Wow, that was a fast response. And it's no small question you ask me. I could of course just answer yes or no; but as you seem eager to read input regarding ”Interstellar” and discuss it, allow me to present you with a rather lengthy reply. Consider it a short essay, and feel free to disagree :)
First, I must say this: as you can see, I am fairly new to IMDb. I have known it for years, but have only recently created a profile and begun participating. And only now have I begun to grasp the workings of IMDb.
So I have no idea yet whatsoever as to what the typical rating trends on IMDb are; and had you not asked me, I would not know now which films are in the Top10, Top 100, or whatever. It’s really nothing I care particularly about.
Now to your question:
My question to you is, do you think the film deserves the #15 spot on IMDb's 'Top 250' list?
To that, I can give you two answers. But before I do, a note on rating films:
Rating films, like anything else that is subjective, depends of course to a very large extent on the
tastes of the viewer. Just to give an example, I generally dislike Mafia/organized crime films made after ca. 1960. So while I recognize that
“The Godfather” is a masterpiece in the genre, and a very, very good film overall, I have only given it 8. Anything else in the genre and period I rate lower. Whereas I consider
“The Asphalt Jungle” (1950) to be a great movie, and have given it 9 (the scene near the end when the radios all go silent, one by one, is one of my favourite film scenes: it should be compulsory viewing to anyone who likes to talk about “the good old days”).
Although a Southern European, I generally dislike much classic European cinema. I feel the opposite regarding classic European television, which I consider superior to American televison of the period (1950s-1970s when speaking of television). But I consider for instance Fellini’s
“8 ½” (1963) to be nothing but an exercise in futility, of the kind I abhorr in Southern European socities. There are of course Southern European films I enjoy, like such classics as
“Bicycle Thieves” (1948) from Italy,
“Marcelino, Pan y Vino” (1955) from Spain, or
“O Pai Tirano” (1941) from Portugal. But generally, I much prefer the early German masters, and classic Scandinavian cinema. Other than that, I am very fond of classic Japanese cinema, also.
And then there’s American cinema. There are genres I am particularly fond of, three of them being Westerns, pirate films, and film noir, all from the 1940s-1950s. I am also very fond of science-fiction. I do not like screwball comedy! :D
What I am trying to say is that it’s important to be broad-minded, and not let your love for a particular genre, or country, or time period influence your ratings too much. I have a friend who’s an invalid and thus gets to watch 2-3 films a day; but most of them are in the horror/gore genre, preferably from the 1970s, and preferably low-budget Italian
giallo. And you can rest assured that his Top15 of films is rather different than mine! ;)
So apart from individual
taste, rating also requires
knowledge: one should also try to look at the overall value and importance of the film. It’s a difficult exercise, because there’s no denying that
“Star Wars” and
“The Empire Strikes Back” are two of the most influential films in history. Nobody reads “Faust” anymore; but all have heard of the Force. Mephistopheles is no longer the common benchmark: Darth Vader is. But as much as I loved those films when they came out, and still do (and rated them 9/10 for that reason), I must ask: are they great films? Are they worthy of 10/10?
So in spite of film characters ― from James Bond to John Rambo, or Don Corleone ― having become household names, and having replaced the classical, mythological or poetical figures as common cultural references for a great many people in the Western world, I still must ask myself: what makes a film great?
(A brief parenthesis: classic Indian films are monstrously underrated. Films such as
“Devdas” (1955) are as good as the best the West, or Japan, was producing at the same time.)
Now, the first answer to your question, and the lengthier one, is this: If the #15 spot should be understood as meaning that “Interstellar” is among the 15 best films of all time, I would have to say no, it certainly isn’t.
I have so far only rated almost 700 films; and having rated it at 9/10, it ranks among my top 5% of films. But as you can see on my temporal distribution, only about 14% of the films I have rated are from the 1930s-1950s; and there are still many, many more classics that I haven’t rated yet. I have only rated a couple of my favourite Bergman, Dreyer, Hitchcock, or Kurosawa films yet, just to mention a few famous directors. I am not in a hurry to rate as many films as possible.
But by the time I have rated a couple of thousand films, I am pretty sure that “Interstellar” will not be in my Top25, and maybe not even in my Top50.
Of course, this is not to mean that “Interstellar” is crap. It’s an outstanding movie. But...
“Citizen Kane”...
“Casablanca”...
“The Wizard of Oz”... there are many greater films out there. I mean, just take a serious look at say, Disney’s masterpiece:
“Bambi” is, quite simply, not only a technological
tour de force ― easily the most visually beautiful and accomplished Disney film ―, but also an extremely powerful tale of growing up and coming of age, involving the most towering archetypes imaginable ― Mother, Father, and Child. It just doesn’t get much bigger than this, does it?
“Bambi”, if you really stop and think of it, outshines “Interstellar” any day of the week. If presented properly, the impact it causes on a 7-year old child will be more profound, and more lasting, than the impact “Interstellar” will have on an adult. To paraphrase “Casablanca”: you may not realise it the day you watch it, and maybe not the day after; but it will affect you soon, and will do so for the rest of your life.
...but on the other hand, my love of sci-fi came from watching
"The Time Machine" (1960) on television when I was 6 years old. In a way, that was also one of the films that had the most profound impact on my life. "Bambi" taught me something about humanity; "The Time Machine" taught me something about unknown possibilities. Is it possible "Interstellar" could have the same effect on a child?
It is things such as these one must consider when evaluating films. I showed
"2001: A Space Odyssey" to my son when he was a little boy, and he was uninterested. I showed it to him again last year, and at nearly 17, he was blown away.
Similarly, I showed him Tod Browning’s masterpiece,
“Freaks” (1932), for the first time, thinking he might finally be ready for it. He couldn’t bear to watch it, though, and it will have to wait a few years more: it is that powerful a film, with that disturbing imagery, and that horrifying a lesson in morality and the human nature. It is quite simply an amazing, pre-Production Code film that would never be made today.
“Freaks” also outshines “Interstellar”. It is a monument to human moral hideousness ― and beauty. And I’m guessing half the users on IMDb have never even heard of it.
Or take a classic such as
“Frankenstein” (1931). Essentially, it tells the same story as “Freaks”, although in a less naked and cruel, and much more fantastic way. I see now that I only gave it an 8; I must revise this, because “Frankenstein” is not only a hugely influential film (based of course on a novel, but nonetheless immensely influential as a film), but it also tells an incredibly beautiful if sad ― but true ― tale of human nature. There are few moments in film history as poignant as that simple scene in which the creature meets little Maria, the farmer’s little daughter picking flowers by the lake. In her innocence oblivious of the creature’s physical hideousness, she invites him to play a game. And there the child-like creature and the innocent child play a children’s game, by the water, in a perfect moment that is the most memorable of the film, and one of the more memorable moments in film history. And then...
Or we can consider the blind, old hermit, who much like little Maria is blind to the creature's hideousness, is kind to it, and welcomes it to his cabin in the spectacular
“Bride of Frankenstein” (1935).
These are all immense archetypes, that achieve true mythological proportions: they completely dwarf any characters we see in “Interstellar.” These are images, and films, that stay with us forever, and hopefully make us better human beings ― if we only have a heart.
From the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s alone you could easily pick 15 films which are more important cinematographically and more profound storywise than “Interstellar”. Think of films suh as the science-fiction masterpiece that is Lang’s
“Metropolis” (1927); Dreyer’s
“The Passion of Joan of Arc” (1928), with groundbreaking cinematography; or perhaps even Whale's
“The Invisible Man” (1933), with groundbreaking special effects that still look great today...
...or think of much more sinister films such as Riefenstahl's hauntingly beautiful
“Triumph of the Will” (1935), the famous filming of the Nazi Party congress in Nürnberg in 1934; or Harlan’s shockingly effective Nazi propaganda film,
“Jud Süß” (“The Jew Süß”, 1940). I saw both films more than twenty years ago in the Copenhagen Cinematheque, and even knowing of course the history and purpose of the films, I couldn’t help but feeling a perverse pleasure at the grandeur and magnificence, and sheer cinematographic beauty of the Nazi Party congresss in the former, and a perverse disgust of the Jew in the title character in the latter ― who grows from a sympathetic character at first to an increasingly despicable person as the film progresses. What would I have thought of the Nazi Party, and of Jews, had I been an ignorant and much more impressionable German watching these films when they were released in 1935 and 1940? Would I, too, have cast a stone?
These are immensely powerful questions, that put Chaplin’s otherwise great
“The Great Dictator” (1940) in context ― much like the fantastic scene in “Casablanca” of the singing of the
Marseillaise at Rick’s. Remember: “Casablanca” was shot in the Spring of 1942, while the US were suffering heavy defeats to the Japanese in the Pacific, and at the height of German power during the war. At the time of making, the question Major Strasser asks Rick in the film ―
“Who do you think will win the war?” ― was still a very pertinent one.
So I trust you see my point. When thinking of films such as these, I am reminded of Belloq’s words to Indiana Jones in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”:
Indiana, we are simply passing through history. This, this is history.
There have been very, very few similarly important films the last two decades. I still vividly remember walking out of the cinema with my wife in 1999 after having seen
“The Matrix”, and saying “Action films are not going to be the same after this.” But that film was the last game-changer so far. And while it also represented a trend of stories that focus on false realities, deceptions, and even deceptions within deceptions ― as in
“Inception” ―, its story (like that of “Inception”) was ultimately quite shallow on a human level, and with none of the power, upon repeated viewing, of the classics I mentioned above..
Have you ever wondered why so many classics feel
“true yesterday, true today, and true tomorrow”? Is it only because we watched them with our parents, or grandparents when we were children? Is it just the power of nostalgia? Or is there more at play? Allow me to quote Umberto Eco on “Casablanca”, which is true of so many classics:
When all the archetypes burst in shamelessly, we reach Homeric depths. Two clichés make us laugh. A hundred clichés move us. For we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, and celebrating a reunion.
I praised “Interstellar” precisely for ― unlike
“Contact” ― not fleshing out the characters so much as to make them specific, very real people, instead keeping them as abstractions. This is the power of the archetype: when you have enough archetypes, and a sound story, the story transcends its characters, its time and its place and becomes universal ― and you may achieve the resonance of legends: the power of myth.
...such as in say, Bergman’s existentialist masterpiece,
“The Seventh Seal” (1957). Here is no need of Cinerama, or CinemaScope, or VistaVision; nor of beautiful Technicolor. The format is primitive, cinematography is simple, the colour is a dull black and white. Instead, we are offered an amazing premise and unforgettable imagery ― a game of chess with Death ― and truly immortal dialogue.
And yet, in spite of its outstanding existentialist core, and the considerations on God and Faith (consider the incredible dialogue in the confession booth between the Knight and Death), it is the moments near the end, on the cliffs by the sea, while eating wild strawberries and drinking fresh milk, between the Knight, his squire Jons and the Girl, and Jof the Juggler and his wife Mia, and their little boy Mikael, that have the most resounding emotional impact on the audience. In that brief, blissful moment, all that is bleak is dissipated, and the humanity of the film shines brightly. And finally, before leaving for the beach to finish his game of chess with Death, the good knight who is about to die says:
KNIGHT ― I shall remember this moment. The silence, the twilight, the bowls of strawberries and milk, your faces in the evening light. Mikael sleeping, Jof with his lyre. I'll try to remember what we have talked about. I'll carry this memory between my hands as carefully as if it were a bowl filled to the brim with fresh milk.
(He turns his face away and looks out towards the sea and the colourless gray sky.)
What a moment!! The Knight has found clarity. And who has never lived this: a brief glimpse of joy and hope amid all the pessimism of a chaotic period of our lives?
And this is what sets the likes of “Casablanca” and “The Seventh Seal” in the category of immortals, above outstanding fare such as “Interstellar”. No, not many of us have fought in the Second World War. And certainly none of us have fought in the Crusades (not to mention played chess against Death!). But almost all of us have waited in vain, one day, for that girl that never showed up. Almost all of us have, one day, felt that mutual attraction for someone else than our girlfriend or wife, or for someone else’s girlfriend or wife. And almost all of us have enjoyed a brief, unforgettable moment of clarity and bliss among friends in the midst of despair in our personal lives.
And that’s why such films ring true, and ring truer the older and more experienced we get in life: we recognize ourselves in them, and life itself. In the end, who among us has never said goodbye to someone much like Rick says to Ilsa in “Casablanca”: “We’ll always have Paris”? This, you have to admit, is a huge, a very profound difference: the great classics don’t merely speak directly to us ― they quite often reflect us.
“Interstellar” stimulates our thoughts, and like you yourself said, makes us wonder. How would we react under such conditions? I mean, it doesn’t get much lonelier and isolated than what we see in this film. Much like the good Knight in “The Seventh Seal”, could a believer lose his faith in God under such circumstances? Could an atheist perhaps find it? Would we be courageous, or would we be cowards, when facing such extreme isolation, and helplessness?
These are all very interesting thoughts, for sure; and as I noted previously, many of the human responses depicted during the film strike me as very human. But I’m guessing that not many of us have ever been transported via a wormhole to another galaxy altogether. We can imagine a great deal, and empathise as much. Many of us have siblings; most have parents; some have children; and we can relate to the family conflicts in the film ― which is why they ring so true. But such extreme isolation and loneliness in anther galaxy, while carrying the weight of the world on your shoulders, is ultimately unfathomable. “Interstellar” lacks some of the genuine identification factor that facilitates that very important effect which is catharsis. It is, in a way, simply too outlandish ― and yet, unlike "2001", it is also not not outlandish enough.
Not that identification and catharsis are necessary requirements in truly great films: there is no way, for instance, I can possibly identify with what Dave Bowman experiences in “2001”; no one can. And the viewer experiences no catharsis whatsoever in that film. But again: this is what makes “2001” a unique film: Kubrick had the balls to go where no director had gone before with any remotely similar project. He completely transcends not only the genre, but the medium itself: in a way, his film has the same emotional resonance as much conceptual theatre of the period: none at all. But that is no problem: it is not the point.
Not quite so with “Interstellar”. “Interstellar” depends heavily on emotional response from the audience, and explores ancient human problems in novel ways to achieve this. And by doing so the film asks intelligent questions, about our place in the universe, and the future of man in space, and the human psyche. Both that of those who leave, and that of those who are left behind. And as such it is excellent science-fiction.
However, and extremely interestingly, the very plausible and often poignant human responses in these new incarnations of classical problems are also very much a product of our own times.
Compare say, Ulysses’ wife Penelope, left behind on Ithaca, to Coopers daughter Murph, left behind on Earth. Or compare Robinson Crusoe on his island to Dr Mann on his planet. The basic human problems are the same, whether on the Trojan Plain or in outer space. But the modern versions behave quite differently than the classic examples, don’t they? Are they more realistic representations? Or merely more cynical? Are they a product of more realistic, or merely more cynical times?
There have of course lived idealists and cynics at all times. But think of it:
why wasn’t Cooper given a wife in “Interstellar”? Why do we have to deal with that huge problem complex solely in a surrogate manner, through the very convenient weak variant ― a daughter? But in the end, as I said, I believe the greatest contribution of “Interstellar” was upping the sci in sci-fi. It was about time the hard sci-fi that has become increasingly popular in literature as our understanding of the universe has increased also made its way to the cinemas in a major production.
So to sum up, you write that:
In my honest opinion [...] It's not only the best film I've seen in 2014 but the best in in quite some time.
...and I completely agree. But that is partially because there haven’t been made many great movies in quite some time... ;)
reply
share
jonruff108
10 years ago
[Before I get started, I'd like to apologize for any typos and the short length of my response, seeing how I'm on mobile right now and IMDb's mobile app is atrocious.)
Once again, thank you fo another brilliantly written and thought out response! I must ask, do you write for a website? Or perhaps just for fun? It's been a pleasure reading your responses and I find them very insightful and interesting!
Anyway, I'd like to point out that I may not be too much older than your son (you said he was around 17) so my experience with cinema pals compared to that of many others, including yourself, so I'll try to stay in my place. :)
As you said, film is very subjective and our views and thoughts of them differ depending on the people we are and the experiences we've had. I'm very young and haven't had much experience outside of school and homework and a few simple jobs. That would, I suppose, cause you and I to view cinema in a slightly different way, which is amazing because it's such a great topic of discussion!
Films, for me, evoke a sense of escape and freedom, especially those that create visual wonders (Nolan, Kubrick, Cuaron) or vivid and crisp dialogue (Tarantino) or even when actors pour their heart and soul into a performance (Tom Hanks, Christian Bale, Jared Leto, etc.). I love to loose myself in the picture and just forget everything else.
Films like Star Trek 2009 (yes, I know it isn't Star Trek) was such a great movie because it applied a fun story with an emotional core along with some amazing visuals. The same could be said about Inception, one of my favorite movies of all time. The technical prowess and visual fidelity displayed in that movie was mesmerizing yet the story lacked emotion and substance.
I think what I'm trying to say is, for me, movies don't have to have a deep thematic story littered with symbolism, which is always great, don't get me wrong. Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line offered incredibly insightful themes about humanity and nature and how humanity has this "self obsessive" nature to them while nature itself is calm and beautiful, both of which were displayed with brilliant still shots that juxtaposed the two "forces". That movie appeared to be a war movie about WWII but really it was about the fight against the laws of nature that existed for millions of years before we were even conceived. That movie has stayed with me for years and I constantly think about it because of how relevant it is in my everyday life and my perception of the world.
Take a movie like the Raid 2, an Indonesian action movie that completely obliterates any American "strictly action" movie ever made; I don't say that lightly. Story wise the movie is fine, nothing special. It's basically the Godfather but with tons of adrenaline inducing action. The Raid 2 stands as one of my top 5 favorite movies of the year simply because of how well made it was. It didn't offer any thematic qualities, the characters weren't anything special, and the overall plot was decent at best but it was an amazing movie.
Going back to Interstellar, I think Nolan truly achieved something special with his combination of stellar (no pun intended) visuals and emotionally charged story. It's rare that something like that comes along nowadays and I wholeheartedly embraced it. You bring up an interesting point, however. I don't believe Interstellar will have the same effect on me as, say, the Thin Red Line. Sure, it's got its deeper themes regarding our place in the universe and the strength love can have but already, after only a month and a half, I don't think about the movie as much as others I've seen longer ago. Why? I'm not sure. I think Nolan's intention was to deliver an experience unlike any other movie previous and I feel he succeeded his goal and then some. I walked out of the theater literally not being able to speak.
You mentioned a lot of classic and "older" movies in your previous post and, I must confess, I have not seen nearly enough films as I would've like to from the "black and white age". The oldest movie I've seen is either 2001 or To Kill a Mockingbird. TKAM was a decent movie, but the book did a much better job of portraying its message but I will say, the acting was very good.
2001 is one of the most polarizing movies I have ever seen. It is unbearably slow at times, the characters are basically the definition of two dimensional (disregarding HAL, the greatest AI in movie history until TARS came along ;) ), and over half the movie doesn't really make sense the first time through, or perhaps several times through for that matter. It has some of the best visuals ever seen and rivals those of today, proving that miniatures and hard work lasts longer than GG images flashing on screen.
For me what really sets 2001 apart from others is it's enormous scope, not just for the 60s but even today. The film literally covered everything from the beginning if the human species until the next form of evolution. Wow! Talk about thought provoking! And while the final 30 minutes may be the most confusing thing I've ever seen it's also one of the most memorable. I rated 2001 an 8/10 due to poor characters and (sadly, in my honest opinion) horrendous pacing.
To answer my own question, I'm really bit sure if Interstellar deserves #15 of ALL time. For me personally, it certainty does but like you said yourself, I've only seen 500 or so movies so who am I to say anything?
All I know is Interstellar is definitely the best picture of 2014 (it's funny that it's almost guaranteed the Oscars will ignore it, much like the Golden Globes did) and the best movie I've since Mr. Nobody in 2009.
I would like to add you to my "friends" list on IMDb since I find you very respectable and clearly have a true passion for filmmaking!
reply
share