Christopher Nolan vs David Fincher

Tools    





Ok folks

Right now, these are two highly regarded directors who both have their own fan bases and have somewhat had a similar career path.
Both started out pretty young, (Nolan still is quite young) and both have had at least two films that has made it into Total Film's top '100 Greatest Films of all time list'.

However, like with most directors, there are certain differences in each of these artists that distinguishes them from each other, and perhaps, makes one much more superior..

Now, most of you know that I am already going say that Christopher Nolan is in a league of his own right now...and what's more incredible is he hasn't even reached his peak yet. Unlike Fincher, Nolan is still young, hungry and active when it comes to filmmaking. Also, it helps that he is consistent and hasn't become complacent when it comes to the types of films he makes.

Now don't get me wrong, I respect Fincher as well but he is way too concerned with the technical aspects of filmmaking for my liking, often to the point where it might interfere and possibly take away from the narrative of the film he makes, which to me suggests that he doesn't really care that much about his spectators unlike the extroadanairy Nolan who's films often involve audience participation.

Perhaps, the biggest difference has to be the fact that Nolan is an auteur whilst Fincher is simply a film director. Why do I say this? Well, for one, Nolan actually conjures up concepts and WRITES his own screenplays. Lets be honest...some of the best auteurs are actually the ones who write their own stuff.

Anyways, I hope this top will stir up some tasty debate, so lets commence, eh?



A system of cells interlinked
Writing a screenplay makes Nolan an Auteur? I am not following that line of reasoning. Also, Fincher is, and has always been known as, an auteur. You will find thousands of references to his auteurship all over the place. That said, I think Nolan is good, but not great. Memento was good first time through, but reveals itself as a gimmick film on subsequent viewings, and is pretty shoddy when looked at in chronological order. I know, the structure makes the difference in this movie, but that just illustrates how it is indeed, a gimmick film. Yeah, thinking about each directors films, signature stylings abound in the Fincer pieces, while I can't think of anything, style-wise, that screams "Nolan made this."

As for the best Auteurs writing their own stuff, I have to disagree there, as well. Kubrick, IMO, is one of the greatest Auteurs ever, and he did almost exclusively adaptations.

I loved Batman Begins. Nolan really hit the ground running on this one. The Prestige was also really well done, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. It's certainly clever, but at no point was I swept away into the magic. This film forces you to observe it from a distance, in a rather clinical fashion, and that diminishes it, for me. I liked The Illusionist more, as I was swept away by its mood and deft misdirection.

I guess I like Fincher a bit more, but, don't get me wrong, I like Nolan quite a bit, too. I just wouldn't put either of these guys on a level with someone like Hitch, Kubrick, or Scorsese.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Anyways, I hope this topic will stir up some tasty debate, so lets commence, eh?
Well, I’ll admit up front that I can’t make any contribution to an intelligent discussion of the contrast in the two directors’ styles, but I expect some of my comments will spark some heated debate.

First of all, I haven’t seen much of either man’s work. I saw part of Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins: I think it must have been showing on an HBO channel at a hotel on an out-of-town trip--I remember watching some of it but having to leave before it finished. My general impression was that it was interesting, but aside from Michael Caine’s role, nothing pops up on my memory screen like Nicholson’s role as The Joker in Batman. I did see The Illusionist through on a DVD rental. Thought it was well photographed, and indeed I believe it won the academy award in that category. I do remember that the story’s mysteries hung together quite well, with no major holes in the plot—and that’s important to me.

On the other hand, I had major problems with the plot of David Fincher’s Se7en. It’s the same problem I had with the plot of Hitchcock’s classic Vertigo—too much of the plot depends on pure happenstance, which is a killer of any true mystery. I’ve seen parts of Alien³ on TV, but by then the monster was too familiar to be scarey and nothing set the storyline apart from other movies in that series. Other than those two films, I’m unfamiliar with Fincher’s work, although the fact that he’s directed a lot of music videos does nothing to enhance his reputation with me.

To be fair, it’s probably a generational thing. Fincher was born in August 1962; Nolan at the end of July 1970. It’s hard for me to accept that either is old enough to have an opinion, much less a directorial point of view, when I have records—not cassettes or CDs, records—older than they are!



Rufnek, your contribution is always appreciated, mate.

As for Sedai, hmm...very interesting points you made. I've countered the 'Memento doesn't hold up well with repeat viewings and is a gimmick film' scenario several times in my introduction posts. I think the film is a masterpiece and anybody who gives it anything less than 5 star is underrating it.

Like I said before in my intro, Nolan's Memento is one of TWO five star films ever in the history of the film industry. A little extreme to most people, yes; however, it's relevant if you're trying to capture the importance of a film.

I recommend watching all of Nolan's films again if you wanna see his stylistic devices that 'scream out Nolan'. He is the ultimate auteur, and to be honest Sedai, for somebody to be considered a TRUE auteur, they'd have had to written a few of their screenplays.

Kubrick set the standards back in the day, but like you pointed out, he never wrote his own scripts. I'm not saying that doesn't make him an important director for our generation. However, I do feel that those who write their own narratives are more deserving of recognition.

It's fair enough you consider Fincher an auteur, mate, but I have to disagree HIGHLY when you say you preferred The Illusionist over The Prestige. I know it's your opinion and that's cool, but I still feel a bit confused when you say that you were more swept away by The Illusionist's mood and misdirection than The Prestige's, in which both of those (particularly misdirection) was used to maximum effect. I can't ever fathom how anybody can prefer The Illusionist to The Prestige, but then, that's just me.

Anyways, what is it about Batman Begins that really made you appreciate it, Sedai? I'm interested in that one because in my opinion, that's Nolan's weakest link.
Writing a screenplay makes Nolan an Auteur? I am not following that line of reasoning. Also, Fincher is, and has always been known as, an auteur. You will find thousands of references to his auteurship all over the place. That said, I think Nolan is good, but not great. Memento was good first time through, but reveals itself as a gimmick film on subsequent viewings, and is pretty shoddy when looked at in chronological order. I know, the structure makes the difference in this movie, but that just illustrates how it is indeed, a gimmick film. Yeah, thinking about each directors films, signature stylings abound in the Fincer pieces, while I can't think of anything, style-wise, that screams "Nolan made this."

As for the best Auteurs writing their own stuff, I have to disagree there, as well. Kubrick, IMO, is one of the greatest Auteurs ever, and he did almost exclusively adaptations.

I loved Batman Begins. Nolan really hit the ground running on this one. The Prestige was also really well done, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. It's certainly clever, but at no point was I swept away into the magic. This film forces you to observe it from a distance, in a rather clinical fashion, and that diminishes it, for me. I liked The Illusionist more, as I was swept away by its mood and deft misdirection.

I guess I like Fincher a bit more, but, don't get me wrong, I like Nolan quite a bit, too. I just wouldn't put either of these guys on a level with someone like Hitch, Kubrick, or Scorsese.



A system of cells interlinked
The point about The Joker. That was a memorable performance, to be sure, but at this point in time, I feel that it is one of the major flaws of 1989's Batman. Batman, isn't really about Batman, all that much. The film should be called The Joker. The Joker dominates every scene he is in, and he chews scenery like it is his film. The film also hasn't aged well, at all, and the banter between Knox and Vale is tiresome at this point. Add the fact that the production design, which seemed cool at the time, looks pretty bad now, and it becomes clear to me that Batman Begins is the definitive Batman film, to me. At least, Begins is how I like Batman defined.

The Illusionist was directed by Neil Burger, and I had just put it up as a comparison to The Prestige, in the magician vein.



The Prestige (the user, not the film):

Re: Misdirection. The Prestige was clever, but they did reveal everything to the viewer for the most part. Plenty of red herrings are present, too, and I was fooled, for a while, but in retrospect, the misdirection they did pull off seemed like a cheap gag, rather than the elegant magic of the twist in The Illusionist. I remember preparing to leave the theater at the end of The Illusionist before the twist was revealed, and thinking to myself that I had really liked the film. Then the twist occurred, and just made the film better. The film didn't need the twist to be good...or to tell its story.

The Prestige relied on multiple twists to confuse the viewer, and to take the focus off the weak and overlong middle act, in which Nolan constructs a convoluted and complex web of events and concepts that reach for greatness, but never actually grasp it. Also, any film that has a re-telling of events, clearly meant for the audience, rather than its characters, near the end of the film, obviously has narrative issues, and I think Nolan knew this, hence the re-telling. The illusionist didn't downplay to its audience, and that director gave us the benefit of the doubt, thinking we as an audience may be able to figure some stuff out on our own.

And... I had to roll my eyes at the whole Tesla-Machine part, that blew my suspension of disbelief out of the water, and was just the wrong way for this film to go. Downright silly, and below the rest of the film, IMO. The film does a lot right, and in places, is just stellar. Caine is great, as are the dual leads. Scarlett is under-used, and her character is merely a plot device.

Again I say, The Prestige felt very studied, mechanical, and clinical, while The Illusionist was warm, mysterious and elegant.

As for the whole five-star film thing, I will say this. No film with Carrie-Ann Moss in it can ever be five stars, ever. She is TERRIBLE. I commented on this before. I doubt I will ever see eye to eye with someone that considers a gimmick film like Memento better than films like Lawrence of Arabia, Chinatown, or In the Mood for Love.

Then again, you DID want heated debate...



NOT ACTUALLY BANNED
Batman Begins is good, but The Prestige, Memento and Insomnia all have little to no replay value. There fun to watch at first, but the second time, the shtick wears off and you see the holes in the movie.

The Game, Fight Club, Se7en, Panic Room and Zodiac all get better with each viewing. You pick up little things and appreciate it more the more you watch it.

That's the main reason I go for Fincher over Nolan. Nolan is good, but I think Fincher is the best there is.



In Heaven Everything Is Fine
Christopher Nolan is falling into a bit of a trap by doing all these movies that rely on fooling the audience with trick photography and broken timelines. Kind of reminds me how Shyamalan fell into being "the" guy who made great endings, and now look, he's stuck with it. That being said, I really enjoyed Nolan's movies the first time around, but with each subsequent viewing I like them less and less. He's a talented director, no doubt, and I'm sure he'll get better as time marches on, but as it stands David Fincher is the most impressive young director working in Hollywood today.

And so long as Fincher continues to put out gems like Se7en and Zodiac, I don't see any reason why we should even be comparing him to Nolan.
__________________
"No form of art goes beyond ordinary consciousness as film does, straight to our emotions, deep into the twilight room of the soul." ~ Ingmar Bergman



First, why are we comparing David Fincher with Christopher Nolan. Nolan is far from Fincher's level. To be honest, in my opinion, I think Nolan has little to no style. Yes, Nolan's films are not your run of the mill flicks, yet like BobbyB said; they have little replay value.

Fincher on the other hand, he's defined his style and his movies are extremely engrossing. I don't even know why I'm explaining this because like dog.don.gun said; I don't see any reason why we should even be comparing him to Nolan.
__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2



The point about The Joker. That was a memorable performance, to be sure, but at this point in time, I feel that it is one of the major flaws of 1989's Batman. Batman, isn't really about Batman, all that much. The film should be called The Joker. The Joker dominates every scene he is in, and he chews scenery like it is his film. The film also hasn't aged well, at all, and the banter between Knox and Vale is tiresome at this point. Add the fact that the production design, which seemed cool at the time, looks pretty bad now, and it becomes clear to me that Batman Begins is the definitive Batman film, to me. At least, Begins is how I like Batman defined.

The Illusionist was directed by Neil Burger, and I had just put it up as a comparison to The Prestige, in the magician vein.



The Prestige (the user, not the film):

Re: Misdirection. The Prestige was clever, but they did reveal everything to the viewer for the most part. Plenty of red herrings are present, too, and I was fooled, for a while, but in retrospect, the misdirection they did pull off seemed like a cheap gag, rather than the elegant magic of the twist in The Illusionist. I remember preparing to leave the theater at the end of The Illusionist before the twist was revealed, and thinking to myself that I had really liked the film. Then the twist occurred, and just made the film better. The film didn't need the twist to be good...or to tell its story.

The Prestige relied on multiple twists to confuse the viewer, and to take the focus off the weak and overlong middle act, in which Nolan constructs a convoluted and complex web of events and concepts that reach for greatness, but never actually grasp it. Also, any film that has a re-telling of events, clearly meant for the audience, rather than its characters, near the end of the film, obviously has narrative issues, and I think Nolan knew this, hence the re-telling. The illusionist didn't downplay to its audience, and that director gave us the benefit of the doubt, thinking we as an audience may be able to figure some stuff out on our own.

And... I had to roll my eyes at the whole Tesla-Machine part, that blew my suspension of disbelief out of the water, and was just the wrong way for this film to go. Downright silly, and below the rest of the film, IMO. The film does a lot right, and in places, is just stellar. Caine is great, as are the dual leads. Scarlett is under-used, and her character is merely a plot device.

Again I say, The Prestige felt very studied, mechanical, and clinical, while The Illusionist was warm, mysterious and elegant.

As for the whole five-star film thing, I will say this. No film with Carrie-Ann Moss in it can ever be five stars, ever. She is TERRIBLE. I commented on this before. I doubt I will ever see eye to eye with someone that considers a gimmick film like Memento better than films like Lawrence of Arabia, Chinatown, or In the Mood for Love.

Then again, you DID want heated debate...

Whoa, I have to say Sedai that you gave some great points there. I will even go as far as to say that some of them do seem fairly arguable. Naturally, however, I completely disagree..but then I wanted a heated debate

First thing is first, I have to say that I completely agree with your comments about the first Batman movie where it was more of a Jack Nicholson showcase vehicle rather than an adaptation of a morbid superhero. You're absolutely right when you say that the film hasn't aged very well. I wouldn't even call it an ambitious interpretation of 'The Dark Knight'. I think a lot of people who defend Burton's Batman do so because it's one of the movies they grew up with and was the first (big screen) carnation of Batman. It's actually almost pantomine-like now.

Batman Begins is obviously much more ambitious and, at times, comes across as proper quality in terms of it's themes and character development. However, my response is Nolan felt pressured and forced to conform to typical superhero genre conventions. Don't get me wrong, I understand that's it's important to play fair with the spectator when it comes to genre conventions, but I do feel that Nolan could have been more daring with Begins like Ang Lee was with the excellent Hulk.

Secondly, in response to The Illusionist and The Prestige, my main beef with the film is that it suffers from inescapable comparisons with Nolan's take on magicians. I mean, it was released a few months after The Prestige. You can tell it wants to be bigger than Nolan's magic movie, but it fails. It comes across as political and pompous, rather than a film that tries to connect with the spectator.

I think you're being too harsh on Nolan when you say he doesn't trust his audience to get into the film, because he does quite the opposite to that. Nolan trusts us completely to 'get it' and by 'get it' I don't mean find the clues and all that to the twists, but to see the whole magic theme as a metaphor for the magic a film brings to a viewer. It's all obvious and he doesn't pretend that it ain't. See, that's the magic of Nolan...people think his films are often much more complicated than they actually are. His films are very simple. The MAIN twists wasn't supposed to confuse the viewer, but offer a different perspective on the characters and story. But then, those were the MAIN twists.

The only thing I agree with is that a COUPLE of the twists in Prestige do not seem to add much to the story as a whole but show off a little. However, these are minor quibbles and shouldn't really take too much away from the film. The 'big twist' in The Illusionist seemed forced and I more of a 'cheap gag' than the ones in The Prestige. Unlike The Prestige, it's a reverse sleight of hand in that you get a less than what you see, where's Nolan's rabbit pulls out of the hat left me pondering much more about the predicaments of the protagonists.

Oh, and do NOT be fooled by the casting of Scarlett Johansson. I was a bit perplexed at first too, but have come to realise it's all part of the one of the films theme: MISDIRECTION. She does serve the film because she is arguable the most famous person in the cast and therefore, adds intrigue to the spectator when we see her in stockings and stuff. She DISTRACTS the viewer during the production of the whole film as a magic act.



Sedai, completely agree with you on Prestige, had exact same feelings. It is a very average film, not seen Illusionist to compare though.

Prestige (user), you talk about auteur theory (let's not forget, it is a theory to apply to film making not a title like 'director' or 'actor') and i see where you're coming from about writing, but that just shows input, not necessarily a distinct creative style, writing allows the director to have more creative narrative control but as others mentioned, i feel the better autuers are ones of infused there own personal style on adapted work, example: Cronenberg and Kubrick. Nolan is FAR from the ultimate auteur, it's almost a ridiculous statement, his brother wrote Memento and The Prestige and Insomnia and Batman Begins are clearly taken from the obvious sources, he's hardly conjured any concepts. His work has little to compare in themes and style in fact i'd say your assessment of Fincher and Nolan is the wrong way round.

Personally, i wouldn't rate either directors has highly as people on these boards do. Sure, they've done a couple of great films but neither is really prolific enough to assess as auteurs imo. If i had to make choice, i think Fincher will stand the test of time. His films do have a more distinctive flavour, that follows through his work suggesting he is in fact more an auteur. Considering both directors work now in mainstream, there's clear studio input so their control is limited but from what i've read about Zodiac (not been released over here yet so not seen) Fincher's gone to pedantic detail thus leaving his own mark and style on the text. So for the his technical obsession he's more an autuer!

Hulk and Batman, from what i know aren't really comparable characters. I'd say Batman Begins is Nolan's best film, sure it used conventions but it far better than any others.

Hope all that makes sense, wasn't really a quick reply and i've been doing an essay till 5am this morning so jam crackered.
__________________




A system of cells interlinked
The Prestige - You mention that The Illusionist came out a few months after The Prestige, but, it didn't. The Illusionist came out first, on August 18th. I saw it on the 19th. The Prestige came out October 20th. As for The Illusionist being political, I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Here is a list of film release dates from last year...



Just to back up Sedai, even if they were released months apart (Illusionist came out when Prestige was already on DVD here, 6 month space between i think) they probably went into production the same time, makes sense not to release them together. If there was a year-ish gap then there'd be originality questions.



I am having a nervous breakdance
To be an auteur, the way I see it, means that you have a clear vision of what you want to express and possess the ability to realize that vision through the film. True auteurs are often said to be making the same film over and over, perfecting that vision. Truffaut, I think it was, also said that there are no bad films, only bad filmmakers.

Anyway, I would call neither Fincher nor Nolan an auteur judging by what I've seen so far. I haven't seen all their films though.
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



A system of cells interlinked
Just to back up Sedai, even if they were released months apart (Illusionist came out when Prestige was already on DVD here, 6 month space between i think) they probably went into production the same time, makes sense not to release them together. If there was a year-ish gap then there'd be originality questions.

Hmmm, I take it the films had a very different release schedule over there in the UK? The Illusionist hit first over here...



Pyro the fact is The Illusionist was released when The Prestige was still fresh in people's minds. Even if it wasn't deliberate, it came off as a poor attempt at cashing in on the renewed 'magic movie'.



Well, as someone able to critically look at film, i gather from your analysis of Prestige, this shouldn't really factor since you're aware it wasn't.



Well, as someone able to critically look at film, i gather from your analysis of Prestige, this shouldn't really factor since you're aware it wasn't.
You're right, i'm aware it wasn't, but what I was aware of and what came across are two different things, mate. It's the same thing with Deep Impact vs Armaggeddon, Saving Private Ryan vs The Thing Red Line, etc. Movies that come in pairs means that one of them will suffer. That said, even if I had seen The Illusionist before Nolan's magic I still one say that Prestige is much more better. It's one of those rare period pieces that feels original. It's hard to identify or care about the characters in The Illusionist whereas in The Prestige, you really find yourself critising, and ultimately identifying with the protagonists.



The People's Republic of Clogher
I can't think of anything, style-wise, that screams "Nolan made this."
That's hit the nail on the head. Hard.

In fact, I was saying the same thing to someone a while back...
__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan



A system of cells interlinked
Pyro the fact is The Illusionist was released when The Prestige was still fresh in people's minds. Even if it wasn't deliberate, it came off as a poor attempt at cashing in on the renewed 'magic movie'.
Not over here. As I said, The Prestige was released AFTER The Illusionist over here. So, to us, it seemed like The Prestige was the one cashing in, not The Illusionist. Meanwhile, the were both made at about the same time, so I would think neither of them actually cashed in on that concept.



Not over here. As I said, The Prestige was released AFTER The Illusionist over here. So, to us, it seemed like The Prestige was the one cashing in, not The Illusionist. Meanwhile, the were both made at about the same time, so I would think neither of them actually cashed in on that concept.
Ok fair enough, but it was the other way around in the UK, mate.

I'm gonna take time out here to respond to you and others who say that Christopher Nolan isn't auteristic enough to be considered an autueur. You guys say that you can't see anything within his films that says 'Nolan did this'. Well, I will give you guys some help then, won't I?

Wanna know a Christopher Nolan auteur trademark? How about the fact that 80% of his films (including his student shorts) have fractured narratives. His films feature convoluted narratives where his protagonist(s) often blur the line between good and evil, but ultimately, it is left for us, the spectator to choose. He also is able to produce certain sequences that have a expressionist visual style, (Memento, Insomnia and yes, even Batman Begins.

Most of his films will also introduce his protagonist or another character with an extreme close up of their hands doing something specific. Again, another trademark of an artist currently known as Christopher freakin' Nolan.

Shall I go on? Oh yes, you betcha I will. Nolan's protagonists usually suffer from something a specific handicap whether it's psychological or physical. For some classic examples, Leonard's Shelby's memory predicaments, Bruce Wayne's fear and Borden & Angier's obession.

But that's not it folks, oh no. Nolan often acknowledges that his protagonists handicaps are both a curse AND an advantage. For another extraodanairy example; SPOILERS AHEAD: Leonard Shelby is able to connect with his future self due to his short term memory problem, thus enabling him to manipulate himself into doing deeds he might not have done if he had a normal functional memory. Bruce Wayne uses his fear of bats as a symbol and ultimately his power.

Thank you guys for having played a part. Hope that explains everything.