(spoiler alert)
(and spoiler space)
(and spoiler space)
(and spoiler space)
(&c.)
If a female scientist is intelligent and tough enough to qualify to spend months on a mission with NASA, she should not need a male scientist to tell her EVERY SINGLE THING SHE HAS TO DO.
Including HOW TO BREATHE.
To the extent that she GIVES UP and SETTLES DOWN TO DIE until he COMES BACK FROM THE DEAD to tell her this one piece of information that she needs to get back to the earth.
Seriously. He COMES BACK FROM THE DEAD with this info, because DEAD MEN apparently have more knowledge and common sense than living women, even living scientist women. And Ryan Stone, Sandra Bullock's character, is so EMOTIONAL and FEARFUL and in need of a MAN to direct her that she would never survive without Mental Ghost Matt Kowalski.
Or maybe Manic Pixie Dream Astronaut Matt Kowalski, as he's the quirky (country music!), grounded, life-loving dude who awakens Ryan's desire to live again. But that again highlights what a void Ryan is herself, how little we know of her besides her role as a grieving mother . . . and of course the movie makes her a mother, one of the most safe and unthreatening things a woman can be, and lets that role take precedence over whatever knowledge and intelligence she should have as a scientist. When she makes it back to earth, it's not thanks to any such knowledge and skill (she flunked the flight simulator, as she reminds us repeatedly), but all down to a manual and dumb luck, it seemed to me. This feels like an almost systematic diminution of any power the character could claim, and reader, it made me ANGRY.
+++++
My rational, analytic, critical mind knows all the caveats and other interpretations on this. There is the character history angle: It's her first time in space, while he's the jokey veteran; of course he knows better what to do. There is the character investment/plot angle: If she knew exactly what to do the whole time, we wouldn't fear for her as much as we do, and as the film operates pretty much entirely on suspense, the entire movie would fall apart with her knowledge. There's the personal angle: Yes, if it were me, I would be too terrified to think straight, likewise unable to breathe in the little sips that would preserve my oxygen, and grateful for any direction. (This is why I am not an astronaut, and why I expect better of the people and characters who are.)
There is the emotional-journey angle: As the good people of The Dissolve point out, the movie can be read as a metaphor for depression, where Ryan has been floating in a void of grief since her daughter's death, and a good friend and the task of surviving call her back to earth. There is even a completely opposite, equally feminist angle that is DELIGHTED to see a woman at the center of the action, to have a man in the Manic Pixie role (sacrificing himself for her rather than the other way around), to discover Ryan's emotions eventually informing her survival rather than being locked away, Strong Female Character-style. All of these things are true, and I can acknowledge them.
But none of them change the root of my near-rage on this subject, which is not just a feminist's anger at seeing a man given all the intelligence and ability in a movie, but a story-lover's anger at not being able to respect my protagonist fully -- a failure of narrative architecture in a plot like this one, as I kept being knocked out of that all-important suspense by thinking, "For God's sake, Stone, GET IT TOGETHER. You are an ASTRONAUT. You should be BETTER THAN THIS."
Alfonso Cuaron should also be better than this. All scripts should be better than this. The movie is a visual wonder and a filmmaking achievement; that gets no argument from me. But until Hollywood starts giving us not just female protagonists, but ones with the same brains and resourcefulness as the male characters in their films, I am going to be irritated.
To conclude, I hereby propose a new tagline for the move:
Posts
Great tagline.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the movie, but I wonder how the script could have been written to have the character be knowledgeable and still remain suspenseful? That might have been an intriguing exercise for a screenwriter. What blind spots might she have had (and we all have them) that could have impeded her when the chips were down?
One thing about your review: I now want to watch and judge the movie for myself!
Well, about the whole scientist-mom thing: perhaps she has to be a mother in order to be relate-able. Given the state of affairs in the world, I'm not convinced that most people understand what scientists do. (Note that I haven't watched the movie, and you're the first person to highlight to me that Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a scientist).
ReplyDeleteSPOILERS AHEAD
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. I'm no feminist, but I'm a female screenwriter in a male-dominated industry, and I respect Cuaron's choices here. If you look at his body of work, he is a true advocate of strong female characters. Gravity is no exception. He had an $85 million budget about two characters in space and he decided to write a female lead. Can you imagine how much crap he must have taken for this? Sandra Bullock had to be able to carry this film, and he knew she could do it. He wrote her a strong character that she developed, honed, and perfected for the screen. I would never describe her as "weak." She's in space. She's in a really bad situation that she was not prepared for because she's a medical engineer, not a veteran astronaut. I would have screamed, too. I would have panicked. I would have cried my eyes out. I'm pretty sure a man on his first mission to space would have reacted the same way.
And I disagree that motherhood is "safe and unthreatening". This film was a fine example of the precise opposite. Stone lost a very young child. She was still doing her job (in a male-dominated field), still taking risks, still trying to move on in spite of this terrible tragedy haunting her everyday life. Motherhood made Stone relatable (as another poster pointed out), which is critical in a movie like this. We needed to feel that she had something at stake. Fatherhood accomplishes the same thing. If you watch a lot of movies, you'll see that this is a common trope for a reason.
I also disagree that Matt Kowalksi is the token "save the day male." His gender is completely irrelevant here. He is the veteran astronaut who helps Stone survive. Simple as that. She needed someone with more expertise and experience to help her navigate a difficult situation. Reading into this any more than that fuels a feminist minefield that really isn't necessary in this case. He didn't even "save" her - she saved herself! I loved the radio scene when she experienced that subtle, but tremendous connection with humanity. I would argue that yes, Kowalski told her WHAT she needed to do to survive (because he is trained to do exactly that), but she realized WHY after re-establishing that simple connection with life on earth. This is a more complex reading of that sequence, but I think it speaks to the depth of Cuaron's characters. What is DRIVING her throughout this movie? It isn't George Clooney in a space suit. It's life. It's loss. It's a desire to rediscover a piece of humanity she had been missing for a long time.
(I don't mean to attack your argument here. I respect your opinion but felt the need to make some counterpoints.)
I'm sorry to interrupt but it actually WAS Clooney as a hallucinated image who asked Dr.Stone what is the point of living if she only pursues to be safe from risks and grief while completely being alone and detached from the reality. We may see this line as coming from Dr.Stone's own consciousness but on thw surface it was this GUY who reminded of all this! And I was shocked personally because I believed Dr.Stone will let herself end in the space.
DeleteThe title Cuaron very well deserves is "mangina".
DeleteDr. Stoned is in the other hand a perfect example of what community at large may expect from gender studies doctors in space, or anywhere else. Some time ago women, myself included, needed some serious elbow grease to achieve something, just as male colleagues did, and we were respected. Not any more. It is sad seeing all those bimbos climbing over others, mainly male colleagues and complain about glass ceilings and whatnot.
How come Virginia Woolf is still the only serious female writer of all times?
The only thing I despise more than entitled bimbo is a mangina.
Disclaimer: haven't seen the movie. But my 12 year old daughter and I heard a review of it on the radio and discussed the premise, and we agreed we would have been interested to see a film where an older, more experienced female astronaut saved the day for a younger, panicky male.
ReplyDeleteIs there any chance that movie would ever be made?
A Latte Beckons, your comment speaks directly to something I was thinking in response to Anonymous's remarks above. If the genders had been flipped here, or if Stone were a slightly younger man instead (something the studio apparently wanted at some point, and Cuaron, to his credit, refused), would the character still be written as such a flailing mess? Of course not; no A-list actor would touch that role without rewrites. But it's fine for a woman . . .
ReplyDeleteHere! Here! I agree. I can't believe how weak, fumbling, and confused Sandra Bullock's character was portrayed. I like her as an actress, and I was somewhat surprised how weak she allowed herself to be portrayed in this film.
DeleteAnyone can rationalize that it was the character's first time on a mission. But if a true astronaut is allowed up in space, it is with full training, including a psych work up, and the knowledge that they can handle themselves under pressure. Had it been real life, Ryan would have had to PROVE that her child's death would not affect her ability to perform her duties. This character was weak, poorly trained, and a disappointment overall.
I am not a feminist in the true sense of the word, but I love a strong female lead. Ryan What's-her-name p***ed me off. I won't watch this agin. I would have liked a stronger female protagonist, who reacts more realistically to the scenarios she faced, based on the level of training WE ALL can expect an astronaut female or male to undergo. Two Thumbs DOWN.
And Anonymous, as to the rest of your points, I acknowledge about half of them in the post itself. As to the other half, I meant motherhood was "safe and unthreatening" to any men in the audience who might be cowed by the idea of a woman as a scientist, not that motherhood is a safe state. There are many ways to make a character relatable besides motherhood -- the mere fact of her vulnerability in space makes her relatable, I think. Her life is at stake; isn't that enough? (There's been a lot of critical chatter about the necessity of that subplot, and I don't actually have a quarrel with her being a mother, only the stupidity with which she approached being an astronaut.)
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right that she needed a guide, but the fact that they chose to make the guide male, and make her need a guide so much, DOES matter -- cf. the comment from A Latte Beckons and my response; the read of the movie would be very different if the genders were different as well. And as I recall the order of events in the movie (and I admit I may not be doing it correctly), she hears the Chinese lullaby, then she settles down to die, then Kowalski shows up, then she decides to live. From that order of events, it seems very much like she wants to live not because of her reconnection with humanity, but because Kowalski showed her the way out.
I saw what was driving her throughout this movie was the simple desire to survive, and her finding a way through the loss was a useful side effect. Again: No quarrel with the reading of the movie as a film about depression. The quarrel is only with what she does on her way out of it.
MAJOR SPOILER TO FOLLOW...
ReplyDeleteSPOILER BELOW....
So...the fact that when Clooney reappears and helps her he is actually her own subconscious, in the guise of someone who she respected greatly and who knew his way around a spaceship and who just died helping her get at least as far as she had at that point, and thus she, herself, is reaffirming her desire to live and solving her own technical problem doesn't matter? You're denying her the agency of her own brain in that scene.
This was my take on it as well. As she became cyanotic, she hallucinated and remembered a salient technical detail during her "conversation" with Matt. When she cops to it, and asks "how are you here?", the hallucination ends, and she restores the oxygen to the compartment.
DeleteIt was irksome to me, though, that she "gave up" at that point instead of riding it out. But I've never been in any situation as dire, so don't feel I'm in a position to judge.
Tim, as you republished your Facebook comment here, I'll republish my response too! You argue the point well, and from a narrative perspective, I understand why they'd need to bring Kowalski back (no other actors in the movie to talk to her about it, and it would be an odd place to introduce one). But the way the characters were talking at the beginning seemed to indicate they didn't know each other deeply enough for him to have taken root in her subconscious like that (or was simply bad exposition writing), and I just find it tiresome that her agency would take the form of a man.
ReplyDeleteIf ultimately the only solution, in a movie with two characters in which the female one is absolutely the strong, well-depicted protagonist, would be to make both characters female, I think we're losing more than the narrative to politics.It may not work as an absolutist feminist work in the state it's in, but I think it's just fine as a humanist work, and, in my eyes as a male feminist (insofar as I'm allowed), I think it's just fine as a feminist work too. To me, a story in which a man and a woman are both strong, appealing characters who help each other, and in no way condescend to each other, *is* a feminist story. Empowering mommy isn't all about throwing the daddy out with the bathwater.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see a screenwriter comment, and then some commentary about how maybe it should have been two women astronauts, I think the Bechdel Test. And this makes me think of the Wikipedia entry I once read about the Bechdel Test, which reminds me of this passage from A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN, which I read after reading about the Bechdel Test.
ReplyDeleteAll these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of fictitious women, are too simple. So much has been left out, unattempted. And I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends. .... They are now and then mothers and daughters. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen's day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman’s life is that ....
Again cross-posting from Facebook: Tim Byrd, happy to have you on the feminist crew! I don't think the only solution would be to make both of them female. All I have wanted this whole time, truly, is for Stone to be a little more competent in saving herself, as I did not find her at all "strong and appealing," to use your words -- rather, she seemed weak and dependent to me. (And nobody has been arguing that point with me! We've only been arguing whether her dependence is necessary for the story.) If she'd been able to show a little more control or take a little more initiative -- even just one or two things more beyond the fire extinguisher (the only thing she did without being told) -- I wouldn't have complained.
ReplyDelete(SPOILERS AHEAD)
ReplyDeleteI didn't even consider this perspective until reading your blog post, but I do see what you mean. While the gender roles didn't bother me personally, I take no argument with your observations. For me, it was seeing such a novice astronaut in space. I understand why she would hyperventilate and panic, this being her first mission, but what was she doing up there in the first place? Why was a medical doctor fixing the Hubble telescope, and one with so little in-space experience? And I agree, while her awful track record in the simulator worked as a narrative device, it was a little silly that she would even be allowed on the mission at all. These guys (and girls!) train for years to go on those missions, and seats on the ship are scarce (there were only five in their crew, if I remember correctly). However, the screenplay made it out like she was performing some sort of community service, a quid pro quo for receiving grant money for her research back on Earth.
I think it was a frail narrative device to make any astronaut so clueless, especially one credited as a doctor, and then add the fact that she's a woman with a male guide, and I see your point. If you accept the narrative, I think the movie works fine. But obviously there's room for improvement in how that narrative is accomplished. There's no reason she couldn't have solved more of these problems on her own (the fire extinguisher showed that was possible), though I suppose you lose the depression laden feeling of being dependent on others, which I definitely picked up on, and which I think makes the movie work. I suppose, as with all creative work, once you start moving the pieces around, you have to start creating new ones and sliding those into place to fill the gaps.
On the whole though, I have to say I loved it. I think it's a rare thing in film for technical prowess to sit quietly behind the story. I can't remember the last time I saw a film that was so technically inspired that still managed to feel more like a poem than an action movie. That kind of tonal tightrope is one of the most impressive things to me as a storyteller. Sorry I'm going a bit off topic here, but I wanted to mention that.
I had very similar thoughts during my viewing of the movie this evening, and was so glad to find your post. I can't help but think gender would have been nearly a non-issue had Clooney's character shown even a speck of weakness at any given moment. Yes, he's Veteran Space Person who knows what to do in all situations, but even he likely hasn't faced death in such a major and imminent way before. If he had shown fear, or hesitation, or emotion in any form other than calm reason at all times, I would have felt much more comfortable with Ryan being an emotional wreck. The characters would have been on more equal, and realistic, footing.
ReplyDeleteWell said. I am a 25 year old male graduate of liberal arts college who has never felt alignment with the feminist movement until seeing Gravity. Sandra Bullock stumbles and whines through every step, while George Clooney remains so calm and collected he can continuously save her while still regaling her with tales of Mardi Gras. To the people lauding Gravity for its use of a female lead, could you ever imagine a male character whimpering his way through every step of a blockbuster?
ReplyDeleteDo yourself a favor and watch phone booth. Get your head out of other people's propaganda.
DeleteObviously Cheryl has never been in drama situation before, and think that being in a disaster scenario 124 miles above earth will be a cakewalk.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to try it - and tell me if you react any better than Bollock did.
Keep imagine how women (and men) will react in drastic situations to fit your feminist narratives - I'd rather watch a realistic depiction of humans, not caricatures.
Good grief, Anonymous. You feel free to question my bravery in space, but you don't even have the guts to leave your real name here? Yeah, sure, I'll take you seriously.
DeleteI do absolutely agree that Sandra Bullock was so irritating in this one, like the way she kept panting and gasping throughout. And the way they wrote her character - anyone would freak out in a situation like that but a strong woman, a SCIENTIST, a trained astronaut would eventually pull herself together and make it on her own. So chauvinistic, the idea that she needs a man to survive and guide her along (like as though women are so weak they just freak and break down and give up). She shoulda been more like Sigourney Weaver in Alien - she's scared shitless, lost a daughter (like Ripley in Aliens) and facing death, but she's one tough bitch and at the end she'll fight her way through it, no man required.
ReplyDeleteI went searching the internet to see if anyone else felt the same way I did about Sandra Bullocks performance and so glad I found your post:) Btw, I'm a guy and I totally had the same thought. When you compare Bullock's character with Jodi Foster's from the movie "Contact".. the difference is stark. While I won't go as far to say Foster's role was completely devoid from bias, there was definitely more strength and independence that is miles from what we see in "Gravity".
ReplyDeleteI kept hearing that this movie was like super empowering for women and junk and that feminist should go see it cause Sandra is all deep and emotional (I suppose they meant in the good way) and fully developed and all that other cliche crap.
ReplyDelete[/Rant: I'm really tired of this 'deep, emotional, fully developed' cliche title they toss on women who are the same ol' weak whinny wimps we've been complaining about! Same dance different song...]
But then I seen the DVD cover and seen she's all curled up in the fetal position. Then I started thinking about all the clips I've seen of this movie in which she's always flailing around and screaming or yelling. I'm like "Herph, she doesn't seem very empowering..."
And then I read your blog and you pretty much confirm my suspicion of this movie. Goodness, everything you said I could so see myself saying about this movie if I watched it! Thank you for putting up with it so I won't have to!
I know I'm a little late to the comment party here, but I just wanted to say thanks for this post. Your thoughts followed my own almost point for point. I remember seeing just the trailer and being dismayed. I finally got to see the actual film last night and was so incredibly disappointed. Imagine just how much more of a knockout punch for "women in film" this would have been if Clooney and Bullock's roles had been switched! What if *he* had panicked and *she* had guided him?
ReplyDeleteOn top of that it was just a boring movie--it was nothing but one recycled stress-manipulation after another. Seriously, how many times can we, as an audience, be expected to get our blood pressure up over grabbing handrails?
I can see where you're coming from, and specifically the point that if the genders had been reversed, it's doubtful a man Dr. Stone would have wimpered his way through the film. However, I think this movie emcompasses authentic reactions, and the fact that Stone is a woman therefore interprets the reactions accordingly; the fact of the matter is that it's more likely for a woman to cry when overwhelmed than it is for a man simply because that's how society tells them to react. So I don't take issue with the fact that she's a mess throughout this movie - she's gone through an ordeal, and faced with dire circumstances during her first venture into space would make anyone upset (tears or no). I have to agree with you that her ability as an astronaut was appalling and I too felt annoyed that this newbie seemed to know nothing, though we all know that astronauts are trained extensively before being sent to space. However, I didn't make any connections to gender around this lack of knowledge because it had nothing to do with her being female.
ReplyDeleteTo diverge a little, I sometimes wonder whether feminists will really ever be happy - depictions of female characters need to be strong sometimes, but they also need to be vulnerable sometimes too, because both types of people exist. Yet it's when femal characters appear vulnerable that most often people take criticism. When Sandra Bullock can depict a weak woman astronaut without criticism from the public, that's when we'll truly have gender equality and understanding.
I just saw this movie a few days ago. originally i had no desire whatsoever to see it. I didn't get how they could make somebody drifting in space an interesting story. Well, i was shocked how much i liked this movie. I decided to read more about it and found there was this strong negative reaction labeling the movie as anti-feminist which lead me to here.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the argument is that Ryan Stone is portrayed as a weak female. As a male, maybe i can't fully understand how females feel when they see how they are depicted in hollywood movies and what they feel about how their gender is depicted in contrast to males. If you are looking for a female character to worship or see as legendary, then this movie fails miserably and does depict an extremely weak character. I didn't know what to expect but i certainly wasn't looking for any superheroines. Along those lines and as a male, i disagree that Ryan stone is weak by any means and here's why.
First, i feel we need to re-examine who Dr. Stone is. She is NOT really an astronaut. She never really had any business being in space. She's there because she, as a woman, was so intelligent to have invented something so valuable that NASA would trust only her with the installation of it in the hubble telescope. So let's give this character props for being so innovative that a design for medical imaging was so extraordinary that it could be used in freaking space. Overall, i don't think we should demand that she be as level headed as we would expect any astronaut should be in space.
That brings me to the next point. She's in space. As i said earlier, she really has no business being there. Think about that for a moment. I'd be scared sh*tless to ever go there. Just thinking about how infinitely vast the universe is and just how insignificant we really are in comparison is a scary idea. We are less than ants when compared to the enormity of the unverise. Everywhere you look, it's infinite...yet where you can go is limited. You need to remain confined to a space suit or a space station or a shuttle. I can't imagine how i'd feel if i was actually in a position to experience that. Being there for the first time, I'm sure i'd be shaking the whole time. I mean we know so little about space that we're not even concerned about aesthetics. Think about everything else we invent...not only does it need to work well, it needs to look good. When it comes to anything we send up in space, everything looks ugly. We understand so little that all we care about is its practicality. My point is, you would either have to be stupid or a functional sociopath not to express nervousness when faced with an unexplainable unknown such as space. Furthermore, you'd have to be the same to not panic when sh*t hits the fan in a place that no single person on earth is even close to understanding.
I do have a few other points i'd like to make but i need to get going as this is taking longer than i expected. i'll just focus on courage which we can all agree is a show of strength. I dont' know what you define as courage. To me, courage isn't being void of fear. Courage is how you respond to fear. Yes she panicked and screamed. Yes she almost gave up. In the end though, as frightened as she was, she pulled herself together enough to find a way to get home. To me, I have more respect for someone who comes out on top in the face of adversity than someone who comes out on top without struggle. Whether or not having her imagine George Clooney giving her strength to pull herself made her weaker, i dunno...i see your points there but it's a minor detail to the entire movie.
In the end, we're mostly judged on what we do, not what we think as we do it. Who cares if she had moments of weakness, it's because she's human, not because she's a female.
The part that annoyed me was the part where it was revealed that her big trauma was losing a child. Not because that isn't a huge trauma, because of course it is. But because it's the obvious go-to trauma for every female character ever. Even watching the movie I kept thinking that her "deep personal trauma" would inevitably be revealed as EITHER: 1) she's infertile, or 2) she had a kid who died. A male character, on the other hand, has a whole world of "deep personal traumas" to choose from. When the bit about her kid was revealed, my boyfriend knew why I was sighing and rolling my eyes, because I've noted this pattern before.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. What a horrible female character, weak and needing a man to tell her everything. To boot, she was in her underwear for a good bit of the movie.
ReplyDelete