Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (2017)

I'm not sure I even know what this means, so please elaborate.

If this were true, people wouldn't still be arguing about what the end of Inception means.

Even so, I have to question the premise: why is it a bad thing for a film to be understood? It's certainly bad if a film says something trite, or says what it wants to say inelegantly, but I don't know why ambiguity is inherently better than clarity.

*record scratch*



"You're probably wondering how I got into this situation..."

I know this is a pathetic response, but I'm not really in this to debate. I will say what I love about Nolan is that he tackles big ideas. I am a sucker for science fiction films that tackle big themes. Whether he does it in a way that's meaningful or not, I guess people think differently about that, but I feel he tries to and often succeeds. He certainly did with Interstellar, in my opinion. When I see a movie like that, a movie meant to be some sort of philosophical science fiction, and it leaves me pondering all that stuff the rest of the night, well, I consider that movie to be meaningful. Interstellar did that for me in spades. I know I'm being ambiguous about it, but I'm not a very specific thinker anyway.

It may be, but that says a lot about the rest, huh?

Seriously now, Interstellar is his most ambitious film, no doubt, and by many aspects, his better executed too. I remember it made a big impression on me, those action scenes were something incredible to watch, extremely well done with a very clever use of sound and CGI.

The problem with Interstellar, besides the crappy dialogue, is that's simply empty. It gives you nothing to think about after the film. It explains everything like if we were all a bunch of kids who had never saw a film in our lives. I heard people saying: "wow, Interstellar was too much complex for my mind, I didn't understand it."
How bad can the movie industry be if we praise Interstellar for its complexity? It's damn fun to watch, I'll give you that, but mind challenging? Nope...

Okay, well then we won't get far in a discussion...

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

I guess I'm just a pleb who gets intellectually challenged by mainstream garbage then.

Sorry dude. I openly admit to not being great at debate or discussion.

Dude, imagine being in World War II and seeing a giant IMAX camera! I'd be staring at it in shock too!

It's cool. After all you are allowed to state your opinions and you just said why you can't discuss further. But obviously it's not preferable in a discussion to state opinions without backing them up.

"Screw this film!"
"Why?"
"Can't remember, it's been too long..."

Okay now I'm just mocking you, don't take it personally.

*Fights back tears*

I agree with what Swan and Yoda are saying about Nolan being mainstream. To simply say because he has garnered a big audience that he is shallow is nonsense.

I think the disconnect with Nolan and the art house crowd is that he is dealing with big ideas in the physical realm, but his characters are pretty surface level. I think this is the opposite of art house directors that are loved. Bergman and Fellini make movies that are straight forward in plot but the characters within those plots are extremely complex and provide the thought provocation.

Nolan works the opposite way. I think he has simple characters inside plot heavy film. Thought provoking in a different way. Nolan isn't trying to be Bergman.

__________________
Letterboxd

Man, I totally agree with all this, and didn't really realize what you said in the second paragraph. I guess that's what separates neiba and I. Nolan is very unambiguous and blunt about the big ideas he is tackling, and for me, that is refreshing. And I don't see it as particularly more or less intellectual than an arthouse film. You know Bergman is my fave director, so I obviously love the more humanistic approach to cinematic storytelling. But I also like how Nolan tackles these big ideas. Ideas that, to me, are just as valuable in their meaning as a Bergman character.

I can't say if ambiguity is better than clarity. I guess it depends on the context.
And it's probably a taste matter but if a movie (especially a movie that wants to be philosophically deep like Interstellar) has to explain everything, then I won't like it.

Nope, I didn't say it was garbage. I just opposed the idea that it wasn't necessarily mainstream. You can't be more mainstream than Nolan. That's not good or bad, it's what it is.

And I didn't say you were a pleb for getting intellectually challenged by Interstellar, it's the movie industry that's getting more and more simply so when a movie like Interstellar shows up, it makes a difference because it's a little bit more complex than the rest.

How would you describe 2001: A Space Odissey in comparison to Interstellar, for example?

There's something to be clarified: I don't think mainstream is necessarily shallow!

I think Nolan films are shallow and that's a matter of opinion. But they are not shallow because they are mainstream.

Yes, I think that's a very good point.

I also think he suffers a lot of pressure from the industry, like many directors. I can't believe the last 20 minutes of Interstellar were actually his vision.

To weigh in on the conversation I don't think any of Nolan's movies are shallow, but I would say he is one of the most mainstream directors working right now because whenever somebody hears about one of his movies they are instantly excited. I think this Dunkirk film looks promising so far and I trust in Nolan that we will at least see something that is good, even though I wasn't the biggest fan of Interstellar.

__________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

This teaser is very promising. I kind of wish he was working with a different roster of actors, but that's not to say his usual bunch are below par.

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

Don't you think the fact that people het excited for his films shows he falls more in with the Auteur directors rather than "mainstream"? I mean, people get excited for the next PTA or Tarantino film. They don't get excited for the next Abrams or Whedon film, they get excited for the next Marvel or Star Wars flick. You see what I mean?

I guess you could say his movies have mainstream appeal, without the director necessarily being mainstream?

I guess you can look at Nolan as a very mainstream auteur or a minor auteur in the mainstream... Personally I still see him as a mainstream director - since he still have a lot of elements that fluctuate in that area - but he's a highly original one at that.