Interstellar is a
pretty good science fiction film… until it isn’t. Director Christopher Nolan has attempted here
to create a science fiction movie that grounds itself as much as possible in real
physical and spatial phenomena and how humanity might experience it… until he
decides not to. This is one of those
bizarre cases where the film is much better if you do not judge it as a sum of
its parts, but look at each of its major setpieces in isolation and judge them
independently of one another. When the
film succeeds, it really succeeds, exhibiting Nolan’s talents for creating
tangible tension with an exquisite eye for detail and emphasizing the huge stakes
of a given situation. However, Nolan
also attempts to tell a story about the human condition, and that’s where the
film goes off the rails.
In a near-distant future where a blight has gradually
destroyed most remaining crops on Earth, Coop is a struggling farmer who pines
for the days when he was a pilot and engineer for NASA. The current political climate has shut down
NASA in favor of focusing on agrarian sustenance, seemingly grounding the
potential astronaut for good. However,
through some circumstances that the film winkingly refers to as “supernatural,”
Coop ends up discovering the last underground remnants of NASA just as they are
about to launch their final mission into space in hopes of finding a new home
for humanity. Coop is recruited, and he
and his crew of scientists launch off to explore three planets in a far-off
galaxy.
Once the crew enters space, the film ends up playing out
like something that Arthur C. Clarke could have written, relying on hard
science (or at least a layperson’s understanding of it) to create setpieces of
spatial phenomena such as wormholes, planets circling a collapsed star, and
relativistic time slippages. The former
two inspire the type of visual awe that really make the film worthwhile, and
the latter adds a unique twist to the time constraints necessary to make the
relocation of humanity a success. As the
film moves from setpiece to setpiece, it does try to throw a few dramatic
twists at you that were so obviously telegraphed that I was able to predict
them, but the plot ends up taking a backseat to the spectacle for the majority
of the runtime, so any narrative weakness can be forgiven in favor of the film’s
dedication to scientific reality as cinematic adventure.
That is, until the film’s third act and final vignette,
where that dedication is unceremoniously thrown out the window in favor of an
exceedingly contrived and stupid twist ending.
It relies on suspension of disbelief so much beyond what the film has
conditioned its audience to accept up until that point, relying on science that
even I as a non-physicist know is completely bullshit. It even goes so far as to claim that love is
a physical force in the universe in the same vein as gravity, which just feels
bizarre and out of place in a film that had until then relied on realism to
drive its plot rather than sentiment. It
requires such leaps of faith, logic, and basic understandings of the physical
laws of the universe that it breaks the emotional payoff the narrative is supposed to provide.
That said, though, Interstellar
is a film worth seeing for the parts when it really does work. At three hours long, I am tempted to suggest
that the film would have been better if cut down for time, but any parts that
were narratively unnecessary were the most entertaining, and the worst parts
were the most critical to the resolution of the main narrative arc. Christopher Nolan has pushed out of his depth
here, trying to create an experience as awe-inspiring as Inception, and only succeeding in so far as creating a work of
visual wonderment, leaving the story elements a thematically disjointed mess. To see the spectacle on the
big screen is alone worth the price of admission; just don’t be surprised when
the final act betrays that sense of wonder.
Favorite Nolan flick.
(Not The Dark Knight Rises.)
Comments. Go!
I don't have a favorite Nolan flick for basically the reason I disliked this movie. I saw the first trailer and thought, "Why is this movie called Interstellar? It's a family drama about losing the farm. It looks like it doesn't have a plot and I don't want to see it." And then I saw the second trailer and thought, "OK, the title makes sense now, this is some kind of sci-fi action thing, but I would rather watch something with bright colors and also there is still not really a plot hook."
ReplyDeleteTurns out I have a husband who likes way more pretentiousness in movies than I do. This movie really is a family drama about losing the farm, except the farm is Earth. People make stupid decisions for realistic reasons, and the father's stress plays out on other planets instead of in a bar fight, and the government is shady. And then... there's a happy ending for some reason. I will give it "better than the 'happy' ending of Snowpiercer" and leave it there.
Oh! And what I meant to say was, I'm really, REALLY glad I read this review first, as it kept me from snapping and yelling at the screen in the theater when love was a physical force.
ReplyDelete