I have seen
the movie Interstellar twice at this
writing, and plan to see it several more times and to own a copy of it. It is one
of the best movies I have ever seen in my opinion, and has already become one
of my all-time favorites. From a critical standpoint, the inevitable comparison
to 2001: A Space Odyssey is
understandable, since 2001 was a groundbreaking
(and now classic) space film, but Interstellar
can stand on its own as a masterpiece of groundbreaking filmmaking. I ‘judge’
films often on the effects they have on me. Do I think about them and the
messages they impart after I’ve been to see them? Are they in any way
life-changing? Do they challenge my assumptions and beliefs? The answer is yes
to all these questions where Interstellar
is concerned.
As most of
you who read this blog know, I am a science fiction fan and have been for a
long time. I saw 2001 for the first
time when I was twelve years old. Even though I understood little of what it
really was about, I understood intuitively that it was destined for greatness,
because of its subject matter but also because it was an incredibly well-made
film. Even when I watch it now, I feel the same way. It inspires awe. Interstellar does the same. It deals
with space travel, black holes, singularities, event horizons, wormholes, tesseracts,
gravity, the theory of relativity, and time in relation to gravity. For
example, the astronauts in the film age much slower compared to those they
leave behind on earth; this is explained well in the film even though it is difficult
to understand conceptually. Much of the physics/astrophysics/quantum physics
underlying the film are real, not fantasy. Christopher Nolan, the director,
worked together with Kip S. Thorne, Caltech professor emeritus of theoretical
physics, who is executive producer of Interstellar
and who subsequently wrote a book called The Science of Interstellar, which I am reading now. It is a
fascinating book that discusses the proven science versus scientific
speculation in the film. It’s a good companion piece for the film once you’ve
seen it. Interestingly, my husband, who majored in physics/biophysics and who
subsequently moved into the field of cell biology, recently showed me a college
textbook called Gravitation co-authored
by Kip Thorne together with Charles W. Misner and John Archibald Wheeler. He
had read it and meant that if I really want to attempt to even begin to understand
the problem of gravity, I should attempt to read it. But I know I won’t,
because the mathematics will just blow me away. I hit the wall in my first year
of college when we got to complicated derivations in calculus. Up until that
point though, I understood and even enjoyed studying most of the math taught to
us.
In contrast
to 2001, Interstellar is a warm film, despite its ‘cold’ subject matter. It
is not afraid to tackle the difficulties and complexities of human
relationships. 2001 was an extraordinarily
stylish and elegant film, but it lacked depictions of real and warm human
relationships. Cooper’s warm relationship with his scientifically-inclined
young daughter Murph in Interstellar is
well-portrayed and real. The strong bond between them was palpable; it was
heartbreaking to watch him leave her behind on earth, knowing he probably would
not see her again in their lifetimes. Matthew McConaughey did a terrific job as
Cooper, the loving father who leaves ten-year old Murph (played beautifully by
Mackenzie Foy) behind to go into deep space in search of a new world for the
remaining earth inhabitants to move to. Even the relationships between the
astronauts and the computers TARS and CASE were ‘warm’; these computers did not
turn on the humans as HAL did in 2001,
rather the opposite—they tried to save them in several instances. I won’t give
away the story of Interstellar for
those of you who haven’t seen it, but I will say that it is an incredibly warm
and moving movie, one that is not afraid to deal with human emotions, complex
science, metaphysical issues, and space exploration in one movie. Of course
there are some flaws in such an ambitious venture, how could there not be? Some
parts drag on a bit too long, others are too short, but I left the theater
knowing I had seen a film that was life-changing. Why? Because it brought up
issues and feelings for me that I have been thinking about and experiencing ever
since my parents passed away. What is our place in the universe? Why are we
here? What is beyond death? Can love transcend space and time (and death)? Is
love a real force to be reckoned with? Can it be characterized scientifically? Is
there life elsewhere—is it possible that the earth is not alone in its ability
to sustain life? It wouldn’t bother me to find out that there are worlds
similar to ours in other galaxies that can sustain life. It is comforting to
know that. It makes space seem less alone and empty. Ultimately, it is the
power of love and our hope in the future that keeps mankind going, regardless
of where we find ourselves. Finally, Hans Zimmer’s score is perfect for the
movie—moving, intense, mind-expanding and uplifting. I am still thinking about
the movie many days after I saw it for the second time; that is the effect it
has had on me. For those of you who have seen the movie and want some ‘answers’
to some of what was brought up in the film, I recommend IMDB’s FAQ page for the
movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm
–a very well-written page.
