3D or not to D

I saw “Gravity” in 3D on Saturday night with one of my BFFs, having just seen it the night before with my son. How that came about was my perfectly boneheaded move after a long day’s work, click-buying too fast without reading the small print, aided by some less than stellar user navigation by Moviefone.com, but Spencer and I found ourselves headed to the 2D version of Alfonso Cuarón’s space opera, “Gravity” on Friday instead of the 3D version we really wanted to see.

Once I realized that the tickets were non-refundable, we each made our own flavor of lemonade if you catch the drift. Spencer, who is prone to vertigo, thought the 2D version might be safer and I told myself that this would be the perfect acid test of whether the film was worth seeing twice, simply to resolve whether Real 3D is integral to the storyline or just a gimmick.

To be sure, the film is stunning in standard format 2D. We thoroughly enjoyed it. But by the end of my viewing, I had no doubt I needed to see it again to test the question. When I asked my 13 year old if he felt the same way, he said he did, but I could tell from the lack of commitment in his voice that he didn’t really share the same zeal I did.

So, I pressed him and was a little surprised when he said he found it boring and slow in places. And when I asked my older son about it, he had the same reaction and I then got it.

You have to be an adult to really get “Gravity” because it’s the first 3D film with adult themes.

“In COLOR plus the new depth perception... it puts a girl in your lap! “

No, I’m not talking about megaboobies dangling in your face, I’m talking about decline, loss, acceptance, scraping bottom and finding the means to defy impossible odds. These are adult themes you only have an aesthetic reaction to if you yourself have experienced them. Yes, the pacing is somewhat leisurely at times, though there is plenty of non-stop tension. There are only two live actors and a handful of VO’s. It’s not epic in scale, it’s a parlor drama, a dialogue, then a monologue, unfolding in an epic setting. And the characters and their actions don’t expand to fill the void. They are dwarfed by it. They are infinitesimal specks. That’s entirely the point.



In “Avatar,” the “other serious 3D film,” there’s a fair amount of debate as to whether the 3D was a gimmick or integral to the storyline. The answer is yes, both ways. To be fair to James Cameron, it was still a freshman toe dip into the possibilities of 3D, FF Copolla’s sophomore softcore romp notwithstanding.

In “Avatar,” there’s lots of vertiginous swooping about. And there’s a plot that’s archetypally clotted and cheesy, just hinting at the possible range of the full 3D story palette.  In “Avatar” and all the other less well-done 3D movies, characters and machines swarm the set like bees at a hive. No opportunity to fill the frame with “stuff” is left untouched. Dutch angles cheat and telegraph dimensionality with all the subtlety of Count Floyd howling on SCTV.

                           In threeee-deeee @ 3:40 … Awoooooo!!!

Understand, I loved “Avatar” but in the balance, it’s a movie for kids. In story-structure terms, that’s because it’s the “rite of passage” hero’s journey in which the boy learns to become a man. “Gravity” is the adult hero’s journey in which the already mature, embattled warrior embraces impending death, redemption and resurrection.

   

v.

In the four films he’s best known for, from “Children of Men” to “Y Tu Mama Tambien” to the darkest, most adult-satisfying Harry Potter “Prisoner of Azkaban,” to “Gravity,” Cuaron consistently returns to these themes. Each time, the accomplished director and would be astronaut probes deeper into the void, as each journey becomes more masterly and satisfying. Likewise are the breathtaking turns by talented Mexican cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and composer  Steven Price, who scored Peter Jackson’s two best “Ring” cycle flicks. In his latest outing Price shows greater range, but also greater restraint and less willingness to default to the saccharine, soporific tug at the heartstrings.

That’s not to say there aren’t a handful of trite “movie moments.” I’m not divulging any spoilers that A.O. Scott at the New York Times hasn’t already spilled, like the jump music that accompanies a dead body or the ubiquitous tap of the fuel gauge to, reveal, gasp, yes, it really is empty! But these detours down the shopworn story discount aisle are rare and forgivable and unless you are Neil Degrasse, so are the handful of astrophysical lapses.

“You can’t get there from here.”

Dr. Kevin Grazier, “Gravity's” astrophysics adviser, rebuts it this way: 

"Often a story worth telling can fall apart if there is a complete dedication to perfect science. The goal is to make everything seem grounded enough in the physical world that it seems real. So story trumps science every time."

I don’t agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Kev. He’s better compensated than a kitbag of MD’s on a pharmco junket, so to be sure, he needs to say what he said. I say that the tighter your story is, the less likely people are to see the seams and want to pull out the threads.  So yes, I knew there were factual lapses going in to the film (both times) and both times, I didn’t care. This is the second highest compliment I can pay a film.

As to whether this film needs 3D for a full exposition of story, I will simply say emphatically yes, it does. There are visual cues that flatten out in 2D. Cues that heighten tension, deepen character and add pathos to the story. Things I got on Saturday night that I didn’t get on Friday. I won’t tell you what these moments are. You’ll know them when you see them. If I required any further proof, I merely needed to turn to (and probably embarrass) the 40-something woman on my right who spent the entire second act gasping, sighing and choking back tears. She and hubby didn’t seem the types to collect Bobo Fett action figures. I'm sure she didn't expect to cry at a SF movie. But there she was, plugged right into the true-to-life peril of Sandra Bullock’s pitch perfect character. As was I. And yes, even though George Clooney in apprehension, is the very model of Buzz Lightyear, his performance is a gentle, wry, intelligent nod rather than a frat-boy slap on the back.

“Houston, I have a bad feeling about this mission.” … “Elaborate.”

That’s not to say that the thrill ride factor wasn’t there. It was, in spades, though again, more elegant and controlled than “Avatar.” It even took artistic advantage of 3D’s somewhat compressed luminance range. There were plenty of moments of jaw-dropping beauty. Earth, from space, as we’ve never seen it before, not just at eye-popping resolution, but with dimensionality and texture that lent it a real sense of curvature, gravity and awe. There was the precarious workstation perch 22,000 miles above, the gut-twisting perspective of an untethered space walk, the nightmarish, “off structure” tumble through oblivion with only cold stars and the empty black sky to receive you. Cue the orbiting debris, cutting a swath of death and destruction every 90 minutes.

“Avatar” was good. Great even. “Gravity” is even better. And in the hallowed tradition of Louis Lumiere’s 1895 “L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat” (which film school legend has audience members bolting from their seats in terror), both contemporary films leave you wondering, not if 3D is a strictly a gimmick, (asked and answered) or if any filmmaker is ever going to be able to go one better. You only need ask “when?” and be prepared to take your seats and slip on your glasses. 3D is all grown up, my friends and ready to tell adult stories.

I’ll let other people make the Oscar predictions. The highest compliment I can pay any film is the existential dialogue with my film companion that followed our screening of “Gravity,” the kind of discussion whose conclusion only comes at the bottom of a great bottle of wine. This one sticks with you and feeds your soul. And after a summer drought of cinematic disappointments, it doesn’t get any better than that.