At
Comic-Con director Alfonso Cuarón and star Sandra Bullock talked about making
the film, Bullock’s first taste of sci-fi, phoning space and more.
“Question:
Are the challenges of more factual science fiction easier than fantastical
science fiction?
ALFONSO CUARON: The challenge was that we
didn’t want to create a new world. The goal was for the film to feel like
one of those IMAX documentaries, like a Discovery Channel documentary, that
just went absolutely wrong, so we used current technology. We didn’t
invent anything. Not only that, we went a bit retro. We have the
space shuttle, and we decided to keep the NASA astronaut suits as the current
one. There’s a new generation that’s going to come very soon, but if went
to the next generation, it was going to look like fantasy science fiction
because it’s stuff that is not in the consciousness of people yet. So,
that’s why we decided to go a little retro there. And so, we went through
pains to try to honor reality, as much as we could. Definitely with the
concept of Zero G and No Resistance, that was something that we went through
pains to try to make accurate. Now, in terms of the design, what you see
is pretty much what’s up there. Obviously, it’s a film and a work of
fiction, so we don’t pretend to say that everything is perfect. It’s a
work of fiction, but in the frame of that fiction, we tried to be as accurate
as possible to reality.
Sandra,
did the fact that this was in a very realistic universe make it easier for you
to tap into, with this being your first science fiction project?
SANDRA BULLOCK: Because I wasn’t at all in
control, and I had no idea the extent of technology that was involved, to me,
it was all sort of fantastical and futuristic, which made it exciting and
magical and frightening, all in the same breath. But, I had to be very
true to what someone was dealing with, who would be in the character’s
position, which is factual today. And I wanted to be really accurate, so
we had a lot of incredible specialists who did just that. There were
always people on call. There were several times I was able to call up to
space and ask them questions, and they’d answer.
CUARON: She got on the phone with the space
station. That was very weird.
BULLOCK: They were very helpful. So, just
for what I had to do, it had to be very human, in this technologically advanced
space that felt very futuristic to me because it had never been done before on
film. So, I had the benefit of both.
You
actually called real astronauts?
BULLOCK: Yeah.
Who did
you speak to?
BULLOCK: I will let the astronauts, if they
ever want to reveal who I was chatting with, say it ‘cause I respect their
privacy, but they were incredibly helpful. They email. You’re like,
“My email reached here!,” but of course it did ‘cause all our emails go to
space and then come back here. But, they were so excited about the
vantage point that this film was taking, which is the same that they
have. They have a great love for the program because of what they get to
see and admire about our planet and the universe around them. It’s such
an organic love that they have. It’s not just adventurers going up in
pods, and they love the technology. They have a deep, deep love and
appreciation for our planet and civilization and what we’re wasting. And
so, those were nice conversations to have. That gave it a real emotional
gravity.
…
Alfonso,
why did you decide not to shoot with 3D cameras for this?
CUARON: It didn’t make any sense.
Because of the technology that we used, it was practically impossible. We
wanted to shoot native, as we call it, to shoot in 3D with the cameras.
We did the test and it was impossible because of the technology. We used
these robots that are used for car manufacturing and adopted some of those
robots. Instead of having a motion control, the weight of the cameras was
not possible in those robots. In one instance, Sandra was on a rig,
inside a cube that is 9 by 9, and the camera had just a limited view of
Sandra. It was enough to photograph Sandra. I had to go through
holes in that cube, so if it’s a wide shot, it would start wide, and then go
very close in. It was impossible because, with 3D cameras, you need two
cameras, so you need more space. And then, the other set that we had is
the Russian space pod, the Soyuz, which is pretty much the size of three chairs
smashed up together. So, it was impossible. But beyond that, not
only was it impossible because of the constraint of space, it didn’t make any
sense because it is such a combination of real action and CG. The amount
of real footage was so minimal that what we ended up doing a conversion.
We started converting to 3D, three and a half years ago, to go through pains to
make sure that it was the closest thing to native 3D.
…
Alfonso,
how close to your dream of becoming an astronaut did this film bring you?
CUARON: The closest. For some reason, it
was the internet that I wanted to be an astronaut. Yes, as a kid, I
wanted to be an astronaut. And my own passion was that I wanted to be a
film director. I realized that being an astronaut was not going to be an
option, so I said, “Well, I’m going to be a director and do films in
space.” But, I completely forgot about that until it came up again, a
couple of weeks ago. I met with Danny Boyle in the airport once. He
said, “Hey, you’re doingGravity.” I said, “Yes, it’s a space
film.” He said, “I did my space film, and once you go to space, you don’t
want to go back.” My dream is that I really want to go to space. So, if
one of those guys that are sponsoring the new expedition to space wants to sponsor
me, I’m very happy to take the trip. But, I would never do another film
in space.
…
Alfonso,
how did you decide on doing things like using the long take, using time and
space to create anxiety and fear, and everything else?
CUARON: Well, that came from conception, when
we were writing the screenplay. I wrote it with Jonas Cuaron, who’s my
son, and part of the concept, from the get-go, was this idea that it should
feel like an IMAX or a Discovery Channel documentary that goes wrong. If
you see the beautiful footage of IMAX, it is not that you’re cutting around
characters, but you’re just flowing with the sense of real time.
That’s part of why that footage is so beautiful. And that was very
organic for me because I’ve had the tendency, for the last few films, of doing
continuous takes. It was just something that married perfectly
well. The original title, when we presented the film for the first time
said, Gravity: A Space
Suspense in 3D, so we wanted to get 3D. The thing is, we started this
process four and a half years ago and, at that time, 3D was still cool.
There has been so much backlash, ever since. I love 3D. I think
it’s been over-produced. Sometimes you see films where you don’t
understand why those films are in 3D. You see that it’s just a cynical
thing to convert films because there’s a market. But, the films that are
actually designed for 3D, I think are amazing. 3D was invented two years
after film was invented. The first 3D film was in 1896. They didn’t
keep on doing it just because it was complicated, but notion is that you’re
going to watch something with your two eyes. And I love the sense of
depth that 3D can give you. We used only wide angles, not that many cuts
and continuous takes. We have our foreground involvement with our
astronauts, and we have that beautiful background that is the earth. It
just lent itself perfectly to something that is very immersing. The idea
is that you see it in the theater, and you feel that you’re up there in space.
…”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment