Christopher Nolan so far has made films we can call "smart blockbusters" -- big-budget movies but also movies with good screenplay. Interstellar is also such, but I think most of the people who disliked the second part of the movie -- and preferred the 2008 script -- agree that Nolan compromised in order to be a blockbuster. Let's leave the discussion that if this really happened or not behind for a second, and investigate the post title.
At this point Kubrick's approach takes in.
With Nolan and some other movies I believed in the fact that the same --2001-- quality could be achieved -- but Interstellar, no matter how top-notch it is production value-wise, and partially plot-wise, is definetely not a 2001 material.
In my All-time top 5 is The Matrix, The Prestige, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Into the Wild. Out of all these movies Matrix and T2 are R-rated. And they both closed an era and opened a new one. Prestige and 2001 are good-budgeted well-earners but they are not blockbusters. Their rating classification isn't high either but content-wise they're not for masses. Of course 2001 is in the lead of this.
I for one think a movie -- a good movie -- should earn as much as money as possible, so I don't find it strange for directors to want to earn money but I find it strange -- or perhaps sad -- if directors choose to compromise just to earn more. Nolan and those other movies have shown me there could be "smart blockbusters". But "Interstellar" has been written as a con to the smart blockbusters side for me. Interstellar isn't nearly a bad movie, especially its first half is very good but to me this movie's competitor is 2001 and it is beaten by 2001 overwhelmingly, it is a con to the smart blockbuster side.
All of this is nice and cool, but the real question is this: Could a film like 2001 ever be made as a blockbuster? It is easy to answer this with a "no", and maybe it is simple as that, but the important thing is to know for sure. That's the question I wonder the answer of. Of course 2001 here is only a symbol. Such movie can be in any genre sci-fi or any other. And the ones that are so different yet is in 2001 caliber. For instance, I think The Matrix is a much better movie than 2001. But Matrix was R-rated. In fact, the only movie I could call smarter than 2001 here in my top 5 is Matrix. Terminator 2 is so beautiful but it's not exactly smart. The Prestige is smart but not smarter than 2001.
About The Matrix -- R-rated blockbusters in my opinion should be discussed in a completely different subject. Most of us know, most of blockbusters are PG-13 rated. Matrix was one of the last examples of successful R-rated blockbusters. After it there were films that made with R-rating but they either failed in the box office or failed to be decent movies. I always give this example as I follow it closely, a very violence containing but a true masterpiece of a story, BioShock, was about to be adapted to the big screen with R-rating, and the movie was going to be made by a money-maker director Gore Verbinski, whom its studio trusted so much, but despite all that the studio didn't green-light the R-rated $150-200M budget and the movie died in the development hell.
Long story short, nowadays big-budget R-rated movies almost never get made. So when we say a movie like 2001 ,we should forget about the R-rating. And when we do that there is no chance for The Matrix alikes to be given birth. So the question is, without violence and things that will drive the average audience away, how can you make a movie like 2001? Think of a Matrix with no cursing, blood, or anything disturbingly real. And this thing shall be better than 2001. (With this, I should also adress the question "why can't a movie like The Matrix isn't being made again?")
While I let you stay indecisive if the said movie could be made or not, let me talk to you about my only hope. A day shall come that movies that could be made with $150-200M shall be made with $50M and ZERO compromise. If such a day that visual effects and production values go cheap so much comes, then that day will be the new golden era of cinema. Think about it... a new Matrix every year. This isn't impossible. But it seems there's at least 10 years ahead of us for this to happen.
Today there are some movies made with $50M but those movies unfortunately aren't "epic scale" movies, those are movies that focus on certain themes of the story and try to make the world as realistic as possible without showing it much. Today even the difference between a $100M movie and a $150M movie is easily noticeable. In fact even the difference between a $150M movie such as Interstellar and a $200M movie is easily noticeable. Say, if the worlds, environment we saw in Interstellar were more diverse, the movie would automatically be in the $200-250M range.
R-rating topic in cinema is just about that. There is an area where this subject isn't even a problem, where everything is R-rated. Video games. There, the limits to make a masterpiece is much wider. But of course there isn't as much genius there. (Or how else could this world even rotate if there was no catch?) But in this said area there was a second, even if it's for a moment, where everything in the universe was aligned correctly and something much more smarter and better than both 2001 and Matrix was made. Eh, do you want me to spell it for you? If you know me, you know it.
P.S.: I should've shared my Interstellar review with you before this, but I am too lazy. Sorry about that.
0 comments: