Interstellar – Christian Movie Review
[WARNING: Although this article does not contain spoilers, the reader comments below the article contain MAJOR spoilers. Do not read the comments if you haven’t seen the movie. I should add: the comment by Peter contains the biggest spoilers, but it also contains some brilliant observations that might disprove my conclusion below that “Interstellar” presents a secular humanistic worldview. After you see “Interstellar,” please be sure to return to this article and join the conversation in the comments.]
The long-awaited film directed by Christopher Nolan — his directorial follow-up to Dark Knight Rises and the cinematic masterpiece Inception — has finally arrived. His brother Jonathan Nolan co-wrote the screenplay. Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, Casey Affleck, and Matt Damon are among the talented cast. (And they all gave superb, stunning performances.)
The story takes place in the not-so-distant future. As Earth’s crops begin to die, and as starvation threatens the survival of humanity, an astronaut named Cooper (McConaughey) mans a mission of interstellar travel to find another planet where our civilization can continue. To sum this movie up in one sentence: Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar is to secular humanism as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel is to Christianity. I could be wrong. A film like this warrants multiple viewings, and I’ve only seen it once. I might’ve missed something. And Nolan is difficult to pin down, which is partly why his films are so great; they have tremendous nuance.
[Update 11/14/14: A reader named Peter left a comment below and made some brilliant observations that I missed. In fact, his points make a strong case that perhaps Nolan was actually presenting a Christian worldview.]
I doubt that Christopher Nolan aggressively set out to create some aggressive overture to humanism — I doubt that was the most pressing concern on his mind during the creative process — but the film, in my opinion, seems to go in that direction anyways. If my interpretation is correct, then this film is the most breathtaking, masterfully composed ode to one of the greatest falsehoods ever conceived upon this earth: that, by gaining knowledge of good and evil, relying on our own wisdom to manage it, and pursuing total self-sufficiency apart from our Creator, humanity will never die because we will eventually evolve into gods. This is the heart of secular humanism: that the God of the Bible is unnecessary — a myth of the religious imagination — and we certainly do not need a Creator to decide right and wrong and create a basis for morality.
[Note: Although I feel passionate about my beliefs, I mean no personal disrespect to anyone who is an atheist. I respect the goals and admire the courage and the good works in many branches of humanism; I simply have strong disagreements with the presuppositions that form the humanist worldview.]
These big questions of worldview, however, are probably more peripheral to the heart of the film. At its core it tells a heartrending, absolutely tear-jerking story about a father’s love for his daughter. It stirs the soul, and it adds a tangible power to the story arc. I would watch the film again just to see this story-line between the father and daughter. And, just to be clear, I doubt the Nolan brothers intentionally set out to write some aggressive manifesto for secular humanism that demeans people of faith. That’s really not the spirit of the film. Its worldview, assuming my interpretation of the film is even correct (and it may not be), is very subtle. It’s more of a presupposition below everything else — the partially buried foundation. What the filmmakers cared most about, I suspect, is showing how profound our need for human companionship can be. It’s a tenderhearted film that asks vulnerable, earnest questions more often than it makes strong-willed assertions about the origin and purpose of humanity’s existence — though it does make a few of those too at key moments.
Before I get into more of the details of the film (without spoilers) let’s examine any parental guidance issues in the film’s PG-13 content.
Parental Guidance Issues at a Glance…
Sexual Content/Nudity : None. Violence/Gore: There is no graphic gore in this film. Two men fight on a planet with hostile atmosphere, and one breaks the other man’s glass to cause him to suffocate. An astronaut is sucked into space. A man is punched in the face. An elderly man is seen dying in a hospital bed. A man drowns in a huge tidal wave. Language: One f-word, and a fair number of other swear words. Alcohol/Drug/Smoking Content: A farmer drinks a bottle of beer.
Frightening/Intense/Emotionally Heavy Content: Nolan is the Shakespeare of palpably intense, nail-biting cinema. Although there is no gore in this movie, whenever there is any violence or death, it is felt on a deeply emotional level because Nolan creates an extremely convincing world with very real characters. It is likely too intense for youth under 13 (as the ratings advise).
“That conflict, that relentless, aching homesickness — that profound yearning for human companionship that we all have — is what this movie spends most of its time exploring; and it is, I suspect, what the filmmakers cared most about in their storytelling.”
Please support our affiliate sponsors
Entertainment Value and Film Craft
Any film that Christopher Nolan directs almost always approaches a level of art that only geniuses can achieve. He truly is a Monet — or fill in your favorite master artist — of film in our generation. His grasp of storytelling, his directing of the actors, his pacing and sense of proportion between the three acts of a story: it is always pitch perfect with Christopher Nolan. He weaves everything together to create something mesmerizing. He ratchets up tension with such nuanced precision amidst a complex narrative that, by the time it all climaxes, the film becomes emotionally (and visually, in this case) overwhelming. And the space sequences — especially the ones involving planets and black holes — just, just…I don’t even have the words. Everyone in the theater sat in speechlessness after the movie ended.
Every detail of Interstellar is so connected to the central core of the plot — the part that would require massive spoilers to explain — that it’s almost impossible to discuss much of the film. Any attempt to do so would come across as nonsensical unless the entire plot was unveiled, which I won’t do.
I’ll be content to say this: the film really is a work of art — the kind of thing that does not come around very often in a generation — and it is worth experiencing even if you do not agree with its fundamental worldview. Interstellar is
a phenomenal achievement.
The only major complaint I have about the film craft — and the Washington Post felt the same way — is with the film’s sound mix. Dramatic tidal waves of music crushed the theater during odd moments when actors were delivering important lines. There were actually key moments in the film where I did not know what the actors said because the music was too loud in the mix.
Worldview(s) In the Film
Before I go any further with my analysis of the film’s worldview, I need to make a disclaimer: I do not know what Christopher Nolan’s personal beliefs are. I am only describing (and to some extent, speculating) about the meaning behind the content of the film. It’s entirely possible that Christopher Nolan has a religious faith of some kind that somehow reconciles itself with a belief in humanism and macro-evolution. Who knows what he actually believes.
However, the worldview of secular humanism seems to be deeply prevalent as the premise of the script from beginning to end. Although Nolan places the marrow of his (or his brother’s) secular humanistic worldview beneath rich layers of spellbinding film craft and character development, the film assumes that the worldview of naturalism (i.e. the God of the Bible does not exist, we do not have souls, there is nothing supernatural in the universe) and the theory of macro-evolution is 100% fact. If my interpretation is correct, then the film is a gushing, sincere, painstaking love letter to, well, ourselves. Though, I will admit, it is a very optimistic take on humanity’s future — probably the best case scenario for humanity if secular humanism/atheism really is true and Christians are wrong.
But the beating heart of this film drums loud and clear by the end: we are all we need; we are not made in the image of any Creator; we are made in our own self-sufficient image, and we will become our own gods. However, within this apparent anti-God framework, there exists micro-messages and themes that I relished. You could feel a sincere, almost childlike, affection for humanity in the film. There’s a tenderness there. The characters are deeply connected to each other, and the audience becomes deeply connected to the characters. Human companionship and familial bonds are seen as priceless treasures. By the time the movie finished, I just wanted to run home and give my daughter a big hug.
Conclusion
Interstellar is a bittersweet experience for ardent Christians who love the art of cinema. The exhilarating joy of seeing one of the great filmmakers of our generation at work is worth every dime of a movie ticket — at least from the point of view of entertainment. It’s truly an experience you will not forget.
Unfortunately, for those who passionately disagree with that particular worldview (as I do), the film seems built on a foundation of secular humanistic assumptions about the origins and purpose of humanity. I could definitely be wrong though. I might be missing some key details (I’ve only seen the film once; this kind of movie really warrants multiple viewings), and Nolan is not an easy person to pin down — that’s what makes his films so thought-provoking and enjoyable. His movies always spurn intense debate.
And, with that in mind, I write these observations with some hesitance because the spirit of the film isn’t aggressive about its underlying worldview. It’s not trying to proselytize anybody. It’s not mean-spirited or intentionally insulting towards anyone of faith. It’s all subtle. It’s a supporting character, not the lead. The primary focal point of the story is not to create a manifesto for humanism — though it ends up being that, unintentionally perhaps. The primary focal point is a father’s love for his daughter and how he would do anything, even travel to the ends of the universe, to save her. And he would also do anything to survive and make it back to her. That conflict, that relentless, aching homesickness — that profound yearning for human companionship that we all have — is what this movie spends most of its time exploring; and it is, I suspect, what the filmmakers cared most about in their storytelling.
[Note: if you’re a fan of C.S. Lewis, please check out my new blog Stabs of Joy or my podcast Aslan’s Paw. Both seek to crack open the surprising treasures of Christian belief — the things that Western society has forgotten, ignored, or never encountered — with the help of logic, literature, film, music, and one very unsafe Lion.]
[WARNING: This comment contains MAJOR spoilers for the film.]
I actually think Nolan wanted to introduce a whole bunch of Christian elements to the film.
Here are some interesting points:
1) Church Organ soundtrack through the whole film.
2) Shots of Coop and Brand with eyes and hands closed praying
3) We have Christian Trinity: Cooper represents the Father and Holy Spirit/Ghost (once he joins with Tesseract). Murph represents the Son a.k.a Jesus the savior (remember she was 10 years old at start and after 23 years time dilation was 33 when she “saves” the world – same age as Jesus dies). They both represent the Holy trinity.
4) We have an otherworldly unknown powerful presence who created the wormhole and tessaract that guide the events of the film – aka Godlike who has have basically interfered with and guided Coop throughout his life going as far as to construct a tesseract for one particular moment in time. God advocates true love and is major theme of film with father and daughter.
5) There were 12 original astronauts sent out onto the planets – There were 12 apostles of Jesus sent out for his gospel.
6) Cooper also spends decades wandering desolate environments,”Lazarus”. Dies and is reborn at black hole.
7) Holy Spirit/Ghost Coop reaching out to touch people (including hand shake scene white light)
8) And just like Jesus after his resurrection, he came back (albeit 3 days vs. 70-something years) then left again after a very short period of time.
9) Literal Noah’s Ark with at end with Cooper space station transporting humanity.
10) Adam and Eve with Coop and Brand (embryos for Plan B – start new race).
You make some brilliant observations! I never even considered those elements. Frankly, I was so overwhelmed by the film that I just didn’t notice those things you pointed out — especially points 3 – 10. I’m impressed you picked up on those little details. I don’t know anything about Nolan’s personal beliefs, but I know he is a very deep thinker who thinks carefully about every detail; and I wouldn’t put it past him to intentionally put all of those elements in there as you described. If that really is the case then my conclusion is definitely wrong, and it actually might be the opposite: maybe this film comes from a Christian worldview! Frankly, I hope you’re right, and I hope my initial analysis above is wrong because I really wanted to like this film. It’s such a visual masterpiece.
*Spoilers*
I would also want to ask, why does the absence of God in the film automatically make it a humanist tale? To a Christian like myself, it may not be as fulfilling as it could have been if God were somehow involved, but I don’t see it as a humanist tale because God is not mentioned. To put the twist of the film in a nutshell, mankind from the future helps mankind of the past. There is not the slightest suggestion in the film that mankind has become any kind of god figure. They can live in the 5th dimension (which is part of nature), but they are still bound by it. That’s the whole point of the plot. If they were all powerful, there would be no story. That’s probably a reason why the mention of God was not included in the film. If God was behind the wormhole and the tesseract, what would be the point? He could just save us without all that. It is the limited power we have as humans that require the adventure. Humanism is the belief that, among other things, we can provide our own salvation. The Christian view of salvation is that of salvation from hell (or the just punishment that we all deserve). After Cooper “saves” mankind from extinction on Earth, people still die. The film says nothing of their fate after death. It might have been nice if God was mentioned then, but that just wasn’t what the story was dealing with. To sum up, the absence of God in the film did not make it a humanistic tale to me. After all, I recall a famous story of a young women who, after spending a night with the king of the land, rose to become queen and stopped the slaughter of her people. No mention of God is made at all in that story. Its called the Book of Esther. Maybe I’m not thinking clearly though. Would love to know what people think?
(to David) [Warning: spoilers below]
You make some really good points.
The whole thing with the future humanity coming back in time to help Cooper was a very cool/interesting plot twist. It definitely made the whole film extremely interesting and entertaining.
On a more comical note, we could summarize the whole movie by using a scene from the show The Office, where Jim plays a prank on Dwight and makes Dwight think that “future Dwight” sent a fax back through time to warn “present Dwight” that the coffee is poisoned. Dwight, seeing the fax, runs to stop a co-worker from taking a sip of coffee by knocking the mug out of his hand. That hilarious scene could summarize Interstellar in a nutshell (sort of, haha).
Back to being serious: you make really good points, like how, though humanity had such god-like powers, it was still limited by the physical universe.
I think what I was trying to get at — and I may not have been very successful in articulating this — was the way the film specifically declared macro-evolution as the primary mechanism that propelled humanity to its future self that came back and helped Cooper. I think what made me immediately interpret that as secular humanism was the way it fit perfectly into the narrative of atheists I have known personally in my university studies. Their ultimate hope is macro-evolution and a future human species that has godlike powers. In the same way that Christians view Christ’s return and end-time events as the ultimate hope for our fallen world, some humanists see macro-evolution as the thing that will redeem humanity and purge it from all of its imperfections. I would say that salvation is not just about our destination after death. It’s also about sanctification, about God transforming a human soul into a perfect reflection of Christ — or as close as possible — while that soul is alive on earth. But humanists see this perfection of humanity — intellectually, physically, morally — as coming solely from macro-evolution. They envision with great excitement a future where humanity — by the means of macro-evolution alone — has power over space and time, manipulating it the way God would. Of course, not every atheist thinks this way, but this film strongly reminded me of that secular/atheist/humanistic narrative about the future. It’s odd: some of these folks I’ve encountered await the next leap of macro-evolution in humanity with the same fervor as Christians who await their Messiah. It seems we’re all waiting for a Messiah — even atheists.
The other element of the film that immediately reminded me of the humanist narrative is its depiction of a failing earth and the necessity of humanity to leave earth. When a story begins to address the ultimate fate of the earth, I think it becomes a much more significant thing when God is omitted from that story. The book of Revelation, Jesus’ teachings about His return, and the Old Testament prophets all agree that God has every intention to redeem this current earth from its fallen state and bring about a new earth. In the Millenial Reign of Christ, Revelation depicts Jesus ruling over the earth and bringing healing to the nations. In other words, the Bible always portrays a future where God, at some point, personally, directly intervenes and redeems the earth. Interstellar portrays a future where there is no such intervention and, ultimately, humanity is left to fend for itself and save itself as a species. This reminded me strongly of conversations I’ve had with zealous humanists. Their narrative about earth’s future always includes a “we’re 100% on our own; don’t expect any kind of divine intervention. Eventually we’re going to have to leave this planet and give it up as a lost cause. It’ll be up to us to find salvation for humanity.” So the way Interstellar concluded with the earth truly being abandoned and the human race relocating to the new planet where Anne Hathaway’s character is — well, it just had a very similar spirit/attitude/perspective that I’ve encountered in past conversations with secular humanists.
So, all in all, I’d have to say my conclusion is influenced heavily by these past encounters I’ve had with that particular worldview.
But I could definitely be wrong. As you pointed out, the film doesn’t deal with life after death issues. And as Peter also pointed out in his comment, you could actually make a strong case that Nolan might’ve been placing some strong Christian themes in the movie through the use of symbolism. If that’s the case, then any kind of face-value literal interpretation of the film’s events could be tossed out. If Nolan really is using symbolism, then it almost doesn’t matter how he depicts the earth’s future. At that point the true meaning of the movie would have to be deciphered from the symbols and what meaning has been attached to each symbol.
So, yeah, at this point I don’t think my conclusions in my article are case closed by any means. You and Peter both make very strong arguments.
All of this is partly why I love Christopher Nolan films so much. He pours every ounce of his intellectual life into them, and as a result it forces us to apply all of OUR intellectual life to truly understand the film and have meaningful discussion about it.
i don’t know what you believe in but to save ones race one must look further there is no law saying that there are black holes out there but there are theiroies (2nd to laws) and being suck into a black hole is physically possible until proven otherwise so are worm holes so is evolution (except people keep banging a 2000 year old book) or else it would be a law
my comment was inappropriate and i am sorry, i am a a thesis and so i wanted to see a christen review and it hurt me to see humanism show as a bad thing it ticked me off , sorry
No problem, Noah. Thanks for your comments. I didn’t intend the article to be a personal attack, though I’m sorry if it ended up being that. The whole debate (naturalism/atheism vs. belief in an eternal, extra-dimensional, self-aware Being — “God”) of course involves the core of a person’s identity and belief system, so I don’t blame you for being angry and wanting to stand up for what you believe — though I wasn’t intentionally setting out to make anyone feel hurt. I feel passionate about what I believe, of course, and I suppose that just comes with the territory when you’re discussing the biggest questions we can ask about existence. Though I will try to be more mindful/sensitive about the way I word things and the tone I take in future articles. Thanks again for your comments and for participating in the discussion on this post.
I also caught that one of the 12 apostles (greek: one who is sent away) turns out to be Judas.
Murph is trying to tell everyone that her father was the one leading her, but everyone assumed it was her alone. (cf. John 5:19)
Not sure if this was intended, but Brand is set to be the virgin mother of the embryos, no? If not physically, then at least maternally.
Still, my interpretation of Nolan’s intent is more along the lines of Kevin’s: all this occurred without the need for (or mention of) God. All you need is love.
I think the many allusions to the biblical narrative INVITES the comparison, and the absence of God is very much intended (compare Gravity – a movie i think it much more obviously neutral on the subject, yet still a “space film”).
Yet for all the allusions – we don’t need God to save us, we can save ourselves. If anything, Nolan is showing that its not hard to create a narrative around faith and the miracles of the bible – just add science and some universal love.
Thor: wow, you pointed out some things I had missed (like the Greek work for apostle, the Murph-father corollary to Jesus and the Heavenly Father, the virgin mother). Really interesting! I really need to watch this movie again now that I know about all of this symbolism that you and the other commenters mention. I can see how the film does invite the comparison to Christian themes so strongly, and yet it seems to use an opposite belief system to frame the universe that surrounds the Christian imagery. It’s odd. There was cognitive dissonance as I was watching, and I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Now I see why. But it’s hard not to come to any other conclusion than what you said in your last few paragraphs. Perhaps he just felt like using the Christian symbolism — an arbitrary aesthetic storytelling choice. If there was some additional symbol in it that signified God, and if that symbol was necessary for the narrative’s world to function, one might be able to continue with the theory that the film ultimately carries an intentional Christian worldview. But that would mean Nolan was using a world that assumes the truth of macro-evolution as the stage for presenting, through symbols, a Christian narrative — sort of a subversion of the evolutionary origin theory to present a Christian view point beneath the surface layers of the movie. But I think you make an inescapable conclusion: God is not necessary to humanity in this film’s narrative — at least, not in the main narrative that plays out on the surface.
I wish I could interview Nolan and ask him about the layers beneath the surface of the film — though who knows if he’d spill the beans about what he intended with it all. Artists tend to be protective of the content that they bury in their art. C.S. Lewis went to his grave with his secret about the Narnia series: that he used pre-Copernican astronomy — the seven planets (the seven “spheres of Heaven”) — to inform and shape the atmosphere of each of the seven Narnia books. He never said a word about it to anyone, not even his friends. Michael Ward discovered it and explained it all in his book PLANET NARNIA.
So I suppose it’s possible there could be something else buried beneath all of it, but I doubt that’s true, for all the reasons you mentioned.
***Warning: Post contains spoilers***
It has been really interesting to see what other Christians thought of this film. It was one of the best films I have ever seen—and cinematically groundbreaking. However, I walked out of the theater very conflicted, specifically in terms of the humanistic and evolutionary themes.
What I found peculiar is that the film is both in sync with Evolutionary, Secular Humanism and at odds with it; it seems to enjoy being tangled in the tension between the two.
That tension is played out in in Dr. Brand’s speech about the social utility of love and how love transcends time and space. Cooper doesn’t have an answer to why we love people who have died. Brand asks, “Where’s the social utility in that?”
Pure evolutionary, secular, atheistic science leaves no room for self-sacrificing love. Natural selection prides itself on the strong surviving, the weak dying, and species being in endless completion with each other over resources. In the film, the senior Dr. Brand lies to the astronauts about the theory of gravity and Plan A, because he rationalizes that no man would die to save an abstract future humanity. He knew Cooper would risk death to save his family, but not to plant embryos on another planet.
This is best seen during the confrontation with Dr. Mann, who botched his records out of selfish preservation so that he would be saved. Dr. Mann spends half of his on-screen appearance rattling off about adaptation, the advancement of humanity, and his love for scientific theory. However, it is only a front for his cowardice. He pretends to show Cooper the planet, but really has murderous intentions. The thought of dying alone is too much to bear and he goes crazy.
Dr. Mann’s name is no mistake and I believe that the purpose of the scene is to show the utter depravity of man. The film shows that if man is merely a product of evolutionary adaptation, he has no utility in a love that goes beyond something that benefits himself; that scene seems to be an antithesis to a purely scientific worldview.
I also saw tons of religious imagery in the film and wondered at its intention and purpose. Is Nolan leaving a door open to a higher power, or is the film using religious imagery to create its own godless religion? I think the answer to that question is found in how you interpret the ending.
At the beginning of the film, there is the mysterious “they” that seems to suggest that a high power is guiding the actions of the characters. By the end of the film, we realize that it was man himself who was the supernatural element. That is a very depressing thought. If we really are all alone in this world and our only hope is ourselves—yikes! Dr. Mann proved that man, left to his own devices, is not a pretty picture.
In the space shuttle, Brand and Cooper discuss whether or not nature is evil, and Brand comes to the conclusion that the heart of man is evil and we take that problem with us. While that is not perfect Christian theology—because the Bible states that the whole world is in a fallen state—it does nod at the fact that no amount of Humanistic love can confront the evil that man brings with him. Within the world of the film, even if man is deposited on another planet, he still brings things like murder, deceit, and selfish ambition with him. If humanity did such a poor job of stewarding their home planet, what makes us think that we won’t destroy the next one? While film shows man saving himself, there is diffident evidence to suggest that it also shows that man cannot save himself—because the problem is himself.
At the end of the day, the film shows some very fascinating science, some killer graphics of speculative physics and astronomy, and takes us on an adventure that is literally out of this world. What grounded the film is the father/daughter relationship. No matter what people believe in terms of science and faith, the protective love a father has for his family is universally human and something we all desire and applaud. Maybe the reason why we love that kind of sacrificial love is because it reflects our Heavenly Father’s love for us. Just like Cooper went across the universe to save his family, Christ left his heavenly throne and atoned for and saved his children.
Even though this film is armed with secular evolution, it made me worship our Creator even deeper for his provision for us here on Earth and for his awesome creative power. The characters went across the universe and sent out 12 probes that searched for a new home; however, only one planet is shown to have any hope of being a possibility. The ending is ambiguous because it only shows Dr. Brand taking off her helmet—leaving us unsure as to if she is committing suicide or enjoying a habitable atmosphere. The planet is only shown for a brief shot, but to me it looks harsh—with no visible plant of animal life.
The whole film felt when I enjoy the sport of scuba diving—it’s cool to look at all of the neat stuff—but I know that I don’t belong there—I will always feel out of place. In the same way, the Earth is God’s provision for us and is scientifically perfect for human life to flourish. We were hand-crafted for this Earth and this atmosphere—and everything was made to declare God’s glory. When I look up into the night sky, or see photographs of galaxies far away—that no human eye has ever before seen—the overwhelming response I have is: How great is our God!
I wrote an article on the tension between Love and Humanism. If anyone would like to pursue that exposition further, here is the link: http://hub.me/aj1uY
Wow, this is extremely interesting and thought-provoking, Jennifer. I’ll be pondering this and re-thinking the film from the points you made. I wish I had read this before I wrote my review. Thanks for the high quality comment!
The “Interstellar” movie was actually attacking Environmentalism. Although it wore the vestments of the official state religion of Pax Americana (Progressivism) – by showing female super-scientists and a slightly multicultural cast – it wasn’t promoting orthodox progressive dogma. It was actually presenting another religion. A religion that currently has no name.
In the Early Roman Empire, the various Greco-Jewish sects that later would become Christianity did not have any name (the word “Christian” was concocted in later Roman times as an insult to christians). When you look at the more older and more established sects of Christianity (Roman Catholic Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the various Eastern Orthodox Churches), you’ll notice the vestments and ceremonial objects they use. These vestments were from the original pagan Roman State religion and the various Hellenistic mystery cults. Early Christianity hid itself within other religions.
And this new religion (the religion of various tech leaders in Silicon Valley and Asia, Satoshi Nakamoto, Elon Musk, possibly Robert Zubrin, etc.) hides itself within other religions, such as Progressivism, Shinto, and Confucianism. Even within Hinduism (”Ayudha Puja” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayudha_Puja#mediaviewer/File:Ayudha_Pooja.jpg)! Except for the Hindu and Shinto versions, this religion – like Progressivism – doesn’t call itself a religion.
This religion, along with Islam, are the only two religions in the West (Pax Americana) that are successfully undermining the Official State Religion of Progressivism.
Extremely interesting insights here! Reminds me of observations made by Michael Crichton. Will have to see Interstellar again and consider your points. Thanks for your comment.
ooper is a metaphor for JESUS! Murph is a metaphor for US, GODS CHILDREN! Murph wants Cooper to STAY on earth because we need and want him. But he knows he has higher purpose in life so he goes away, for a very, very, very long time. To fix what us humans have done to the world with SIN! The earth was dying in the film (and in real life now) and ‘THEY’ (a metaphor for God) choose Cooper (Jesus) to leave earth and find us a new place to live with love. This movie reinforces my faith, and i hope with comment i can bring others to see life in this way because this world will end soon and Jesus will come back soon and i would love to see as many Human Beings as i possibly can in Heaven one day. Ill see you on the other side friends 😀
Ive posted this on loads of reviews on youtube but none of them seem to be Christians, i needed to find others that share the same thoughts as me and im glad i found you Kevin.
I also want to add, do you think the Nolan brothers wanted to put the aspect of God into the movie but werent allowed to because of maybe producers or people running the whole Hollywood show. And if so would they be denied by God at the gates of Heaven because they denied him in film, even though the Nolan’s couldnt do anything about it because of the sinful system? But they’re message still got across to myself and hopefully to other Christians.
Sorry if i dont make sense im only 17 and im still trying to work every thing out with life and God and ultimately everything.
Hey Jonathan, great comment! You make a very cool argument for Cooper being a Christ figure and for the film being symbolic of church history — very interesting angle. And it’s entirely possible that the Nolan brothers — one or both of them perhaps — wanted to do something that was more explicit about God but were shut down because Hollywood people wouldn’t finance it. Pleasing the people who will finance your movie is always an artistic dilemma that directors and writers face, so that’s certainly plausible.
and also do you think man actually did go to the moon or was it made up for a television act to make money with NASA? because in the story of Babel, man unified together to build a tower with their technology to reach to the skys but God did not like that so he seperated everyone.
I definitely believe we went to the moon. I think it’s tempting for society to make conspiracy theories, but the cultural/government context of that time period gives plausible motivation for the government wanting to successfully send someone to the Moon (i.e. the Cold War politics involved) — and the eyewitness reports from the astronauts, etc. seem perfectly credible and convincing to me. Also, those were days (before Vietnam) when there was genuine patriotism that still ran throughout the majority of society, from the grassroots to the highest government officials. I think many many people — including folks at NASA and in the government — genuinely wanted to see us go to the Moon. What’s more: we were very capable of doing it.
Speaking directly, most the science portrayed in the film is based on fact, even the theory remains theory until the scientists solve the problem thus eventually creating fact and putting it into practice, with all due respect your christianity currently is all theory no fact, you should try and broaden your mind to experience things for yourself without the need of the religious dogma, experience spirituality which most of us know as love, there is no need to wear the chains of one belief, be open to experience without judgement and you will find when you watch film, you will just enjoy it for what it makes you experience, you may not even have to put judegment on it at all 🙂
Thanks for the comment, Mick. What you said reminds me of a book called “An Experiment in Criticism,” which makes a somewhat similar point.