Sedai, Pyro Tramp and all the others who doubted Christopher Nolan

Well, I don't really agree with the idea that Nolan hasn't "progressed" to begin with, but assuming that's true anyway, in response to your last question, I say: why? Wes Anderson was mentioned earlier, and I think he's a pretty great example of a guy who has a very consistent style, but still makes very good films.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "progressing," for one. To me, it doesn't necessarily mean doing something dramatically different than you've done before. I don't think that can or should be a prerequisite for art, for a whole bunch of reasons, both personal and logistical.

Thank God for that. However, what makes you think I'm not a fool...

Don't answer that.

@ Yoda Stop-Motion animation is certainly challenging ones self!

__________________

I have the same problems with Wes Anderson actually.

It doesn't strictly mean consistent re-invention, but should certainly include it to a degree. Since he writes (or helps write) his own films, why has he not figured out how to solve his "personal" dilemma of crimes in his films? Sure have three or so films about it to figure it out for yourself, but every single one of his films is about crime, and only one or two really say anything about the theme. It's like he's a depressed kid who tries to be catatonic, he just doesn't want to explore anything else, or hasn't hinted at it. It doesn't help that his filmmaking, that being production, has progressed at a snail's pace, but that also ties in with the limited theme, how many ways can he shoot the same thing? It's just disconcerting to me that he's got all this potential, go-aheads, what have you, and just sits on it like isn't there.

Re: Anderson. Then it sounds like we have a pretty fundamental gap here. I mean, do you dislike that Scorsese keeps doing films about crime, and the mob in particular? Is Goodfellas the "same thing" as Casino, which is the same thing as The Departed?

I'm a bit confused about the notion of progress here. You seem to be saying that Nolan makes films involving crime because he has some kind of personal issue with crime and therefore is working out the kinks in his own psyche, but maybe it just fascinates him. Does he need to have a film where he "finishes" examining crime? Does it suck that Spielberg will probably always make films about father issues? Is it even plausible to expect filmmakers to change the things that interest and compel them on the deepest levels?

Look man, not being funny, but what you are saying is completely inaccurate. How can you sit there on your laptop/pc or whatever and say he hasn't 'done anything new'? What am I supposed to say to such things? 'Oh gee winters and bouncy, you guys are right, lets completely disregard the period drama that is The Prestige or the high concept originality of Inception because they are no different to Following. Get real, dude.

I think it was Sedai who said it best in my Top 100 List - what you regard as 'flaws' I see as an important instrument in building the foundation of a great film. I get that you don't like Nolan, but I think any sane person who has actually seen a few of his films would completely disagree. Crime is used as part of a plot.
SoNolan's films have a crime element to them. So what?


How does that not make his films different when he at least branches out into different genres and consistently creates new and unique concepts around his characters?

It boils down to what we do and do not like, end of.

About Scorsese, have you seen the trailer for Hugo? Have you watched Shine a Light or The Last Waltz? Have you watched After Hours or Kundun or The Aviator? He does, occasionally, take steps outside of his normal tropes and sometimes he's really great when he does.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. I'm sure the fault is mine because it's very hard to describe, but I'll try one last time.

It is not about what period his films exist in. It's not about being a Batman film or being about dreams. It's not about how much Following isn't like Batman Begins. It's about the morose, dreary, melancholy universe that Nolan and his films occupy. All of his films, while technically proficient and (sometimes) well-told stories, are burdened with this over-powering sense of "bleh". I'm never smiling ear-to-ear with fun. I'm never quite on the edge of my seat. I'm never terrified or sad or sympathetic. I'm just watching fine filmmaking, not fine characters or expressions of emotions.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather watch a film that's not as well made that moves me emotionally, than watch Nolan weave another technical achievement.

Scorses says he's more concerned with emotional continuity when editing than visual continuity, which is why he often has continuity mistakes. I wish Nolan would take a page from that book.

Great, but that wasn't really the point: I asked if the instances in which he doesn't do that are bad, or disappointing, or can be considered all the same movie.

Saying that Christopher Nolan might be great at X type of movie would be a very different kind of statement than the ones that have been made here, which has been an indictment of sorts of his existing films. Seeing as how his existing films wouldn't suddenly seem better if he suddenly made, like, Stuart Little 3, the appropriate comparison is with Scorsese's most common subject matter. Are those films subject to the same type of criticism?

Yes and more or less yes. Different plot, sure, but at least in this instance Scorcese has a different palate, if there was one plus for him. I have the same problem with Scorcese's crime films in short. Another way of putting it is Scorcese is a different beast because he has done a lot of different types of stuff so I can give him more leeway when he reverts back to something samey.

Why not? Don't creators need to move away from something to get new perspectives on it in the first place? It's not that all his films have crime in them, it's that they all revolve around it and never seem to reach a different conclusion. If he did, say, a film based on some Grimm Fairy Tale, there would probably still be crime in it, but he would be forced to focus on something else, and the crime would become a shade in the paint instead of the blacks and whites. Spielberg doesn't make films about father issues, they're included here and there. Not at all, but it's all about what you do with your interests as I explained above.
It's a laptop, I'm glad we're clear on that. Also you're totally missing my point, as usual. Not telling you to hate Nolan, just recognize his flaws, that doesn't need to take away from what you like. Speak for yourself
Nope. It boils down to your standards of what an artist should do with his career. Opinions are such a scapegoat.

Also I would like to state that just because I have John Goodman as an avatar does not mean I'm screaming at anyone. Just sayin

OK, firstly the talk of art and needs to stop. These are financial products. If you want to make another financial product, you need to make one that sells well. This gives the money men confidence in you and allows you to make another. And so on and so forth. Even when those who make a 'big film' in order to make 'their' films (George Clooney, for instance) it's still more about telling 'their' stories than making art and it's still expected to be marketable. Commercial film isn't about art. That art is created is a by product of making money.

Secondly, why use Scorsese as a comparison? His career spans over 40 years and his 'best/classic years' coincided with an uncertain time in Hollywood, when the moguls decided to give these young, movie schooled directors the freedom to make their films. It was also a time when Hollywood's major product, their blockbusters, were made for adults and, until Jaws, were released at Christmas.

If, in 30 years, Nolan still hasn't made a film not set in someone's head or part of a superhero franchise or something, then by all means, peg him as someone who had potential but never pushed himself. That said, why should he? Woody Allen hasn't. I don't remember too many Bergman action movies. What about David Lean? He was just too British, wasn't he? Even in Doctor Zhivago he's casting English actors and actresses. And what was with all those movie adaptations, huh? Find an original script, ffs.

I call BS on this. If commercial film wasn't art, there'd be no use for critics. The production companies exist to make money, but there are artists at work within that system. No one could be as synical as you seem to be.

Because we were talking about directors who had or hadn't stagnated. I can compare Nolan to anyone I want. Because I feel like it, ok?

Meh. I got nothin. Apathy has taken over my life.

I'm not being cynical, I'm being realistic. If you think this is cynical, you ain't seen nothing yet! Yes, there are artists who work within that system and they work to be paid. If they weren't making any money, they'd be doing something else which paid the bills.

Also, there is no use for critics unless you pay attention to them. If you do that, then you pick and choose which critics you listen to/respect/take notice of. For me, there is no point to them as I don't read/watch/listen to them.

I didn't say commercial film wasn't art, I said the art was a by product of making money, which it is. Everything altered or made by man is art. You can film an extreme close-up of a blank wall and it'll be art. Whether it's liked or not is entirely up to the viewer/audience. The arguement with art is whether it's good or bad. Not whether the artist is good or bad. As you said, your feelings about Nolan's films were just that, feelings. Your emotions. How they make you feel.

Again, I didn't tell you (or anyone else) not to, I merely infered that Scorsese was a poor choice. Were the comparison limited to his first 10 years or so, which is about as long as Nolan has been directing features, I think that'd be a better comparison.

Of course you haven't. There's nothing to say about it.

Nolan better hurry up and make something different or he might lose 2 or 3 people.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

I don't see them as flaws, sorry. Like I said before, crime is a recurring theme in which he uses to develop other themes around his film. It's all part of his authorship, which makes it personal and thus unique. I'm trying so hard not to be blinded by my bias but where is the flaw in that?

The only flaws I would say that stick out is his use of women in his films. There is a specific word for it that I can't think of right now but his female characters with the exception of Memento and Insomnia and Batman Begins.do seem to serve more as a plot device rather than fully fleshed out human beings. I would like to see a Nolan film with a central female protagonist some day as I think it would be interesting to see how he addresses feminisim in contemporary cinema.

Other than that, I really can't think of anything else. Planet news' post on how his films are 'poorly edited' is obviously a joke, so I am not even going to entertain that. But yeah, Nolan seems to rock my world more than some people, I suppose :/

What about what I said?

Surely I can't be the only person who thinks watching his films is like shopping in a Hot Topic store, right? He's like emo-man on steroids.

Who, Nolan? Hot Topic? What?

No it wasn't. This is why I literally don't care about anything you say.

Devil's advocate: he makes a lot of jokes that are not readily obvious as jokes.

In regards to that last sentence: I think there is where there's an important shift in the discussion that I'm not sure everyone has noticed. Originally the discussion was an indictment of Nolan's existing films because of their alleged "sameness." I find this sameness to be on a fairly superficial level, but regardless, it was a commentary on the films themselves. What you're talking about is the director himself, which is not a meaningless distinction.

Put another way: you may give Scorsese leeway as a director because you know he's tried other things, but that obviously can't make the individual films better for you. And this is important because if people had begun by saying Nolan should branch out because they want to see what he can do with different types of films, that would be a fundamentally positive statement, and it would be dramatically different than criticizing his films for being too similar.


I guess it depends on what you mean by "move away." I think Scorsese does crime/mob films well, and so I'm glad he's done several, and I'm skeptical that his forays into other types of films have necessarily improved his later work. You tell me: is The Departed better than Goodfellas for having come after he'd also made The Aviator?

I think directors have styles and strengths and while I like them to try other things, I don't think there's anything at all negative about playing to those strengths. Even if I did, such an opinion would lead me to have a lot of problems with a lot of directors, because most of them clearly have a specialty they routinely employ or a topic they continually come back to. I feel like that kind of focus is probably a natural byproduct of the passion that produces most great directors to begin with.

But even on a factual level, is it really true that his films always revolve around crime? Inception doesn't really, if you ask me. It does exactly what you're saying: tell a story where crime is a component, but not really the point. It's about the awesome power of ideas and their consequences. Crime is merely the mechanism from which it's examined. The Dark Knight has lots of crime in it, but it's more about what civilization actually means, the relationship between democracy and consequences, and about how complicated true heroism can be. Memento is about memory, obviously, and how it's both unreliable and an indelible part of who we are.

I'm just not seeing the crime-centric picture you guys are painting. I feel like he's already using crime the way you suggest: as a backdrop to explore something else.

I don't really want to get too far into this discussion because it's all over the place right now, but I will say that while watching Inception the last time, I commented out loud to my friends and family that I thought that Nolan would be [even] better if he lightened up. I do tend to see his films as overly serious with little room for the characters and audience to breathe. For the record, I've liked basically all of his films, but I would also like to see if he takes himself a bit less seriously if it wouldn't give him a little "kick" in a different direction. Therefore, I must be agreeing with somebody (everybody?) in here.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page