The Pro/Anti Nolan War - Christopher Nolan Discussion

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

what doesn't degenerate into tribalism these days?

I like his films, but I find his editing to be funny at times and he plays significant things in a too-small way at times. But contrary to what I've read around here recently, I think his films wear well and are often better after more viewings (I find a similar phenomenon with most Michael Mann movies).

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I'm a big fan of Heat and Collateral, but I got bored during Miami Vice.

I really like a lot of Nolan's stuff. I think where he falters is when he tries to stay two steps ahead of audiences and assumes that we know a LOT. He winds up making overly-convoluted plots. Following, The Dark Knight, and Inception have this. That's not a bad flaw: trusting your audience too much.

The only one of his movies that I didn't really like was The Dark Knights Rise, which had plotting issues - so that's as much a writing thing as a directing thing, and that's mostly where I think he falls: as a writer; as a director, he's gangbusters.

reply

[–] huwdj (4567) 5 years ago

I find his film too convoluted. There are layers of unnecessary cleverness that get in the way of telling the story and irritate me. So I'm not anti-Nolan, just not enthused by his films.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

But you like them? Just not love them?

I feel the same way. Usually in the third act I find he gets too clever for his own good. Doesn't stop my deep admiration for his talent, craft, the attempt itself, or the films he makes. I really do love Following, for instance, even though its third act plot twists are too clever for its own good by half.

reply

[–] huwdj (4567) 5 years ago

I watch them. I think they are probably good films, usually have a good cast and enjoy them in part. I'm not sure I like them that much

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I think I like them more than that - depending on which one. Didn't care for Interstellar... But I know what you mean.

reply

[–] AlbaGuBrath (38) 5 years ago

I am a big fan (Dunkirk aside!) What I like about him is I think he walks the line between “art” filmmaking and “entertainment” film very well. He makes sold well made movies with decent and interesting plots but also has that blockbuster entertainment scale to them. Others obvs think he is too much on the art side and boring. I don’t mind Indy/art house cinema but I do think the vast majority of it is self indulgent drivel. For me Nolan ideally gets the mix just right which for me is pretty rare

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

He does walk that line well. I have little time to watch action junk food these days. I'd rather something with depth. But, on the other hand, if that something is dreary and pretentious, who wants that?

Then again, what's entertaining and engaging to one person is torture to another. I love Only Lovers Left Alive but can't stand The Limits of Control.

Thank you for your comments on what you love about Nolan; they are illuminating of his fanbase.

reply

[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 5 years ago

Bay is an amazing filmmaker... Has redefined the large scale spectacle movie... His contribution to the Cinema will be long lasting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q

Anyway, I think the Nolan war is just an offshoot of nerd culture comic-book civil war and tribalism... Before directing Batman, Nolan was not controversial online... He was just an interesting director with a couple of good movies...

After the Dark Knight nerd culture escalated the division and it has only accelerated since with successive movies even as he has departed from cartoon/comicbook movies...

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I think Bay attaches himself to dumb projects and then adds explosions. There's no depth to his work. Maybe he's capable of it; I don't know. He also doesn't tend to get top-level performances out of his actors. Maybe that's not possible with the generic action characters they're playing, but there you go. He also tends to be exploitive of women. That's maybe not a quality thing, but when it's over and over again...it doesn't help my mental image of the man.

I do respect his work for what it is and I recognise that if you're looking for something to munch popcorn to, Bay's one of the guys you're looking for. But he doesn't even have a unique "look", the way that, say, Zach Snyder does. Snyder's weird. He's like auteur action bro.

But I really like The Rock. That's as good as action schlock gets, and I don't mean schlock as negative in this context. I hated Transformers, though. Shaky-cam nightmare... That's where some of my respect for Bay (such as it is) fizzles. It's a movie about morphing robots and laser battles and I can't see any of this geek candy because he shook the camera like he was making Bond a martini.

I'll watch the youtube link you sent, though, and see if it changes my mind...

As to Nolan, I like your observation: he went from a talented up-and-comer to big-time spotlight on a geek property and because he wasn't mainstream-established, he became divisive. I dig it. People are tribal. Geeks are REALLY tribal.

reply

[–] Dalyngrigge (17) 5 years ago

I'm really sympathetic towards Snyder. I won't hesitate to say a good chunk of his movies are garbage, but I really get the feeling that he actually tries and cares about what he does. You can tell he's talented in some areas more than others, I just think he doesn't always apply them correctly and it leads him to producing these often awful products. I feel like if he didn't get involved in the comic book stuff his filmography would be a lot more interesting; Sucker Punch, regardless of what you think of it, is at least original.

Bay, to me, just feels like a director-for-hire who's somehow managed to build of a cult of personality around him. He just directs for the money and I doubt he really cares about the films he makes. I'll agree his impact on cinema will be long-lasting, though I wouldn't say for good reasons....

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

For me, Snyder was explained when I switched on the 300 commentary track. Half of his "commentary" seemed to be, "This shot was mostly F/X. It was all blue screen. We changed the colour, the saturation, the contrast...we added those trees. That's not a real mountain." And every scene seemed to be mostly a run-down of F/X and CGI. Very little was, "oh, we all had the giggles that day," or, "such-and-such an actor did this," or, "this shot is symbolic of X and has this philosophical meaning nobody gets". And I went, "Oh, okay: you're a special effects guy who became a director."

There's a nerdwriter installment that talks about Snyder's tendency to do scenes, not sequences, (or the other way around...?) and basically points out that he makes moments pop, but loses narrative. I'd agree with that. 300 worked best, I think, because it was basically paced and plotted by Frank Miller first. It was also really basic. That's its charm.

I thought he did "okay" on Watchmen, but missed the detail and nuance that could have made it great. It was too close and too slick. I liked Sucker Punch for what it was. I actually think if he got *less* deep it would have worked more. I recently was thinking about it and wondering if it was stripped of all narrative scenes if it would work as a music video montage. His aesthetics, the look, feel, and sound of his films, are always really great.

Bay is, yeah, just doing the obvious. That's maybe the difference I was trying to parse. If you put anybody behind the camera and got them to do The Rock or Transformers, it would look similar to Michael Bay's version. If you asked anybody else to do Sucker Punch, it wouldn't even be close.

reply

[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 5 years ago

Have you seen Batman Vs. Superman? Snyder certainly went for some symbolism there...

He made Superman seem, well... super... something that comic book movies surprisingly have not been able to do... to capture just how otherworldly and godlike these superheroes would be perceived... you get a sense of awe from the other characters in the movie...

Is this just style, or is he reaching from something more? I think it's the latter...

We caught glimpses of it in Man of Steel, especially with the Kevin Costner character and storyline... People even joked like Costner was acting as if he was in a different, more serious movie, rather than a superhero flick...

I think Snyder is trying to do more than just a few cool shots, we'll see how successful he will be in his next movies...

reply

[–] Dalyngrigge (17) 5 years ago

I would say that Nolan is definetly one of the better popular, mainstream directors right now. Like someone said above me he's a great example of straddling the line between art and entertainment, and for me that's what popular cinema should be. The whole war is definetly just because he involved himself with the nerdy comic book crowds, who now worship him for having made some of the best superhero films (which is true, honestly). And also, like I said, his movies do a good job of mixing art and entertainment, and enjoying the artsy aspects of his films can go to some people's heads, I think.

What I think, though, is that you shouldn't, and really just can't, declare any filmmaker to be one of the greatest ever until they're in the grave, or at the very least on their way out. It's only then that you can really compare the body of work they've produced; he still has lots of time to fuck up.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I hear you; thanks for your two cents. I dig it.

Yeah, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are two great superhero films. I can't get into Rises; too many flaws and inconsistencies (and plot holes) for me.

For my own two cents, I don't think that anybody can be "the best". How does one even compare the oeuvre of Miyazaki to that of the Coen Brothers? They're SO different. What's better: Seven Samurai or Match Point? What criteria would even be of use?

I might argue that good work is good work and while a legacy might be ill served with bad additions, truly luminous art can never fade. I think Star Wars is one of the most brilliant films ever crafted. George Lucas will always be a visionary who wrought that work. No amount of Phantom Menace can undo that.

reply

[–] Dalyngrigge (17) 5 years ago

You're right about not being able to judge who 'the best' is ultimately. It's all a matter of personal opinion and taste, ultimately. Time is a factor as well. Me saying that Nolan could still 'fuck up' isn't really accurate, when I think about it. He still has his great films to cement his legacy.

I just think that, being as mainstream and within Hollywood as he is, there is a bit of a precedent to compare him to, which would inevitably place him at some level within that history. You couldn't compare Nolan to some of the best avant-garde filmmakers, for example, since their cinemas aren't reaching as wide an audience and aren't really aiming for the same goals.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

Absolutely. He's still pushing his limits, too. I haven't seen it yet, but descriptions of Dunkirk make it sound so ambitious. The whole "one shot" thing, is what I mean. So, his best work, his artiest stuff, might be around the corner yet. I'd like to check out Dunkirk.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

I think it's a matter of style. Nolan has a very peculiar style: his movies are brainy, built like a Meccano, with ever piece carefully designed to fit in the movie like it was part of a clockwork mechanism. Some people love it (I do), while other people think it's artificial and presumptuous.

You had a very similar debate for years regarding Woody Allen, with some people thinking his dialogues and comedy were artificial and presumptuous. And before that, the same happened with Ingmar Bergman, with some people finding his drama pompous. Something similar happened back in the day with Hitchcock, with many people finding his movies shallow and cunning. Nowadays Hitchcock is considered a classic and everybody seems to like his movies, but there was a pro/anti Hitchcock war back then. Or perhaps many people do still dislike his movies (that would seem logical, wouldn't it?), but they say nothing since Hitchcock has reached some kind of cool classic director status.

That's a common issue when a director has a very distinctive style that it's not everybody's cup of tea. For some reason, some people can't tell apart between 'this is not my cup of tea' and 'this is bad'.

And you're right about Tarantino, there should happen something similar there. The difference is that Tarantino is cool, the same nowadays Hitchcock movies are cool, so you don't wanna be the guy that talks them down. Without that, I think there would be a pro/anti Tarantino war too.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

So, anything that gets popular will get noticed by more and more people until some people, whose taste differs from the mainstream, will watch it and go, "What's the big deal? I don't get it." Then, maybe because they can see the flaws in the work instead of glossing them over (as a fan might do), they get more and more annoyed when the majority of people heap praise on the work with seemingly no critical eye and that just gets obnoxious if you're staring at a problem going, "It's RIGHT THERE!" until you get fired up into some, say, anti-Nolan crazy-boy.

Then the Nolan fans get angry that some nitpicking hobo is whining about what is (to their eyes) a near-perfect piece of cinema, and they fire up into a pro-Nolan nutjob.

And the cycle continues...

I do know that I love Woody Allen and Hitchcock...

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

I don't think it's about becoming popular. Woody Allen is not exactly popular, and Bergman is anything but popular. It's more about becoming celebrated (not necessarily popular) while having a style you don't like. It's like somebody who doesn't like Jazz listening to John Coltrane and saying 'this is shit'. And it's not shit, it's just that you don't like Jazz.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I love that line: "It's not shit, it's just that you don't like Jazz." That's good!

Yeah, you're right to parse popular and celebrated. If you don't dig it, it's going to annoy you either way.

I might push back a bit, though...

Specifically with Nolan, he's as popular as he is celebrated. His movies do big bucks at the box office. So, that's why I'd say that if you don't like a movie and it's either/both popular/celebrated, it'll become annoying.

Second, I'd say that it's possible for the masses to just be wrong or that something is at least flawed and that flaw is (bafflingly) ignored. So, for instance, Transformers is a go-to on movie message boards for "sucky film", and I think that's because it's a warmed over toy commercial pretending to be a music video pretending to be a movie and so when it turns over millions at the B.O., people get driven nuts (like Nickelback's stadium sell-outs).

Likewise, I'd also argue that what annoys some people about Nolan is that he is lauded as "the best director ever" but when his storytelling has flaws, it's not that he's not a genius or the naysayers don't like jazz, it's that they went to see a couple of Coltrane's shows and he hit a couple of bum notes on an off-night and nobody noticed. In fact, the opposite: they say that anybody who points out the bum note is wrong and stupid.

But your points are well-taken, I think you're right: a lot of people just don't like his stuff and then say that makes the films objectively bad which is myopic, at best.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Yeap, I know what you mean.

I think the thing with Nolan is the lack of competition. Which director could be considered top level director right now? Nolan, Tarantino, the Russos, perhaps somebody else... and that's it. Of course, you still have Spielberg around, or Eastwood, or Woody Allen, but they're not at the top of their game. Modern Spielberg is a just pale shadow from what he was in the 80s. Eastwood and Allen are in their 80s, in their fucking 80s.

And that's not only US. In France you had top directors like Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer, Renoir, Resnais, Malle, Chabrol... what now?

Nolan stands out because of the absolutely lack of talent in modern cinema.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

Well, I actually happen to think that Spielberg has done a lot better lately. I think Bridge of Spies is one of his best movies. I'm a huge Woody Allen buff, too. Midnight in Paris, Blue Jasmine...he's still got it. Though, I'm biased there because I'm a fan, and yes, he is quite old.

For mainstream, block-buster popularity, though, you're right. Nolan is high-profile, rakes in cash, and is highly regarded. Tarantino doesn't have a swift enough output and the Russos have really only directed eye candy (and AMAZING television shows).

For who else is a top-notch director at the moment? Damien Chazelle, Alejandro Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alfonso Cuaron, and Guillermo Del Toro.

For some contenders, though, Peter Jackson could get off his butt and do more. He's clearly got the gift, but he's always under the colossus of Lord of the Rings. Joss Whedon does great work...?

Yeah...Nolan's pretty lonely at the top right now.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Damien Chazelle... it's still early. He could be great, though, but it's early to say.

Iñarritu, I agree, he's real good. Sadly, he has a tendency to show off, but on the other side... what a show off!! Birdman was hypnotic, I couldn't blink.

Cuaron, I'm sorry but nope. He's Snyder 2.0: visually amazing, but that's it.

Del Toro... mmm. Ten years ago, I'd have agreed. Now, I'm afraid not. I love his early movies, until Hellboy II. Since then... not so much. Peter Jackson, more or less the same. I love his early movies, LoTR included, until King Kong. And I mean everything: The Frighteners is one of my favorite comedies, and Bad Taste and Dead Alive are amazingly well done low budget guilty pleasures. But they haven't been the same.

Whedon... fine, he's very good, but I think it's TV where he really shines. 50 years from now, he'll be remembered because of Firefly or Buffy, not the Avengers.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

Yeah, Chazelle is still early on. I LOVED Whiplash, though, and La La Land was, I thought, a great remix on the musical genre.

Birdman blew my mind. Blew it right out of my head.

I'd put Cuaron on a to-watch list for Children of Men alone. It's a film that's really stuck with me over the years.

I think Whedon could be great on the big screen. But, yes, I think Buffy will be his legacy (though I'm more of a Firefly guy myself...)

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

I like Chazelle and Iñárritu. I still pay attention to PT Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, and maybe Denis Villeneuve. The Coens can't be counted out either.

But for mainstream, blockbuster stuff, you can't forget Cameron. When he does something, people come out.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

Anderson's a genius and is underrated, I think, or at least under-viewed. The Coens are two of my favourite writers AND directors.

Cameron has the box office draw, but does he do work as interesting as Nolan? For me, no, unless you count technical levels. His use of 3D on Avatar, and his commitment to making it feel like it could be a real place was laudable, but the story he chose to tell in that world was disappointing and shallow.

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

Agreed. He uses trite and safe stories, but the world they occur in is some innovation he's painstakingly developed. The latter is the interesting part, but they're rarely bad movies. They do well b/c there's that spectacle and everyone gets what's going on in them.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I liked Avatar in the theatre, but not on a TV at home where the technical limitations make the movie just dull.

His simplicity is big box office numbers, sure, but that doesn't make him a better (or worse) director. It just means that there's a little zombie in all of us, just shuffling along in a clump...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 5 years ago

I love Nolan and have liked all of this movies, but his movies are definitely not perfect. I can understand the criticisms against him.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I recently watched a bit on Harmontown where Dan Harmon was criticising Interstellar, and said that it looked beautiful but made fun of the plot. Harmon's funny, so I think it'd be funny even to somebody who swore by Interstellar, but I think he made a good point when he said that Nolan is a brilliant director who needs a good script in his hands before he starts filming.

While I think the scripts of his films are - mostly - fine, I do think they often have third act problems and I think he needs to get more outside writers to help with his stuff. Batman Begins is pretty tight, and I think that's David S. Goyer's influence. I also thought The Prestige was a little tighter, and I credit the book: plot's already mostly in place, it just needed tweaking.

Not that I don't like his other stuff...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 5 years ago

The biggest problem is the editing in his films. There's no proper flow. Scenes will just abruptly end and move on to the next and it's a completely different day.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

I can't say I ever noticed, but the next time I pop in Batman Begins I'll take a look.

I usually think his biggest problem is a too-clever-for-its-own-good third act plot twist that shows up in a lot of his films (The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Following, etc.) He often writes scripts that try to stay too steps ahead and avoid any cliches, but when they eschew all tropes, they forget that tropes exist for a reason and often wind up making less sense (even if they were unpredictable).

Does he do his own editing? Or does he get a regular editor in to help...?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 5 years ago

He does use the same editor after Insomnia but I don't think it's him that's to blame. There are a lot of illogical things that happen in the script in order for the story to move quicker.

He does this mostly in The Dark Knight. If you also notice with that film, there is an endless score throughout the film.

I still get excited to see his stuff, but sometimes his decisions are frustrating. I do agree with you about his third acts in particular Inception.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

Inception I loved basically up until the final shot, which I thought was cheap and hacky.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Memento is his only good movie, fight me

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9551) 5 years ago

Maybe I'll fight you... we need some terms, though (unless you mean physically)

So, of his films, I've seen

Following
Memento
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Inception
The Prestige
most of Interstellar

I didn't like Interstellar or The Dark Knight Rises. So, forget those ones.

I think the rest are at least good if not great movies. But those terms (good/great) are maybe too subjective and vague. So, what do you mean by "good movie"?

reply