The relationship between Nolan and Kubrick has a documented starting point: the experience of watching 2001. Comparing their films then requires looking at what they do differently with space, time, and information.
A memory of a screening is a situated statement
At the 2018 Cannes meeting, Christopher Nolan recalled watching 2001 with his father in 70 mm at London’s Leicester Square Theatre. He also described his involvement in presenting a 70 mm print to bring audiences closer to that screening experience. His statement links a particular film with a way of seeing it; it is more than an expression of admiration for a name.
That starting point helps explain why format belongs in the discussion. The relationship between screen size, detail, and duration affects how an image is explored. A spaceship can occupy little space within the frame and still retain recognizable detail. The viewer needs time to appreciate the distance between its parts, its movement, and its surroundings. Scale depends on more than whether an object appears large.
The 2001 guide places those questions within Kubrick’s film. Nolan’s account adds a history of reception: someone remembers a screening that expanded his expectations of what cinema could do. That experience does not prove that every format Nolan later chose had a single cause, or that any particular technology alone guarantees the same effect.
It is also worth distinguishing the film from its presentation format. Showing a work in 70 mm does not make all its scenes equivalent images, and watching a different print does not automatically erase its editing relationships. The physical presentation matters, but it works alongside composition, rhythm, and sound. An acknowledged influence can point toward an aspiration for the audience’s experience without prescribing an identical formula for every decision.
Two approaches to a spaceship can create different kinds of tension
The orbital approach accompanied by the waltz in 2001 and the emergency docking in Interstellar make for a concrete comparison. Both make legible the relationship between mechanical bodies that must coordinate. In the first, movement is presented as an orderly operation; in the second, rotation and danger turn that coordination into an urgent task. A similar situation reveals differences in rhythm and focus.
In 2001, the music and duration allow viewers to contemplate movements that seem to form a stable system. Scale is perceived through the relationship between objects and the continuity of their trajectories. The spaceship and effects work explains the specific construction of those images. Comparing them with Nolan’s work does not justify automatically transferring one film’s production methods to the other.
Interstellar gives more immediate weight to the risks of the maneuver and the decisions of those carrying it out. The characters’ faces and responses, along with changes in distance, contribute to a shared sense of urgency. Viewers receive information that helps them understand how a wrong move could bring the action to a halt. Space is not just something to look at: it becomes a problem that must be solved before it is too late.
This comparison describes visible results; it does not identify a shot-by-shot borrowing. To support a stricter correspondence, we would need to define the framing, duration, and order, as well as provide documentation when claiming intent. The organization of perspective in Kubrick’s films makes it possible to ask these questions precisely. A centered spaceship or a recognizable vanishing line is not, on its own, enough to prove a historical connection.
The role of editing also changes. An operation can be made understandable through extended continuity or by distributing information across simultaneous actions. The study of editing and ellipses helps distinguish between them. Nolan and Kubrick may share an interest in demanding experiences of time without organizing expectation, verbal explanation, and the moment when the audience understands a situation in the same way.
HAL and TARS do not have the same relationship with trust
Comparing HAL with TARS helps clarify another common point of comparison: the presence of artificial intelligence on a space journey. In 2001, HAL’s voice seems integrated into the ship’s everyday operations, ultimately making that trust problematic. In Interstellar, TARS takes part in exchanges where its settings and humor can be discussed. The films ask different questions about how a relationship with a machine is negotiated.
The contrast affects the information available. HAL communicates with a confidence that may be disconnected from what humans can verify. TARS makes certain adjustments an explicit part of the conversation. Neither observation allows one character to be reduced to the other’s response. The shared theme of machines and human routines allows for treatments that distribute suspicion and cooperation differently.
Interstellar’s family relationships also introduce a specific emotional orientation. The messages and temporal distance matter because of what happens between father and daughter. Bowman’s journey in 2001 is not organized around that same bond. Comparing the two films as journeys into the unknown is productive when it preserves this difference rather than assuming that every emotion or mystery serves an interchangeable function.
Nolan’s statement establishes an acknowledged influence; formal analysis proposes connections that still need to be argued. Keeping these two levels separate makes it possible to describe continuity without obscuring transformation. A remembered screening, a format choice, and a narrative solution may be related, but they are not three names for the same fact. Each answers a different question about how one filmmaker’s experience as a viewer can become part of another filmmaker’s work.
References: Eugénie Malinjod, “Rendez-vous with… Christopher Nolan,” Cannes Film Festival, May 12, 2018. Films compared: Stanley Kubrick, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968); Christopher Nolan, Interstellar (2014).
View all articles in Kubrick in Other Filmmakers and Visual Culture