Interstellar: Out of the Dust. (Part 1 of 3) *Spoilers*

We see a row of books resting on a humble wooden shelf that is accented by a model of the Space Shuttle. Dust particles float in the air, catching glimmers of sunlight. Over it all, the word 'Interstellar' fades in. The essence of Christopher Nolan's latest film exists within the title card itself. Like many science fiction stories, 'Interstellar' asks a lot questions about humanity and our place in the universe. Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Attempting to answer these questions requires two approaches that often seem to be in opposition. The books represent the spiritual / timeless pursuit of truth. Books are literally the consciousness of our ancestors speaking to us from the past. They are ghosts. By contrast, the Space Shuttle represents the exploration of our physical universe through science. This is the pursuit of truth through reason and data. Dust clings to both book and shuttle because we have set aside the pursuit of truth altogether.  

"We used to look up in the sky and wonder at our place in the stars, but now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt." - Cooper

Part 1 - Out of the Dust: 

'Interstellar' is a cautionary tale. Nolan uses dust (a symbol of stagnation and death) to warn us of the danger of living in a world where innovation and individualism are no longer valued. The 'near future’ setting of the story has eerie similarities to our own present and our past. Nolan symbolically dilates time by opening the film with what look like Depression Era testimonies about the dust bowl and the great depression. Then someone wipes dust on a laptop so we know this isn't taking place in the 1930s, but the connection to the past and the present has been made. While the issues presented at the beginning of 'Interstellar' are, ostensibly, happening everywhere on earth, Nolan chooses to set the story in what looks like current day rural America. Why?  Because all of Earth’s fictional issues in ‘Interstellar’ mirror real, current, American issues. 

• Corn is in a vast majority of  U.S. food products and we are the #1 producer of corn in the world. In 'Interstellar' Corn is grown almost exclusively as the only stable crop. 
• NASA's Space Shuttle Program ended in 2011. In Interstellar, NASA does not officially exist anymore. 
• 60% of Americans believe the ‘American Dream’ is dead or dying.  In Interstellar, what looks like a struggling city softball team actually turns out to be the 'World Famous New York Yankees'. This is a very strong symbol of the decline of American culture. 
• Education is burdened by an over-focus on standardized testing. In the school conference meeting scene, Cooper (McConaughey) berates a teacher over “one number determining the future of my son”. 
• Education is distorted by rhetoric. In Interstellar, the Moon Landing is completely denied by educators and one of the most innovative and progressive eras in human history is belittled.

"And if we don't want to repeat the excess and wastefulness of the 20th Century then we need to teach our kids about this planet, not tales of leaving it." 

Unless something changes, the America of ‘Interstellar’ is doomed. 

Professor Brand (Michael Caine) presents two plans to save the future of the human race. 'Plan A' Is romantic. It requires faith and sacrifice: Save the people of Earth by flying though a wormhole and establishing a colony on an inhabitable planet. This is the spiritual plan; the plan that will take us outside of time and into eternity. By contrast, ‘Plan B’ is pragmatic. This is the plan of cold reason: Let everyone die out, but seed the galaxy and let human life take root elsewhere. This is the purely mathematical and scientific plan, the plan that sets the clock on Earth.  

As each plan takes course throughout the story, ‘Interstellar’ asks questions about who we are and how we arrive at the truth. Should we rely on reason to save us? Or should we put our faith in hope? Is human emotion just the result of evolutionary conditioning, or something more? Are we temporal? Are we bound by minutes, hours, and years? Or are we timeless?  Are we merely made of dust?

How to Train-wreck Your Dragon

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first of three (yes, three) movie adaptations of Tolkien's shortest and simplest book. And While this obvious market exploitation is not enough to keep those with vacation homes in Middle Earth away from the theater, it is the reason these same fans feel some vague disappointment despite (or perhaps because of) their love of the source material.  If you're anyone but Peter Jackson, your film needs to truly be great to justify a nearly three hour run time. It needs to bursting at the seams with story, design, characterization, theme and everything else. Unfortunately, to quote Bilbo in The Fellowship of the Ring, this movie feels "thin - sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

Rarely am I bothered when a movie adaptation deviates from its literary source. Books are different from movies. As such, filmmakers ought to make changes in order to best tell the story in the language of cinema. While many of the liberties taken in the Lord of the Rings trilogy annoyed fans, these changes honored the spirit of the novel. When the Hobbits return to the Shire in The Return of the King so much is said without saying anything at all. They look across their pints at each other and their faces tell you that home is not the same. Their adventure has changed them. This is done in lieu of about a hundred pages that Tolkien wrote in a chapter titled 'The Scouring of the Shire' which ultimately conveys the same theme. The merit of an adaptation rests in those decisions, and more importantly, why they were made. 

The main issue with the The Hobbit is that Jackson and Co are not interested in adapting a novel. Instead they attempt, rather unsuccessfully, to make a prequel to a much better movie. As such, instead of a loosely adapted depiction we have something rather akin to the The Phantom Menace of the Tolkienverse; a movie that is both overlong and terribly unsatisfying because it awkwardly distracts from itself and can't seem to focus on one thing. While there are some cool moments involving what Tolkien mysteriously referred to as 'The Necromancer' in his book, to spend 20 minutes of dialog on the possibility of the return of Sauron is quite boring (Cate Blanchett aside) because we've already seen The Lord of the Rings.  The 'prequel' has already been beautifully told in a stunning prologue at the beginning of Fellowship. So like a college student padding his term paper, this stuff exists to justify our total running time - which will probably come close to nine hours  from Shire to dragon (and back again). The length of a movie should depend on the story, not the other way around. 

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was a story which required three movies. The Hobbit is three movies that require a story. 

If you must make a 165 minute movie out of 105 pages of a book, there are still opportunities for embellishment that exist right on the page. Fifteen of them to be exact. 14 Dwarves, a Hobbit, AND a wizard.  That's a box of donuts full of characters; characters that might be interesting. For an audience to emotionally engage with what's going on we need to see some emotion from the characters when they encounter excitement and danger. And while we see plenty of action sequences in The Hobbit, our adventurers leap through them with neither fear nor courage. It's more like watching a World of Warcraft raid than seeing dwarves fight goblins and trolls (heh).

In Fellowship, we see the most badass heroes of Middle Earth wet their pants over a few thousand goblins and balrog of Morgoth. We see simple Hobbits slowly pluck up the courage to draw steel and hold the line. When Sam stops in the field at the beginning of his journey and states "If I take one more step, ill be the furthest from home I've ever bean" we feel something. Subtle moments grounded in real emotion make the quest to Mordor all the more epic.

In An Unexpected Journey, our characters only become three dimensional for boring dialog scenes which exist as breaks between empty episodes of commotion. It is difficult to really care about Bilbo Baggins or be apart of his great adventure. 

To be fair, The Hobbit did have its moments. Fans will appreciate the completely unabridged 'Riddles in the Dark' scene; which is so engaging mainly because Gollum is an incredibly designed character that continues to be performed incredibly by Andy Serkis. The obligatory prologue at the beginning of the movie has great moments and is a solid introduction to the story, especially for those less familiar with all this business with gold and dragons. Real Tolkien nerds will also be happy to hear verses from the songs found in the book. "Chip the glasses, crack the plates..." and others are paid their due Respect. As always, Gandalf has a wealth of thoughtful things to say that are worth considering (if not hanging up as needle-points).

"Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. That is not what I've found. I found it is the small things - everyday deeds of ordinary folk, that keeps the darkness at bay" 

Wise words for the world to live by, and a quote that is all too relevant in light of recent events.  

Super Hate (Spoilers)

Once upon a time there was a CSULB film school dropout who was living proof that success in institutionalized education is not directly proportional to success in the real world. He left film school to actually start making movies. His first successful film, 'Duel'   was about a business man driving out to Bakersfield or something  and being hunted by a psychotic truck driver along the way. I know it doesn't sound like much but it is really a great flick. If you're looking for a Steven Spielberg movie that doesn't have annoying children in it, 'Duel' is a great place to start.

Steven Spielberg is perhaps best known for E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial which he directed from an entirely ripped off screenplay. Spielberg's latest film (Producer Credit Only) was written and directed by J.J. Abrams (Star Trek 09)...but who are we kidding? 'Super 8' is overrun by sloppy, anachronistic, 1980s Steven Spielberg fingerprints. And that's a bad thing.

"Stealing" from his own films would be one thing, but this is done for some silly, awkward attempt at nostalgia or something. Like I'm supposed to make the deliberate obvious connection to 'E.T.' at the end of the movie and say a "oh how clever, that makes me remember my childhood and feel all good inside." 

But it doesn't work. Instead of being a charming tribute to the magic and wonder we (some of us) felt when we first saw films like E.T. and Indiana Jones...it just comes across and cheap and awkward. You can't really revisit an outdated film style without being just a little bit cynical...but Spielberg/Abrams don't seem to care. Obviously if it worked in 1982, it can work in 2011...only it can't.  Not if you're so obsessed with paying homage to your own career that you forget to make a movie.

Does J.J. Abrams really have to put gigantic, distracting, lens flares in every movie?  Does every depiction of the U.S. military in a Steven Spielberg film have to be laughably negative?  Why do scary military guys always go around in groups of 50 while chasing you with flashlights? Does the monster REALLY have to flip the vehicle on its side with the 12 year olds inside? ...again? Hey asshole, remember Jurassic Park? REMEMBER IT?

'Super 8' isn't a film that I can entirely hate (which makes things all the worse).  Watching a bunch of awkward preteens try to make a zombie movie while the world around them starts to fall apart is  really interesting and fun ....or at least it could have been....if Abrams and Spielberg had actually told that story. 

Instead, the entire thing is about an alien who just wants to go home...strangely familiar?

"Fools! Bureaucratic Fools! They don't know what they've got there!"
"Well I know what I've got here...." 
...Another Spiel-turd.