The Evolution of "Gravity"

SPOILER ALERT: What follows is an interpretation and worldview critique of the recently released movie Gravity by Alfonso Cuarón starring Sandra Bullock. I will give away the ending, so save the link to this article for later if you want to see the movie first.

All geeks love space movies, so I've been eager to see Gravity. Based on the reviews by pros and amateurs, I anticipated a great movie, but I did not expect to wake up early the next morning figuring out the social commentary it made. I will spend exactly one sentence on what everyone else is writing great reviews about: the visual effects are stunning, the story tension makes you use body language in your seat trying to help out the characters, and the acting is strong. That's about as wordy as I can get as a movie critic. "Good movie; go see."

What started my attempt to unravel the subtext of the movie was the last scene. Bullock's character (Dr. Ryan Stone) flops out of the water onto the beach, struggles a bit (because she's been in zero gravity for many days), then makes it to her feet, and stumbles away. Cuarón focused in on that first step with such emphasis, it was clear he was trying to say something. It's almost certainly a microcosm scene of the "Evolution of Man" taking his first step. But I realized early the next morning, Cuarón was actually talking about the "Evolution of Woman."

The movie begins with Stone and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) in a peaceful, idealic coexistence - "Adam and Eve," tending to the "garden" (the Hubble Space Telescope) in innocence and beauty. He the strong, experienced one, flying independently with a jetpack, charming and sincere, but interpreting all events to be about himself; she the inexperienced, weak (even nauseous), but brilliant one who is dependent on the space shuttle's arm. He was there long before she arrived (the only thing missing was a rib comment). Then tragedy intrudes suddenly, with a massive onslaught of space debris from a chain reaction accident of satellites. The Fall. Eden is ripped apart into chaos, and Adam and Eve are expelled. A third astronaut (Abel? the serpent? innocence?) is killed, and death has come.

Stone is thrust into space alone, completely unable to help herself, spinning out of control. But low and behold - the Man, the rescuer, saves her. He must tether her to himself, so that she is now utterly dependent on him for life and safety (this scene includes the only face-to-face close up with the characters, suggesting the sexual politics that woman are "tethered" to men also in this way). Where he goes, she goes, like the cave man dragging his woman around by the hair.

Eventually, the tether is cut, and the man floats away, forever out of her life. She is free, independent, and needing to be self-reliant for the first time. She makes her way into the abandoned International Space Station, and immediately curls up into the fetal position asleep, with the camera angle showing her gestating in the "womb," ready for birth. Via the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, she makes her way to the Chinese space station, also abandoned.

At this point, she does not need man. Kowalski is gone, she can't get Houston the radio, the Russians are gone, the Chinese are gone. She is untethered, independent, alone, no men to rescue her. Perhaps Cuarón gave her a strong man's name (not just "Ryan," but "Ryan Stone") to show she has effectively replaced men. After a strange howling scene (primal?) where a disembodied male voice sings her a lullaby, she nearly gives up, until an aberration of Kowalski sparks a brilliant idea from her independent, brilliant mind, and she is reawakened. From fetal to strong. I wonder if her opening scene nausea was just her being weak or if it was a form of "morning sickness" for her own rebirth.

More drama and tragedy and tensions carry the story through to Stone's fiery entrance into earth's atmosphere, eventually splash landing in the ocean in a capsule. The door pops open, and the capsule quickly fills with water and sinks. Underwater, she is "birthed" from this "womb," and as frog swims by (you know, the lab animals we studied in school to learn about evolution), she must shed her skin (spacesuit) in order to survive. She breaks the surface of the water and breathes air into her lungs.

She then evolves onto the beach, unable to walk. Earlier, she said she never prayed to God; here on the beach, she utters a simple "thank you." A few attempts, and she's finally bipedal, but shaky. Alone and female on a desolate land. No man. No other humans in sight. No one to rescue her. (A snarky little part of me was hoping she'd run into Tom Hanks with a Wilson volleyball.) Roll credits.

The tethered scene, it appears, pictures the hierarchical view of men and women. Men with the power, women dragged behind with no control for a very unpleasant ride, going wherever the man decides to go. By the end of the movie, the fully evolved woman is not just equal to man, but completely without need of him. Her only companion here is the "missing link" frog. It is like Irina Dunn's statement made famous by Gloria Steinem, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Was her "thank you" for being alive, or for no longer needing a man? (Noticeably, her daughter is mentioned in the movie a few times, but never the girl's father.)

But both views of gender are unbiblical. Perhaps Cuarón believes the Bible teaches the hierarchical view, but he clearly eschews that model (as do I). But neither view properly displays the biblical concept of "one flesh." The hierarchical view is more like "one flesh - with an appendage." The manless view is "one flesh - hers." Rather, the concept of one flesh is male and female, equal in their standing before God and importance, but with some roles that are gender-specific based on the marriage covenant. Truly equal, but complementary. It is the only way to be "one flesh."

Of course, I may be reading too much into Cuarón. Some people online think the tether represents an umbilical cord, for example. However, starting from the ending scene and working backwards, give this view a shot. Good movie; go see.

Men and Women of God

I am in the home stretch of pursuing my thesis. As part of that thesis, we are offering a class on gender issues starting August 22. This is a controversial issue, but after having taught this material before, I have found that we have a lot of ideas in this course that many Christians have never been taught before.

Are there unique roles in Christ based on gender, and if so, what are they? Under the Christian umbrella, the entire spectrum is presently being taught – from a strict hierarchical view to a total egalitarian view, and everything in between. And each end of the spectrum claims to be teaching merely what the Bible teaches. How do we navigate through all the noise? Our course charts a somewhat unique path through Scripture, finding a clear, consistent model that challenges both the traditional and modern teachings.

One of the most common criticisms of the evangelical church is that they teach the suppression of women. In some cases, that charge is sadly correct. In other cases, the church doesn’t know how to articulate their view in a convincing way to those outside the church, which only leads to misunderstandings. The Bible does not teach the suppression of women – and yet it does teach some differences in our roles based on gender. How do we understand the differences without suppressing anyone? How can we articulate to a skeptical world that the church is the place for women who have many strengths without jettisoning Biblical teachings? This course should help us formulate this ideas clearly.

What do we teach women about their godly responsibilities in those cases when the man is not fulfilling his? Do we take the small-minded view and tell her to “submit anyway?” Do we find a escape clause for her that’s not found anywhere in Scripture? Do we declare the Bible out-of-date and tell her to ignore what “used to be taught” in the church? The Bible gives us simpler answers than these.

What do we teach men about their role in those areas where their wives are better gifted than they are? Do we enforce headship anyway? Do we abdicate headship in those areas? Again, the Bible has better answers than these.

The gender issues are clearly pertinent for those who are (or soon will be) married. But what about singles? Are there gender-specific teachings in Scripture for single people, too? Yes!

Please plan on joining us in starting August 22 for this twelve-week course. The class will be taught during the Sunday School hour, and then repeated at a second venue during the week (to be determined) - pick either one. If you have a preference on which night to have the second venue, please get your votes to me.

I'm asking to have at least 12 couples sign up to take the survey (twice) and answer a few direct questions in order to gather the data I need to finish my thesis. Please prayerfully consider participating in this survey data as well.