Like Cecil B DeMille, Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg before him, Christopher Nolan has thrived at knowing what his massive audience wants and giving it to them. In doing so, he's become as big a "star" as the actors he casts. Looking at the IMDB Top 250, his highest rated film, The Dark Knight, rates #4 just behind the likes of The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Shawshank Redemption, meaning that in this day of age in which people receive the satisfaction of streaming their entertainment on Netflix, Nolan is one of the last of his kind: one who makes "event" movies that people generally feel the need to have to go to movie theaters and watch on the big screen.
Not to say his films don't have their critics: search the internet and you'll find plenty of critics, some from the industry and some who are reviewers/enthusiasts like Rob Ager, a lot of them coming off as fairly intelligent who have clearly studied and know film, who'll criticize Nolan for being too influenced by superior artists like Michael Mann and Quentin Tarantino, crafting incomprehensible action scenes(they'll often use the truck chase from The Dark Knight as the best example), overuse expository dialogue and even overcomplicated his relatively simple narratives for little purpose. While its easy to write those people as "snobs" Nolan's fans take it to the extremes from consistent complaining about The Academy for not nominating The Dark Knight for Best Picture(which resulted in The Academy from expanding the number of Best Picture nominees) to even sending death threats to film critics who gave The Dark Knight Rises a negative review(which resulted in RottenTomatoes.com from removing the comments section from critic's reviews).
I myself find myself being in the middle of these two extremes. Personally, I don't think Nolan is a genius as others seem to believe. I feel his work often lacks versatility and that he simplifies his somewhat complicated ideas for something more bland and simple, that's easier for the audience to digest but make him far less interesting than the filmmakers he has publicly stated in trying to emulate such as Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick. This also doesn't help that with some of his shaky-cam techniques and overreliance on Hans Zimmer he has inspired less diverse and more bland imitators. But on the flip side of that, its rather inspiring to think that in our age of Michael Bay that there's one mainstream filmmaker trying to make action blockbusters that engage their (mostly teen) audience with somewhat sophisticated and intelligent ideas. Equally inspiring is the fact that there's one modern director who has kept his foot firmly in the past as well as the present, as Nolan insists to shoot on celluloid instead of digital, makes films both in 35mm and 70mm prints, and has even helped finance Kodak to help them keep from fading out of existence. In uneventful filmmaking times, he truly makes films that demand attention, and the fact he has done so without gimmicks like "3D" and in some more old-fashioned ones like giant screens and storytelling is sort of miraculous and for that alone I feel he deserves most of the praise he gets.
One "gimmick" though, he has indulged in is his marketing. In order to stand out, the marketing of his films think of some fairly clever solutions, whether its through ads or building viral websites he really knows how to build up anticipation to his films which sometimes don't have the established brand name to build off of.
For Interstellar, Nolan's latest, WB has offered an "Oculus" experience. In very selective cities in a mere three states, theater chains have offered a "virtual reality" trip in which you can visit the space ship sets of the movie.
When I first read about the set up in New York online it immediately perked up my interest. The reason being it reminded me of something from the viewing experience I had from watching Inception. When the "dream within a dream within a dream within a dream" sequence happened, it reminded me of what Alfred Hitchcock said of Steven Spielberg's Jaws when he praised "[Spielberg is] the first one of us who doesn't see the proscenium arch." One can easily say the same for Nolan. When watching Inception the first time what impressed me the most about the movie was that it was less like watching a screen and more like traveling in a maze with the characters. The reason why it struck popular with audiences, I say, is because it offered what Roger Ebert referred to as an "out-of-body experience". While I have issues with the movie(most of it being related to the needless exposition which bores one to tears on the 2nd viewing) the film works ultimately because of that dream within a dream within a dream climax of the movie. This Oculus experience seemed like the chance to show Nolan how he really views movies: not as a flat surface facing the audience but as an immersive experience. One doesn't need 3D glasses to see his films because the films are three-dimensional themselves.
So when I heard this exhibit was being brought over to Los Angeles, I immediately marked my calendar. As someone who is always eager for events and experiences taking in my beloved Southern California that can't simply be reproduced in just any other city in any other place in the world, such as Colorado Springs, I immediately jumped towards the chance to see this. The fact it was taking place at the AMC Theaters at CityWalk was a match made in heaven: much like theme park attraction, this sounded like an attraction that would transport you inside a movie. And as icing on the cake: the event was free(ok so you still had to pay Universal parking, but I'll let that fact slide by).
As you can see the chairs and devices almost resembled that of the ones of Inception. While waiting in line it was fun to see the few in front of me get really involved with the experience. Before I stepped in though, some AMC employee offered a free poster to those who had pre-bought their tickets(I bought mine as I was always planning on seeing it and hey, free posters are fun). They also and made you sign of those contracts that said "I am aware of the health risks involved and that Universal and AMC weren't responsible for any deaths blah blah blah" and then it was on to the Oculus.
The best was to describe it was as virtual reality, but without any will-power or controls. It starts with you being on board the ship where your told to go into another room by your "commander". You travel through the tunnels and control, at one point even initiate "zero-gravity" to where your floating through the different rooms. You even go through a floating pencil not unlike in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It ends with you in the control-panel facing another planet(Jupiter maybe?) then ends with the Interstellar logo. Through-out the whole event, your tempted to turn your head and look all around you as your surrounded by the interiors of this spaceship. You also have the urge to grabs things even if you have no real control.
While I highly doubt Interstellar will reach 2001: A Space Odyssey heights(it's a near guarantee Interstellar won't inspire a Steve Jobs to invent and name a product after the movie like Kubrick's masterpiece has) I am sure that based on the Oculus alone that after 2014's underwhelming box office that this film will definitely be an "event" film.
And for that, I say bless Mr. Nolan's cotton socks!
