14 DAY TRIAL // Last Friday saw the release of one of the most anticipated movies of the fall, the star-studded “Interstellar,” from writer / director Christopher Nolan, who also helmed the fan-favorite Batman trilogy, “The Dark Knight,” with Christian Bale as lead.
This is Nolan’s ninth film, and though far from perfect, it’s considered a culmination of his directorial work, the jewel in his crown. Ironically, “Interstellar” is not seen as Nolan’s best film: that would be “The Dark Knight” or “Inception” or his much earlier “Memento.” The jury is still out on that one.
The bottom line is that “Interstellar” is a step upwards in the evolution of Nolan’s art, but at the same time, it’s also proof that there is still room for improvement. Chris Nolan could very well deliver the “perfect” film in the future, if only he tweaks those things that could still use some work.
More humor, more emotion, more humanity
Another thing that makes Nolan’s films stand out, besides their non-linear narrative and huge scope, is their coldness. Nolan is one of the most calculated directors in Hollywood, and because he constructs multi-layered, complex worlds, he occasionally forgets to populate them accordingly.
Nolan’s gimmick is that, with such worlds, he only needs 1 or 2 major characters with a bit more background, while the others are mere stand-ins that could easily substitute for each other. You can notice that in his most cerebral work to date, “Inception,” but most unfortunately in “The Dark Knight Rises,” hailed by many fans as his worst movie to date.
Whether you agree with that last statement or not, you can’t deny that the entire population of Gotham exists in that installment on film only to offer the leads a sense of their importance. Gotham the city has more substance than the people who inhabit it, and when you have a city-character better defined than human characters, that’s saying a lot.
With “Interstellar,” Nolan strayed from the beaten path and for once, he did it with humor and emotion. He did it by using the human touch.
“Interstellar” is perhaps the most pure and naïve and heart-warming sci-fi movie you’re ever going to see, which unabashedly zooms in on a character’s face as they’re dissolving in tears, feeling the most heartbreaking of all heartbreaks. The result is truly something else.
With “Interstellar,” Nolan is finally putting to good use his brilliant technique of inspiring awe at inanimate objects, switching the gaze onto the human element. He should do it more often, because it’s a pleasure to watch.
More character diversity, ditch the widower cliché
All of Nolan’s famous films, starting from “Memento” and ending with “Interstellar,” have male leads who are basically widowers or have lost their significant other in a tragic way.
Leonard in “Memento” is seeking revenge for his wife’s murder and isn’t about to let his memory loss stop him dead in his tracks. Cobb lost his wife Mal and can’t seem to shake the guilt over the way it happened, in “Inception.” Bruce Wayne of “The Dark Knight Rises” is still broken up over the loss of Rachel in the previous installment to the extent where he’s lost his raison d’etre.
All of Nolan’s protagonists are men who have lost something they loved and who, because of it, have gained an edge, an inner darkness that will influence their future actions. The women they lost might not even appear on screen, acting as absences that drive the action towards conclusion.
Nolan is switching it up with “Interstellar:” Cooper’s wife is still an absence, having died some years before the story starts, but her death isn’t central to the story. Sure, Cooper wishes they still had the MRI machine, so she might have been saved, but that’s not what’s driving him to go on the loneliest journey through space and time.
This is Nolan’s best attempt at ditching the widower trope, though he’s yet to actually renounce it: Cooper’s motivation is his kids and the knowledge that humanity wasn’t meant “to save earth, but to leave it.” With his next film, Nolan could replace this trope with a new one, one that would bring some diversity into his universe and not weigh it down.
Tone it down, go back to the basics
This needs to be said, even if it comes across as redundant: “Interstellar” has a runtime of 169 minutes. “The Dark Knight Rises” was 165 minutes long, while “Inception” was 148 minutes. By comparison, Nolan’s earlier films were much shorter: “The Prestige” was 130 minutes, while “Memento” 113 minutes long.
Do you remember a time when movies were an hour and a half long?
That’s not to say that sitting through “Interstellar” is an ordeal or anything close to that, but it does mean that the longer the movie, the narrower its chances of drawing more diverse audiences. Nolan has been having increasing problems cutting his films to a “normal” length, but if he keeps this up, he might as well be asking his fans to pack a bite to eat because they’d be spending a while in the theater.
With this new release, the length and scope serve the purpose without being overwhelming or deadening to the senses, but that’s coming from a Chris Nolan fan. Moviegoers who don’t really count themselves as fans of his elaborate filmmaking style might find it a bit too much and could walk out of the theater halfway in – which I’ve seen happen, by the way.
There is a lot to be said of the advantages of making a long and overly complex movie, but Nolan should keep in mind that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. If you ask me, post-“Interstellar,” he should go back to the basics, scale and tone it down, and deliver yet another challenging and intriguing film, with well-defined characters and no more plot holes.
A full “Interstellar” review is available, if you wish to read a bit more on the topic.
