Christopher Nolan Vs. Darren Aronofsky

Tools    


Christopher Nolan Vs. Darren Aronofsky?
54.05%
40 votes
Christopher Nolan
41.89%
31 votes
Darren Aronofsky
4.05%
3 votes
They both suck!
74 votes. You may not vote on this poll




Welcome to the human race...
On the subject of P.T. Anderson - I prefer There Will Be Blood to any films by Aronofsky or Nolan, but that doesn't necessarily mean I consider him an overall better director. To me, all the other PTA films I've seen have felt disposable to some degree.

Wes Anderson, on the other hand, isn't particularly great but I've still seen everything he's done and even at their worst his films are still mildly enjoyable.



Wes Anderson films are too cutesy-eccentric for their own good. Royal Tenenbaums was excellent, though.

For me, PT is like Tarantino: I revel in every film either one makes.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Welcome to the human race...
Fair point regarding Wes Anderson, but Punch Drunk Love was definitely in the same cutesy-eccentric sort of vein. Having said that, I'd probably rather watch my least favourite Wes Anderson film than Punch Drunk Love again.



I agree with Dog Star Man. There's not much after thought in Nolan's films, although thoroughly entertaining, I never get the impression there's any more to them than entertaining. Even Following, there was that main theme but it wasn't anything compared to Pi. Memento was just a disorder, sucks for that guy, nothing else to discuss because Nolan didn't take it any further than relationships and crime. People don't give credit to Aronofsky because he's more brazen, and therefore easier to pick apart, but the things in his films where other people think he loses it I feel I understand so sue me for getting him. This argument isn't really about who's better but I think it's simple enough to give Darren the more artistic achievement.

In other words Nolan can easily fake intelligence and depth. Sometimes it's actually there.
Respecting the opinion my fellow Mofo but nah, you need to watch Memento again if all you saw were relationships and crime. It's a LOT more than that. More than I can even share right now. I dunno, maybe it's like Sedei suggested; i get more out of it than others. That might be true but at the same time I think most people would argue there there is a lot of depth in regards to notions of memory, identity, self manipulation, perception of the way the world operates, etc. A lot of it is pretty subtle, but it's there nonetheless and I feel it's adequately explored.

I happy to challenge anybody who feels that these themes were not addressed properly or at all.



If Memento is all I need to see in order to say Nolan is as experimental that Aronofsky than I do believe my point has been made and the conversation on the matter is over. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Memento, (I own it myself), however it is really status-quo. Nolan has taken the standard shooting process, and simply, through the edit, continuity-edited it backward. I find that even in Requiem for a Dream there are time lapses, mixed with montage, mixed with extreme camera angles (placing a camera mount on a character and have them run). His imagery is far more visceral. I hear many complaints on Aronofsky thus far saying, "The experiment doesn't work in the end result." That's not enough to based on the end result, the result came from the then and now for what he was trying to convey at the given moment. Now of all the experimental films I've seen, which make these two men look like fruitcakes, I have yet to watch them for, "The end result," rather a foray into what can and cannot be done within a given visual-spacial present... inspiration you may call it.

No. Nolan is not as experimental. I need another example.
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage



No. Nolan is not as experimental. I need another example.
I tend to agree. But more experimental doesn't necessarily mean better. Sometimes I want to kick back and watch a more traditional, less challenging movie.



If Memento is all I need to see in order to say Nolan is as experimental that Aronofsky than I do believe my point has been made and the conversation on the matter is over. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Memento, (I own it myself), however it is really status-quo. Nolan has taken the standard shooting process, and simply, through the edit, continuity-edited it backward. I find that even in Requiem for a Dream there are time lapses, mixed with montage, mixed with extreme camera angles (placing a camera mount on a character and have them run). His imagery is far more visceral. I hear many complaints on Aronofsky thus far saying, "The experiment doesn't work in the end result." That's not enough to based on the end result, the result came from the then and now for what he was trying to convey at the given moment. Now of all the experimental films I've seen, which make these two men look like fruitcakes, I have yet to watch them for, "The end result," rather a foray into what can and cannot be done within a given visual-spacial present... inspiration you may call it.

No. Nolan is not as experimental. I need another example.
Like my man above me said, experimental does not equal better. Also, I get the feeling that we have different views on what defines experimental. I would argue that staging several different and distinctive sequences within sequences as a way of conveying dream layers and having them run in different time periods is as experimental as it gets. That fact that mad thought process somehow works is still beyond me. Darren tried something similar with The Fountain but he somehow fails.

But again I must state that I am not that bothered about who's more experiemental or what have you. I'm interested in looking at the body of work of both these auteurs and deciding, based on consistency and technical skill, who makes the best work and who's characters do you relate to more? What makes Requiem For a Dream and Black Swan more thought provoking than Memento or The Prestige?? Did Aronofsky really have anything new to say about drug addiction? Does Nolan's theme on memory loss and the way our memories shape us as people really seem so thin in comparison to the drug theme in Requiem For a Dream?



Like my man above me said, experimental does not equal better.
It can mean better to the subjective viewer. Myself and others who prefer the experimental over films which exhibit less in this regard.

Also, I get the feeling that we have different views on what defines experimental. I would argue that staging several different and distinctive sequences within sequences as a way of conveying dream layers and having them run in different time periods is as experimental as it gets. That fact that mad thought process somehow works is still beyond me.
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.


Darren tried something similar with The Fountain but he somehow fails.
Reiterating, is the failure a result of the experiment, or is the failure a result of the overall narrative?

But again I must state that I am not that bothered about who's more experimental or what have you. I'm interested in looking at the body of work of both these auteurs and deciding, based on consistency and technical skill, who makes the best work and who's characters do you relate to more? What makes Requiem For a Dream and Black Swan more thought provoking than Memento or The Prestige? Did Aronofsky really have anything new to say about drug addiction? Does Nolan's theme on memory loss and the way our memories shape us as people really seem so thin in comparison to the drug theme in Requiem For a Dream?
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.



"A film is a putrified fountain of thought"
I vote Darren Aronofsky not because he has better film technique (I think they're both about on par with each other) or because he is more "experimental" than Nolan( that's not always what makes a good director) but because he makes wonderful movies that are centered around relationships, the active mind, the human struggle, and the dark beauty behind it all. I think these are much more interesting and valuable topics in film than the content of Nolan's blockbusters. Nolan's have incredible screenplays and they're inarguably well directed, but there's just not enough heart in them for me.

And just to add- I know that you can find those themes in Memento and Inception but they are masked behind plot, not barenly exposed like in Arronofsky's films.



Neither has a long resume or anything that blows me away. They're both decent. But I wouldn't put either in the Top 50 Directors of All-Time. Maybe one day but certainly not now.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and like it, never really care for anything else thereafter." - Ernest Hemingway



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.



I think, besides trying to make a point, you are utterly dismissing the continuity of this debate and are rather putting on blinders as if to ignore anything about Aronofsky you could find palpable. It's like the British and the UN, all they do is cover their ears going "No. NO. NOOOO! LALALALALALALALALALA"

He is not saying that lesser known or more experimental filmmakers are better than Nolan at these specific sequences; he brought them up because you were saying no one ever did it like Nolan did. Also, besides the fact that these two directors have nothing to do with each other, the main topic has turned to comparing experimentation with filmmaking, and regardless of what you want to say about Aronofsky, Pi and The Fountain single-handedly (or double I suppose) outstretch past Nolan ideas of the universal relations because of linking parallels within the editing and cinematography, they are more of a unit, the synapses connect. This has nothing to do with saying one is better or worse, higher experimentation is just a fact.



I dunno, I don't see much evidence that The Prestige is dismissing Arofonsky outright. Mostly he just seems to disagree with the idea that he's a particularly adept editor.

I think the tricky part here is that, while Dog Star Man is not literally saying that something is better merely because its more experimental, it's impossible to read his posts without coming to the conclusion that he gives special preference and deference to more experimental films. Which is a perfectly valid personal preference, of course, but not one everyone shares. I think Prestige is responding primarily to that; Nolan and Arofonsky just happen to be decent microcosms for these purposes.

And I think saying The Prestige is not thought provoking is all sorts of nuts, but to each their own. There's little to no chance that I'm going to see eye to eye with a film student on such things.



How was The Fountain a failure?
You asked for it.

In theory, the idea behind The Fountain is sensational, but in practice not so much. In most films, you reach a point where you're entirely engaged by the story, but that didn't happen with The Fountain. I just found myself thinking: "I am watching a strange film". And I'm a proponent of symbolism, but I didn't buy anything Aronofsky was selling.

It's like he had the right ideas (intertwining stories, symbolism), but forgot to pour them into the right mold. It had the potential to be great: a sci-fi film that brings a poetic ode to transcendental love. The problem is that there's a lack of a coherent plot or at the very least a purpose. The Fountain consisted of a bunch of loose ideas packaged in three kinds of wrapping paper, none of which are all too solid. Everything just floats around a bit seemingly adrift and as a result, it doesn't get to you on an emotional level.

The other jamming station is the overall shallowness of the characters who are pretty cold and lack depth. I can't remember their names, but there was a couple that is apparently going through a crisis, but their relationship is poorly developed. There's no real passion between them; it's all a bit dull. Moreover, I remember thinking that their behaviour was bloody strange. The other two story lines are even more flat and Rachel Weisz' role consists mostly of being pretty and silent.

Another thing that bothered me were some of the images. Yes, they are gorgeous, but at times they are so overdone that they become kitschy or even laughable. I don't remember all of them anymore, but there was this one dude who was floating in a bubble towards infinity (or something) whilst being seated in some awkward monk position.

That's pretty much why I consider it to be a huge failure. It's a prime example of a hit-or-miss film, maybe even more so than Malick's films.



Yeah, that's pretty much what you have with a hit-or-miss film.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
The other jamming station is the overall shallowness of the characters who are pretty cold and lack depth. I can't remember their names, but there was a couple that is apparently going through a crisis, but their relationship is poorly developed. There's no real passion between them; it's all a bit dull. Moreover, I remember thinking that their behaviour was bloody strange. The other two story lines are even more flat and Rachel Weisz' role consists mostly of being pretty and silent.
Hundreds of years together, it's a wonder they still sleep in the same house.

But a love that old would not, could not be something passionate. It is a much deeper connection. A connection of pure matter through time. Of ancient, unimaginably deep chasms of memory. A love lasting throughout the ages and possibly into infinity. But then cut short.

This is just if you take the story literally.

It's about loss either way and how it feels. I'm glad it could do it without person-to-person melodrama. The exaggerations were made in the lengths of time involved.

Another thing that bothered me were some of the images. Yes, they are gorgeous, but at times they are so overdone that they become kitschy or even laughable.
I think I know what you mean, but I would definitely stress the minute distinction between highly stylized and kitsch in this respect. He was going for an extremely clean look throughout the film in all time periods. That kind of consistency puts the "kitsch" in a firm context and makes it very acceptable to me. I never found anything funny about that film. It was serious business through and through.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



The only problem I have with The Fountain is how many goofy blanks we're left to fill in ourselves at the end. There are any number of fascinating ways it could have ended that wouldn't require such a leap, but I suppose that's why some people like it. I tend to think it's ending is a bit too surreal and obscure for its own good, but I realize some people like that sort of thing for its own sake.

I think the rest of the movie is pretty incredible, though, and I still have a strong affinity for several big chunks of the movie, despite my complaints. I think Hugh Jackman's pretty incredible in it.



Requiem for A Dream isn't simply about drug addiction. It's about the nature and destructive power of addiction.
__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)