In his
review of 'Gravity' A.O. Scott said:
The usual genre baggage has been jettisoned: there are no predatory extraterrestrials, no pompous flights of allegory, no extravagant pseudo-epic gestures. Instead, there is a swift and buoyant story of the struggle for survival in terrible, rapidly changing circumstances.
I'm fine with that. He thinks this movie is free of allegory and he supports that.
However, in his
review of 'All Is Lost' he said this:
“All Is Lost” manifests a strong allegorical undercurrent. Nothing registers the fragility and contingency of the human presence in the universe quite as starkly as the sight of a small vessel adrift on an endless ocean, and few representations of heroism are as vivid as the spectacle of an individual fighting to master the caprices of wind and water.
Well. What to say? Caprices vs. rapidly changing circumstances. Small vessels vs. space shuttles. Endless oceans (to be fair the Indian Ocean, in which Robert Redford's character finds himself is not 'endless'. Big, yes, but not endless) vs. outer space (which is, probably, endless). Allegorical vs. just a plot-driven movie.
You could easily switch the titles of the movies (and maybe change a couple words) and the comments would ring just as true. Let's try it and see.
Nothing registers the fragility and contingency of the human presence in the universe quite as starkly as the sight of a small suited astronaut adrift in Earth's orbit.
That works well don't you think?
Let's play another word game. From which of A.O. Scott's reviews does the following come? Is this from his review of 'Gravity' which he says is lacking in allegory, or from his review of 'All Is Lost' which he says is a wonderful allegory?
But this is not -- or not only -- a parable of Man against Nature, ready-made for high school term paper analysis. The physical details that carry the story and make it suspenseful and absorbing are also vessels of specific meaning, and together they add up to a fable about the soul of man...
Like I said, I'm fine with Scott's opinion however, to me, Alfonso Cuarón's 'Gravity' is an allegorical work. Here
are a few reasons:
1) While outside their ship (as in the picture above, which perfectly encapsulates the allegory of 'Gravity') the astronauts are unable to touch one another. This would represent mankind's increasing alienation as a result of electronic media.
Countless people watching countless television shows behind locked doors for hours on end would serve as examples of our separation from one another despite the illusion we are connected. An illusion created by technology.
We seem connected but are not. Like what you're reading, for instance. You don't know me, can't touch
me, can't see or hear me, and will probably never meet me, but still you're able to read what I've
written via an internet connection. One wonders if you would give a perfect stranger the time of day, as much time as you've spent reading this, if it were to be face to face.
2) In the picture (above) the astronauts are only inches apart but must rely on electronic devices to speak to one another.
3) Astronauts live in cramped conditions. They have little personal space. This would be a clear nod to over population on Earth.
4) The crew of a space shuttle has limited air to breathe and food to eat. If they exhaust those resources there will not be more. This is allegory for the limited resources on Earth and the predicament we find ourselves when it comes to finding enough space to live in, water to drink, and growing food for everyone.
5) Mankind’s technological inventions, no matter how well built, will ultimately be destroyed by the simplest of natural forces. The spaceships in 'Gravity', marvels of technological advancement, are rendered useless by rocks flying through space (a simpler force you can’t get). This is a parallel to the threat to society posed by changes in the environment. Hurricane Sandy is an excellent example. This storm was simply a gathering of energy formed by warm air and water, yet it managed to destroy much of the east coast. Other elemental forces are threatening our survival, such as drought, increasingly rampant forest and brush fires which will make land useless for farming and pump millions of tons of ash into the atmosphere exacerbating preexisting problems with CO2 buildup. These issues stem from over population and our increasing need for cars and electricity in a technologically oriented society which, sooner or later, must fail.
These certainly make the case that 'Gravity' is at least as allegorical a movie as 'All Is Lost'. Even the title suggests a certain gravitas.
Saying ‘Gravity’ is about astronauts dealing with an accident in space is like saying ‘Children of Men’ (also co-written and directed by Cuarón) is about a fertility crisis. 'Children of Men' is an allegorical punch in the gut and so is 'Gravity'.
It's a subjective thing, to be sure. One person will say a story is pure allegory, another will say it's a pure popcorn flick. One movie is perceived as having deeper meaning while another is perceived to have none beyond its plot points. However, I find it curious that A.O. Scott thought 'Gravity' lacks allegory while he thinks 'All Is Lost' is an excellent example of an allegorical story, especially given that the two movies share so many strikingly similar plot elements.
Again, though, I'm fine with that.
