A. O. Scott, the chief critic of New York Times, wrote a very detailed review on Christopher Nolan's Interstellar right after the premier of the film. He wanted to share his opinion with all the Nolan fans, but also with average people who follow great cinema sensations and blockbusters.
Scott argues that it is not a new issue in the history of cinema to depict a futuristic space adventure. He claims that even if the topic and the methods of making a strong impact are a bit average sometimes, the emotional components and techniques are outstanding. The plot of the film is so complex that Scott tries to sum it up in several lines throughout the review. He mentions that it takes place in the future, and that its main point is saving the planet and finding comfort. The only crop which can be grown is corn, there are apocalyptic sandstormes and the main character goes on a space adventure to save the population. Mingling science, modern technology,social and environmental issues and exciting adventures is a straight way towards success,according to Scott. These are inportant and familiar things to the audience; mirroring the Earthly needs and moods is an ordinary, previously used idea. But Scott also claims that Nolan's film is different somehow; his work is unique, the well presented feelings of the characters are very effective. The review questions a lot of things about the plot, but it also points out interesting and extraordinary elements like the character parallels.
The review is written in an informal, but elaborated style with a wide range of vocabulary and also with an interesting attitude of over-analyzing the film. The arguments are supported, but the evaluation of the director and the plot is in vast majority. Scott shares many personal thoughts, which are sometimes not obviously relevant, they are inappropriate and sometimes not even funny. It is a bit difficult to understand the main ideas in his review; sometimes it seems to be a simple contemplation about the film. The short paragraphs contain many different approaches and background information. It is also quite discursive; although the sentences are coherent, the logical blocks are ambiguous at some points. The result of that is really interesting: Scott writes about the film qutite negatively first, but then he compliments the director, the actors and the film itself. It turns out that even if he likes Christopher Nolan and he respects his work, there are many things he would have done differently.
Tryig to use a lot of irony but also staying serious is a fairly difficult style to follow in criticism. Even if Scott didn't always manage to do that, his review is worth reading and the honest ideas are really respectable.
Source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/movies/interstellar-christopher-nolans-search-for-a-new-planet.html?referrer=
No comments:
Post a Comment