Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of Cinema

A remarkable thing.

That’s the best way to describe Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar. It’s a film that’s clearly divisive — something which, in my mind, all the very best films are. But no matter what you think about the plot or physics (quasi-physics?), I think that everyone would agree that the film is something to behold. It’s a force of nature that demands to be seen on the big screen.

In fact, it demands to be seen on a very big screen. That is, an IMAX screen.

The thing I walk away with from a film full of things to walk away with is just how masterful Nolan was in his use of IMAX. It’s the first film I’ve seen where the format is a part of the story-telling. And it’s probably the first film in which that’s possible because Nolan shot over an hour’s worth of footage in the format for Interstellar.

Some people will recall Nolan’s use of IMAX in The Dark Knight trilogy. And others may recall the scene in Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol where Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt character leans out the window of Burj Khalifa and the shot expands vertically in terrifying fashion. But that’s nothing like what we get in Interstellar. Nolan methodically cuts between footage shot in IMAX format and “regular” film footage to help guide the narrative.

All the scenes in space? IMAX. All the exterior scenes on different worlds? IMAX. Most of the scenes inside the spaceship? Regular film. Interiors on Earth? Regular film. Scenes out in the corn fields of Earth? Largely IMAX.

The effect is profound. Traditional film suddenly feels very small and almost claustrophobic. Those black bars at the top and bottom of the screen become horizontal railings that while perhaps not trapping us in, are clearly guiding us along. When the screen opens up to IMAX format though, you’re set free. I kept moving my head up and down trying to make sure I wasn’t missing anything.

One scene that stuck out in particular is when Matthew McConaughey’s Cooper is driving away from his farm. The shot goes from inside the truck, shot in film, to a shot from the back of the truck as the farm recedes, in IMAX, to a shot of a rocket launch, still in IMAX, to a shot of Cooper in a space shuttle, back in film format. You just couldn’t do something like this before this movie.

This stands in stark contrast to the use of 3D in film these days. In nearly every movie released in 3D recently, the effect is very much a gimmick. It adds nothing other than a few dollars to the cost of your ticket. In fact, in many movies, 3D actually makes the experience worse because it’s so much darker and full of overcooked scenes trying to make clever use of 3D.

The sound is just as important. Several scenes in Interstellar feature music or sound that is so powerful that it actually shakes you with the advanced sound systems found in IMAX theaters. (This is on purpose.) Try doing that at home.

IMAX won’t take off in the same way 3D has largely because it’s so expensive and tedious to do correctly. And IMAX itself strictly regulates which films can be released in the format. That’s undoubtedly a good thing, but it’s also a little disheartening because Interstellar shows that it’s the one format that can still demand that a film be seen in a massive theater rather than at home. Instead, 3D will continue to carry that distinction with most people.

I’ve seen the question asked a lot on the internet this past week: is it worth seeing Interstellar in theaters? In my view, absolutely yes. But if you’re going to do it, you simply must see it in IMAX. You will quite literally be missing out on aspects of the film if you do not.