One of the more welcome cinematic surprises of last year — for this writer, anyway — turned out to be Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar.” As a fair- weather fan of the director who is more often then not put off by his need to explain everything to his audience, I found “Interstellar” operatic, appropriately grand, packing a surprising emotional wallop.
Not everyone is such a fan, though. The narrator of a new video essay titled “Interstellar: When Spectacle Eclipses Story” argues that Nolan — whom he calls a “warrior for stylistic purity,” which is certainly a title we’d all like to put on our business card — has become more divorced from compelling, original content and more reliant on scale and size as his budgets have grown to mammoth amounts in the wake of the success of his gloomy Batman trilogy (a point that does have some degree of validity). The video uses the lucrative, game-changing success of James Cameron’s “Avatar” as a jump-off point, arguing that both “Avatar” and “Interstellar” sacrifice potentially involving storylines in favor of brainless, but cool-looking CGI and 3D chicanery. While I agree that both films are certified crowd-pleasing blockbusters, I would also argue that Cameron’s “Avatar” is a goofier, ultimately less ambitious film than Nolan’s epic, and ultimately a far less successful one (the narrator goes on to argue that “Avatar” is the worst film to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, which seems dubious when you consider that “Chicago” and “Crash” were also nominated in that category).
READ MORE: Ranked: The Films Of Christopher Nolan
The comparison is made, yet again, to Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey.” This is due, I would guess, to the British director’s perceived lack of humanity, although Kubrick was undoubtedly a more punishing and transgressive filmmaker than the comparatively more mainstream Mr. Nolan. I don’t exactly agree with the narrator’s assessment of Nolan’s impressive and mind-bending film, but I do agree that we, as a moviegoing audience, have to stand by the paradigms of what constitutes an original and compelling narrative — regardless of genre. Without that, what do we have?
What do you folks think? Is “Interstellar” a bloated behemoth that rests on a flimsy narrative axis, or is it one of Nolan’s more daring cinematic excursions? Sound off in the comments section below and check out the video here:
"Interstellar" is a work of art and not a spectacle.
"As a fair- weather fan of the director who is more often then not put off […]" Than. Not then.
I love INTERSTELLAR. Epic spectacle, beautiful intimate story! One of my favorites!
Nolan expands past the singularity of story in his films, particularly so in Interstellar. Chastain, Cain, Damon, Hathaway, even Matty M\’s characters are all a part of something bigger than themselves in the film, thus become more like puzzle pieces of a portrait rather than individual portraits. But the once put together, the mechanics move in synch, and being a cog in a functioning system becomes far more lovely than being an individual star entering supernova.
In a world so devoid of original sci-fi movies in the mainstream, I was more or less glad to see this one. Was it perfect? No. But, I don\’t think that its lack of being 2001 is really the issue. It has some excesses of sentimentality, and the characters are not exceptional. But, in the end, it\’s a far cry from, say, Crash, like you mentioned. Also, to be honest, I don\’t really like this reviewer. I\’ve seen several of his videos, and he always drags on and ends with this "mysterious" music, like he\’s delivering some profound message. Dude, you\’re a YouTube reviewer. Calm down.
I could never quite put my finger on why he annoyed me until this review. He said he thought of Nolan like a teacher would think of a gifted student. I… what? So… you\’re the teacher and Nolan is, what, a gifted child?
Um… yeah… okay… And you are… who, again?
Don\’t get me wrong! I like movie criticism. I just think that this guy\’s ego kind of gets in the way of the critique. Nolan is definitely talented, but not perfect. His ideas always seem more interesting than his execution. And, he isn\’t Kubrick, which is okay. It\’s not some ideological betrayal.
And, I\’m not even a Nolan fan. I dislike most of his movies. I just don\’t like someone ponderously whispering about ideology, purity of form, and being like a teacher to Nolan\’s child-self. That\’s not even how movies are made.
I really don\’t understand how people haven\’t realized Nolan is Style/substance yet. I mean I\’m not denying that he\’s a talented director who makes good movies, but his movies, in my opinon, aren\’t the masterpieces of storytelling that they\’re made out to be.
this review seemed longer and more confusing than lnterstellar
Aw. All the fanbois gonna be too butt hurt to switch on brains and realize Nolan is no master and never has been. Sadsies.
This guy\’s a flipping moron.
this review seemed longer and more confusing than lnterstellar