Gravity: Technical
Specs and Movie Review
This past week I had the pleasure of viewing Alfonso Cuarón's new space
thriller “Gravity”. The
first point I'll make is that if you're going to see this movie, it is worth
the few extra bucks to see it in IMAX 3D. In that way, you will really be able
to grasp the true scope and feel of the long and harrowing shots that Cuarón is
known for in the film industry. Alfonso Cuarón is best known for directing “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”,
but also directed the Clive Owen drama “Children of Men”, and the breakout foreign hit “Y Tu Mama Tambien”. With such
dramatic work under his belt, it's easy to understand where the conflict and
drama of “Gravity” originates.
The main
challenge in the creation of “Gravity”
is the location of the story. Obviously a team of filmmakers can't
go to space on the shuttle Explorer and shoot in the International Space
Station, or destroy it for that matter.
“For the Cuaróns, space offered a rich field
of metaphor. In weightlessness, the inertia of one's personality — gravitas — can become an almost physical force.
There are cocoons of survival (spacesuits, ships and stations) challenging the
stark deadliness of the universe for an unprotected human.”[1]
Dave Brody, Space, Science and Culture Writer.
The idea
seemed simple in concept: shoot the movie in a green screen studio and have the
actor flip about in harnesses. Once they got into the studio however, it seemed
this wasn't going to be as easy as they once thought. Early in the pre-production
process, Director of Photography Emmanuel Lubezki foresaw a problem. In space,
light comes from only one source, the Sun. Once the light hits an object, it
bounces all over the place and creates serious problems for the camera; especially
during some of the more intense sequences where Sandra Bullock's character is
free-spinning through space. The crew couldn't just rotate and spotlight around
the actor and get the same effects as if she were tumbling through space. To
overcome this obstacle, Lubezki completely recreated the way we shoot movies.
He created a “light box” with 196 panels, each containing 4,096 LEDs.[2]
Looks
like light #2,058 is out!!!
Needless to say, if our EFillF team could get our hands on anything like
this we'd never need sets again. Actors and set pieces could be put inside the
box and the panels would move to accommodate the necessary views. The rig for
“Gravity” was over 20 feet tall and 10 feet wide. I imagine when George and
Sandra Bullock were in the “light box” it really did feel as though they were
in space.
The second challenge in “Gravity”
is gravity itself. Making a person appear to be in a weightless
environment when they're still stuck on earth is a difficult task.
“Our brain thinks from the standpoint of
gravity, of horizon and weight…It was a whole learning curve because it’s
completely counterintuitive, and we started choreographing with pre-vis,
meaning animations. The problem is that animators, they learn how to draw based
upon horizon and weight. It was a big, big learning curve, with experts coming
to explain the physics and what would happen. You would tell who the new
animator was in the room because it was a guy who was completely stressed out
and wanted to quit.”[3]
Alfonso Cuarón
I'm sure there were actors on set who may have been intimidated by the
scope of the production equipment, but Sandra Bullock found a way to get
comfortable with the new approach.
“There were various contraptions that existed
on the soundstage which that, when you first saw them, you just made them your
friend as quickly and as physically as you could because if you didn't, they
were so confusing and complex.” Sandra Bullock
So I'm in space now? Oh that's the coffee maker
“Gravity” was shot
exclusively on the Arri Alexa using Zeiss master prime lenses. This is another
example of a heavy technical shoot done with a digital-only workflow, and the
IMAX effect is not lessened because of this fact. The effects and long shots
that Cuarón is known for could not be accomplished with super 35mm film because
the canisters don't shoot for that long. It also helped with the
post-production to shoot digitally because they could make all the visual
effects first, and I mean ALL [4]
(The Pre-vis stage of the movies took two years before any cameras rolled.)
and overlay them on the line monitor, so the actors and crew could see the
exact outcome of the take. Filmmakers can learn from this new way of shooting,
and it's certainly another reason EFillF will remain a digital. We've also picked
up a few tricks for our upcoming “Defect” series that uses a few of these same
principles.
While some of the physics were completely off from what astrophysicists
would call accurate, (see Neil Degrasse Tyson’s take here.)[5]
“Gravity” does manage to
keep the audience involved throughout the entire movie. There were moments when
I literally was on the edge of my seat. Even those not particularly interested
in space or sci-fi movies will find the human emotion and drama very
compelling---as compelling as any drama that takes place on Earth. Overall, “Gravity”
was a great ride through the terrors of the vacuum of space, and a cinematic
achievement that should withstand the test of time.
Written By: Jeremy Hatfield
Associate Producer/Blogger
Edited By: Laura Ettinger
Public Relations
EFillF Productions, LLC
www.efillfproductions.net
Written By: Jeremy Hatfield
Associate Producer/Blogger
Edited By: Laura Ettinger
Public Relations
EFillF Productions, LLC
www.efillfproductions.net
[1] http://www.space.com/23073-gravity-movie-weightlessness-alfonso-cuaron.html
[2] Picture from:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/re-creating-weightlessness-major-challenge-crew-gravity-article-1.1467699
[3] http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Gravity-Creators-Explain-Learning-Curve-Weightlessness-39715.html
[4] http://www.space.com/23073-gravity-movie-weightlessness-alfonso-cuaron.html
[5] http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/neil-degrasse-tyson-trolled-gravity-on-twitter
