In the event that the video link above isn’t working here is the URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Di8hFlDx2U
This video is a short clip from Business Insider of astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson pointing out some of the scientific and logical flaws in Gravity. Though he highlights a few, the one that stood out to me the most had to do with Sandra Bullock’s tears and how they would really behave in space. In the scene discussed, Sandra Bullock’s character, Ryan Stone, becomes overwhelmed by her mortality and potential fate as Anigaaq sings to her on the radio. As Anigaaq sings, a single tear escapes Stone’s left eye and floats off her cheek, bonded by surface tension, floating freely in the zero gravity of space. We get a powerful shot of the tear in focus a moment later, while Stone’s expression goes out of focus, a poignant use of depth of field in this scene. However, as Tyson points out in this video, if Stone was actually in space, this tear would probably not escape her face as it does in the scene. The very surface tension that held the tear together for the beautiful shot we get would also keep the tear bound to Bullock’s face in real life. Scientists on the International Space Station have tested this in real life, which I have attached the video for as well.
The video with Tyson is meant to be light-hearted, especially because Gravity’s makers did their due diligence; much of the film is scientifically accurate. There are a few other minor errors on their part, and I have also attached some tweets Tyson made about that when the movie came out about that. I think that the dedication to accuracy shown by the filmmakers is commendable and important, especially in a movie like Gravity, where they are trying to convince their audience that a film’s events could happen. In my eyes, that connection to reality always makes a film more powerful. To that end, one aspect I was surprised to learn was that the satellite chain reaction that is the film’s main conflict is a feasible event. Since learning that I have definitely come to view the film in a different light, respecting its content even more.
As an audience do you feel that scientific accuracy is important for films or not? Does it vary by genre? If so, what are your thoughts on this question in the science fiction genre specifically? Lastly, did you notice any other scientific discrepancies in Gravity which were not mentioned in my linked sources?