Gravity – Is it overhyped?

Gravity

It was recently announced that ‘Gravity‘ seized 11 BAFTA nominations making it the lead contender which beat ’12 Years a Slave’ and ‘American Hustle’.  This didn’t come as a shock to me as I knew the British film institution would favor a film developed in the UK over others such as Russell’s ‘American Hustle’.  Although it wasn’t a shock, it found it dissatisfying that this film achieved so much attention and hype solely due to its spectacular effects and it’s impressive use of CGI. ‘Gravity’ failed to resonate with me, it was a marvelous spectacle but it came across to me as a rather cheap gimmick that should be displayed at the Science Museum (despite its scientific inaccuracies). It is disheartening to hear that institutions like BAFTA are shunning true directorial talent and turning their heads towards films that exploit the use of CGI as opposed to a film with a solid story and likable characters. For me, the CGI and effects in a film should be secondary to the plot and should only aid the directing, but since Gravity relies heavily upon its visual effects and subsequently lacks depth and character development it doesn’t deserve 11 nominations.

Some may argue Sandra Bullock’s performance deserves recognition, it does, but not the extent that Emma Thompson’s does or Amy Adams’ does. Her character is incredibly reminiscent of Ripley from ‘Alien’ in terms of striving to survive the great ordeal and there is no denying that Bullock provides the audience with an enticing female protagonist, but the issue is this has all been done before. Institutions like BAFTA should award innovation, which can be seen in Emma Thompson’s lifelike portrayal of P. L. Travers.  

 Gravity is entertaining and should receive merit in the best visual effects category, but 11 BAFTA nominations is unjustified as the film has plenty of style but lacks the substance of other ‘Best Film’ contenders such as ‘American Hustle’ and ’12 Years A Slave’.

Source: BAFTA