It can mean better to the subjective viewer. Myself and others who prefer the experimental over films which exhibit less in this regard.
Hmm, then by that logic you're likely to prefer the films of, say, Andy Warhol to that of Christopher Nolan or an Orson Welles because his films are probably the definition of experimental. I don't think it's subjective, to be honest. Sure, you may prefer a director who likes to be experimental but what if you watch a more commercial film that speaks to you in a way that the so-called more 'daring' picture does?
Maya Deren, many decades his senior, was experimenting with time lapse and "dream layers" far in advance to anything Nolan ever committed himself to. Yet her work remains largely undiscovered despite the fact it is far superior. I'm not exactly sure what this point represents. Aronofsky, in his own right, seems to be coming from her school at times, and if your speaking results, they are equally, if not more so, amazing.
I too can name some lesser known old school geezers who have used time, narrative and the spectator's perspective in interesting ways. But that's besides the point. You may think her work is superior but then THAT's what I subjective. Aronofsky, imo, has done anything that stands out too much as far as using experimental devices or techniques.
Perhaps, but what of the bolder? If the edit is what makes the movie, Aronofsky has him beaten in spades. Editing in continuity backwards to reflect an already flawed metal state as opposed to montaging through drug-induced mental psychosis where "anything goes" and is in fact self induced. There seems to me no comparison between the two. I go with Aronofsky because he's tackling the bigger questions and pushing the limits within soviet montage. The Prestige, however doesn't need to be mentioned. I saw little thought provoking value in that film, narrative or cinematically.
Man, NO WAY! Editing is the WORST example you can use to compare Nolan's skills as a filmmaker to that of Aronofsky. One of Nolan's strengths is the way in which his films are tightly and meticulously edited. Darren, pre
Wrestler, had some of the weakest editing I have seen on a feature film. I don't rate
Requiem's editing. At all. Second to the fact that it has nothing to say about it's subject matter, it's the weakest aspect of the film. MTV style jump cuts and distorted lenses is a pretty cheap, obvious and uninspiring way to convey drug use. If you think that that
Requiem is a better edited film than
Memento then I need to a cool can of Carlsberg immediately. No way you compare
I would also disagree that he is pushing the boundaries of soviet montage. There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING innovative about his montage sequences. I just don't see it. I think Aronofsky fans make him out to be a bit better than he is. He is a highly intelligent and increasingly interesting filmmaker, but lets not start exaggerate his abilities here. But then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. What works with Aronofsky for you so does not work for me. For me,
The Prestige has a LOT to say. I won't go into in because I explained what the film means to me in my early posts on this forum and my Top 100 list.