Interstellar - Part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole film revolves around idea "what if you don't think reality is real?". That's the idea Cobb planted in his wife's head and the idea that eventually lead to her death and ruined his life. Nolan cutting to black on reality incepts that idea into our brains as well. On first viewing, no ones second guessing it's reality until the close up of the totem and the cut to black. That's Nolan's inception on the audience and it's lost if he ever comes out and says it.
 
Class photo EW cover:

Bz_WOI9IYAAhi4u.jpg:large
 
Jessica Chestnut looks weird on that picture, and Mattis Mcgonugget looks like he's trying to seduce us. Anne Halthaway looks fine though. Why didn't they put Matt Diamond on this picture?
 
For a split second, I thought Chastain was Kathy Griffin there. Not even kidding. :ninja:
 
For a split second, I thought Chastain was Kathy Griffin there. Not even kidding. :ninja:

Despite being a huge Chastain fan, I can't even disagree with you. :funny: The entire cover is hilarious to me. It's like a community theater group shot. Never ever change, EW. :awesome:
 
EW-1334-Insterstellar.jpg


With Christopher Nolan’s forthcoming film Interstellar, the director of The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception boldly goes into outer space with his most visually spectacular and emotionally resonant movie yet. We can say that because we’ve seen it. We also watched Nolan make it, and in this week’s Entertainment Weekly, we bring you onto the top secret set and take you into editing room to chronicle how the man who made Batman fly to new heights pushed himself creatively and personally to produce his sci-fi epic.

Interstellar opens Nov. 5 and stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Wes Bentley, Michael Caine, Casey Affleck, and John Lithgow, to name a few. (Seriously: There are more.) The plot tracks a quartet of astronauts and scientists—and the most unusual robot to grace the screen in years (meet the fall’s breakout star: a mini-monolith of metamorphic Jenga blocks named TARS)—who journey across the universe to search for a new home for mankind: In the near future of the film, Earth is dying, ravaged by blight and environmental ruin.

And yet, Interstellar deliberately veers away from dystopia chic with its depiction of optimistic, adventurous heroism reminiscent of director Philip Kaufmann’s adaptation of The Right Stuff, which not only influenced the tone of Nolan’s movie but the techniques he used to make it. Informed by the work and theories of renowned astrophysicist Kip Thorne, Interstellar is more akin to the speculative sci-fi of 2001: A Space Odyssey than space opera fantasy like Star Wars, while still remaining accessible pop entertainment. Mind altering substances are not required to appreciate this trip. “Isn’t it nice to have a movie that is about all things the movie is about and not feel druggy?” says Hathaway with a laugh.

Nolan challenged himself and his team to fill Interstellar with imagery designed to inspire awe in the audience, not to mention a little terror. Dust storms. Tidal waves. Wormholes. A tiny, fragile spaceship juxtaposed against the monstrous gas planet of Saturn. Everything in the hush-hush final act. “This is the first film I have made where the actual experience of the film is paramount to the audience,” Nolan tells EW. “You would think that’s the case with Batman movies but it’s not; they’re more dependent on the reaction of characters on screen. Interstellar is different. It harkens back to the direct experience films of 2001, where you’re not just experiencing it through the characters, you are lost in it.” (You might want to watch Interstellar on an IMAX screen, especially since Nolan incorporated more than an hour of footage shot using IMAX cameras.)

Nolan also aspired to craft a philosophically thoughtful, deep feeling experience, too. He chased that goal in a number of ways, from an inventive collaboration with composer Hans Zimmer to drawing inspiration from his experience as a father. “The film is about human nature, what it means to be human. It sounds like a very grand statement, but I don’t intend it to be. I mean it in the way, say, Treasure of the Sierra Madre is about dramatizing ideas of human nature,” says Nolan, who wrote the script with his brother, Jonathan, and produced Interstellar with his wife, Emma Thomas, who has produced all of his movies. “When you take an audience far away from human experience as possible, you wind up focusing very tightly on human nature and how we are connected to each other. What the film tries to do is to be very honest in that appraisal.”

The result is Nolan’s most personal movie. “Nobody is able to put more scope, scale, awe on screen than Chris,” says McConaughey. “But I think he was wanting to take the next step, toward something more intimate. It was an evolution.”

http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/10/15/t...cess-pass-to-christopher-nolans-interstellar/
 
I hated 2001, so I really don't know what to think of those comparisons.
 
Well, if you hated it, I'm not sure you'd be interested in the first place.
 
there are a lot of easy comparisons to 2001 for Interstellar since they are big-scale, ambitious movies that try to stay rooted in semi-realistic science but have some speculative elements and center around a small group of humans embarking on a space odyssey.

but i imagine Interstellar isn't going to be much of anything like 2001, really. Nolan and Kubrick are totally different birds aesthetically and in terms of how they construct their movies. 2001 was very, very mood/theme/image-driven, almost to an avant-garde extreme (and oh how i love it, the way it capitalizes on what film can do vs. other mediums and rarely compromises that artistic vision). Interstellar will be far more conventional in terms of focusing on plot/story and character. and that's fine, too, and i can't wait. but fundamentally it will be a completely different experience from 2001, despite all the surface similarities.
 
^ I agree with that, though it does seem like Interstellar will be Nolan's most image-driven film to date.

But yeah, Interstellar will most likely be a much warmer, more 'Hollywood' film, only one that doesn't sacrifice the science for that.
 
Whoever says it's wrong of me or somebody else to say "No, it's real, and that's definitive"...well sorry, but i disagree. It's real because of the wedding ring, because of the totem wobbling/about to fall. Nolan has the answer, and he gives it to us, but the ending is for the people who want to believe in something else. If you want to believe it's a dream or that there's a big question as to if it's real or not...that's what the final image is for. But the answer is there.

That's my opinion and im sticking to it.

so, the artistic intent is for the film to be definitive but to give miscues, misdirects, red herrings just to throw some people off? Inception is a movie about how you absolutely can know everything that is real from your own subjective viewpoint, you just have to know how to look hard enough?

like i was saying, everyone's entitled to their interpretation, but the way Inception is constructed i don't see how anyone can watch that ending and say the film is definitive about which parts of itself are real and which parts are a dream. to do so is actually demeaning to the film because it completely undermines the theme that the film is trying to get across. it's like Inception is asking you to accept a certain premise and then, if it's definitive in its ending, points and laughs at you for accepting this premise it's worked so hard to communicate.

i mean, the very fact that we're having this conversation kind of proves Inception's point. our subjectivity completely informs our realities. like the inherent truth of Descartes' "I think therefore I am," it follows that there is an inherent truth that our natures are subjective, and the ambiguity in Inception speaks to that basic, essential truth. you can argue that the end is real or you can argue that it isn't and both sides could present innumerable valid points as support for their arguments and you could be utterly convinced of one position or the other, but you can't say the film is definitive when it's clearly ambiguous. reductively, that would be like me saying "I might go to the store" and then you claiming that I made a definitive statement that I would go to the store.

like i said, the only way you really can do that with Inception is if you argue against the artistic intent, claiming that what seems to be ambiguity is actually just a trick or manipulation of the audience so as to somewhat "obscure" the real answer of the film--an answer, btw, that is contradictory to the themes that the film plays upon for much of its runtime. even without the spinning top, the idyllic nature of the end of the Inception, the visual touch points to things that happened in Dom's dreams, and some of the knowing details in Leo's performance would call into question the "reality" of what we were seeing. but for the film to end with a cut to black as the top spins and wobbles is a very clear invitation to question, to wonder, for different interpretations of equal value to interact. maybe on some level that, too, is just my opinion, but i also think the fact that it's "just my opinion" simultaneously validates the idea of purposeful ambiguity in Inception.

SORRY. back to Interstellar. here's hoping it has some equally provocative elements in its final act!
 
She really does look a lot like Kathy Griffin. It's kinda freaking me out.
 
It looks like South Park had a little fun with Interstellar & Matthew McConaughey
 
Freaking him out that it's turning him on!

ds2PSaA.gif
 
I first thought she looked like Mena Suvari but now can't stop seeing Kathy Griffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,289
Messages
22,080,730
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"