Christopher Nolan

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Message
Author
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#51 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:12 pm

The sheer ambition of putting the character in a world as complex and difficult as the one we face (at least compared to other action blockbusters) everyday is worth at least some of the praise. I like all three films, but TDK did it the best for my money. It felt as smart as any decent movie (or TV) I like as an adult, but disguised as a big-budget action three-ring circus I would have loved as a kid.

As for the Marvel movies, I've only seen the first two Iron Man films and I was surprised at how well I thought it held up watching the majority of both on cable this past week. If you put them back to back with the Nolan films it's an interesting dichotomy. Both achieved the task of utterly humanizing these characters, but in very different contexts.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#52 Post by captveg » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:27 pm

If nothing else, Nolan didn't dumb down the product to serve a generic Hollywood producer's idea of mass entertainment. That's why I appreciate the Batman films. Yeah, they're not "high art" in the realm of something from, say, Ozu or Lynch, but they definitely fit the more artistic populist area of Spielberg's early work, or Kurosawa's samurai pictures. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Yojimbo are populist films with great artistic elements, but they're not "high art" in the same way that TDK is not "high art".

As for the fanboys - genre pictures that reach for more than just mind-numbing explosions will always have them and they'll always try to put The Matrix, LOTR, Batman, etc. alongside Taxi Driver and All That Heaven Allows while ignoring the glaring differences in what the films are attempting to achieve. It goes with the territory.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Christopher Nolan

#53 Post by swo17 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:17 pm

captveg wrote:If nothing else, Nolan didn't dumb down the product to serve a generic Hollywood producer's idea of mass entertainment.
Sorry, but not even just a little? These films aren't about great thinkers outsmarting each other. They're about the bad guys doing something awesome and then the good guys winning by doing something even awesomer. Narrative conflicts are frequently resolved by Batman just happening to show up at exactly the right place at exactly the right time. The big moral victory in Rises happens when Bruce Wayne finally wills himself to jump really far. I mean, films like this serve a purpose, and there are certainly ones that are more dumbed down, but still, this is checkers, not chess.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#54 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:23 pm

Simple doesn't always mean stupid.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#55 Post by knives » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:26 pm

Isn't this whole distinction between 'high art' and 'low art' rather silly since it limits critical appraisal so much which is the opposite of what should be done. A lot of the best film criticism has been gone towards films supposedly in the low reaches (and I'd argue that the examples used here aren't any different from Nolan in any meaningful way with this supposed dichotomy) so why should Nolan's films being on the surface genre exercises be reason for them not to be great cinema?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Christopher Nolan

#56 Post by swo17 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:59 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Simple doesn't always mean stupid.
Simple movies aren't three hours long.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#57 Post by knives » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:01 pm

Why can't they be? A lot of Operas for instance are very simple on a narrative level and are certainly over three hours in length.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#58 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:03 pm

It's a kind of self-appointed moral superiority I can't stand. The most obvious examples I can think of are more in music criticism, the backlash against bands like Led Zeppelin and Sabbath by the rock critical establishment, Miles Davis being accused of selling out with Bitches Brew (which I can't even begin to wrap my head around), and Dylan being crucified by the folk elite for going electric.

Yes, the Batman films do have those moments of awesome evil being triumphed by even more awesome good as you say swo. But the films (especially Rises) go to some lengths to show you the mental and physical toll it takes on Bruce Wayne. He isn't the kind of action star of the 80's and 90's who would blow away bad guy after bad guy and get on with the plot like nothing happened.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Christopher Nolan

#59 Post by swo17 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:21 pm

knives wrote:Why can't they be? A lot of Operas for instance are very simple on a narrative level and are certainly over three hours in length.
Well of course, but the point I was more trying to make was that you never hear anyone say "You know what I love about the Nolan Batman movies? Their simplicity."

I don't consider myself morally superior to these films. I just consider too many of their plot developments to be cheats, and consequently I find the stories to be somewhat dull. The only aspect I've really liked about the films has been the performances of the villains.

Also, why does Bruce Wayne still use the Batman voice when he's dressed as Batman but speaking to someone who knows full well that he's Bruce Wayne, or even worse, when he's all alone, talking to himself?

Oh sorry,
SpoilerShow
Bruce Wayne = Batman

User avatar
SpiderBaby
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:34 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#60 Post by SpiderBaby » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:33 pm

swo17 wrote:The only aspect I've really liked about the films has been the performances of the villains.
Only reason I'm interested in any Batman movie really.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Christopher Nolan

#61 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:53 pm

I have to admit, swo, I can't tell whether or not you think the films are simple. Your first post heavily implies that they are, but subsequent ones seem to be saying the opposite. I'm sort of confused.

My own view: I don't think the Batman movies are particularly dumbed down. They're not reaching for the same philosophical heights as others, but this is not the same as reducing their content for a mass audience in some obvious and pandering way. The films are actually more willing to use moral or thematic complexities and ambiguities than blockbuster action films generally are, and don't always feel the need to give those issues a simplistic resolution (tho' they do go in for this, too--just not exclusively). I would not say they are dumbed down. Dumber than a lot of movies, sure, but then smarter than a lot, too. Probably smarter and more complex than most entries in their genre.

They are nowhere near as complex or interesting as Nolan's best films (The Prestige, Memento, Inception), but they are far from pandering to their target audience, either. And they easily could have.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Christopher Nolan

#62 Post by swo17 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:32 pm

I suppose I shouldn't have said that they're dumbed down (which would imply that Nolan is backing off from his vision to make the end product more palatable to the lowest common denominator), but rather that they haven't been particularly smartened up. I agree that his more personal films are more satisfying in this regard. I think the Batman films are ambitious in terms of setting up numerous characters--some with dubious intentions--that could potentially interact with each other in really interesting ways. But more often than not they just end up being people that were around when something awesome happened.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Christopher Nolan

#63 Post by Black Hat » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:23 am

mfunk9786 wrote:the inner male teenage cinema goer's lord and savior isn't making them anymore, we can be free.
fixed

These are also the same people who will use imdb/rottentomatoes scores to tell you Saving Private Ryan is better than The Thin Red Line.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Christopher Nolan

#64 Post by Brian C » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:44 am

I wonder if it's really necessary to conflate Nolan's films with the overzealousness of his fans? I mean, it's not like you have to consider the latter when thinking about and evaluating the former. If you think his loudest fans are morons, fine, ignore them. It's not hard.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#65 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:18 am

Plus, it's fans of the franchise specifically. I can't imagine we'll see that same kind of overzealous attitude from them in his future projects.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Christopher Nolan

#66 Post by Murdoch » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:55 am

Yeah, I think the fervency of his fanbase is largely because, at the moment, it's composed of comic books diehards, and they can be stubborn as mules in their opinions. Still, while many of those foaming at the mouth over Nolan became interested in him because of the franchise, now that he's attracted so many followers they won't ditch him simply because he's moving on from Batty.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#67 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:58 am

That'll work in his favor for now. I hope that he can stray away from that territory now that the trilogy is complete, and stick to what is closest to his own sensibilities. If that means these hangers-on stick around, I'm fine with that. Do what me and Brian do, ignore them. It's not like they're the Westboro Baptist Church.

I'm really looking forward to Interstellar, though honestly I was looking forward to it more as a Spielberg film. But I'll keep my mind open to the possibilities of what sounds like a more straight-up science fiction film than something like The Prestige or Inception.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#68 Post by zedz » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:18 pm

swo17 wrote:I suppose I shouldn't have said that they're dumbed down (which would imply that Nolan is backing off from his vision to make the end product more palatable to the lowest common denominator), but rather that they haven't been particularly smartened up. I agree that his more personal films are more satisfying in this regard. I think the Batman films are ambitious in terms of setting up numerous characters--some with dubious intentions--that could potentially interact with each other in really interesting ways. But more often than not they just end up being people that were around when something awesome happened.
I seem to be very much with swo on this. The films seem to be more 'dumbed up' than dumbed down. By that, I mean pretentiously inflated without the intellectual substance to back it up, which makes for lots of modish feints at 'issues' but no real insight into or development of them. In the end, everything is still resolved in superhero terms (bang bang bang), but only after we've had to sit through a lot of disingenuous hand-wringing.

I didn't see the first film, and the second one was ordinary though not unenjoyable, but, yikes, that last one was a complete disaster. The film was so overstuffed that it seemed like it had undergone an existential crisis in Avid. I could imagine an initial cut clocking in at six hours, then being slashed to five, then finally everybody throwing up their hands in despair and saying, "okay, let's cut out everything except the exposition" - and that's the film that got released.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#69 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:09 am


criterion10

Re: Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014)

#70 Post by criterion10 » Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:47 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The runtime is 11 minutes shy of 3 hours.
Or, as I like to think of it, 169 minutes of exposition given through dialogue.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014)

#71 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:09 pm

Yeah, take that, movie nobody's seen yet

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014)

#72 Post by warren oates » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:46 pm

criterion10 wrote:
flyonthewall2983 wrote:The runtime is 11 minutes shy of 3 hours.
Or, as I like to think of it, 169 minutes of exposition given through dialogue.
Well, if you're really going to trot out the same boring standard knock against Nolan's films, acknowledging their dependence on verbal exposition while ignoring how he embraces it knowingly in an almost formalist manner, you might as well reckon with the best rebuttals to this I've yet seen, from David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson. Here's Bordwell going a little further against the grain arguing that sometimes telling can be just as exciting as showing and talk can rise to the level of action.

But it's not just Nolan who does this consciously or well. Some of my favorite films are talky thrillers where the talk doesn't stand in for or set up the action but becomes it: Primer, House of Games, All The President's Men, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy.

I guess I find it a little weird that some of the same folks who'd rush to defend the "talking cinema" excellence of low budget art films by the likes of Rohmer and Hong Sang-soo somehow feel like this mode of storytelling ought to be off limits to more expensive genre films.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014)

#73 Post by swo17 » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:04 pm

Yet another post defending Christopher Nolan using only words.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014)

#74 Post by domino harvey » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:28 pm

This board hates Nolan and loves Michael Mann so I don't know why anyone takes any of us seriously about anything

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014)

#75 Post by warren oates » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:36 pm

Wait, what? I thought there was a sizeable cohort here of fans of both directors? Anyway, add Mann's The Insider to my list of excellent talky thrillers.

Post Reply