men.

In fact, though, the Slovene philosopher Žižek believes Cuarón’s adaptation is a “materialist subversion” of a novel which is a “Christian parable of resuscitation". A writer from First Things actually refers to the adaptation as being an act of vandalism. I disagree with these assessments but they show evaluations are slightly more nuanced than your comments would suggest.

Might I simply ask what the harm is in saying something like “this is what I took from the film” or “this is how I understood this character” rather than “the filmmaker is saying that” and “the filmmaker is presenting this character as…” One set of comments describes a subjective experience which, if the experience is yours, makes you its expert. The other set describes something more objective and requires substantiation like, for example, the guy who made the film actually saying “I am presenting this character as”. Your language is not modest. You are making objective claims but have not yet substantiated them.

We can disagree but I do not expect the occasion of that disagreement to fuel your suggestion that I just haven’t “got” the film. Like I said, this is a filmmaker about whom I know more than a little, and the school of cinema out of which he emerges - what Ebert calls the “New Mexican Cinema” - is also something else I know a bit about. Here are reactions I have written to the last two films by Cuaron: Gravity & Children of Men.

Peace,
KW.

 

[beehumble]

Fair enough you don’t think it is a masterpiece and I do. Art is subjective; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, yes, of course these are my own opinions. And yes, you took out of it what you did, and I took out of it what I did and Fr. Barron took out of it what he did, etc… And so it goes.

In fact, though, the Slovene philosopher Žižek believes Cuarón’s adaptation is a “materialist subversion” of a novel which is a “Christian parable of resuscitation". A writer from First Things actually refers to the adaptation as being an act of vandalism. I disagree with these assessments but they show evaluations are slightly more nuanced than your comments would suggest.

This just proves the point, each person will take from art what they “see”.

(Cuaron later did explain his use of symbols in Children of Men, and he might say more about *Gravity *later, but maybe not - many artists in film or other media simply disdain writing commentary about their works, they want us to see in it what we will. )

The point I was trying to make in referencing Children of Men is that he has used such symbols, such allegory in previous works, and further he has indeed used these to propagate his themes of salvation and redemption etc., so it is not out of the realm of possibilities, and in fact in line with masters such as Bresson whom he admires very much. It is the more likely explanation of a film like *Gravity * ( yes in my opinion) many viewers have noticed what they feel is a Christian salvation theme within it. Remember, he *chose *to make the film Children of Men with its Christian themes, because he felt he had something to say to his audience and that this story aligned well with what he wanted to say.

(I think he bothered to explain some of Children of Men because he felt it had been “missed” by not only ordinary movie folk but surprisingly by reviewers too. It is for the same reason, that its theme and its structure - minimalist by design to drive home the theme - is being “missed” by critics again, I think he mentioned Bresson’s A Man Escaped and Spielberg’s *Duel * when discussing *Gravity *purposefully to clue everyone in, critics alike - that he intended to make a minimalist film with heavy themes of salvation and redemption ala the masterpiece A Man Escaped, but with some more action like in Duel. And I for one think he succeeded marvelously!! )

I feel *Gravity *is much richer, much deeper than the young, godless (and by this I mean many of them simply don’t know the Christian salvation story so they could not possibly recognize it when it is allegorically presented to them in a film) Hollywood Reporter types are seeing is all - whom are basically calling it “a special effects whiz bang and not much else kind of movie.” It is not that kind of movie, nor did Cuaron intend it to be, imho. He is one who is not afraid to take his “boat” into deep waters, as he has done in the past, has done here, and hopefully will do so again.

I did not mean to offend you in anyway and for that I am sorry. (yes I read those two reviews of yours earlier - your colleague said Children of Men was criminally under appreciated; I think the same “crime” is happening again - a masterpiece is being overlooked by some, maybe many. Again though, as you rightly point out and I have always felt, when it comes to art everyone is entitled to see what they “see”.)

God bless you.

 

[Kelly_Wilson]

While I haven’t seen the movie (and probably won’t get to see it in the theater) I did attend a talk by Kate Rubins … and she enjoyed the visuals and the movie generally; felt the story was weak, and the science wrong. But she still encouraged seeing it for the beauty of it.

Meteoric,

The extent to which Gravity represents “good science” has been written about a great deal. The impressions seem to cover a wide spectrum: Some think Gravity pretty much gets it right, some think it doesn’t really, and others say Gravity gets parts right and parts not. You can probably find each kind of article with a quick Google Search. If your background is in science, and once you have seen the film, consider sharing your own thoughts on that question if it is of interest to you.

Be that as it may … the script is not particularly great (it’s not particularly bad either). I have given, in the forum here, one particularly egregious use of cliché, but as it represents a spoiler you might not want to go back and reread it. What is truly remarkable about Gravity is the cinematography. On reaction highlights the innovation at work in this picture: “There are levels of Hollywood trickery in service to this film that I am pretty sure involve classified technology.” That is a fairly high compliment to this picture. For that alone, Gravity deserves a viewing. Having said that, the cinematography is not the only reason this film has to boast. It is thematically enriching.

I find I have difficulty, though, considering seriously the comments of Beehumble. I admire the enthusiasm of that poster and his or her passion for this movie, but he or she is very hesitant in any way to critically engage with this film. To say “very few people find this movie weak” is patently false. More true is that the cinematography elevates what would otherwise be an average film. You cannot reduce a film, and all that goes into making it, to its “inspiring” value. To suppose that Gravity receives a 97 % rating at Rotten Tomatoes because it is “inspiring” is, simply put, not a serious claim. I have written a brief reaction to Gravity, here, and once you have seen it, consider dropping by and sharing your thoughts. Or come back to this forum.

Peace,
KW.

 

[Kelly_Wilson]

Fair enough you don’t think it is a masterpiece and I do. Art is subjective; beauty is in the eye of the beholder…

Beehumble, if you are ready to get out of this conversation with me, just say so. I don’t want to beat a dead horse but, if it is possible, I do want to move closer to understanding your position.

What I am trying to draw out of you – Ma’am or Sir – is an argument in favour of your position.

I am not writing your position off. I am saying you haven’t persuasively made its case.

It seems to me that we are discussing two different things. The first surrounds whether this film is a masterpiece. The second surrounds your interpretation of the filmmaker’s intentionality. I want to ask two very specific questions which I hope time might permit you to answer.

As to the first – the question of the masterpiece – I have summarized my argument. I will again: Essentially I am saying that in evaluating a picture we look at a whole host of features (cinematography, writing, acting …). You are not really, in my view, looking at anything beyond this film’s thematic content (and even that is misdiagnosed by you [in my view]). So, tell me please, what is a masterpiece and why is this film one?

As to the second – surrounding the intentionality you attribute to the filmmaker – I have summarized my argument. I will again: You are confusing your subjective experience of the film – what you have chosen to draw from Gravity and what you have chosen to impose upon it – with what the filmmaker intended. Sober language demands, in my view, that you have enough respect for the work of someone else that you say “this is how that character spoke to me…” rather than “this is what the filmmaker wants us to take from this character …”. So, tell me please – and I think I have already asked this - why not use language which distinguishes your own interpretive lens from the intentions of the filmmaker?

By the way, I realize not everyone here is Catholic, but your profile says that you are. Catholics do not believe that “beauty” is in the eye of the beholder. They do not believe that value communicated through the medium of art is subjective. This is not a matter of you taking what you did, and me what I did, and Fr. Barron what he did, and Žižek what he did. This is you imposing upon something. When you could say “this is what I took from this …” or “I interpreted the character as …” you instead say “what the director wants to say is that…” and “what the character represents is…” You even accused me of not “getting” this movie. No. I just don’t see merit in exaggerated language.

I know you think Gravity is rich and deep. I got something from it too. You didn’t offend me, by the way. I was just surprised that someone such as yourself who is clearly passionate about this film but clearly also not attaching a critical lens to it would use the language of me not “getting” Gravity. I admire this film. I just happen to be more sober in my words about it.

Peace,

KW.