Christopher Nolan Forum

Tom Elrod, a graduate student in English Literature at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, wrote an interesting critique of Christopher Nolan's films and career today for Slant Magazine.    Here is an excerpt: 

I want to stop and look at Nolan for what he is. I acknowledge that he is flawed. I would not place him in the pantheon of currently working directors. But he is not a hack. His films are careful and deliberate. In fact, their very "deliberateness" is the key aesthetic quality which defines him, and which makes him popular. He is a filmmaker for people who love plots.

Let's not forget that Nolan is a major commercial filmmaker. He may have gotten his start with a low-budget 16mm independent film, but he is not Richard Linklater. That is, he is not a man working in Hollywood who retains an independent-minded aesthetic, who wants to use his films to explore the human condition. Nolan wants to entertain. Any ideas which pop up throughout his films are secondary.

With that in mind, I'm going to survey Nolan's films, looking at what works in each of them and what they have in common. I think by both taking Nolan seriously and putting him in perspective we can see what is good about his movies, what we can take away from them, and why, perhaps, they inspire so much passion.

    
The whole article, which I think is fairly accurate and interesting, can be read here:  http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/08/christopher-nolan-what-are-we-watching-exactly/

A good, insightful article, but I felt like he was trying way too hard to play Devil's Advocate throughout the whole thing.

Interesting

Can't say I agree with what he was saying although it was well written. When it comes down to it though movies are entertainment, if your movie isn't entertaining people aren't going to watch it. Nolan in my mind makes highly entertaining films that are still intelligent, and are the same time bring in large crowds. Even people like Tarintino who have a a distinct style, and may be called an auteur make movies that they hope as many people as possible will see. Any director that says they wouldn't love their film to be immensely popular is fairly pretentious in my book.

@ox: Good points all. 

I must say I start to appreciate Nolan. Especially after Memento, Insomnia and the Dark Knight. His movies are usually dark and I must say I like that climat.

I'm really not sure how I feel about Nolan. The Prestige, Memento and Insomnia are by far his best, but he seems to believe he's an action director with projects like The Dark Knight and Inception, both of which have some of the worst action scenes in big budget cinema and the rest often feels overdirected and lifeless, kind of like Kubrick's films.

@HandsomeDead:
It's nice to know someone else finds Kubricks films lifeless but I don't think Inception is poor action director in the slightest.

@ox said:

" Can't say I agree with what he was saying although it was well written. When it comes down to it though movies are entertainment, if your movie isn't entertaining people aren't going to watch it. Nolan in my mind makes highly entertaining films that are still intelligent, and are the same time bring in large crowds. Even people like Tarintino who have a a distinct style, and may be called an auteur make movies that they hope as many people as possible will see. Any director that says they wouldn't love their film to be immensely popular is fairly pretentious in my book. "

And I feel this especially makes Nolan a more powerful director than some of the people held up as "best directors ever" because he can bring in the crowds but also put down ideas that make the audience think, and make them walk out going "why do I feel like I just used brainpower? I just wanted Batman to punch things." He spreads his message and actually does a pretty good job with plot and the human condition, and he makes a lot of movies that only work as movies. Maybe they Inception could work as a graphic novel, but that's cheating since it's essentially a collection of stills and words (andobviously Batman could be a comic). 
 
@HandsomeDead said:

" I'm really not sure how I feel about Nolan. The Prestige, Memento and Insomnia are by far his best, but he seems to believe he's an action director with projects like The Dark Knight and Inception, both of which have some of the worst action scenes in big budget cinema and the rest often feels overdirected and lifeless, kind of like Kubrick's films. "

i don't (nor do many people) consider Inception an action movie. I actually found the fights in The Dark Knight (and Batman Begins) to be pretty good, but I can see people having issues because they're over so fast. I feel like it makes sense, though, since one punch to the face from an armored bat-fist would floor a lot of people. And overdirected, I definitely don't see that (and especially compared to Kubrick)

what's with all these old threads getting bumbed for no reason...?

@Romination said:

"@HandsomeDead said:

" I'm really not sure how I feel about Nolan. The Prestige, Memento and Insomnia are by far his best, but he seems to believe he's an action director with projects like The Dark Knight and Inception, both of which have some of the worst action scenes in big budget cinema and the rest often feels overdirected and lifeless, kind of like Kubrick's films. "

i don't (nor do many people) consider Inception an action movie. I actually found the fights in The Dark Knight (and Batman Begins) to be pretty good, but I can see people having issues because they're over so fast. I feel like it makes sense, though, since one punch to the face from an armored bat-fist would floor a lot of people. And overdirected, I definitely don't see that (and especially compared to Kubrick) "

The final half of the film is pretty much loaded with action sequences and the first still has the Mombasa chase, if you don't see it as being an action film, what do you see it as? Cobb is the only actual character of the main group so to label is more as a drama would be bizarre. The scenes in TDK were better than BB, and Inception is better than both, but it's still amateurish and dull. The gunfights in Inception, especially when they're in the rainy street is just shot reverse shot applied to weaponry.

@HandsomeDead: Well, action is definitely not it. I know "thriller" is a bit of cop-out broad term, but... I really don't know what I'd describe it as. It's more akin to something like The Man Who Knew Too Much than James Bond, though.

@Romination: But even then, it is far behind the best of the genre. Hitchcock has him beat at every turn besides effects. And, contemporarily, it's still not on par with something from the Coens of pre-Miami Vice Michael Mann.

@HandsomeDead: I'm still a bit at a loss as to what genre I'd say he tends to represent though. I feel he (and the directors you named) focus more on honing specific types of stories, except maybe Michael Mann; he's known for crime movies, but that's just because Heat was so good. And the type of story Nolan tends to go for are ones dealing with obsession and mental conditions, though more the former. I don't think he keeps a genre for it, though.

@HandsomeDead: "Worst action scenes in big budget cinema"? Maybe you look for something different from an "action scene" but I don't see many people calling the flipping of a tractor trailer in The Dark Knight or the hallway fight scene in Inception "bad", let alone "the worst". 
 
I think with Nolan's "action", he tends towards something visually captivating and interesting. 
 
I'm curious what your definition of "good" action and why you think Nolan's style of action is "the worst".

@JokerSmilez: What you've described are two of his set pieces, which he does pretty well. The truck flip in the Batman chase gives the audience time to breath and the hallway scene is also very good, my highlight of Inception but I feel like part of he reason why that is good is because of the way it's filmed, he couldn't cut and edit like he usually does and so you get that scene much like a Jackie Chan scene where the camera stops and you get to just enjoy what's on screen. 
 
But for the more standard stuff, he nearly always makes those scenes boring. The hand to hand scenes in both Batman films are too dark, too close, cut too quick and have no focus, even if that's an intent to make Batman look lethal, it makes Nolan look sloppy and his shootouts, especially the ones in Inception are completely lifeless. Like I say, it's shot reverse shot applied to weaponry; someone shoots, cut to guy getting shot, guy getting shot shoots back, cut to original guy taking another shot. Considering the money and pre-production that going into his movies, the action parts may as well be from Mamet films.

Nolan's films make me "think" in the same way I might think about a puzzle. Once I've satisfactorily understood it/solved it, I smile and put the puzzle away. I enjoyed it, absolutely I enjoyed it. And it made me think, yes.
But I would agree... the core "ideas" on display aren't things that bring me back. It doesn't change my perspective or anything particularly impactful. It was just a very enjoyable puzzle.

@HandsomeDead:  
Ok, with that explanation, I totally agree. 
 
The set piece stuff he does is top notch but the more basic action stuff is...weird. There's always something kind of off about it. The ending of Inception, the snow stuff, was definitely the weakest part of the film.