Interstellar: A space odyssey redefined

The comparisons are inevitable. A sci-fi saga with the sweep and magnitude of Interstellar is a major achievement and the only other monolith, pardon the pun, of equal stature, is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Of course, Kubrick achieved something more conceptual. The story, the characters and the drama were subservient to the greater, more philosophical musings about the nature of consciousness, evolution and humanity's relationship with the tools it creates.

Nolan, while no less ambitious, takes a different approach. As he has done before with the Batman saga, he makes the science believable, the characters relatable, providing a gravitas necessary to the proceedings for when the science fiction kicks in. For the last 30 minutes of the film to feel plausible without the camp feel of 60s sci-fi, the earlier base has to be built on a real feeling of a crumbling civilization, desperate humanity in search for answers, and the real human drama that makes the story about the people in it. The science fiction is secondary to the needs of the characters and their need for finding a new home.

The story begins with older people narrating their experiences when a crippling drought hit the planet, covering it in dust, then moves to the lifes of one family, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) and his two kids, an older son who is a bit of a bully and a younger daughter Murphy ( Mackenzie Foy) who is a child prodigy at science. Cooper is now a farmer but was once a pilot and engineer. Murphy reports strange ghost-like apparitions living in her room and this propels the story to the discovery of a secret NASA mission. Cooper is recruited for a mission that may be the only hope for saving mankind. Beyond that, the story cannot be told without massive amounts of spoilers. So i will stay out of the plot and write about the general impressions about the movie itself.

Nolan does not shy away from high concept, hardcore science. He has managed the unique feat of taking a physics text book and making it into an interesting movie without sacrificing the seriousness of the science it uses to tell the story. If anything, physics teachers everywhere must be overjoyed at the prospect of using references from the film to explain concepts such as space and time, multiple dimensions and of course, the real effects of the theory of relativity if one could travel through a wormhole. I am sure professor Hawking will be pleased. Someone has come along to make a movie companion to 'A brief history of time'.

But the biggest comparison will be to Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece. There are many similarities. A mysterious object left around a planet in our solar system. In 2001, it was a black monolith on one of Jupiter's moons. In Interstellar, it is a wormhole that allows us to travel to a distant galaxy. The Nolan film envisions a much bleaker future, where humanity has been pummeled into submission by the aftermath of climate change, reducing it to a post-apocalyptic dust bowl. The optimism shown in 2001 is long gone, as has been evident in most modern day movies that tackle the future, and rightfully so, since scientific data points to exactly such a bleak future in coming years, if humanity continues on it's self-destructive path.

Nolan manages to insert mythological and biblical themes, and ambitiously interweaves both the legend of Lazarus and the myth of Icarus in the form of one character who is a surprise element to the first-time viewer, since his presence in the film is not advertised in any of the promotional material. You have your action movie tropes and your cliffhanger (literally) moments, which never intrude on the deft storytelling, and yet, somehow, the action is neither an impediment nor the main draw here.

In lieu of the psychedelic ending of the Kubrick film, we now get an equally mind-bending 'time-maze' sequence, but is much more plot driven and suited to our times, just as the consciousness expanding final scenes were apropos for the 60s. Tight editing and the relentless pace of the action does not allow the emotional scenes to seem contrived. Taking a realistic approach to how a stripped down, decline-phase era NASA would look, eschewing whiz bang special effects beyond what is needed to give a realistic look into such a future allows for the tone to remain in the realm of plausibility. It is to Nolan's credit that he can handle deep themes by making them seem more real, based in a world we recognize. Grand posturing and attempting to create a visual extravaganza would have taken away from the depth.

Which is not to say that the special effects, when needed, aren't first rate. Particularly haunting was the scene where the spaceship travels to Saturn and we see it as a tiny blip with a part of the planet and it's ringspan as the backdrop. Equally effective is the tidal wave scene, set on a prospective new home planet. The music has the necessary melancholy and foreboding timbre to accompany the action on the screen. Nolan also avoids showing off, and making the technology the centerpiece, as Kubrick did, with the gravity-defying jogging track and video phone call. Some of those things don't impress us to the same extent, not only because they now exist, but also because CGI has given us every effect imaginable and the “how did he do it?” factor of amazement no longer exists. Also, it helps to drive the story if the very existence of humanity is at stake.

In place of HAL, the omniscient, omnipresent AI that watches over every move the astronauts make in 2001, we now have some of the most uniquely designed machine creations that have graced(?) the silver screen in the form of the shape shifting lego piece/steel beam amalgams with screens. Not since Oblivion, a run of the mill sci-fi action adventure, and it's rotating axis spaceship, have I seen something so unique. The AI is human level and one of the robots has a bit of a smart-ass wisecrack problem. (He can't stop) But these are not the kind of sentient machines that want to impede the proceedings. They do make it livelier and add a 'we're in the future' element sometimes missing because of the stripped-down, bare bones feel to the show.

The performances are all first-rate, down to the younger version of Cooper's daughter. Michael Caine and John Lithgow are used sparingly but shine nonetheless. Anne Hathaway is a revelation and McConaughey continues to amaze in his new 'serious actor' avatar. A movie that will only get better with time, and one that I enjoyed immensely on the first viewing.