Is Smash
Bros. 4 out yet? No?
*sigh*
All right, let’s do this.
Do not go gentle into that good SPOILERS
Old age should SPOIL and SPOIL at close of SPOILERS
SPOIL, SPOIL against the -- wait, didn’t the Bum Review do
the same thing?
*sigh* I just wanna play Smash…
So close...
Okay.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooo…I have a lot of questions about this movie, and
I get the feeling that none of them are going to be answered. So let’s start with the question that you’re
probably looking to ask me: did I like this movie? And the answer to that is a resounding NO.
But don’t get too ahead of yourself there,
buckaroo. For starters, this movie is
not a RoboCop ’14 level of
failure. There are parts that I liked,
and there are parts that are good all-around.
And as I said to my friends on the way back, I’m glad I saw the movie so
that I could know for sure if it was something for me. It wasn’t, by ANY stretch of the imagination,
but now I know. I got out of my comfort
zone and tried something I probably wouldn’t have (fun fact: I wanted to go see
Big Hero 6 instead, in anticipation
of having to make a post like this. Hell, I already did it once before).
I also don’t want you to think that I didn’t like
the movie because I’ve got some grudge against Christopher Nolan or his --
well, let’s call it “stylized” output. I
know I’m on record saying that I didn’t like The Dark Knight Rises, and I flat-out hated Man of Steel, but I DO like The
Dark Knight and Inception. (Plus I was under the impression that David
S. Goyer was the weak link with those former two movies, not Nolan.) I’ll buy into Nolan’s prophesized talent, and
I was 100% on-board for Interstellar conceptually. Because as discussed, SPACE IS AWESOME. It’s a proven fact.
So here’s the question that’s been on my mind: is
this movie a parody of something?
Like, it has to be, right? When the first thing you see is a bunch of
studio logos -- Paramount’s well among them -- completely stripped of their
colors and looking as if someone put them in a jug of apple juice, that’s --
that’s gotta be an extreme take on the “no colors” aesthetic, isn’t it? And it’s got Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway
again, who come dangerously close to just being
Alfred and Catwoman “The Cat” again.
And then you hear Hans Zimmer is attached to the movie…and then you go
see it, and then you REALLY hear Hans Zimmer in the sense that the music blares
so much that it’s hard to walk out without a headache. And then there’s the dialogue. Man oh man, there’s the dialogue.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start with the basics.
In the not-too-distant future (which has a brown
tint and filters no matter where you go in the universe), the world is in the
grip of another Dust Bowl that’s left agriculture crippled, and by extension
life at large. This led to agriculture
being fiercely in demand, to the point where that’s all everyone wants anyone
to be -- no need for engineers, learning, or even knowing that we landed on the
moon. Enter our hero Cooper, a space
pilot turned farmer and family man who, thanks to his daughter Murph, stumbles
upon a secret NASA outpost -- and with it, a daring plan.
As it turns out, a wormhole has opened up near
Saturn, and so the NASA team decides to send a group of astronauts into it, so
they in turn can pass back data on space and the three planets on the other
side -- and with it, the potential for colonization. So Cooper agrees to be the pilot on behalf of
Dr. John Brand (Caine) to try and make Plan A come to fruition -- Plan A being
“go all Noah’s Ark and save everyone via mass exodus”. It’s the ideal alternative, apparently, to
Plan B: let everyone die, but start over by sending in the requisite human goop
to rebuild the population. So with
Hathaway’s Amelia Brand by his side -- oh, and two other guys who might as well
be named “Sacrifice” and “Expendable” -- the adventure into the stars begins.
Or so you think.
The trick to Interstellar
is that there are two main characters instead of one. Thanks to some time dilation (or some such
science), Cooper’s adventures take significantly less time than the time that
elapses on Earth -- meaning that Murph takes the reins as Dr. Brand’s
assistant, and tries to solve the equations that will allow them to follow
through on Plan A. And so the two of
them have their plots and fates intertwined, all for the sake of saving the
human race.
And you know what that means. Yep -- this movie features some space-time
shenanigans, too. And…well, it doesn’t
completely implode, unlike certain games that will remain nameless.
Here’s the thing, though. There’s a twist to this movie, but if you’re
paying attention you can pretty much sniff it out before there’s even a chance
to wonder what “the answer” might be. I
mean, I’ve flat-out told you what happens already: Cooper makes use of
space-time shenanigans to create a stable time loop (playing the role of “the
ghost” young Murph ranted about), giving them the information needed to send
Past Cooper on his journey in the first place, and for Future Murph to get the
data needed to complete the equations
needed to…quantum math, or something.
Anyway, the future is saved, there’s a happy ending, and a tease for a
sequel.
You may be wondering why I’m spoiling the movie
from the get-go instead of working my way towards it. Well, the answer to that is simple. First, you need to understand the ending in
order to understand where I’m going to go with this post. And second, Interstallar’s trip from start to finish -- from minute one to the
end of its nearly-three-hour run -- is rooooooooooooooooooooooooooooough.
Yep, that’s right.
Three. Whole. Hours.
Look, I know I’m the LAST guy who has the right to
complain about something being too long.
I know I have to work on that, and believe it or not, I’ve actually
taken strides toward fixing my obvious weak point. But in my defense? When I make something long, I try to fill
that time with some good content. I try
to say a lot, or do a lot, or have a lot happen. I think that’s the clincher. You can go long if something happens.
With Interstellar,
it’s just long for the sake of long.
There’s a scene near the end where an astronaut takes a ship and tries
to go back to Earth, but he has to spend time trying to get that ship properly
docked into the special spinning apparatus.
So there’s an incredibly-long sequence where we watch this guy try to
get the ship to link up with that apparatus, which is about as thrilling as
watching someone thread a needle -- and it becomes even less thrilling the
longer it goes on. And all the while, as
this guy shimmies his ship around, that Hans Zimmer soundtrack just keeps
blaring and pounding, and (like many instances in the movie) actually drowns
out the dialogue. And you know how the
sequence ends? The guy docks improperly,
then tries to go fix it, and blows up in the process.
It’s not
time well spent, is what I’m trying to say here.
And it’s not even the only instance. I’m no expert on Nolan’s techniques, but do
you remember that sequence in The Dark
Knight where Batman’s
trying to save Rachel, and it’s got all these other moments intercut so you
can see what’s happening and feeding into the payoff simultaneously? That’s in this movie, but those moments are
stretched out much too long -- so much so that it dramatically weakens the
payoff.
You know damn well going into this movie that the
only ones who’ll survive the expedition are Cooper and Amelia Brand; the black
guy never stood a chance. So why does Interstellar insist on dragging out the
sequence and show the none-too-riveting moments leading up to a single obvious
conclusion? Just blow up the black guy
so we can move on!
That’s not the only reason the movie runs for so
long, though. The crippling weakness of Interstellar lies in the dialogue (and
the script at large, but let’s stick with the dialogue for now). Everyone in this movie has a bad case of
diarrhea of the mouth, where they just won’t shut up and let moments be moments. Instead they have to fill that time with
explanations of the science behind the movie.
And okay, that’s a nice touch that shows some
thought went into it, but I don’t need that.
Nobody needs that. It’s not a
requirement. I get it; Interstellar is hard sci-fi that opts
for realism as best it can. Three days
from now I’m not going to remember the Sparknotes version of quantum physics
and relativity; I’m going to remember those story beats. Those moments.
Unfortunately, I’m going to remember Interstellar’s for all the wrong reasons
-- because its characters aren’t really characters. They’re mouthpieces for broad-strokes
philosophical concepts.
It’s Man of
Steel all over again. In fact, it
might even be a little worse. Back then,
every character was so obsessed with trying to define what it meant to be
Superman and what Superman could do that Superman himself never got to do
anything besides have his big whompin’ punch-up at the end. Why not let Superman’s words and actions
define him? Why not give him and the
others freedom to be characters first, and let the audience come to their own
conclusions about what it means to be a man of steel?
Is that too much to ask? Is it too great a hurdle to subtly weave
those ideas into a story instead of bringing all progress to a halt to scream
“THIS IS WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT, SO LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE AND YOUR LIFE WILL
BE ENRICHED! BE ENRICHED, BLAST
YOU! THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!”
I honestly don’t know if I could define each
character in this movie outside of a basic, hazy description. My biggest takeaway from Cooper is that he’s
such a smug bastard that he’s dripping in smarm. Sure, he loves his family and he’s an optimist,
but those two qualities could apply to Amelia as well -- and she’s not wanting
for smarm, either. (To be fair, she gave
off some tsundere vibes at several points, but is that anything to be proud
of?) Murph is smart and tough,
and…that’s it, I guess.
Hell, some characters flip-flop for no
reason. Cooper’s son Tom turns into a
punch-happy jerk for no reason besides “there needs to be physical conflict on
Earth at THIS point in the plot”. Same
goes for Mann, the astronaut and ship hijacker who betrays Cooper just so they can have a fistfight. And before you ask? This is a fistfight that has the two of them
in full spacesuits, and ramming their helmets against one another. I kid you not; I had to fight back laughter
at that point, because it was just so surreal that I could see that exact scene
happening, shot-for-shot, in an episode of The
Simpsons.
On a more pertinent note, I love how Mann spends
like five minutes gabbing on about humans and survival instinct when, come time
for his escape, he makes every stupid move possible to ensure that he goes up
in flames. He even dies in the middle of
another big dumb philosophical speech.
This has got
to be a parody of Christopher Nolan movies.
It just has to be.
But the death knell for this movie comes long
before that point. After the visit to
the first planet goes awry, the crew has to decide where to go next. Amelia thinks they should go to the planet
most connected to her lover because…well, I couldn’t tell you succinctly,
because what follows is a minutes-long, paragraphs-long treatise on why love is
the most powerful force in the universe that can transcend anything. Including time and space. As in, that’s almost entirely her scientific
explanation. I’m not even joking. This happens.
She’s trying to make a case for the best course of
action -- as a woman of science, on a
mission with the fate of the human race on the line -- and she wastes time
talking about how awesome love is. In a
hard sci-fi movie. Despite being the sole reason why their exploration of the first
planet, literally the first thing they did besides ride there, ended in disaster and years lost in
Earth-time. AND
GOT SOMEONE KILLED.
And you know what?
She’s actually right. Love really
is proven to be the most powerful force in the universe, because it very
literally makes Cooper’s space-time shenanigans possible.
I just -- I don’t -- I just don’t. I don’t.
All right, look.
I’m not saying that love, friendship and all of that stuff is a bunch of
junk. It has more than enough worth in
the real world, and it’s got plenty of juice in fiction. But you have to be very careful, because A)
it can devalue a story, no matter the content, and B) it’s not a perfect fit
for every story. Here, it’s both of
those at once; Interstellar doesn’t
earn the right to use “the power of love” because it’s hard to feel love for
these characters…because again, they aren’t
characters, they’re mouthpieces more often than not.
And you have to remember, this movie is trying its
damnedest to rationally and scientifically justify everything. They’re using math, and science, and
engineering, and technology to try and solve every problem they come
across. But what does it say about
science if the ultimate answer is just “believe in something hard enough, and
you’ll win”? Is that supposed to be some
kind of joke?
How much do you think it bends the movie over its
knee when love is justified, in-universe, as being the only other force that
can transcend time and space? What about
all the realism the movie went for in the two and a half hours before the big
climax where Cooper ventures into a tesseract?
What about all the thought and explanations riddled throughout? What about those other guys who died along
the way? Did they not make it to the end
because they didn’t love…love as much
as Cooper and Brand?
God, I just want to roll up a newspaper and bop this
movie with it! Damn!
I will be fair, though. These characters aren’t really characters
most of the time -- and more often than not, they don’t go far enough to
establish themselves besides offering up some basic traits at best (Topher Grace,
of all people, is in this movie! And he gets nothing!). But when they actually get their chance --
when they just shut the hell up and be
people -- there are some VERY good moments.
Matthew McConaughey’s Cooper acts the shit out of
a couple of scenes, the most notable being his reaction upon seeing
time-displaced messages from his aging family.
His final scene with a dying Murph is plenty good, too -- an emotional
climax that, isolated from the rest of the movie, carries immense weight in its
own right. I’d say the beginning of the
movie is the best part, because it at least opts to develop the Cooper/Murph
relationship, however haphazardly. And
Anne Hathaway may be spouting gibberish with her “literal power of love”
speech, but she’s spouting it with real conviction.
If the movie had more moments like that, then
yeah, of course it would have been better.
But that’s a possibility I want to sidestep right now, because there’s a
bigger problem at hand here. Interstellar has those moments, but
doesn’t have the emotional through-line to give them the impact they
deserve. It’s because of that stiff
dialogue, sure, but just think about this: SPACE IS AWESOME. I’ve never been, granted, but I can only
imagine what sort of impact it can have, whether I see some brave new world or
not. So how is it that an adventure that
spans time and space can feel so dry?
I’ll say upfront that if you’re going to this
movie to see aliens and alien worlds, DON’T.
As noted elsewhere, all you’ll get planet-wise are a water world, an ice
world, and a desert world. But then
again, that’s the point; these worlds are supposed to be raw, uncultivated and
lifeless for the sake of future colonization.
It’s all about the initial sweep -- the first step. The assurance that Interstellar sticks to the book, and the rules, and the guidelines
set by itself and science.
But that doesn’t make for an automatically-better
movie. In fact, it almost makes this movie fundamentally broken.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect that
Interstellar misses the forest for
the trees. Cooper may be going on an
amazing adventure through space -- something that would have set any man’s
heart aflutter, and in all fairness made them plenty contemplative -- but his
focus is on getting the mission done and getting back to his family. Likewise, Amelia puts the mission in danger
(and then tries to commandeer it) because of love…and the mission itself to a
lesser extent. Murph works
single-mindedly to solve the quantum math, to the point where nothing else
matters.
I appreciate that these people have definitive
goals, but they rarely if ever stop to enjoy the multimillion-dollar sights, or
life, or anything that could have made this movie feel more fleshed-out. That’s an incredibly strange thing to say
about a THREE HOUR MOVIE, but it fits; how is it that so much time can pass
from start to finish -- in-universe and out of it -- yet feel so insubstantial
at the same time? How could there be so
much dialogue, yet so much of it feels like chaff?
And you know what happens because of it, don’t
you? So let’s begin…with the proper
music, of course.
--Okay, so there’s a pretty notable stand against
anti-intellectualism in this movie, which is cool -- but in the context of the
movie, it isn’t as well-executed as you’d think. Apparently being anti-intellectual in this
movie boils down to “lower your head and farm”, which would be a problem if not
for the supposedly globe-spanning agricultural crisis. Why are we treating farming as the worst
thing ever? Aren’t people trying to
survive? Is it necessary to scapegoat a
profession?
--But the hate goes both ways; why would the
pro-farmers be opposed to people applying their knowledge in engineering? Wouldn’t that mean making better tools for
more efficient farming? Given that the
cotton gin changed the game back in 1793, why not allow new advancements for an
industry in dire straits?
--Now that I think about it, what’s the global
extent of the Neo Dust Bowl? How badly
have other countries been wrecked? I
only ask because as far as I know, the movie never gives a direct answer or
even a casual mention -- so does that mean everyone
is struggling to survive? And if the
Neo Dust Bowl is bad enough to affect the entire planet, then wouldn’t we have
bigger problems than just agricultural woes?
--So you’re telling me that in the context of this
movie, and a world well-versed in roving storms of dust, there are no alternatives to raising crops besides
growing it in easily-ransacked fields?
Has the anti-intellectualism gotten so bad that they can’t use
techniques any more advanced than what you’d see in the fifties?
--On that note, you’re telling me that in the
context of this movie, in the twenty-plus years (Earth-time) after Cooper takes
off, there’s STILL no better technique than letting crops get slammed by
storms? Is that why Tom turns into a
sudden asshole? Or is the implication
just that being dumb will also make you an asshole?
--Where did Dr. Brand and the rest get the funding
for all their space equipment in a world that prioritizes agriculture and
outright declares that the lunar landing never happened? Are they just holdovers from the past? If so, how are they keeping the equipment
maintained?
--I know that thanks to space-time shenanigans,
Cooper creates the exact circumstances needed to find the NASA base and start
his journey, but what would Dr. Brand and the others have done if Cooper never
showed up? Did they have another pilot
lined up? Did they need another pilot? Was
there anything genuinely stopping Amelia from taking control of the mission
despite her soon-to-be-established ineptitude?
--How the hell did these guys ever get off the
ground? More to the point, how did no
one see their ship launch and have it become a national (if not worldwide)
event, remembered years down the line?
Is it because the movie didn’t show the ship actually leaving the
ground, and used cuts and camera angles all the way to space?
--Why the fuck is there a stupid -- and usually brown -- filter throughout
almost the entire movie? Is it because
it worked so well for Man of Steel? Is it because that’s the new, designated
Nolan Filter?
--Why is it that a lot of the conversations
between the astronaut team imply that they hadn’t really discussed an ironclad
plan until just before they needed to take action? I know it was for the audience’s convenience,
but doesn’t that make them look completely unprepared for the mission?
--Cooper got training before going on the mission,
right? I know he was an ex-pilot, but
surely they brought him up to speed in the event that he got rusty in the years
between losing his right to fly and the mission? But if that’s the case, then why would his
conversation with kid Murph imply that he’s effectively heading off to space
tomorrow? If he got training, then would
that mean that he never came home after that conversation? Or if he did come home periodically in
whatever timeframe for training he needed, then wouldn’t that have given the
two of them time to reconcile? Or were
they just fine with cutting away to the launch?
--Did they really have to name him Joseph Cooper? Or is the Nolan cadre fond of 2012?
--This was mentioned elsewhere, but I’ll go ahead
and mention it here: why exactly did Cooper and the others feel the need to go
down to the water planet in person? They
couldn’t have sent down a probe, or a robot, or something? Did they really need to take the risk,
jeopardizing the mission, putting lives on the line, and losing valuable time
in a single masterstroke?
--So one of the big reveals for this movie is that
Dr. Brand was lying the whole time, and there is no Plan A, because it’s
infeasible for them to save all the currently-living humans. Okay, so…isn’t that inherently obvious going
in? I’ll admit that I bought into the
possibility going in, but put some space between yourself and the plot and you
have to wonder how Alfred ever thought anyone would believe that he had the
means to pull together every anti-space corn fanatic UNLESS he used science
bordering on magic, right?
--Is Michael Caine only here because nobody plays
the role of “sad old man” better than Michael Caine?
--So when it’s time for Mann to go into betrayal
mode, why doesn’t he just kill Cooper?
The obvious reason is “because of the plot”, but why not go for the
finishing blow to make sure there weren’t any interruptions or setbacks? Granted it didn’t matter because he ended up
getting himself killed (survival instincts at work, yo!), but was it absolutely
necessary to go out with Cooper to some point in the ice world and shove him to
his death?
--And couldn’t he have done better than have a
punch up straight out of an eighties action movie? And why try to crack open Cooper’s helmet
with his helmet, and therefore risk dying
right beside him? You’re surrounded
by rocks/ice, yet you can’t grab a piece and smash it against his helmet?
--Why did the Mann’s betrayal subplot have to be
in this movie? Did they have to
introduce some random foil that late
into the movie? And again, why did the
punch-happy Tom have to also have a subplot?
Did they have to make him into Murph’s foil that late into the movie? If
anything, shouldn’t Murph have given up on a reunion with her dad given that he
left on a sour note, and Tom take up the mantle in both their places?
--So Cooper has to pull a heroic sacrifice in
order to save the day (inasmuch as one can), but am I the only one who thinks
that it was a dirty move? Cooper
sacrifices himself to save Amelia -- though she should have known it was coming,
given that he said he’d rely on Newton’s Third Law -- but he ends up becoming a
space-time anomaly/god/hero who gets to start a new life on a future-Saturn
colony, while Amelia gets banished to a desert planet to carve out a new life
for herself. So I guess the moral of the
story is “sacrifice yourself at a moment’s notice, and you’ll be handsomely
rewarded”?
--How is it that a movie that tries so hard to be
scientifically accurate (setting aside the “transcendent power of love” bit)
ends with Cooper surviving because of pure happenstance? He goes straight into a singularity and
survives despite ending up in nothing but his space suit? And just so happens to be put in just the
right position to become Super Time Man?
--Why does this movie make me think of a bizarro
version of A Wrinkle in Time?
--Why does this movie make me think of a bizarro
version of Contact?
--Did I just come up with 1300+ words’ worth of
complaints and nitpicks? Why couldn’t Smash 4 just get here a week sooner?
--Does it completely negate the above 1300+ words
if I admit that I very nearly fell asleep during Alfred’s explanations earlier
in the movie?
--Can we just take a minute to talk about the
robots? Because it’s very
important. Just…just look at them. Look at
them.
These robots -- TARS being the chief one -- are
giant, virtually-sentient iPods. I was
under the impression one of them was named TARS because his default walking
form has him unfolding strips of his body to move like a gorilla. (Tarzan.
Get it?) And then there’s a scene
where TARS has to get in there and save Amelia, so to move even faster, he --
and I kid you not -- turns into a giant metal asterisk and rolls his way over
there.
I had to force back laughter -- and failed,
because I snorted pretty loudly. I just
couldn’t believe it. How the hell do you
have a serious movie like this and also include a robot that does that?
How do you have a robot like that, period, without anybody batting an
eye at the sheer absurdity of it? It’s
-- it’s a giant, virtually-sentient iPod
that transforms. And nobody
cares! It just blows my mind -- and as
usual, it just raises further questions.
Setting aside the “it’s a nod to the monolith from 2001” factoid, why design a robot like that? And if you’re going to have a robot that does
nearly all the things a human can, why not send those instead of humans? And what does it say about the technological
level of the story when they can build robots like that, but still have towns
that look like they were ripped straight from a history book?
I don’t know what gets to me more -- the fact that
someone like TARS exists in-universe, or the fact that he’s probably the best
character in the whole movie.
It’s worth mentioning that Interstellar isn’t the joyless affair that Man of Steel was. I feel
like the movie tended to mistake sarcasm and smarminess for humor and charisma,
but hell, I’ll take it over nothing. Whatever the case, TARS was more than a
welcome addition to the cast, even if he didn’t get as much screen time as he
deserved. He actually talked like a
person, more often than not. He
explained stuff, especially at the end, but he got in a few jokes when he
could. For one reason or another, the
robot felt more human than the humans.
So again, I have to ask: is this movie just one
big parody of Nolan’s works?
I’ve read that the Nolan brothers -- Christopher and Jonathan -- worked on this movie
together, as they have in the past. And
okay, I can buy that. But even if people
assume that the Mario of the Nolan brothers is some unfeeling machine who hates
fun, I can’t imagine that he’s immune to charm, whimsy, and a good joke. So maybe this movie is the signal that he
wants to be more than “the Batman guy” or “the dark and gritty movie
dude”. And if that’s true, then I
approve.
But I can’t approve of Interstellar. I can’t. It just
doesn’t work.
I don’t mind saying that it’s better than MoS, because it is. And it’s light-years ahead of RoboCop ’14…in theory, at least. That’s the conundrum; should I hate Interstellar because it botched its
execution nearly every step of the way?
Do I forgive it for trying to be ambitious, and offer up something more
than explosions and punch-ups (which it ended up offering anyway)? Do I think of it as a black spot on the Nolan
cadre’s record? Or do I appreciate it as
a movie that could have worked -- and worked like crazy -- if it just made a
few different moves?
I don’t know.
Maybe once I’ve got some more distance from this movie, I’ll be able to
come at it with a fresh perspective.
Because as it stands, I feel bad for not being able to enjoy this movie
as much as others. It could’ve been
great in everyone’s eyes -- and while I don’t have any problems seeing how
people could enjoy it, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if someone raged for days at the thought of it.
So, long story short? Given the choice, I’d say see Big Hero 6 instead. Or Contact. Because I’m willing to bet that it won’t end
up right around HERE on my SmartChart™:
There. NOW
can I play Smash 4? Please?
Fun fact: this movie was first made with Spielberg in mind. Unfortunately something came up on the bureaucratic end and swapped Spielberg with Nolan instead during early production.
ReplyDeleteThat makes all the world of difference, methinks.
Once again, another Nolan film that made me roll my eyes and dismissed my dad's curious stares back when the first trailers came out. Neither of us like Nolan, but my dad is more unimpressed (and scared of the man's cult-like fans) while I'm outright bitter and closed-minded after getting burnt too badly. You are very kind to the man, Voltech. Nolan seems to be a spectacle-leaning director who knows what he's doing, but I have no idea if it's him or his crew that keeps botching the content, plot, and writing side of things. He thinks he knows pathos, but he's completely blind to the idea every single time he tries to add drama. Someone needs to give him that talk before he gets another project that needs a whimsical, emotionally-driven touch.
The "power of love" reveal of 'Interstellar' sounds beyond dumb, especially when placed as superior to all the profound focus on scientific and mathematical and realistic accuracy. This does sound like a Spielberg movie given to a machine almost completely incapable of creating pathos. And I'm sorry. Even a cynic like me thinks love is one of the most powerful forces that pushes and drives life. But here's the problem: it's an emotion. We cannot measure an emotion scientifically; we've tried that forever in trying to dissect every single alien difference between male and female's cranial potential. We can only measure love through context, interpretation, and actions. One person thinking Romeo and Juliet is the greatest love story is another claiming it's a story exploiting teenage stupidity. One devoted couple could be seen as healthy to some or forced to others. One moment of passion can be endearing or it could be disgusting. Love is too complicated to have a metric scale determine it's power; only cultural and philosophical opinions can attempt to create a standard for interpreting the effects of love.
For crying out loud, my Persona 3 fanfiction makes better use of love than this film. It's one of the main factors that drive Minako to start the time loop, it indirectly saves another character's life, and it drives two antagonists crazy who only wish for the good for the person they love. They're not original uses, but it's a plot device that is used in multiple ways to show the positive and negative effects love can create for people. Some people need to have more control of their feelings; others need to lighten up and not suppress their desires.
Interstellar has completely different plans, but it still sounds a bit like Moulin Rouge: "Love is love. Love is awesome. We won't tell you what it is other than it's the bestest thing ever and only good people are capable of love!" Both are immature because of it.
But whatever. The consensus for this film makes me glad I rejected the idea the second I saw the first trailer. Call me closed-minded and immature, but I will not drive myself insane from seeing yet ANOTHER movie from a director whose style I always found utterly stupid and devoid of entertainment.
"PS - I might be being extra petty, but TARS is an anagram for "STAR" or "ARTS"."
ReplyDeleteFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUthat's a pretty good catch. Never would have thought of that.
You know what, though? I heard that this was originally supposed to go to Spielberg -- and it shows. I'm 100% convinced that Spielberg was the saving grace of/blessing to a movie like Super 8; if he had a hand in Interstellar, then it would have made for a much stronger movie. Like I said, there's no emotional through-line, and this movie BEGGED for something like that from start to finish instead of MAYBE being in there every now and then.
I still want to believe that Christopher Nolan can put out some good work (maybe the problem is his brother Jonathan?), but...yeah, it's getting harder and harder with The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, and this back-to-back. Like, maybe those haven't worked because they've been in such close proximity to one another? Maybe the guy just needs a break -- as in, DC and Hollywood at large need to stop calling on him for the prospect of infinity dollars. Let him do what he wants to do, and give him the time to do it. I'd bet that that's the key to getting him to put out top-tier work.
If nothing else, maybe he'll at least take a lesson or two from Interstellar (and the other divisive movies) and think about what he needs to do next. Or maybe he'll just eat a money salad and be done with the whole mess. We'll see.
Had to play a little catch up on your posts. NaNoWriMo is keeping me busy!
ReplyDeleteThey could make this move better with one little addition:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120308123323/marvelvscapcom/images/c/cb/S_nemesis00_bm_nomip_s_nemesis00_bm_nomipout.png
You know... cause of the TARS. *shrug*
URRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH, you're so right! I can't believe how right you are! And he could have been played by John Lithgow, because...well, John Lithgow is in the movie. A welcome surprise, to be sure -- though it only helps remind me that How I Met Your Mother is all done.
ReplyDeleteGoodnight sweet prince.
Anyway, good to hear that you're going all in with NaNoWriMo. I've noticed that you've been keeping things going on your blog, and I don't think I need to tell you how awesome that is (even though I just did, but whatever). I want to try and read through all of it once you've wrapped up -- you know, as a sort of marathon run/binge reading. If there's one thing I've learned in my time with Kamen Rider, it's that I DON'T like the slow drip of one brief installment followed by what feels like a thousand years of despair.
So yeah, keep at it. And in the meantime? I'll lament that I didn't have the willpower to avoid watching Kamen Rider Drive's first episode. I NEED MORE OF IT GLUED TO MY EYEBALLS, NOW.
Watch A.I. That's what happened to this movie. It was started, scrapped, redone, and it all shows.
ReplyDeleteWho's responsible for A.I.'s craven, dumb, saccharine ending? Not Spielberg, as you'd expect. Kubrick. Kubrick is documented as the source.
It's scary how well this maps onto A.I. Like, of course it's confused and doesn't know whether to be sentimental or scientific. Of course. Of course it's at war with itself. Of course it's terrible. It's an abortion. No one wanted it, or if they did, they only wanted parts of it. Nolan and Co. wanted the Kubrickian elements despite the fact that Spielberg's fingerprints were baked into the script from day one.
Why did Nolan think he could do this movie? Beats me. He needs to figure himself the hell out. I don't care what he does, frankly. I'm more interested in this confluence of problems attached to handing sentimentality to concept directors.
This DID need Spielberg. It also needed attention, not neglect, for its spirit.
So, I take it you enjoyed the movie, then? (Insert laugh track here.)
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I'm okay with Nolan trying something new, and trying to get out of his comfort zone (whether it's real, perceived by audiences, or whatever). So speaking optimistically, I'd like to think that that's the reason why he took on Interstellar. It didn't work AT ALL, but it's something. Baby steps and all that.
Still, you've definitely got a point. Nolan accepted Interstellar, but someone from on high passed it on to him. I can't even begin to understand why. I want to believe in Nolan -- and I guess I still do, on some level -- but there had to be people out there much better suited to this movie, right? I hate to generalize and make assumptions, but if I didn't know any better I'd say the higher-ups just got Nolan involved because they wanted his name attached -- and the fans that followed.
I don't know. It's frustrating; I had a bad feeling about this movie going in, but I was ready to be proven wrong. Turns out I had it right, but I'm not exactly dancing for joy here.
I think you vastly overestimate the beancounters at Hollywood. They don't think aesthetically -- aesthetics aren't enough to stake their job on. They think in terms of profit margins; not because they're incapable of more, but because to do that would sacrifice their business. Without a business, we don't get movies. We need a better system, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that accountants are necessary for the system we have.
ReplyDeleteThen again, soften all my ire with this: directors are allowed to have bad films. In truth, there's no way to know whether or not something *works* until you release it. High concept films, which are products of beancounters, try and counteract this basic artistic tenet and they STILL get smashed more often than not. Speaking of Kubrick, his last few films are hotly contested to this day. Eyes Wide Shut was kinda shit.
I condemn this film; I won't drag baggage to the next. That's my promise to directors of all stripes.
I just had to upvote your comment because those last couple of sentences made you sound like a Total Cool Guy. Patent pending.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you've got me pegged. I mean, I WANT to try and give bigwigs and beancounters credit -- and like you said, it's them or nothing -- but man, they're not making it easy, are they? I'd love to see a better system in place, but I wouldn't even begin to know where one would start making reforms. Granted I don't know much about the inner workings of those big industries, but if it was simple, then maybe they would have done it already.
Oh well. This movie might have been -- oh, let's go with "less than ideal", but even now I don't find myself foaming at the mouth over it. So I guess you could say that I'm willing to believe in Nolan and friends.
I just hope his next movie -- or more specifically, the next Hans Zimmer soundtrack -- takes it easy. I could do without the sonic warfare; I'm quite the sensitive little daffodil, after all.