Interstellar (Nolan)

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't know what you're getting at, dude, but I teared up a couple times.

Over what? I'm genuinely curious.

Spoiler: show

the first transmissions he received after being told 23 years had passed were gut wrenching, as a father myself. Cooper seeing his son, and then his grandson, within seconds...just powerful stuff

Again, McConnaughey killed it.

That's subjective, I suppose. The idea is intriguing, but again, I don't think the movie explored it in any insightful or meaningful way, so it fell flat for me. All that moment really is is McConaughey crying. If the performance hits you, it hits you. But I got nothing out of it.

[BurtReynolds]

I think it's largely true science fiction, a term which has been watered down since Star Wars, but still exists. It is of course wrapped in other themes like family and love. Perhaps if LV didn't dismiss the depictions of those themes as cynical (as if that somehow invalidates them out of hand) he would see some depth or insight to them (and how insightful are they ever in movies anyway?. Maybe not.

[Kaius]

You disagree with probably the main plot device of this movie, ok, but I wasn't told anything on screen that I can't go read in books on my shelf right now. These ideas were inspired by some of the greatest scientific minds this planet has ever offered. It seems a bit self righteous to disregard them as "stoner" schlock.
I can see how it may not be life changing stuff for you, and I'm not saying it should be, but to disregard the beauty of other aspects of the film screams tunnel vision.

We're you not at all impressed with McC's performance, or the visuals expressed, say,

Spoiler: show

in the wormhole or black hole?

[LoathedVermin72]

I think it's largely true science fiction, a term which has been watered down since Star Wars, but still exists. It is of course wrapped in other themes like family and love. Perhaps if LV didn't dismiss the depictions of those themes as cynical (as if that somehow invalidates them out of hand) he would see some depth or insight to them (and how insightful are they ever in movies anyway?. Maybe not.

When did I say that the depiction of those themes was the cynical part? You're making a lot of assumptions about me and what I'm saying, man.

[Kaius]

To clarify, I don't think there is anything "life changing" in this movie, necessarily, that's silly. I do think it hits on its ambitions, which I was skeptical of going in.

[BurtReynolds]

I think it's largely true science fiction, a term which has been watered down since Star Wars, but still exists. It is of course wrapped in other themes like family and love. Perhaps if LV didn't dismiss the depictions of those themes as cynical (as if that somehow invalidates them out of hand) he would see some depth or insight to them (and how insightful are they ever in movies anyway?. Maybe not.

When did I say that the depiction of those themes was the cynical part? You're making a lot of assumptions about me and what I'm saying, man.

You never seem to say anything you say. What did you find cynical about it then, and if the cynicism wasn't from how it handled its themes, then what does it matter?

[LoathedVermin72]

You disagree with probably the main plot device of this movie, ok, but I wasn't told anything on screen that I can't go read in books on my shelf right now. These ideas were inspired by some of the greatest scientific minds this planet has ever offered. It seems a bit self righteous to disregard them as "stoner" schlock.

I seriously doubt any truly great scientific mind ever uttered ""stoner" schlock" like "love is the only thing that transcends time and space."

but to disregard the beauty of other aspects of the film screams tunnel vision.

We're you not at all impressed with McC's performance, or the visuals expressed, say,

Spoiler: show

in the wormhole or black hole?

I'm not disregarding them; I just disagree that they're impressive. The actual visualization of the black hole was cool, but never truly awe-inspiring or beautiful because Nolan lacks the cinematic eye to properly film it. I never got the sense of wonder and spectacle I get from 2001: A Space Odyssey or Gareth Edwards or Michael Powell. His actual framing, editing, direction, use of imagery and music is too prosaic, too unremarkable, too focused on cynical - yes, cynical - human conflict and narrative for any of it to ever truly take off.

[BurtReynolds]

You're so cynical, LV. Come on, that black hole was cool.

[McParadigm]

You're so cynical, LV. Come on, that black hole was cool.

In the subject of Gareth Edwards, he might be the most optimistic person ever born.

[Kaius]

So that's the Godzilla director, right? I watched Gidzikka last weekend and fell asleep. Terrible acting, tired story and narrative, and the the monster fights were even snoozefests. I can't get behind that movie. Not one bit.

[BurtReynolds]

So that's the Godzilla director, right? I watched Gidzikka last weekend and fell asleep. Terrible acting, tired story and narrative, and the the monster fights were even snoozefests. I can't get behind that movie. Not one bit.

What insight into love did it provide?

[LoathedVermin72]

I think it's largely true science fiction, a term which has been watered down since Star Wars, but still exists. It is of course wrapped in other themes like family and love. Perhaps if LV didn't dismiss the depictions of those themes as cynical (as if that somehow invalidates them out of hand) he would see some depth or insight to them (and how insightful are they ever in movies anyway?. Maybe not.

When did I say that the depiction of those themes was the cynical part? You're making a lot of assumptions about me and what I'm saying, man.

You never seem to say anything you say. What did you find cynical about it then, and if the cynicism wasn't from how it handled its themes, then what does it matter?

Spoiler: show

Actually I say exactly what I say. Just not what your smug, dismissive attitude toward me leads you to think I say.

Starting with an apocalyptic scenario is always a tricky thing to do, because there's a certain amount of cynicism inherent in that alone. But it can be explored in ways that are interesting and edifying, ways that transcend facile cynicism or pessimism. This movie doesn't do that. This movie almost always chooses to believe the worst about mankind, such as when it's saying that people in the future have accepted the moon landing as faked political propaganda or only focus on "their place in the dirt" or that even bright, scientific, supposedly noble minds will choose to resort petty, selfish survival at the cost of everyone and everything else (that Matt Damon scene was just the fucking worst). Nolan seems to want to re-ignite some kind of passion or joy for space exploration (a worthy cause), but that is totally undermined by his cynical conceit and inordinate focus on conflict and tired drama. Take, for example, the wave planet sequence. The imagery should be awesome; mammoth waves obscuring the horizon, crashing down with unbelievable power. But does Nolan ever let the imagery breathe? Nope. He focuses on stupid, boring "tension" involving Anne Hathaway playing the part of a melodramatic retard and getting a colleague killed. No time for majesty; humans needs to act like idiots.

It's the worst of both worlds for me: a cynical, pessimistic view of the world and humanity countered by sappy, maudlin platitudes about family and love. Both sides of the coin are painfully lacking in depth.

[McParadigm]

And they call me autistic.

[LoathedVermin72]

So that's the Godzilla director, right? I watched Gidzikka last weekend and fell asleep. Terrible acting, tired story and narrative, and the the monster fights were even snoozefests. I can't get behind that movie. Not one bit.

I don't watch movies for story or monster fights. Disagree on the acting.

[Kaius]

So that's the Godzilla director, right? I watched Gidzikka last weekend and fell asleep. Terrible acting, tired story and narrative, and the the monster fights were even snoozefests. I can't get behind that movie. Not one bit.

I don't watch movies for story or monster fights. Disagree on the acting.

You talk about cynicism, how cynical is this flick? Us stupid, helpless, insignificant humans are just biding time until these city-sized creatures awaken from their naps to sneeze away society. Not only are we harmless against them, but it's all the governments fair for hiding it from us.

Ah, here comes our team of token characters ready to action figure pose their way to survival and, wait(!), the biggest one likes us? Phew!

Forgive me, but why does one watch Godzilla?

Aaron Taylor-Johnson was awful btw.

[LoathedVermin72]

So that's the Godzilla director, right? I watched Gidzikka last weekend and fell asleep. Terrible acting, tired story and narrative, and the the monster fights were even snoozefests. I can't get behind that movie. Not one bit.

I don't watch movies for story or monster fights. Disagree on the acting.

You talk about cynicism, how cynical is this flick? Us stupid, helpless, insignificant humans are just biding time until these city-sized creatures awaken from their naps to sneeze away society. Not only are we harmless against them, but it's all the governments fair for hiding it from us.

Ah, here comes our team of token characters ready to action figure pose their way to survival and, wait(!), the biggest one likes us? Phew!

Forgive me, but why does one watch Godzilla?

Aaron Taylor-Johnson was awful btw.

Godzilla is anything but cynical. It's all about Ford accepting and transcending his past; passing into manhood. Godzilla and the MUTOs are symbolic of this (Godzilla = the truth about his father and childhood, MUTOs = negative perception of said, literally feeding on the residual energy in the wreckage of the trauma). Not to mention that the awe for the Kantian Sublime present in the way Edwards shoots Godzilla and disaster spectacle is too lyrical and powerful to for the film to ever be reduced to cynicism, I think.

I find the characters to be far more compelling than "action figure tokens," and I think Taylor-Johnson does a fine job; his stoic performance is appropriate to the character.

Some snippets of things I've written about the film elsewhere online (it's long):

Spoiler: show

The concept of transcending/accepting childhood is Godzilla’s largest theme, but Edwards is careful to transcend the limitations of childhood without disparaging or disrespecting it. The innocent wonder of gawking at a giant monster wreaking havoc is deeply felt, but grounded in a solemn acknowledgement of the human toll. This is an element Pacific Rim and Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla, in which death and consequence were off-screen abstractions, lacked, and an affirmation that maturity does not engender an absence of wonder any more than joy demands ignorance of reality – the two can, and do, coexist.

The rapprochement between child and adult sensibilities is something this film accomplishes more successfully and with more maturity than I think any other movie I’ve ever seen. This is perhaps best exemplified through the development and progression of Ford.

All the Joe stuff is totally designed to build Ford as a character. The whole reason he goes into the military is because of the resentment he feels towards his father and what he perceives as his father’s cowardice and complicity in his mother’s death. It all comes out in the scene when they’re reunited: Joe says, “You know I did everything I could, right? You know that, right?” And Ford can’t bring himself to give Joe that affirmation, because he DOESN’T know that; the resentment is palpable.

He also has abandonment issues, because Joe has chosen to spend his life obsessively trying to solve the mystery of the disaster and Sandra’s death instead of giving Ford the attention, reassurance, and paternal protection he needed.

So there are multiple things going on with Ford now:

1. He has confused, complicated, and resentful feelings toward his father.

2. He has never come to terms with the childhood trauma of losing his mother (and, in many ways, his father, whom he blames).

As a result, he is now:

1. Repressed (not having dealt with his parental issues)

2. Trying to be the pillar of nobility and strength he feels his father wasn’t (this is all pretty brilliantly tied together by having Ford play with that soldier action figure before passing it on to a child he is protecting)

Therefore, his stoicism, which a lot of people seem to be mistaking for blandness, is essential to his character; it would be illogical and inappropriate for him to be any other way. Not to mention, that stoicism “cracks” in all the right moments (such as when he is trying to get Joe to “let it go” and come live with him).

The whole movie is really about Ford transcending the trauma of his childhood, forgiving/understanding his father, and fulfilling his own aspirations of nobility.

I think the necessary stoicism and understatement of Taylor-Johnson’s performance is causing a lot of people to miss the subtle (but very dignified and meaningful) arc of his character. He is going through all kinds of conflict and anguish after Joe dies; don’t let the surface demeanor fool you. I think the best example of this is the scene immediately after Joe dies, when Serizawa is pumping Ford for information, trying to make him remember “anything” Joe might have said that could help. He responds, “I just thought he was crazy,” and the look on Taylor-Johnson’s face is brutally succinct: the hint of a disbelieving smirk, a look of dislocation and confusion. He can’t figure out how to sort this all out. He has spent his entire life resenting his father and thinking he was “crazy,” and in a moment, all of that has crumbled down. He has been wrong his entire life. The rug has been pulled out from under him. He feels a deep sense of regret and guilt over the way he has neglected and resented his father for so many years, but he isn’t yet able to acknowledge that. It’s too much to handle at once. He can’t work through all that engrained repression and anger.

This is why the scene when he protects the child on the train is an integral sequence of character progression. It begins with him holding that soldier action figure, a symbol of his childhood trauma (having been retrieved from the literal ruins of his past) and, also, a symbol of how that trauma and its fallout (no pun intended) catalyzed his aspirations of nobility (being a figure of a soldier). So when he passes it on to the child (a neutral party who will not attach to it the trauma and resentment that Ford does), it is symbolic of his psychological progression – he is shucking the baggage of his childhood and purging it from his motivations for nobility. He is coming to terms with his childhood trauma and his father – and moving forward into manhood. This is when he first becomes the protector, when he is first shown as truly noble (all of his previous scenes were laden with baggage, such as the resentment and emotional reticence in the scenes between him and Joe and the nagging absenteeism in the scenes of Ford’s family). So when Ford is finally united with his family in the end, it is meaningful and cathartic – they are finally together removed from baggage. There is a new purity and perspective to their togetherness. Ford doesn’t have to run from anything anymore; he can just be there with them and for them.

And in relation to the depth I was referencing before, notice how Edwards doesn’t do something as callous and smug as DESTROY the symbol of Ford’s childhood; he passes it on to a new generation. He transcends it, but does not devalue it. This is how I feel about the whole movie. The spectacle of massive monsters and mega-scale destruction isn’t treated as kiddie fare (like it is in Pacific Rim, which, don’t get me wrong, is a movie I still enjoy), but as poetry, as something majestic and beautiful, something to be amazed and humbled by. Part of why this works is because Edwards grounds it in reality and accountable death (we see bodies multiple times, there are direct references to casualties and survivors, and we even see moments in which we know people we were just watching are dying (the soldier with Ford on the bridge, the tactile foot on the car windshield just before it is engulfed in water)). But Edwards, again, is careful not to let this side devalue the innocent side; that wide-eyed awe is never neglected (something Christopher Nolan never balances properly in his Batman movies, which never acknowledge the fundamental childishness of their subject matter). This feels like the only truly healthy and mature way to approach material like this, and I’ve never seen another movie do it so eloquently (In what other film are big-budget set-pieces executed with such poetic, ethereal panache?). That, to me, is deep, and a real progression and maturation for blockbuster filmmaking.

[Kaius]

I don't know what you're getting at, dude, but I teared up a couple times.

Over what? I'm genuinely curious.

Spoiler: show

the first transmissions he received after being told 23 years had passed were gut wrenching, as a father myself. Cooper seeing his son, and then his grandson, within seconds...just powerful stuff

Again, McConnaughey killed it.

That's subjective, I suppose. The idea is intriguing, but again, I don't think the movie explored it in any insightful or meaningful way, so it fell flat for me. All that moment really is is McConaughey crying. If the performance hits you, it hits you. But I got nothing out of it.

It wasn't just his crying. It was the gravity of the circumstance. The consequences of their little mission were catastrophic, especially to a man who was still holding hope that he would get to see his children as children again, let alone see them at all. It hits him, and us, all at once. It's too late, time has passed, he lost it already, it's gone.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't know what you're getting at, dude, but I teared up a couple times.

Over what? I'm genuinely curious.

Spoiler: show

the first transmissions he received after being told 23 years had passed were gut wrenching, as a father myself. Cooper seeing his son, and then his grandson, within seconds...just powerful stuff

Again, McConnaughey killed it.

That's subjective, I suppose. The idea is intriguing, but again, I don't think the movie explored it in any insightful or meaningful way, so it fell flat for me. All that moment really is is McConaughey crying. If the performance hits you, it hits you. But I got nothing out of it.

It wasn't just his crying. It was the gravity of the circumstance. The consequences of their little mission were catastrophic, especially to a man who was still holding hope that he would get to see his children as children again, let alone see them at all. It hits him, and us, all at once. It's too late, time has passed, he lost it already, it's gone.

That's true. But, again, I guess it's just subjective whether that moment is going to resonate with you emotionally or not. It still doesn't really go beyond a basic idea, and I wasn't involved enough in the character or the stakes of the scene for it to connect with me.

[Kaius]

I think we can agree that one's opinion on Interstellar just may depend on whether or not it can affect you emotionally. I think the science thematics are interesting if not downright impressive, but the heart of the movie was what kept it afloat.

That's not to say it was without flaw, but I think I need another viewing before I could critique too much of it.

[LoathedVermin72]

I think we can agree that one's opinion on Interstellar just may depend on whether or not it can affect you emotionally.

I'm not sure I would say that. I think it's great that you had an emotional experience with it; that's valid and I would never devalue that. But I think there are levels of the movie that can be scrutinized and criticized regardless of (or despite) emotional connection. It tries and fails in so many ways.