>I prefer to view it as-is, at face value with a pinch of
>salt, unless the intent is expressed and overt. I think plenty
>(not all) of subtext is created in the minds of consumers, but
>ultimately isn't the intent of the writer. People have a way
>of reinforcing their own worldview when interpreting art, and
>that's telling. That isn't to say every interpretation is
>filtered entirely through ones own belief system, but from
>what I've seen I am lead to believe it to be a sound rule of
>thumb.

Of course meaning is created by the consumer. I wouldn't argue against that premise at all. So yeah -- I'm a skeptic, that colors my viewing, (and this movie was like skeptic porn to me). But I think intelligent, sophisticated artists (i.e. Cuaron) realize the nature of how the viewer creates meaning and create art which feeds into that. Such as...

>I get the impression that you're a firm believer in everything
>you took from the movie. Personally, you could easily view the
>Clooney Ghost as the Hand of God, as you alluded to.

Yes, it's ambiguous and I think that's clever, but I also think it wasn't just a visual gag when a frog swam by Stone as she struggled to free herself from her spacesuit when trapped underwater. That's another symbol of life that has adapted to many different environments, a reminder that we (human beings) emerged from the water while others (amphibians) stayed and adapted so that it would be their home. It's not just a joke, it's a clear, concise illustration of evolution.

And I still want to see it again, but there was the (what I would expect some to mock as a heavy-handed) scene when Stone makes it into the first airlock, strips off her spacesuit, and then slowly rotates in an extremely clear in utero image, complete with random hosing forming the umbilical cord behind her. this oxygenated atmosphere is humanity's womb, where we came from; space is the cold, deadly world outside it. While I'd be open to hear other interpretations of what the imagery might mean, I think it's impossible to dismiss as unintentional on Cuaron's part.

Or one of the few, stark edits in the Soyuez (sp? the Russian escape capsule) and again in the Chinese capsule, where Cuaron cuts to a shot just of their religious iconography -- the card of some church something or other in the Russian capsule, the Buddha in the Chinese. Rarely in the film does the camera click over onto a single object like that, but in those instances Cuaron jumped out of our journey with Stone to linger on just those items.

Also, simply the imagery of emerging from the water then bravely, impossibly standing upright -- surely that strikes you as clear imagery of SOMETHING right? I don't think for a second that final moment was simply to show us the strength of Stone; my interpretation is that was a clear Darwinian image, but no matter what I think you have to examine that moment as an IMAGE, intentionally created by Cuaron to be open to metaphorical interpretation.

(And I guess I should also say I just watched the documentary ROOM 237, the one about all the interpretations of THE SHINING, and that definitely colored my viewing as well. After spending two hours on interpretations of Kubrick's obsessiveness, then watching GRAVITY, a movie surely, undeniably informed by 2001 (complete with mini helmet lit montages within it), I just don't think it would be possible for Cuaron to spend years making a movie about space that's just about selling a lot of IMAX 3D tickets. I think the sort of visual language and visual metaphor that Kubrick loved would surely inform this film as well.)

>It could be viewed quite simply as the general power of the
>human spirit (little s, not big S) without attaching a
>darwinian or religious tone to it. Many will view that through
>the scope of prevailing belief systems, but it's not
>necessary.

Of course it functions on a smaller level, but with a filmmaker like Cuaron, I think you do his work a serious disservice if you think the movie he worked on for years and years is only dealing with lower-case letter themes. And yes, that's just my interpretation so I understand why you wouldn't necessarily want to follow me on that, but I do think there's sign posts in the movie pointing at something bigger.

>The simplest answer, and potentially the most obvious and
>profound, is that she simply felt she owed a debt to Kowalski.
>He died so that she might live, and how awful would it be for
>his well meaning sacrifice to be made in vain? That level of
>personal conscience can be a powerful spark if you ask me.

But what did you see in the movie to support that? What would you point at in the film to support that interpretation? I'm totally open to thinking of the film in that way, too, the fun of the game for me is then finding the elements of the film which would create that meaning...

>To me, writing a character that DOESN'T seem to have much to
>live for is much more interesting than someone who is
>scrapping tooth and nail to get home to their proverbial
>American Dream. That's a much more powerful tale if you ask
>me. In the end, that slant naturally creates the question of
>why. Not in a speculative, Sopranos "what do you think
>happened?" sort of way, in in the way that you would ask Stone
>herself what drove her.

AGREE! AGREE! AGREE! one hundred percent! That's why it kind of irked me when I overheard that conversation of, "Jeez, why so much with the kid?" Because it's MORE INTERESTING this way! Having a character with a difficult to locate motivation for survival is soooo much more interesting. All these people saying the story is "pat" or the themes are "simple" are totally ignoring this. The central question of the film is formed by removing a clear motivation for survival from Stone, which is exactly why it's open to interpretation, which is why it floored me so completely... I think, if there's any clear theme, it's the movie screaming WHY?!? at the audience s loud as it can.

>To me, wondering what her driving motivators is infinitely
>more interesting and thought provoking than "Well, it's in our
>DNA to survive". Of course, that would also beg the far
>greater philosophical questions of why humans generally make
>so many choices that are antithetical to survival of their
>genetic material up to and including suicide.

Well, just to be clear -- I'm not interpreting it to mean "Stone's motivation is in her DNA." I'd say my interpretation is just more that it's something like a Darwinian parable, or a Darwinian examination of culture and history. Stone represents all humanity. Her voyage into space is one of curiosity, to help Hubble see farther, and then when things go wrong, it becomes a story of survival, simply because survival is what motivates us all. And the film seems to be sending the optimistic message that humanity's next step will inevitably be in the stars.

Oh yeah, I did just re-watch CHILDREN OF MEN this week, too, to prep for GRAVITY, and I think it's safe to say that a "cycle of life," "long-term future of humanity," and "what motivates us absent reproduction" would be themes that interest Cuaron.

Anyway... as long as we're thinking "WHY?" after that movie, I'm happy. That's what I left thinking. That's why I'mma go see it again...