Ever since his breakout hit “Memento,” Christopher Nolan has been operating on ever-widening canvases, from the broad political commentary of “The Dark Knight Rises” to the dreams-within-dreams mechanics of “Inception.”
With “Interstellar,” easily his most ambitious film yet, Nolan (and his brother/co-screenwriter, Jonathan) take the next step to interplanetary travel, compounding typical space travel with such scientific possibilities as wormholes, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and an acutely realistic end-of-humanity scenario.
In the not too distant future, an unnamed catastrophe has rendered Earth nearly uninhabitable, with constant dust storms and diminishing food supplies threatening the reduced population with extinction. Matthew McConaughey plays Cooper, a widowed father and ex- pilot, who, through what he describes as “an anomaly,” learns the coordinates of a top-secret NASA facility, where scientists have been working to ensure the survival of the species. Professor Brand (Michael Caine) informs Cooper that his daughter’s generation will be humanity’s last, lest a new home is found.
While hope for a new world is slim, hope does remain, as several explorers have already been sent through a wormhole near Saturn – a break in the usual rules of space and time, and indication of a higher, unseen presence looking out for us, as three potentially habitable planets lie just beyond the other side, thus reducing a journey that would normally take generations to just a few years. The next step in the plan is to follow up with those astronauts, who have relayed signals that these planets are indeed potentially viable habitats. Being the most qualified pilot available, Cooper reluctantly accepts his mission, knowing that, to save his children’s lives, he may never be able to see them again.
“Interstellar” aspires to similar realms of ponderous mythos as such predecessors as “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Solaris,” often lingering on astronomical imagery while Hans Zimmer’s funereal, organ-heavy score reinforces the notion that we’re accompanying these explorers on a great pilgrimage. The film wears its influences on its sleeves – such as a robot named TARS (voiced by Bill Irwin) that looks like an anthropomorphic monolith from “2001” – while simultaneously forging its own identity. Nolan’s insistence on more traditional, physical technologies in his filmmaking – e.g. shooting on actual film instead of digital and creating physical sets – lend “Interstellar” a tactile warmth that helps to substantiate the dramatic stakes at hand.
At nearly three hours, the film earns its running time, fluctuating both between those yet on Earth and Cooper and company’s trip to the stars, as well as between the past and the present – although not always in the expected ways. Without detailing any of the film’s later dramatic developments, which include an “Appointment in Samarra”-type twist, suffice to say they will likely divide audiences, much like its key inspirations.
Certain of the film’s science fiction elements – such as our character’s life-and-death reckoning with an aquatic planet where the rules of time skew defiantly against their favor – require an thoughtful engagement uncommon in this kind of big-budget fare (with Nolan’s own flawed but ambitious “Inception” being another exception), while the unfortunate fact remains that not everyone considers the vastness of the universe to be a source of near-religious awe. If it wasn’t already obvious, this critic does, and while “Interstellar” is imperfect in many ways, the whole proves to be far more than the sum of its parts. While it operates at a very different level than one of last year’s best films, “Gravity,” “Interstellar” is comparable not just in its being set largely in outer space, but in its unyielding earnestness, embracing the messiness of human emotion as something well worth saving.
“Interstellar” is now playing in theaters everywhere.
Robert Humanick is a contributing writer for slantmagazine.com
Follow Rob on Twitter @rhumanick