For an SF buff, Gravity is like homecoming! Both authentic and sensitive.

Rating: 9/10 (12 November 2013)

I have a problem praising the film 'Gravity'.
I saw the film recently in 3-D, on the giant screen of Imax, Wadala, Mumbai and I was suitably impressed with the detailing, the 3-D effects, the uncomplicated plot which does not allow your attention to wander and thus enables you to enjoy the wonder of special effects bringing out the spacefaring in weightless conditions.
I am neither a space scientist nor am I an astronaut. So, I am not in a position to comment upon the arrangement on the control panels, the positioning and the alarms of the various indicators, the accuracy of the thresholds of the locks and human endurance, etc. I remember to have read that American astronauts and the crew of space missions were shown the film and that they expressed satisfaction about the way all such details were depicted in the film. I tend to trust the news report as fact and not doubt it as a publicity tactic. I accept that the authenticity of every detail should not be an issue since the film is not a documentary; the overall representation and a commitment to scientific truth should suffice. Moreover, even though the film does not introduce or assume any new scientific breakthrough, it is set in future and that makes the story 'Science Fiction' and in SF liberties with technical and technological details are permitted. I have no problem with that.
The problem that I have goes beyond these issues.
I have read a lot of science fiction. For example, stories by Arthur C Clarke. In 'Fountains of Paradise' Clarke describes how the Earth acquires 'spokes' all along the Equator, extending into space to a distance where there is no gravitational attraction pulling an object to the Earth. He postulates development of a synthetic crystal with tremendous tenacious strength. And as an appendix to the novel he presents plans and schemes of such 'towers' already put on paper in great detail by scientists and engineers. As a result, a story which could have been exotic, becomes plausible and comes down into the realm of engineering projects planned and executed by present-day mortals. In 'Rendezvous with Rama' he observes (as a part of the story) that not a few spacecraft accidents are the result of the distraction caused by the unstoppable oscillations in weightless conditions of the two orbs human females and therefore female astronauts possess. Clarke is always conscious of the laws of physics which provide the frame in which everything in his novels happens and so, when the alien spacecraft accelerates towards the Sun without any apparent push, someone exclaims, "There goes Newton's Third Law!"
Such attention to the manifestation of laws of science in day-to-day life is not an exception in SF. I call such SF as engineering fiction because in it the exotic, fantastic happenings are subordinated to the universally valid Laws of Physics. Such references give an air of familiarity to the tale which then transcends its futuristic setting and attains a sort of contemporary existence; albeit in a parallel universe.
As an avid reader of science fiction, I have a second home in that parallel universe. I do not have to suspend my logical judgment there; all I am required to do is to accept some new contraption or some such technological advancement which is a part of the common existence of the parallel universe. What happens in 'Gravity' is commonplace to a resident of that universe and one does not applaud the commonplace.
It may sound presumptuous but the film began and in a few moments, I had the feeling of being 'at home'. There it was, 'home' and someone had created limelight all around it. My heart swelled. The film being 3-D, I wanted to say 'Hi' to the ones at home, Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, without disturbing them of course. They were busy with some repair work and while Sandra was serious and sombre, George was his usual composed self, spreading the contagion of composure - which is more than confidence - into others.
During the interval and after the film, I became aware that I had company. And they near unanimously praised the ambiance and the floating tear drop and the upside down image refracted in it and the 'normal' of the place being expressed so evocatively in the never ending slow motion and the bumps and of course the silence. Their chatter irritated me: this is how my home is, you ignorant guys! I wanted to exclaim at them.
I loved George that he was so composed even the gravest danger and I adored Sandra that though she talked to herself a lot - all alone for a million miles around you; anyone will talk like that - but she did not go into hysterics, was not even heroic but doggedly went on and on and on and laughed at herself a little when she had difficulty standing up in earthly gravity.
I liked the film for taking me home. Come to think of it, I should say, I adored the film. The problem is, these words will be so commonplace if I utter them to anyone at all. They all claim to adore it! How can I explain to them that my joy is different from their pleasure?
Got to see Gravity a few more times to notice and then cherish the smaller details, the nuances one so takes for granted while at home. I just don't want to be in an awestruck crowd, gawking at some exotic object.