I have always wondered what it would have been like to see 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time in a large screen movie theatre. According to Rolling Stone magazine, during one screening of that movie a young man rose as if in a trance at the monolith's reappearance near the end and ran down the theatre's aisle shouting "It's God! It's God!" Before the theatre's management could stop him, he had crashed through the screen.
Similarly, I have always wanted our son to experience what I had experienced as a kid when I saw Star Wars for the first time on a large movie screen. I know my friends will jump on me to a) not compare Star Wars with 2001: A Space Odyssey and b) not mistake a space cowboy movie for real science. But I would like to suggest that what I am getting at is wonderment, not science.
With Interstellar the new movie by the Mensa-level IQ possessing Christopher Nolan at the helm, combines the science of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the bravado of Star Wars and the sentiment of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, with updated cosmology and the more recent social consciousness of how we are trammelling over our planet.
Let me dispense with the plot quickly, since hundreds of reviews are already available on this score: Humans explores another galaxy for habitable planets since the earth has become a dust bowl in the near future.
Let me also review the reviewers for a quick second. The reviews of the movie use the traditional yardstick to measure this. In other words they are using a ruler, when they should be using a protractor. They comment on plot, believability, dialogue, music, screenplay and visuals. They miss experience, wonderment and science. Luckily, audiences don't go to movies because of movie critics!
I will therefore focus on these three aspects that the reviewers on the whole are missing.
Experience:
We saw this movie on an IMAX screen. As we would have said it colloquially when we were kids, 'IMAX is 70 mm ka baap!' Every frame and every scene whether on earth or into the solar system or into another galaxy is so amazingly shot. It is a fully immersive experience, with an A+ acting cast making every scene count. Three hours went by in a flash, with this viewer wanting more.
Wonderment:
I think I have sucked up every well done YouTube video and documentary on Cosmology - about blackholes, pulsars, nebula, filaments, galaxies and so on including the old and new TV Series Cosmos. Most of these by virtue of their smaller budgets and lack of Hollywood level talent, bounce along as dry science documentaries, depending on the viewers deep interest in science for sticking with the show.
Interstellar takes that natural human wonderment of our place in the universe and places it squarely in the middle of the movie making conceit, and never lets go. The plot, the dialogue, the framing all make human wonderment central to the movie making experience.
I might no longer be the teen that saw Star Wars in the 1970s. But I certainly recaptured that feeling of awe watching this movie showcase cosmological objects.
Science:
Several important topics are dealt with from a science point of view.
Environment: I am quite in-tune with environmental issues these days, given my work in Socially Responsible Investing (which is also more clunkily called Environmental - Social - Governance Investing and more catchily called Impact Investing). The blight, food shortages, regressive turn in culture, losing the pioneering spirit through deflated expectations, are very well captured in the first third of the movie.
i.e. what is the 'burning platform' that causes humans to recapture their spirit of adventure?
Robotics: The robot(s) of Interstellar are more like HAL of 2001: Space Odyssey and less like C3PO of Star Wars. i.e they are physically functional, but quite superior in terms of Artificial Intelligence. Very credible - Siri meets Tesla.
Exo-Planets: These are planets not part of our solar system. Natalie Batalha is a real life exo-planet hunter. I follow her on Facebook, since she shares her findings in easy and appealing nuggets there. Natalie has the following to say about Interstellar: "I felt that the space travel scenes were much more realistic. I found the extreme tides depicted crazy scary. I felt keen despair watching the cast walk across a lifeless world."
Wormhole: This is the second best cosmological object depicted in the movie. What does a 3-dimensional wormhole look like? The conception and execution of this was simply amazing. The other scientist I follow is CalTech Physicist Sean Carroll.
This is what he has to say about the wormhole in Interstellar: "Kip Thorne, who is my colleague at Caltech had helped Carl Sagan with some science advice for his book Contact. In particular, Sagan wanted to have some way for his characters to traverse great distances at speeds faster than light, by taking a shortcut through spacetime. Kip recognized that a wormhole was what was called for, but also realized that any form of faster-than-light travel had the possibility of leading to travel backwards in time. Thus was the entire field of wormhole time travel born. I know that Kip has been very closely involved with the script as the film has developed, and he’s done his darnedest to make sure the science is right, or at least plausible. (We don’t actually whether wormholes are allowed by the laws of physics, but we don’t know that they’re not allowed.) "
Blackhole: I think you would agree that blackholes are the most awe inducing mysterious objects that were subjects of conjectures for decades and finally being mathematically posited and detected by inference in recent years.
The visualization of a blackhole is so incredibly amazing. This is where, I nearly did what Rolling Stone said of the young man watching 2001: A Space Odyssey did. I did run down the stairs in the middle of the movie. But rather than run through the screen, my reason was more prosaic - I wanted to get some popcorn!
Here are Christopher Nolan and Kip Thorne discussing the blackhole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yxaUi8LIzE
There is much more science and engineering to gawk at: space ships, saturn, earth from space, space-time fabric, imagination of what it is like inside the black hole etc.
Summary:
I would highly recommend watching Interstellar while it is still in theaters. Plunk the extra amount to watch it on the biggest screen that is available. Take your kids or nieces and nephews. Give them a fabulous science and human experience.
However, take a curvilinear protractor and not a linear ruler to this movie. i.e. don't judge it on traditional yardsticks of what makes a good movie. After all the movie from 1966, Fantastic Voyage is a great human adventure that explores the human body (but you buy the line that humans can be shrunk to a nano-size to be able to watch the rest of the movie).
So, instead enjoy the director Christopher Nolan's ambition, the seriousness of effort to bring science into the visuals (and not just into the plot) and setting of the current social context.
I am seeing it again.
Similarly, I have always wanted our son to experience what I had experienced as a kid when I saw Star Wars for the first time on a large movie screen. I know my friends will jump on me to a) not compare Star Wars with 2001: A Space Odyssey and b) not mistake a space cowboy movie for real science. But I would like to suggest that what I am getting at is wonderment, not science.
With Interstellar the new movie by the Mensa-level IQ possessing Christopher Nolan at the helm, combines the science of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the bravado of Star Wars and the sentiment of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, with updated cosmology and the more recent social consciousness of how we are trammelling over our planet.
Let me dispense with the plot quickly, since hundreds of reviews are already available on this score: Humans explores another galaxy for habitable planets since the earth has become a dust bowl in the near future.
Let me also review the reviewers for a quick second. The reviews of the movie use the traditional yardstick to measure this. In other words they are using a ruler, when they should be using a protractor. They comment on plot, believability, dialogue, music, screenplay and visuals. They miss experience, wonderment and science. Luckily, audiences don't go to movies because of movie critics!
I will therefore focus on these three aspects that the reviewers on the whole are missing.
Experience:
We saw this movie on an IMAX screen. As we would have said it colloquially when we were kids, 'IMAX is 70 mm ka baap!' Every frame and every scene whether on earth or into the solar system or into another galaxy is so amazingly shot. It is a fully immersive experience, with an A+ acting cast making every scene count. Three hours went by in a flash, with this viewer wanting more.
Wonderment:
I think I have sucked up every well done YouTube video and documentary on Cosmology - about blackholes, pulsars, nebula, filaments, galaxies and so on including the old and new TV Series Cosmos. Most of these by virtue of their smaller budgets and lack of Hollywood level talent, bounce along as dry science documentaries, depending on the viewers deep interest in science for sticking with the show.
Interstellar takes that natural human wonderment of our place in the universe and places it squarely in the middle of the movie making conceit, and never lets go. The plot, the dialogue, the framing all make human wonderment central to the movie making experience.
I might no longer be the teen that saw Star Wars in the 1970s. But I certainly recaptured that feeling of awe watching this movie showcase cosmological objects.
Science:
Several important topics are dealt with from a science point of view.
Environment: I am quite in-tune with environmental issues these days, given my work in Socially Responsible Investing (which is also more clunkily called Environmental - Social - Governance Investing and more catchily called Impact Investing). The blight, food shortages, regressive turn in culture, losing the pioneering spirit through deflated expectations, are very well captured in the first third of the movie.
i.e. what is the 'burning platform' that causes humans to recapture their spirit of adventure?
Robotics: The robot(s) of Interstellar are more like HAL of 2001: Space Odyssey and less like C3PO of Star Wars. i.e they are physically functional, but quite superior in terms of Artificial Intelligence. Very credible - Siri meets Tesla.
Exo-Planets: These are planets not part of our solar system. Natalie Batalha is a real life exo-planet hunter. I follow her on Facebook, since she shares her findings in easy and appealing nuggets there. Natalie has the following to say about Interstellar: "I felt that the space travel scenes were much more realistic. I found the extreme tides depicted crazy scary. I felt keen despair watching the cast walk across a lifeless world."
Wormhole: This is the second best cosmological object depicted in the movie. What does a 3-dimensional wormhole look like? The conception and execution of this was simply amazing. The other scientist I follow is CalTech Physicist Sean Carroll.
This is what he has to say about the wormhole in Interstellar: "Kip Thorne, who is my colleague at Caltech had helped Carl Sagan with some science advice for his book Contact. In particular, Sagan wanted to have some way for his characters to traverse great distances at speeds faster than light, by taking a shortcut through spacetime. Kip recognized that a wormhole was what was called for, but also realized that any form of faster-than-light travel had the possibility of leading to travel backwards in time. Thus was the entire field of wormhole time travel born. I know that Kip has been very closely involved with the script as the film has developed, and he’s done his darnedest to make sure the science is right, or at least plausible. (We don’t actually whether wormholes are allowed by the laws of physics, but we don’t know that they’re not allowed.) "
Blackhole: I think you would agree that blackholes are the most awe inducing mysterious objects that were subjects of conjectures for decades and finally being mathematically posited and detected by inference in recent years.
The visualization of a blackhole is so incredibly amazing. This is where, I nearly did what Rolling Stone said of the young man watching 2001: A Space Odyssey did. I did run down the stairs in the middle of the movie. But rather than run through the screen, my reason was more prosaic - I wanted to get some popcorn!
Here are Christopher Nolan and Kip Thorne discussing the blackhole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yxaUi8LIzE
There is much more science and engineering to gawk at: space ships, saturn, earth from space, space-time fabric, imagination of what it is like inside the black hole etc.
Summary:
I would highly recommend watching Interstellar while it is still in theaters. Plunk the extra amount to watch it on the biggest screen that is available. Take your kids or nieces and nephews. Give them a fabulous science and human experience.
However, take a curvilinear protractor and not a linear ruler to this movie. i.e. don't judge it on traditional yardsticks of what makes a good movie. After all the movie from 1966, Fantastic Voyage is a great human adventure that explores the human body (but you buy the line that humans can be shrunk to a nano-size to be able to watch the rest of the movie).
So, instead enjoy the director Christopher Nolan's ambition, the seriousness of effort to bring science into the visuals (and not just into the plot) and setting of the current social context.
I am seeing it again.






10 comments:
Good review. I saw it last night with my younger son. Different sci-fi. I haven't seen 2001 space odessey.
Agree worth a second visit. This time I'll try IMAX
First, the conceit of a spoiled or used up planet, whatever the cause, is a very likely scenario that we humans will have to deal with at some point – if we’re still around long enough. Something will bring an end to the habitability of the planet eventually: a large meteor we can’t deal with effectively, a Supervolcano, a supernova spewing its deadly radiation at our planet, the growth of the sun as it comes close to its death, and, of course, lotsa human caused spoliation scenarios, from nuclear war to, yes, ecological destruction. For obvious reasons: topicality, political correctness, but especially, making the disaster a near-term one as opposed to one we might have to deal with hundreds or thousands (millions?) of years from now, it makes sense to use the climate change boogeyman. I have no problem with having to make the effort to substitute reality for hype in any movie I think worth the mental effort. Which this movie would seem to warrant. Which brings me to…
Second, this is a terrific write-up. Yes, it needs to be cleaned up a bit, but in terms of narrative structure, mental and actual images, and clear enthusiasm it hit its mark with me. I definitely want to see it… in a theatre.
I was fortunate enough to see 2001: A Space Odyssey, on a big screen and it was enthralling, terrifying and, what all great art accomplishes, life changing. I’m totally up for another such event. Especially because, as you know, I too am a science geek; in fact see immersions into such mind-bending perceptions of reality to be a quasi-religious experience.
Third, I think I get your preference for a protractor measuring device over that of a ruler in the sense that the ruler measures linear space and the protractor, by measuring angles, brings into one’s analysis more dimensions. And that the other dimensions needing to be brought into an analysis of the movie are the ones discussed in the paragraph just before this one – the emotional dimensions, including shiver-inducing awe and wonderment.
Nicely done.
Thx for sharing
Science of Interstellar: http://ikjyotsinghkohli24.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/on-the-science-of-interstellar/
It made my head spin too. Considering that he is talking of "rotating" reference frames, perhaps "spinning" is the right word!
Good base story of the earthlings looking for a place outside the earth to settle down.
The concept of travel through the worm hole was reminiscent of the Isaac Asimov novels of "Jumps" through space.
Story writer slipped somewhere in between. Must have smoked the wrong stuff, and that too first grade wrong stuff.
Where was the hero of the movie all along ? Behind the book shelf ?
How did he escape from the black hole ?, and how was he found somewhere by a "ranger".
No explanation.
The Age defying concept was not explained properly.
Lost of things disappeared into the black hole, but not the hero.
The dialogues were written with a lot of far fetched words such as 5 dimensions, time as a physical dimension........................
At the end of the movie, I could hear lot of people saying that the movie is good.
I am sure, like me, they also did not understand many of the concepts.
There is a mixed bag of reviews in the US as well. But never mind the science was confusing; the logic was not rational in some places - there is no denying that the movie was a spectacular experience for all audience.
I am glad I am not the only one to sound a discordant note. Krish and Vels also seem to think the movie has loopholes.
I will be more upfront. The movie is a trash!
Shall I say a blackhole by a big quantum by relative standards of Nolan?
I saw the movie over the weekend and I didn’t read any material on the movie prior just so that there are no spoilers. While on the show, some 30 minutes in to the movie I wished I read the material so I may have better followed the plot. I was confused. Soon it was clear it wasn’t my fault.
A lot has been said about how silly the movie has been from the perspective of science.
1. Time dilation of a big order happening on a planet which is relatively stable, apparently. For that sort of time dilation the planet has to be on the fringe - pretty close in that - of the blackhole and would have had only a fleeting existence.
2. Where does it derive light and warmth? Could the blackhole supply it?
3. How come our hero goes in and out of the blackhole just like that? We would have thought he would have been shredded to fundamental particles before being consumed! Even Vittal Acharya would have been more respectful of science in Jagan Mohini.
It puzzles me that the following question which everyone is asking, which seems simple enough to recognize, has been missed or ignored by the makers of the movie!
How come the future humans have placed the wormhole, who first of all needed to survive to create the wormhole, and it is the wormhole which actually saves them? If it is deliberate- is it circular logic, is it a paradox, or a cinematic liberty?
Apart from acquiescence to science, even from a cinematic point of view even, I don’t think it is great.
The dialogues are heavy, pretentious and in attempting to be profound actually sound hollow.
The Dodge pickup looks in same great shape 20 years later, as it did when cooper left.
The vegetation they say is being blighted, but the crops and the field look same even after Cooper’s children have grown. (hope I have not made a wrong observation here)
I wouldn’t say the visual effects were great either. The movie Gravity which we saw in not so distant past was light years ahead in this department! (Gravity was a gem!)
Don’t get me wrong! I like science fiction laced with fantasy! But not incongruous nonsense courting as science!
Indeed the difference between the expectation set and your actual experience (the delta between the two) was perhaps so high, that this sharp response was provoked.
I cannot argue with your subjective reaction - i.e. the aesthetic feeling about the movie.
But I can certainly argue on not only the movie's merits but also other movies that are considered classic, but would be classified as trash using your yardstick.
Rotten Tomatoes a terrific site that rates a movie across critics and fans rates it at 73% which is really not a bad rating. In comparison on Rotten Tomatoes
The Godfather is 100%
2001 A space odyssey is 95%
Star Wars is 93%
Fantastic Voyage is 93%
Minority Report is 90%
Andromeda Strain 67%
Journey to the center of the earth 61%
Outbreak 59%
The day the earth stood still 21%
Meteor 7%
So Rotten Tomato score of 73% is fair - more in line with Suresh Babu's comments. I personally would rate it at 85% - but mine is only one small vote!
Will comment more specifically about people's take in my next and second review of the movie!
I was waiting for your response! Though I am disappointed (but not surprised) at your sedate response!
Ha..Haa...Let me confess! Two things.
#1. I hadn’t read your review of Interstellar entirely when I wrote my critique. (when I read it later, evidently it was balanced)
#2. My uncharitable abrasive write up is a deliberate attempt to incite a more intricate discussion on Interstellar.
But you wouldn’t take the bait! You are your usual tranquil self!
Could you please ignore every single point I had mentioned in my write up except ONE. I will ask you to ignore them, not because they are less valid, but because I think those are a matter of scientific specifics where we have only reckonings but no real experience or encounters (time dilation at their first destination for instance). Therefore debating on its scientific accuracy is conjectural and inelegant; besides as Suresh had also mentioned, we must look at it as an attempt at bringing a layman perspective to a complex scientific principle, and in that it is beautifully done.
I have been naughty, forgive me!
But ONE!
This is the most fundamental thing about the movie! I want to insist on this.
How does Cooper who in the first place is helped by a future event in his survival is the one who determines the future?
I stated this in my previous essay. But now, please look at it differently. Don’t look at it as a criticism of the movie. I am getting at something else.
Tell me what you think about this paradox….
I watched the movie in a normal screen (not imax) yesterday. I did not realize I am walking into a movie and also a stunning visual presentation about physics concepts!
My review in NSF style:
General Comments: This movie has 2 parts: (1) Family story: relationship between daughter and dad and his attempts in vain to relate to her. Even if it is not for a science fiction concepts, it would have passed for a indian movie with people who have gone long back and their ability to influence the person whom you love.This is what we call, some one else watching over you, like my dad or mom who passed away long back.. (2) Visualization of concepts developed by Kip Thorne: We assume that everyone understood relativity, gravity etc. I think it is a brave and sincere effort to put these concepts in front of common people, because most of these concepts are discussed only in the upper echelon of academia with an arrogance “we are smart and understand theory of relativity and commoners do not!"
(plus points)
+ good family story who are trapped in environmental catastrophe and following empty promises made by govt.
+ Very nice visual depiction of worm hole, black hole, (geodesic concept) that black hole may not be sucking all things in a spherical fashion, rather in a planar fashion; Also the gradients in gravity may be changing drastically within a small distances! O’Neill cylinder (post-apocalyptic of earth) where humanity lives etc..
+ good primer for time dilation, gravity, etc for uninitiated physics audience
+ good demonstration how scientists pass on their ideas to others and some time do not tell the whole truth!
+ At least, develops a framework for audience to talk about the expansiveness of the universe in the dining table (although may not understand all the concepts)
(negative points)
- too loud background music, could not even hear dialogues; I wished they put subtitles!
- even if I hear, dialogues are like thorns in the smooth visual tapestry being laid out in front - should have found a different screen writer
- circular argument about chicken and egg; if hero has not made the decision to go, humans would have not got the idea to manipulate space and time as it is claimed! Then again, most of the physics theories are indeed circular in argument.
- long movie and some times I wanted to get up and take a walk
Fund or not? i.e. Should we see this movie or not?
See once as a movie and not as scientific discourse.
I usually ask my daughters, who are critics about everything after the movie,
elder one: so - so; Big Hiro 6 was good.
Younger one: I wanted to sleep in the middle, wished the movie ended earlier
wife: Good there is no sandra bullock in the movie;
me: It is a movie trying hard to compete with the 2001 space odyssey in vain. Good try though;
Do not make a second movie, rather Need to publish a book: Hitchhiker guide to interstellar for interprettation movie.
Post a Comment