Interstellar

Plot – A team of space travellers venture through a wormhole in search of a new home for humanity. 

These days, it almost feels as though many Hollywood features are nothing more than half-baked ideas, solely existing for the purpose of making money. Not that there's a problem with films trying to generate revenue of course. Remember, all the boys and girls working on these flicks do have mouths to feed back at home. Nonetheless, when film-makers throw quality out the window entirely for the sake of bombastic explosions and little substance, things become problematic.

Not all films are like this, of course. There are many great films that have come off the back of Hollywood in recent years. It's just when it comes to looking at the weekly listings, it's hard not to notice that a heck of a lot of releases seem to be nothing more than superficial cash cows attempting to lure their audiences in with sparkly special effects and dazzling explosions. Films such as the Pirates of the Caribbean series or a majority of Michael Bay films appear to be nothing more than theme park rides converted into the cinematic medium. From start to finish, instead of experiencing a story which makes you think about a particular subject, care for the characters or leave the auditorium with a feeling of awe, we're subjected to famous actors dancing around whilst delivering quirky (but meaningless) dialogue, set pieces with characters skipping along flashy action sequences and explosions that traumatise the ears and irises. There's nothing necessarily terrible about films that are executed as theme park romps in and of themselves, however when it becomes the dominate type of film to come out of Hollywood, it can make one worry about the future of mainstream film. We need diversity to keep our viewing experiences fresh and we need stories that try different things in order to find new ways to tell them in a grander sense of the word.

But fear not, because while the cinema listings of today may be polluted with noisy, jazzy Michael Bay romps, there are also films released each year which remind us that there's still hope for the future of the blockbuster. Such films remind us that there are more ways of telling a story than the simple Hero's Journey structure and that there are still film-makers out there with whopping price tags strapped to their heads who want to create meaningful stories that are more than just 3 hour firework displays.

Christopher Nolan is a writer and director who is currently amongst this club. For the past decade or so, he has achieved rather spectacular heights when it comes to mainstream blockbuster success. Not only is he a director who can walk into a studio with an idea and walk back out with $200 million, he's also a director who seems to make a heck of a lot of money with an original idea; proving that it is possible to succeed financially without having to resort to mindless formulaic spectacle in order to achieve it.

Furthermore, Nolan is a film-maker who doesn't treat his audiences like they're idiots. He knows that a majority of the human race are smart when it comes to consuming stories; regardless of the medium they're told in. We don't just need tacky one-liners, 40 minute car chases, tasteless stereotypes and robots whacking each other in the face for 3 hours. We are capable of understanding and absorbing so much more. Well-written characters, unique stories, complex ideas and thought-provoking concepts are also elements which attract the audiences eye.

Now don't get me wrong, there really is nothing wrong with loud, bombastic, popcorn flicks. There's plenty of great films out there which don't try to be complex, different or overly detailed. Cinema is entertainment at the end of the day, so why can't a good old romp be enjoyed? Films that require you leave your brain at the door are perfectly good forms of escapism, which is essentially why we go to the movies in the first place.

Yet when these types of theme-park movies saturate the Hollywood market, we begin to yearn for more. Hollywood becomes formulaic and predictable. It gives off the impression that the studios have ran out of ideas, that they are only capable of rebooting old hits and that they have little care when it comes to giving their customers something new. Not only does it make us feel cheated when we walk out of a film we swear we've seen a hundred times already, but it makes us begin to fear for the future of Hollywood itself. We need new ideas to show that, like all forms of storytelling, cinema is forever evolving.

The success of Nolan helps us maintain that knowledge. He delivers new and interesting ideas whilst simultaneously blending them into the same flashy special effects model of these standardised theme-park romps. They are not small-scale indie movies that are made on half a penny, they are the same expensive Hollywood products that are made with colossal budgets. Such films go to show that we can indeed have movies that are aimed at a huge demographic which don't require you turn you brain off beforehand.

Interstellar is the new film from Nolan and tells the story of a group of space travellers who journey through a wormhole in order to find a new home for the residents of a dying planet earth. It arrives just two years after the director wrapped up his immensely successful Dark Knight Trilogy and comes at a time when expectations toward his work are outlandishly high.

The fact that Nolan is currently at the height of his career comes as both a curse and a blessing for his films. The fact that he's known around the world for been able to turn a profit of over $900 million for a unique and complex high-premise film (Inception) means that studios are willing to give him a great deal of money to create new and original features whenever it so pleases him. Many directors are only ever able to spend $200 million on a flick provided they are monitored constantly by producers intent on 'playing it safe' and have their work scrutinised by test audiences long before a release date even hits the horizon. As was the case with Stanley Kubrick back in the day, Nolan is free from such shackles. This gives him a level of creative freedom that very few on this planet posses when it comes to working within Hollywood. With that kind of money, he can pretty much build whatever kind of story he sees fit.

On the flip side, however, the fact that Nolan's earlier films have been so sublime in the eyes of many means that the expectation bar has now been set pretty darn high. This was the case with The Dark Knight Rises; a marvellous feature which is frequently attacked for its plot holes and flawed screenplay. Yes, there are some problems with Rises, but it is still an enjoyable film that delivers for at least 90% of the time. But because Nolan is human, he slips up with pacing and the execution from time to time. The errors found in segments of Rises would not be a problem in most films – as they really aren't what makes up the entirety of the film in terms of quality – but because of how renowned Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were, many criticised him for not making something which exceeded their expectations.

This blessing and curse has already had an impact on Interstellar and is generating a similar set of discussions that Rises provoked two years prior. The film was made on $165 million, allowing Nolan to execute a story of whatever size and scale he desired. He was at liberty to tell an original story that had no limits in what it did. At the same time, however, people seem to have been going into this story with one eye on Inception. Less than a month into its release and already many have taken to the forums in order to moan about the story not being complicated enough, being too complicated (seems he can't win on this one), not having interesting enough characters, copping out by using a 'corny' love theme and not being as good as some of Nolan's earlier works.

After seeing it in my local IMAX on Thursday evening, it's somewhat difficult to see where these opinions are coming from.

The complaints regarding complexity  - or lack of it in this particular case - is what strikes me as the most bewildering of quarrels. Some have said the story has ditched the puzzle-box structure of Inception and has instead chosen to adopt a straight forward narrative which guides the viewers from A to B without letting them think for themselves. I can see where they are coming from up until a point. While Inception told a very complex story in a very complex way (which is how Nolan summed it up in a recent Guardian interview) – segmenting its narrative over multiple levels of 'reality' - Interstellar decides to structure itself in a more straight-forward manner. Yet claiming that it guides the viewer idly from start to finish, without leaving audiences to think for themselves, is a teeny bit nonsensical (with the exception of one particular scene, in which a whiteboard is brought into shot for no other reason than to explain how a wormhole works; which is the kind of science you'd excpect austronauts to be brushed up on BEFORE they set off toward one!). The story relies heavily on complex quantum physics; applying a whole array of theories and concepts that can only really be 'understood' (which is apparently the wrong word to apply in this context) by having vast degrees of knowledge in the subject matter at hand. The film may lay things out so that it's easy enough to grasp what's going on – allowing individuals like myself to follow the plot despite not having any knowledge on the theories driving the story – however its execution doesn't hand us all the information on a silver spoon. Numerous sequence are hard to encrypt at first, and although the delivery of exposition gives you a pretty clear idea on the shape and direction the narrative is heading it, a considerable amount of effort is required from the viewer to place the larger picture together. The dialogue may explain what the characters plan to do for the next chunk of the story, yet it isn't until we begin to see those actions played out on-screen that we can fully piece together what they truly mean to do. Separate segments of information – both visual and dialogue based – are scattered throughout different points of the film. Although the exposition is there, it is spaced apart, requiring those watching to actively put them together in their heads. The wormhole sequence is one example. The presence of the wormhole near Saturn is introduced early on in the film. NASA discuss the existence of 12 worlds, black holes and time variations, yet before we can conclude the true nature of the theory at hand (provided you're not buffed up in the Quantum Mechanics department that is) we first have to wait for a number a separate sequences which elaborate and expand upon what these characters were talking about. Nolan isn't spoon feeding information; he's using the visual powers of the cinematic medium to play out complicated scientific theories to drive his story. This is not the case of a film-maker patronising their audience with poor exposition, it is communicating gargantuan ideas to its consumers; which is surely what cinema is ultimately about in many respects.

Then there's those who complain that the film is far too complicated for some viewers to grasp. Again, I agree with this point to a level. Yes, the ideas that managed to make their way into Interstellar's script are often very knotty to get one's head around. Quantum Physics is a subject notorious for its level of complexity. It is a subject that explores boundaries which excel the limits of the human brain. As Richard Feynman states "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Nolan, however, applies the same tool that shows such as The West Wing and House adopted. As long as the writers, directors and actors knew (or looked as though they knew) what they were talking about, viewers would at the very least see what they were getting at. You don't have to have an MA in politics or a PHD in Medicine to watch The West Wing or House, yet the DNA of those shows rely heavily on both those very subjects in order to drive their stories forth. Because everyone on bored making it gets what's going on (or at least pretend to), viewers can see and understand what direction each episode is taking. Interstellar is very much the same and as I stated in the paragraph above, the film uses its visuals in order to communicate its ideas. Everyone working on this film is confident in the subject matter at hand. The fact that they have $165 million to show their viewers what (they claim) they know shows us exactly what they're getting at.

As for the claims regarding the characters not being interesting enough, I'm not sure where they are getting that from. Ok, I will admit that character development isn't one of Nolan's strongest point. Sure, he certainly writes characters we care about, but they are not vast enigmas with rich pasts. Yet even though fastidious character development isn't what Nolan's known for, he's characters are far from uninteresting. They are often used as vessels in his scripts that utter thought provoking dialogue in order to get you thinking, commit acts which often border between the lines of good and evil, push the story into bold new territories, or utter brief lines that shine a new light on the story within the eyes' of audiences. All of this applies to Interstellar, a film in which uses its characters as pawns in a grand chess game. They are the ones who take the theories of Quantum Mechanics and drive them into the stars, they are the ones who steer the course of the story in order to get back to their loved ones, and they are the ones who communicate to the audience the love theme which lies at the heart of this very story.

Which brings me on to the quarrel regarding the film's love-theme. Many have expressed distaste at Anne Hathaway's “Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space” monologue for been far too corny. Furthermore, many have said the (marvellous) climax sequence where Cooper travels through his daughter's timeline in order to save her (along with humanity) from certain death is a red-button cop out. Yet the love conquers all theme is essentially the DNA of classic science fiction storytelling. Philip K Dick often applied this theme to his stories; exploring the idea that human emotion is the one force which can overcome the cold harsh truths of the universe. Many complain that such stories cheat themselves into closure, and while I can empathise with those who may not like their films to be resolved with a theme that they may find overly-sentimental, I don't necessarily think it is as simple as Deux ex Machina. To imply that emotions are a cheat is not entirely fair. If the whole love resolution is pulled out of the bag the moment before it is needed, then yes, it's a cop out. If it is threaded throughout the entire narrative however, then it becomes a key player in the story at hand. When an emotion such as love becomes the driving force in a narrative, then what makes it any less important than the material aspects of that narrative? Implying that emotions are somehow less superior when it comes to telling stories doesn't make sense to me. Love is what drives the whole of Interstellar from start to finish. It is why Cooper and Brand sail off into the stars in the first place. The film emphasises quite frequently (particularly by the time Matt Damon shows up) that these characters are only risking their lives to save humanity in the name of their beloved. Cooper doesn't give Murphy the knowledge she needs through an act of selflessness, he gives it her because he wants to save her. Love creates and drives the entirety of Interstellar; making it the heart and soul of the story Nolan is telling. It is in its DNA, making the decision to apply its closure makes perfect sense.

As for the argument that it's not as good as his earlier works? Agreed. It's not his best film, but by saying it's not the best in a line of great works is far from an insult. It's just as it was with The Dark Knight Rises; even though it's not as good as the first two, it's still not a bad film.  Interstellar may not be as good as, say, Memento or Inception (in my subjective opinion that is), but this doesn't mean it isn't a marvellous film.

Interstellar is a bold piece of cinema which explores grand ideas in a hugely compelling manner. Its story uses the classic theme of love conquers all to drive a story into territories which haven't been explored for a long time. Its a science fiction film in the most classic sense of the genre. Today, mainstream science fiction is more closer to that of the fantasy genre than it is to its original routes. The term science fiction never initially meant 'pretend science', it was 'fiction about science'. Science fiction novels were often written by scientists themselves; using the subject matter literally in order to tell a story. As comedies use humour as their key element, science fiction once used hard science as theirs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with contemporary science fiction of course, but to finally see a film that harkens back to a time when the genre told stories based around actual scientific theories brings an ironic sense of originality to mind.

Also – as a side note – hats off to Hans Zimmer's score. There's been much criticism fired at Zimmer in recent years for his supposed habit of recycling old scores, however we really have something remarkably new going on here. I love the use of blaring organs throughout. It kept reminding me of the final seconds of Richard Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra score during 2001's opening sequence. Although it was a little too loud in some places (though that may be down to my local IMAX's sound system settings), the entire score blends in perfect harmony with the film's narrative. Before seeing it last Thursday evening, I couldn't imagine what the soundtrack to Interstellar would be like. Upon leaving the showing, however, I could no longer picture Interstellar without Zimmer's soundtrack charging defiantly along side. I fact, it wasn't just a score that played alongside the story, it was apart of the story itself.