Interstellar and thoughts on its climax

Every Christopher Nolan film carries with itself the unspoken tag of a complex narrative. Interstellar is no different. Some films demand a repeat viewing to catch all the intricacies of the filmmaking techniques used, like the meaning of a shot when the camera pans over to an object or a person, a seemingly innocuous glance or a smile, the use of colours in the frame, the way the camera moves in a particular scene or to uncover and trace clues leading to the climax scattered throughout a thriller. 

A lot of Nolan’s films, on the other hand, often leave your head spinning in bewilderment when it comes to understanding the plot, and for his fans, the more you have to rack your brains for a film, the better it is. Whether this is a skill or in fact a weakness of the filmmaker in conveying his vision to his audience effectively is up to the viewer to decide. His films have an influence well beyond the cinema hall; internet forums and even water cooler discussions reek of excitement as the film is vigorously decoded and theories of different interpretations built around it. 

When it comes to Interstellar, I think it is necessary to draw a distinction between the novelty of the subject matter and the filmmaking craft employed to deliver it. Nolan’s films have intriguing plots, no doubt, but how successful they are in translating it into cinematic language requires a separate evaluation. Interstellar does not impress on the storytelling front as it does on the complex thought process that has gone into it and the scientific accuracy which is so elusive in other big-budget sci-fi films (can't say the same about the end though)**. 

The feeling I got after watching Interstellar was like reading through someone’s diary, the technical jargon notwithstanding, with thoughts scattered a bit haphazardly, sometimes touched upon only to be left halfway without being fleshed out. The dialogue is expository, with much of the film needing its characters only to put the technical background and the philosophical debate across to its audience, with no narrative arc of their own.

We hear Brand speak about how emotions and the attachment to our loved ones can be a component of the equation and the answers we are seeking, or Mann elaborating on how it is our survival instinct that trumps everything else, but all these composite ideas are not stringed to form a cohesive picture. They are food for thought in isolation, but the narrative, and especially the end, instead of reconciling these ideas or presenting the conflict between them uses its characters as mere stand-ins to represent them. 

The climax is rushed, filled with technical jargon, which could have been presented in a more visual manner, in the language of cinema. Also, the final scenes do not follow organically from the rest of the film. While these may be minor issues with respect to the overall impact of the film for some, I think a good filmmaker’s films, like Nolan’s, are inevitably subjected to higher standards of critique and appreciation.

**Even the scientific accuracy of the climax might be suspect, if one goes by some reports about the film. So not only is the climax rushed, jarring with all the jargon and contrived to make the film end on a positive note, it is also unconvincing.
Source for Image: http://screenrant.com/interstellar-ending-spoilers-time-travel/