love

Author Topic: Interstellar  (Read 13604 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #90 on: April 12, 2015, 02:52:44 PM »
With UtS you have asked all the sorts of questions that suggest you are interested in a second viewing.

I'm not. Questions should be seen as symptomatic of a bad experience for me. :)

I've effectively had a second viewing. In fact I'd say it was more effective than a second viewing because I didn't wait months to do it, I did it the next day when the film was still fresh and I knew what I was looking for that I may have missed. And I did it with an open mind about having missed things. I always do. And low and behold I did miss things. I always do. But those things weren't answers, they were things that gave shape to the questions I've been asking in this thread. I've been piecing together the puzzle of the film and believe I've reached the boundaries of what can be explained by the film alone. And that boundary is not at my personal "desired level of specificity". And so I would call it vague. Or too vague to be enjoyed by me.

I believe you do have answers to the questions I've asked that satisfy you. Which is why the film works for you. But I don't think those same things you call answers would satisfy me. And we've seen the same film, so I probably already have the information that those answers are derived from, and the reason I'm not calling them answers is because my tolerance for uncertainty is different. To me they are still questions.

I think that's a pretty fair summary of where you and I stand, would you agree?



Quote
I really disagree with the "if only the film had included this scene" argument.

I do too, which is why I didn't make that argument. You asked what could be done to add drama and I added it. Drama is rooting for one outcome over another. I added a 30 second scene that would add drama to the entire third act. The fact the film doesn't have scenes like this to add drama is part of why the film doesn't work for me.

Quote
The film is the film.

I completely agree. And the film failed for me. I'm not propping up a dead horse. I don't care who made the film, I don't care what year it was made, I don't care what the books does differently. The film failed and I'm accepting that.

Quote
Some of the questions you asked tend to suggest you were looking for answers where the film, simply, wasn't.

That's symptomatic of having been bored with the questions the film was asking, or the lack of answers given, not evidence that I was asking the wrong questions. I let the film dictate the experience, and when the experience sucked I dictated my own experience.

Quote
The fact that you reject the idea that a film about an alien perspective shouldn't alienate you, tends to suggest you want something very different from what the film offered.

Yes. But it's not like I didn't give the film a chance to have its say. I rejected it after it had.

Quote
Is that the films fault? A film a lot of people respond to very strongly and in very varied ways (some to the science, some to the sexual relations, some to both)?

I'm not blaming the film, I'm just saying it sucks. I REALLY don't want to have this subjective art argument.

The film sucks, for me.
The film is vague, for me.
The film has no asnwers, for me.
The film has no drama, for me.

Is that enough? I get that I'm only talking about my own opinion. And I can go to great lengths to explain why my opinion is my opinion. It's not on a whim. And I also know it's not universal.

Again, this is why talking about something subjective seems so pointless to me sometimes. We're going in circles aren't we? I'm discouraged.

But it's also why conversation more scarce when there is agreement. Because there is no gaps to bridge.

I really think the whole point in talking about films is to find people who agree with you and revel in the shared experience. Or find what you agree on. Everything else is just reexamining the subjectivity of art.

As much as the film is the film, and I agree with that, I think we have to talk outside the film to find common ground on this one.

Quote
I put this because people have a problem with keeping ambiguity and vagueness separated. It's what we are talking about essentially (and why this entire conversation reminds me of that We Need To Talk About Kevin discussion but with me on the other side). Does UtS provide enough information to cross from vagueness into ambiguity. You noff would say not. I would say it does. The film that gives enough to allow distinct interpretations. As opposed to the Nolanesque resolution of absolutely everything so that interpretation is minimised. We go back to the idea of films teaching you things or films letting you think.

I like this subject and have a theory about it, and I'd love to hear your opinion. I don't think tastes are just tastes. I think they are a reflection of our lifestyles. I think people with things in their life that keep them really occupied (kids, certain types of jobs, a lot of responsibilities etc), really thrive on "time to think" films that give them an opportunity to stop and reflect. And people that don't have kids and or certain types or jobs and fewer responsibilities, have ample time to reflect already, and thrive on films that actually stop them from thinking and reflecting (in that way).

Or to put it differently, some people's daily lives are experience-heavy, and films provide ways to reflect on those experiences. If the film is too specific it does not translate well.

Other people's lives are reflective, and films provide experiences to reflect on. If a film is not specific enough it does not bear serious reflection.

Quote
In 2001 between film and book there's an interesting example. In the book, the first monolith is shown to take control of the apes mentally and physically. It teaches the apes motor skills by physically lining them up and putting through exercises. An absolute literal process. Kubrick has the monolith as a benign influence but he doesn't provide that literal link. Has Kubrick provided enough information to establish this link? One set of apes starts using weapons and the other doesn't. Is that enough?

At that point in the film it was not enough. To me it was still vague. It was on the moon, when a second monolith repeated the pattern of the first, that it then became ambiguous.

Quote
What would Nolan do?
I think he would do what Kubrick did. Wait a bit and then address his own question.

I think you mischaracterize Nolan saying he provides resolution to absolutely everything. I think he is closer to Kubrick than Glazer. I think Nolan and Kubrick both walk that line of providing enough answers and enough mystery very nicely.

I think Glazer would only have one monolith because two would provide too much information. Also the apes would not be permitted to vocalize because that would provide information about how they feel. We'd see the apes by the monolith, there'd be a sound, and then we'd never speak of it again. :)

Quote
Glazer isn't copying scenes from 2001, but he is injecting the tone; especially the tone of alienation (stop me when I've banged you over the head with this idea enough).

I don't mind. I find it helpful to hear things restated.

Quote
In both films the humans aren't seeing the whole picture. In both films the humans seem to have a quality of animals being lead around. Definitely not masters of universe. Not even capable of fully understanding the technology being brought to bear. Nolan not so much. He is full of answers isn't he?

That's why I love him. :))

Kubrick too. Barry Lyndon is full of answers. That's why it's my favourite. ;)

Quote
2001, and trying to gain a deeper appreciation of it; is a gateway of sorts for me. I tried to understand it more deeply. I read the book. It provides a more round explanation. It also detracts from the film, and moving beyond that feeling of too much information feels like an important step, to me. 2001 is an operatic experience for me; the classical music, the sound effects, the silences are all parts of that opera and they combine with the scorching light, the special effects, the splashes of colour and the darknesses. 2001 is a sensual experience, more than it is a movie. It is also a powerful ambiguous concept. Primarily, it examines the development of our relationship with tools, then it progresses to the non-physical ascent of man and closes a cycle. Ambiguity serves the tone. Too much information would obscure that ineffable tone. So ambiguity is a deliberate choice, and its effectiveness in 2001 in establishing tone (an alienated tone) is a sign of Kubrick's complete control over the medium.

2001 tells me to 1) open up to every aspect in a film (darkness, silence included), 2) interpret what the film alone shows me (not interviews, not books, not critical analysis), 3) accept that establishing a tone may be all a filmmaker is seeking to achieve, and that may be all that is required, because it can be powerful enough on its own, IMHO. Under The Skin rewards that approach. Interstellar just has me telling it to shut up.

:))

The idea of tone potentially being all there is, or that it could be enough, makes me crazy. Or, I think it can be for somebody, but for me the thought of such a film makes me shudder. I can just picture myself in from of the screen shouting "do something!"

« Last Edit: April 12, 2015, 02:57:12 PM by smirnoff »

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #91 on: April 12, 2015, 02:59:52 PM »
I'm unclear why you are now saying the film held no drama. You mentioned parts that were dramatic already.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #92 on: April 12, 2015, 03:07:17 PM »
When I'm literal you misrepresent what I say. When I'm hyperbolic you take me literally. Which way do you want it?


verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #93 on: April 12, 2015, 03:24:41 PM »
Sorry I didn't know I was doing that. I thought I was clarifying where we were. No I understand why you took the hyperbolic route. I just wasn't following the fork you took. I always see this as generalising when one should be specific or vice versa. I was going to say how respectful the discussion was given that you find no use in subjective disagreement. I would have thought two or three pages of back and forth would disprove your opinion on that.

Instead I'll go with the usual SOP and say.... Um..... You must be cray cray for thinking Kubrick and Nolan are at all alike.  :P
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #94 on: April 12, 2015, 03:40:57 PM »
Humour. Is Nolan being ironic?

It's another humourless effort; aside from one character. The AI makes jokes. The AI has percentage settings so he can turn his humour, amongst other things, up and down. The humans don't smile (they are bloody miserable in fact). The robot cracks jokes, but it is asked to turn down its "humour setting" because it's jokes get on people's nerves. It's a very subtle joke for Nolan to make at his own expense.

Even if Nolan did have the humility to acknowledge his own seriousness, I don't think he'd have much interest in making a cute joke out of it in one of his films. I just can't see him getting off on that. Would Kubrick?


verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #95 on: April 12, 2015, 03:45:31 PM »
I agree it would be a matter of humility if he did acknowledge his humourlessness in this way. So it's a pity you don't allow this possibility.

I tend to think Kubrick was trying to scare the crap out of people not make intelligent blockbusters. Another area where the two differ completely.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #96 on: April 12, 2015, 04:09:26 PM »
Sorry I didn't know I was doing that. I thought I was clarifying where we were. No I understand why you took the hyperbolic route. I just wasn't following the fork you took. I always see this as generalising when one should be specific or vice versa. I was going to say how respectful the discussion was given that you find no use in subjective disagreement. I would have thought two or three pages of back and forth would disprove your opinion on that.

Yea, I think we do okay for two people who fundamentally disagree. :) I guess I just find it hard not to go off the rails each time we hone in on those divisions.

Do you root for outcomes with a film like UtS or 2001?

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #97 on: April 12, 2015, 04:19:22 PM »
I agree it would be a matter of humility if he did acknowledge his humourlessness in this way. So it's a pity you don't allow this possibility.

I mean anything is possible. Is that something you like about Interstellar, you think Nolan is losening his tie?

Quote
I tend to think Kubrick was trying to scare the crap out of people not make intelligent blockbusters. Another area where the two differ completely.

I think they are both incredibly ambitious and serious in their projects. I don't see that mentality being very accommodating to inside jokes and self references. Those are two personality traits I can't really imagine existing together. Wanting to goof around, and make an epic. I feel like the great ambitious films in existence are precisely because of how deadly serious the director was. Anything but making the film with absolute sincerity would undercut that.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2015, 04:21:19 PM by smirnoff »

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #98 on: April 13, 2015, 01:35:03 AM »
No. Really I think Nolan can't apply humour to his writing and it further dulls it down. To make blockbusters without the light touch of comedy is a serious flaw. For instance, characters being ponderously serious yet unable to show some self-deprecation only makes them less interesting. Less human. The irony that he attempts jokes through robots is delicious. That he then analyses the jokes and has the humans ask the robot to turn down its humour quotient is so ironic; it feels like Nolan's subconscious talking to himself. He knows he's doing something weird with the humour but he's not fully aware what.

I'd only compare the coldness in Kubrick and Nolan films. However, Kubrick applies it to disturbing subjects. Nolan applies it to blockbusters.

Quote
Yea, I think we do okay for two people who fundamentally disagree. :) I guess I just find it hard not to go off the rails each time we hone in on those divisions.

Do you root for outcomes with a film like UtS or 2001?

When you wrote that you couldn't see the value of disagreeing about subjective matters, I had a think about it. I find a lot of value in it. This conversation has stimulated a lot of thought in and around comparing and contrasting three films and three directors approaches. Why Nolans approach works so well for some and so poorly for others is a hot topic so it's not as if we are off in the academic backwaters of art cinema here. However, the commercial approach versus the art house approach is an absolutely crucial not to say fascinating question in film analysis and using 2001 almost as a Rosetta Stone to parse the language of one into the other substantiates the discussion. So I would argue the opposite. The page count seems like proof of that.

However it doesn't have to have any intellectual value applied to it at all. It's fun to write. The subject might feel hefty but it's easy to keep it light. If you don't fancy the rough and tumble of the discussion, one just doesn't need to write a reply. If you don't have time ditto.

Root for outcomes? I'm as rooted in Western storytelling styles as anyone else in my culture. If a story diverges from standard storytelling forms I won't go faint at the mere presence of originality. It has to work and even the most divergent stories have a lot of the framework of standard storytelling in them just in fragmented forms. So I'm ambivalent to outcomes. I don't have the feeling of ennui a lot of film people have for genre forms because you can see past the standard format to the profound emotion being portrayed. So I'll let the film be the film it wants to be, and not wish it into something more or less standard.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 02:06:59 AM by verbALs »
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #99 on: April 13, 2015, 07:44:41 PM »
No. Really I think Nolan can't apply humour to his writing and it further dulls it down. To make blockbusters without the light touch of comedy is a serious flaw. For instance, characters being ponderously serious yet unable to show some self-deprecation only makes them less interesting. Less human.

I don't really see it to be honest. Nolan, Kubrick, Gibson... they all seem similar to me. Not the kind of guys who would shrug and say "it's only a film, lighten up". It seems to me that they want to be as hardcore as they can be in making the epics they make. And shoehorning in levity could potentially undercut what would be achieved without it. TARS makes logical sense to me, from a deep space exploration/cabin fever prevention angle, and I really enjoyed the humour. On the other hand, Dark Knight doesn't play any worse for me just because there's nobody around cracking jokes.

I'm just wondering what blockbusters you are thinking of that get to the same depths but do it without constantly frowning.

Quote
The irony that he attempts jokes through robots is delicious. That he then analyses the jokes and has the humans ask the robot to turn down its humour quotient is so ironic; it feels like Nolan's subconscious talking to himself. He knows he's doing something weird with the humour but he's not fully aware what.

I don't really get the premise of Nolan and humour being such strange bedfellows. I don't think every film calls for humour. Blockbusters or otherwise.

Quote
I'd only compare the coldness in Kubrick and Nolan films. However, Kubrick applies it to disturbing subjects. Nolan applies it to blockbusters.

I don't see as Nolan sets out to make a film any differently than Kubrick did. It's not as though Kubrick began making Barry Lyndon by saying to himself "this is not going to be a Blockbuster". He had his millions of dollars, and epic locations, and a bajillion extras, and went way over budget and over schedule. He was making a film every bit as big as Jaws from the same year (bigger actually by budget). He knew it would be marketed like a blockbuster before the project ever got off the ground. Nolan knew the same thing about all the films he made after Inception.

I think there are concepts in Inception that are as disturbing as things in The Shining. Being stuck in limbo, the memory of a dead wife who attacks anyone who enters your subconscious, people who spend hours and hours a day dreaming because they're addicted, watching someone jump to their death because they think they're dreaming and want to wake up... that's pretty f'd up isn't it?

Quote
When you wrote that you couldn't see the value of disagreeing about subjective matters, I had a think about it. I find a lot of value in it. This conversation has stimulated a lot of thought in and around comparing and contrasting three films and three directors approaches. Why Nolans approach works so well for some and so poorly for others is a hot topic so it's not as if we are off in the academic backwaters of art cinema here. However, the commercial approach versus the art house approach is an absolutely crucial not to say fascinating question in film analysis and using 2001 almost as a Rosetta Stone to parse the language of one into the other substantiates the discussion. So I would argue the opposite. The page count seems like proof of that.

Yea, I hear you. Sometimes it's the futility of making the argument that gets to me is all. We are refining our own understanding by having to explain it, which is great (really!), but we're not exactly changing each others minds. I would like to like UtS for instance, and I would like for you to like Nolan. I don't think either of us have made any headway in that regard. :))

 

love