Is the Universe Friendly ?

Rating: 9/10 (21 August 2018)

According to Albert Einstein, that's the central question any human being should ask themselves in their lifetime; and if "Friendly" doesn't sound too science-friendly a term, let's remember that the iconic genius never took science as an end but a means to a humanistic end.
Indeed, some secrets about our existence can be more profound and distant than any lone star from the furthest galaxy and perhaps the reason-to-be of science fiction is to leverage scientific speculation with an extra kick from human imagination, liberating a creative energy meant to anticipate the most daring solutions to our most troubling puzzlements... or simply put, to trust the future.
Directed by Christopher Nolan (and co-written with his brother Jonathan), "Interstellar" isn't set at a time that leaves much for optimism: devastating blights are reducing the Earth resources to nil, dust storms make the air unbreathable and in this suffocating dystopia, even politics and crime became pointless. With a beaten spirit, humanity undergoes the slow apocalypse. But how can anyone be a pioneer or a conqueror again when any part of the world is doomed, when there's no 'West' to go anymore?
What's left then is one single desperate measure we owe to a Science-fiction's classic : "Keep watching the skies!". One man follows the motto, a Midwest widower and previous ace pilot named "Coop" (Mathhew McConaughey). He doesn't know it yet but a scientist did the same, with fruitful results. Professor Brand (Michael Caine) found a "path" to a galaxy with potentially inhabitable planets. While it doesn't take the mind of Stephen Hawkins to understand that there would be no chance of survival in any planet of the Solar System, I wish the question of Mars could have been raised at least once.
We also gather that the exodus wouldn't be just some fancy cruise and might last a bit longer than the one to the Promised Land, except if you precede years with "light", but this is where the interference (so to speak) between the screenplay originating from creative artists and a physicist named Dr. Kip Thorne introduced the fascinating concept of wormholes, sorts of tunnels that can take you from point A to another B within a universe comparable to a piece of paper fold in two, like a pencil cutting through it. And once you consider time as a fourth dimension, you guess the implications.
Time travels, space travels, dystopian future, artificial intelligence ... is there one realistic sci-fi concept that "Interstellar" doesn't cover? Once again, Nolan proves that he's the star pupil of all filmmakers, and there's only one stardust of sarcasm in an inner space of admiration. I sincerely believe that the film is so ambitious in scale, CGI and practical effects and attention to scientific accuracy that it is beyond any rational criticism. Nolan's wish was a studio's command after the success of his "Dark Knight" trilogy, if there ever is one to push the envelope, to be the 'Coop' of cinema, it's Nolan.

But there's one reason why "Interstellar" stands above other sci-fi blockbusters... no, not the romantic subplot with Anne Hathaway or Matt Damon's character. At the risk of sounding corny, many things are relative according to science, time is: one hour in a planet can equal 23 years, distance is no better as it can take as much time to jump from a galaxy to another as to travel from Santa Fe to Albuquerque. Still, there's one powerful force that hasn't unveiled all its mysteries and can be everything but relative, the power of attraction aka love power.
There's this bonding between Coop and 'Murph' (Mackenzie Foe and Jessica Chastain for the adult version). Murph got her name from the infamous Murphy's law and the 'science-detective' virus and looks for any paranormal manifestation, some she calls ghosts... don't worry, there's an answer to everything and the rational answers provided later could only come from the man who designed the rubik-cube like plot of "Inception". Precise and effective, maybe a tad too effective. Nolan sure does this homework but sometimes, he gets so carried away by scientific perfectionism that he indulge to a few moments or lines where it's hard to keep a straight face.
But even "2001: A Space Odyssey" had such moments. In "Interstellar", I think I can sum up the criticism by saying that the film wanted to be many things instead of just one... and Nolan, wanted to make the consummate Sci-fi film, after which every sci-fi film director would ask himself "what would Nolan do in that case?". And I guess sometimes, there's nothing wrong with sacrificing realism for the sake of plausibility. Sometimes, I regret Nolan's perfectionism, could he make a movie like "Back to the Future" if no scientist could endorse the theory of the flux capacitor? Once again, paraphrasing his greatest character, I want to ask Nolan "why so serious?".
"Interstellar" still touched me for its intelligence of the heart, the way it did answer Einstein question by making us parts of the universe, Earth can stop being friendly, not that divine whisper that made us exist can also figure out how to keep us "immortal" and it's all about entering a journey, not with rage, as Professor Brand repeats, but with the sheer conviction that there's got to be a way.
Mathematics is the alphabet with which God created the Universe, so all it takes is to break the code through the powerful bonding between two people. Bogart said: "it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world". Well, according to "Interstellar", the problems of two little people matter a lot in the whole universe, in the great cosmic scheme of things.
That's why, for all its visual effects, its Hans Zimmer's score and heart-pounding action sequences, the most memorable part of the film is McConaughey's bursting into tears after seeing his grown-up daughter.