Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
INTERSTELLAR (An Observation By Christopher Nolan) Post-release Discussion
Quote:

Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


I always wondered if they'd take it down as soon as BlakeBats made his debut.

(goffumites look up as blakebats leaps through the city!)



"WHAT THE FUCK????"

(sledgehammers)

Reply
A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1100#post_4209402"]
Thanks for reminding me of this!  Yeah, this moment gets me too!  Murphy is so great in it and he does it with SUCH little screentime, which only ends up making the ineffectiveness of DiCaprio's drama stand out even worse (for me).

The fact that it's a fiction created by Cobb's team only ends up making it more emotional for me.  Because it's less about how true the catharsis is and more about just how much he needed it.
[/quote]

Yes yes, validate me!
Reply

I would have preferred BlakeBats over AffleckBats

Reply
A[quote name="Carnotaur3" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1110#post_4209386"]
Batman is dead. Remember?  He wasn't ever an entity, but a symbol.

I think this literal reading is getting in the way of the thematics of the series is set up. 
[/quote]
Not at all. It's engaging with with the text. Nolan is all about IDEAS carrying real power even if they're not literally real.

The end of TDKR is about supplanting an insufficient idea/lie with a sufficient one. Nolan believes a good, constructive narrative is valuable even if it isn't literally true.
Reply
A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1110#post_4209402"]
Thanks for reminding me of this!  Yeah, this moment gets me too!  Murphy is so great in it and he does it with SUCH little screentime, which only ends up making the ineffectiveness of DiCaprio's drama stand out even worse (for me).

The fact that it's a fiction created by Cobb's team only ends up making it more emotional for me.  Because it's less about how true the catharsis is and more about just how much he needed it.
[/quote]
I find it all so morally problematic and ambiguous that I can never enter into it emotionally. I just watch it (and all of INCEPTION, really) from a remove.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I find it all so morally problematic and ambiguous that I can never enter into it emotionally. I just watch it (and all of INCEPTION, really) from a remove.

but it's a good constructive narrative!  so that ken watanabe can stay in business!



hahahahahah




oh man, it's morally problematic for sure!

Reply


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Not thematic, just pure emotion. Certainly Fischer's story is complicated by the fact that it's all a lie. But that certainly ties into a recurring theme with Nolan, from Memento to Insomnia and The Dark Knight of characters either lying to themselves or being fed a lie in order to struggle on.



I don't find that part so touching, but it is interesting in that Nolan is essentially saying it doesn't matter how manipulative or sappy a movie gets, if it works, it works.  It's sort of a defense of the type of movies that he doesn't make himself (parts of Interstellar notwithstanding).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 


Batman is dead. Remember?  He wasn't ever an entity, but a symbol.



I think this literal reading is getting in the way of the thematics of the series is set up.



I don't think you can base so much of your thematics around the importance of THE TRUTH and then play the "oh it's all just a metaphor anyway" card for the resolution.  Not when the lie is for the benefit of the people of Gotham, and they don't learn the truth about Batman.


Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Not at all. It's engaging with with the text. Nolan is all about IDEAS carrying real power even if they're not literally real.

The end of TDKR is about supplanting an insufficient idea/lie with a sufficient one. Nolan believes a good, constructive narrative is valuable even if it isn't literally true.


And this.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I find it all so morally problematic and ambiguous that I can never enter into it emotionally. I just watch it (and all of INCEPTION, really) from a remove.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 



I don't find that part so touching, but it is interesting in that Nolan is essentially saying it doesn't matter how manipulative or sappy a movie gets, if it works, it works.  It's sort of a defense of the type of movies that he doesn't make himself (parts of Interstellar notwithstanding).



I think the movie becomes less morally problematic (and it never lies to you, they're thieves and liars, and Cobb and his wife are just explorers of sensation that go into dreams for decades) if you accept that the movie is allegory for the filmmaking process. The "lie", as Schwartz points out, is more then about telling Fischer a story that elicits a catharsis even if it's not "true", the same way we may learn things about ourselves from watching movies.

Reply

Could somebody clarify the "morally problematic" thing? Like, I get that the inceptors might be engaging in some ethically questionable chicanery, but I don't get how that prevents somebody from enjoying the movie. If anything, it makes the movie 10x more interesting.

Reply

V for Vendetta offends Agent. He's easily offended.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

V for Vendetta offends Agent. He's easily offended.


Oh.

That sounds exhausting.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Not at all. It's engaging with with the text. Nolan is all about IDEAS carrying real power even if they're not literally real.

The end of TDKR is about supplanting an insufficient idea/lie with a sufficient one. Nolan believes a good, constructive narrative is valuable even if it isn't literally true.

I'm not disagreeing with this. But I don't think Batman being considered dead is really much of a lie at all. The sacrifice was real when you consider that Bruce Wayne actually gave it up. That's the truth.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post


I don't think you can base so much of your thematics around the importance of THE TRUTH and then play the "oh it's all just a metaphor anyway" card for the resolution.  Not when the lie is for the benefit of the people of Gotham, and they don't learn the truth about Batman.



There's nothing they need to know about Batman. Who he was is irrelevant. The idea of Batman can continue for anyone willing to take up the mantle if they so desire.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

Could somebody clarify the "morally problematic" thing? Like, I get that the inceptors might be engaging in some ethically questionable chicanery, but I don't get how that prevents somebody from enjoying the movie. If anything, it makes the movie 10x more interesting.


I don't think it's a point about preventing someone from enjoying the movie.  It just prevents them from really buying into the emotion of Fisher's catharsis.

Reply

I think the movie answers the question of whether or not withholding that Bruce was Batman is lying:



John Blake: I just can't take it. I mean, nobody will ever know who it was who saved an entire city.



Jim Gordon: They know who it was; it was the Batman.



Notice the emphasis, too, on "the Batman". I think Nolan thinks Batman as a symbol is literal, so it's not lying when the city thinks he's dead and Bruce is too. That Batman did "die", and so did the public face of Bruce Wayne. The guy we see hanging out with Selina at the end hasn't really been around, except when alone with Alfred, for like 30 years, if ever.


Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

I think the movie answers the question of whether or not withholding that Bruce was Batman is lying:



John Blake: I just can't take it. I mean, nobody will ever know who it was who saved an entire city.



Jim Gordon: They know who it was; it was the Batman.



Notice the emphasis, too, on "the Batman". I think Nolan thinks Batman as a symbol is literal, so it's not lying when the city thinks he's dead and Bruce is too. That Batman did "die", and so did the public face of Bruce Wayne. The guy we see hanging out with Selina at the end hasn't really been around, except when alone with Alfred, for like 30 years, if ever.




Well said.  Though I'm not sure I agree with Batman as literal, though the public takes him as a literal entity.

Reply
AI love INCEPTION.

INTETSTELLAR is pretty good, especially when distilled to MURF


[video]https://youtu.be/KYvZqJp-STk[/video]
Reply
A[quote name="Bartleby_Scriven" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1110#post_4209423"]

I think the movie becomes less morally problematic (and it never lies to you, they're thieves and liars, and Cobb and his wife are just explorers of sensation that go into dreams for decades) if you accept that the movie is allegory for the filmmaking process. The "lie", as Schwartz points out, is more then about telling Fischer a story that elicits a catharsis even if it's not "true", the same way we may learn things about ourselves from watching movies.
[/quote]
I think that's interesting subtext, but never text enough to actually inform my viewing.

If Nolan was a more expressionistic, sensualistic filmmaker I might be able to just let go and feel the FEELZ. But all of his non-McConaughey flicks feel kinda chilly and distant.

Also, I think the moral ambiguity of INCEPTION is very intentional. (I am not offended or troubled by INCEPTION.)
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I think that's interesting subtext, but never text enough to actually inform my viewing.

If Nolan was a more expressionistic, sensualistic filmmaker I might be able to just let go and feel the FEELZ. But all of his non-McConaughey flicks feel kinda chilly and distant.

Also, I think the moral ambiguity of INCEPTION is very intentional. (I am not offended or troubled by INCEPTION.)

Why must you be such an angry young man when your future looks quite bright to me?

Reply
ATARS was just fucking great. CASE was kind of a debbie downer.

"Cooper, this is no time for caution," and that entire scene in general felt RIGHT in a way Nolan (and most directors, not bagging on him) nails only occasionally.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

Could somebody clarify the "morally problematic" thing? Like, I get that the inceptors might be engaging in some ethically questionable chicanery, but I don't get how that prevents somebody from enjoying the movie. If anything, it makes the movie 10x more interesting.



They are drugging and brainwashing someone in order to sabotage his business.  That's not a nice thing to do.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

I'm not disagreeing with this. But I don't think Batman being considered dead is really much of a lie at all. The sacrifice was real when you consider that Bruce Wayne actually gave it up. That's the truth.



There's nothing they need to know about Batman. Who he was is irrelevant. The idea of Batman can continue for anyone willing to take up the mantle if they so desire.



It's a lie because the public thinks the guy in the batsuit actually died.  Again, you don't get to traffic in THE TRUTH as a thematic concept and rely on that kind of metaphor at the same time.



Also, he spends all of TDK wanting to give up Batman, and then does for the intervening 8 years.  "Giving it up" again (to tour the continent with a sexy, glamorous jewel thief) is a pretty weaksauce sacrifice, imo.

Reply
A[quote name="Schwartz" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1110#post_4209469"]
They are drugging and brainwashing someone in order to sabotage his business.  That's not a nice thing to do.


It's a lie because the public thinks the guy in the batsuit actually died.  Again, you don't get to traffic in THE TRUTH as a thematic concept and rely on that kind of metaphor at the same time.  

Also, he spends all of TDK wanting to give up Batman, and then does for the intervening 8 years.  "Giving it up" again (to tour the continent with a sexy, glamorous jewel thief) is a pretty weaksauce sacrifice, imo.
[/quote]

Agreed - the 8 years of sulking was a weird and unnecessary choice. And it undermines the final sacrifice of Bruce leaving Batman behind.
Reply

Every thread is a Batman thread. By the way, those last two posts are wrong.

Reply
A[quote name="JacknifeJohnny" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1140#post_4209473"]Every thread is a Batman thread. By the way, those last two posts are wrong.
[/quote]

Well no one wanted to talk about how awesome TARS was, so Batman it is.

And WRONG?!? Defend your position sir.
Reply

I agree that TARS was indeed awesome. But he seemed to be in the wrong movie for a world where everything's recycled and nobody believes in space.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

Every thread is a Batman thread. By the way, those last two posts are wrong.



Yep, I'm too tired to argue with it at this point.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

I agree that TARS was indeed awesome. But he seemed to be in the wrong movie for a world where everything's recycled and nobody believes in space.



Wasn't he recycled from a robot soldier program?

Reply
A[quote name="Schwartz" url="/community/t/152210/interstellar-an-observation-by-christopher-nolan-post-release-discussion/1140#post_4209490"]
Wasn't he recycled from a robot soldier program?
[/quote]

Yep. He was a soldier without an army. Just like Cooper was an astronaut in a world that believes we faked the moon landing.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


Well no one wanted to talk about how awesome TARS was, so Batman it is.

And WRONG?!? Defend your position sir.



I hate to get into this, but one, it's directly established that Wayne retiring the Batman persona wasn't the same as Wayne moving past it. He incorrectly decided to use Rachel as a motivation to get out of the costume in the previous film, wholly failing to recognize that he lost her even before she was blown to smithereens. So in TDKR, he's given up being Batman because he's injured and depressed, which is nowhere near the same "satisfying" way he previously envisioned retiring the persona. He's frozen in a profoundly shitty moment in his life.



As for the lie at the end of the movie, I still find it weird that people haven't gotten used to some of the mixed messages and paradoxes that Nolan likes to put in his films. Also, per the "death" and potential "resurrection" of the "self-sacrificing" hero, I would argue that certain filmmakers are better than Zack Snyder at layering in their Christ metaphors. At the end of TDKR, the stained hero has been purified and his legacy more or less assured. If you want a taste of the mixed message that I think is reasonable to suggest that Nolan intended to make, see an idea I posted in an appropriate thread about Wayne adopting the League of Shadows tradition of propagating the Ra's Al Ghul legend by effectively doing the same thing with Batman and John Blake at the end of TDKR.



Nolan can't very well end these movies by saying full stop that Batman is an asshole because it's a goddamn mainstream superhero movie and your lead has to look like he's worth a shit (and he is), but there are couple of interesting readings that I think certain people might be too politically arrogant to accept as open questions posed by the films (like that one YouTube guy that nooj likes). I think it's fair to say that each film ends with increasingly cryptic suggestions of pyrrhic victories (BB: the Joker card, TDK: Rachel's letter, and TDKR: John Blake potentially resurrecting a now fully mythic persona that was already divisive as fuck and what they could mean in the future).

Reply
ANolan likes thematic ambiguity (or a thematic muddle, if you're being uncharitable). His films sustain tensions, particularly when it comes to the territory of belief, purpose, and reality.

He's something of a humanistic mystic. Humanity needs narratives that are bigger than rational fact in order to achieve greatness. But in the creation of those narratives, there lie great dangers.
Reply

And dead wives.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 


 but there are couple of interesting readings that I think certain people might be too politically arrogant to accept as open questions posed by the films (like that one YouTube guy that nooj likes).


eyyyy, I just linked a couple of his videos



BART is the one who's in LOOOOOOVE with him!

Reply
AI wouldn't kick him out of bed.
Reply

No joke, but I think Nolan constantly playing with the idea that certain lies help preserve greater "truths" are why certain Conservatives think those movies are major Rightwing manifestos and certain liberals have aneurysms over the ambiguity and lean towards accusing Nolan of being a fascist, even though there is ample evidence in each film that neither group is correct.*










*I would argue that since Nolan is a Democrat, it's fair to read the ambiguities as a criticism of what Batman does whilst still maintaining the audience's sympathy and trust in the main character of a superhero tentpole film. Of course, our polarized politics being filled with Manichean bullshit makes it difficult for anyone to want to hear that at all.

Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

I wouldn't kick him out of bed.

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses, beard and closeup

Reply

Are you...shaming him, nooj?

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)