Christopher Nolan vs David Fincher

I don't have anything against Nolan but as you asked for a debate and seem to have an completely blind love for him.....

Fractured narratives? Memento is only one that springs to mind, at least to the point were it becomes more than for narrative coherence and a distinct personal input. Have you read the short story Memento was based on? I imagine it must've had the fractured narrative to intice its adaption. The expressionist visuals are part of the noir genre in which all three films are debatedly part of, making him more a director than autuer, adhering to conventions instead of subverting them at his perogative. Even more so in Batman where the Miller's Dark Knight was an obvious influence which used the features you've suggested make Nolan an auteur. The conflicted protagonists are also all from other sources hence not a part of Nolan's style. As far as your points go, the only autuer trademark is common features in the sources he adapts. Admitedly i haven't seen the original Insomnia or read the short story Memento is based on so a lot is presumed. I also don't know if Nolan was the hired to directed or did so indepently, though i think most are the former suggesting it's not even Nolan's direct choice to adapt them.

My post gets a bit wishy washy towards end so take it more as context than my argument.


A very minor point for him as auteur that i can't argue with because i can't think of it happening. Not as distinctive as Tarantino's 'boot shot' though.

A LOT of that is script not Nolan! You've found recurring traits and credited Nolan with them. You'd be better calling his brother, Jonathon, an auteur; he's written Memento and The Prestige, Christophers two most original films, considering the majority of his trademarks are script according to you.



Oh. Noticed something else on IMDB, The Prestige was originally A NOVEL. Stick that in you pipe and smoke it


Personally, i think an auteur needs to ideally be independent so you can remove studio interference from the final product. Nolan's films do not scream a distinct style, he's talented and good at what he does but hasn't developed a style, sure there's some similar themes and the odd trademark shot but it doesn't make him an auteur.

I hope in your next post you can address these points.

__________________

The Prestige: If we are talking about auteurs here here, how would you compare the great Stanley Kubrick to C. Nolan? Tell ya what. Watch each of Nolan's films in chronological order. Then, pop in Stanley's films, in order of course, and when you finish Eyes Wide Shut, let's chat!

Or, just pop in Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon, and notice not only the clear, unique style, but, how each film flows into one another, thematically AND visually. This run of films represents one of the finest examples of film auteurship I can think of, drawing from the pool of films I have seen in my 35 years on this stinkball. I am sure Holden or another well-watched MoFo can name some other stuff that is probably THE best example of film auteurship, but my favorite example is the Kubrick stuff I listed.

__________________

My Kubrick filmography is somewhat fractured, seen what i have spaced over several years, possibly on average one a year going back 7. Shocking, i know. Awesome director, not watched enough to comment on him as an auteur.

My favourite is Cronenberg who i think is THE auteur working today, watch his work chronologically, shows true development of a director and the varying adaptations and reworkings only help to highlights his trademarks.

Haha...you cocky naive bastard ....You really think those run-of-the-mill "trademarks" merit Nolan the status of auteur. How 'bout you realize that before Nolan, there were hundreds of directors better than Nolan, since the beginning of film, who have done the same thing he has, before him. Sure, you can argue Memento and ya know what, I'll give you that one. But all those other "trademarks" you so confidently noted as Nolan's are not, in fact, Nolan's, but instead the trademarks and the creations of the hundreds of better directors who paved the way for the guy.

And cmon, did you really try arguing that a trademark of Nolan's is a close up of the character's hands doing something? Get the hell off of here if you really think that's a trademark. I could make 50 of the shittiest films, have the most variety in my resume, and just because in 3 of my films I have a close up of my character's hands doing something merits that camera work a trademark of mine? **** no.

That is way too miniscule to support your argument that Nolan is an auteur. I find myself laughing at your posts, so helplessly defending Nolan's status, atleast in your mind, as an auteur. You have mentioned 4 movies of his; Batman Begins, Memento, Insomnia, and the Prestige. Let's take Memento outta the picture, since that film is quite stylistic. But the others are all simplistic. Batman Begins, what is so damn unique about that film? Not one thing in that film made me think "Nolan". The Prestige, give me a damn break. Yea, I was entertained...but I could also be fooled into thinking the film was a Disney Channel Original. What...did the big twist define the film as stylistic? Or was it the "close up of the protagonists hands..." that defined the film as unique and support Nolan as an auteur. Insomnia...I haven't seen it. But considering my stance on Nolan, I doubt "Nolan" will click in my mind while watching.

******And no, it does not explain everything.

__________________
"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

Ok, i'm gonna respond to your post first mate, then get around to the other guys posts.

Errr, yes I have read the short story (Memento Mori) to Memento and it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to say that the film is based on it. INSPIRED perhaps, but not based. Johnathan Nolan himself said he didn't think his short story warranted a credit on Nolan's masterpiece. The only thing the story has in common with the film is a similar title and a protagonist who has a memory problem. The short story doesn't even go into what type of memory problem it is and is more of a collection of notes, making the story LINEAR. Hell, Johnathan even said in an interview that they BOTH came up with the concept before he wrote the short story. Nolan just took the similar concept and made it into an outstanding film. Read the book before posting stuff like that, mate.

The only film Nolan was hired to direct was Insomnia which is admittedly his weakest film. Yes, he didn't write the screenplay for it, but that's the ONLY film in which he didn't contribute anything to the finished script. But the film still incorporates a lot of his recurring themes and trademark shot sequences.

Obviously Nolan used Miller's version of Batman as inspiration for his vision of gotham city. However, he still made the film his own by writing it more as a psychological drama with a comic book twist. The film also uses a lot of Nolan's stylistic treatments he has become so famous for, e.g. random jump cuts to emphasis the different states of emotion one can get into so quickly (He used the same technique for Memento, Insomnia AND The Prestige. )

Oh as for the 'introducing a character with a close up of his hands doing something' scenario, how in the blue hell is that NOT distinctive? I know countless of other budding legends like myself who have noticed it, how comes the rest of you mighty warriors haven't?

Besides Nolan pertains to the original context of the auteur that being 'author'. He WRITES most of his own material barring, of course, Insomnia.

Oh and I knew that The Prestige was originally a novel, and never disputed that. That doesn't take anything away from him or the film. He co-wrote the SCREENPLAY with his brother annd came up with new ideas that wasn't in the book itself. You haven't read it, so you won't realise how much different the book is to the film. Theres no 'BIG TWIST' or not much twists at all. The book is pretty much just a collection of memoirs. The actual events that take place within the film are original.

Oh, and I am not saying that a BIG TWIST determines the style of a film. That's unfair for the guy that said that. Theres loads of films out that have big twists that I was impressed by, but that didn't make me think 'wow, this director has a unique style'. M Night Shamalyn is APALLING and whoever compared him to Nolan really hasn't seen enough Nolan films.

Oh, and I will finish off the last two who replied later this evening. But Pyro, thank you for having played a part again, son.

First of all, cut your patronising. I don't appreciate it.

Don't refer to yourself as budding legend for noticing a shot, if you read, i acknowledged the shot as a sign of auteur just commented it's not AS distincive as, say, Tarantino's boot scene; i'm pretty sure hundreds or directors have taken shots of hands before so it doesn't stand out for me and i havn't noticed it.

Batman was a pyschological character in the comics, and who says Goyer wasn't the one who put the psychological spin on it. And has Nolan really become so famous for using jump cuts? I think you mean to say Jean Luc Goddard. For cripes sake, using a jump cut does NOT make him an auteur, you back it up by saying what this formal element of film is used for by many other directors, it's not a form of editting he himself has devised and made his own.

Just because the the French word auteur translates in English to author, don't take it literally, just because he has some input in writing does not mean he is, in fact, an auteur. You really are labouring this point, Memento is the only one you can justify that his writing is an auteuristic trademark.

Also, Shyamalan isn't appalling, in fact i'd say Sixth Sense was on par with Memento and he is more an autuer than Nolan with more films as well. In fact, i'd say it is YOU who has not seen enough films fullstop

Crawl out Nolan's bottom.

Budding legend? What the hell makes you think your a budding legend? Your an arrogant ******* who needs to drop the facade of making yourself seem more intelligent so that you can make us seem impowerless to you and your "great" argument. Your casual remarks such as thanking us for playing the role of the loser in your debate and reassuring us that you will get around to each of our volleys is getting old, quick. It needs to stop because it's damn immature. Your argument and you yourself reek of arrogance. Pretentiousness underlies everything you say, and listen bud, if you want to debate, all the power to you. But never insult us and never try to intimidate us. And the last thing you want is for the likes of Holden Pike to happen upon this argument and decide to say a few words to you. Because he sures knows how to stick the knife in and twist it. Like a fellow MoFo said earlier, stop your patronizing as well as your cocky remarks that address other MoFos as the losers in this argument.

Now, back to the argument, if you would please spare us the intoxicating arrogance...

No "budding legend", as you so confidently deem yourself, would argue that a close up of the main character's hands is a "trade mark" and as you retorted in your last post; "distinctive". Especially with a resume of 4 films only.

I mean, cmon, do you really think the camera work in The Prestige is "unique" or "distinctive" or "stylistic"? Watch some damn Scorsese, Tarantino, or Leone if you want to see camera work that applies to your recurring adjectives that your using to describe the wrong director.

And when it comes to trademarks, one of the most prominent directors known for his trademarks is Martin Scorsese. From his ultra-smooth panning to his use of The Rolling Stones in a number of his films. Or his montages of fast action and up-beat music. The list goes on and on. Those I gave examples of are real trademarks. Not a close up of a character's hands.

And I will have to agree with PyroTramp in that Shaymalan is more of an auteur than Nolan, by far.

wow, Id love to get into this argument, but you guys have trains of thought that would span at least 6 states

__________________

I wouldn't mind digging into these movies either, but it seems like there are too many e-cock blockers involved in this thread. The whole "my auteur is more auteuristic than your auteur" thing kind of deflates my interest.

That is somewhat the underlying premise of this debate although not so opinion oriented or with sophomoric prose like you summarized it as. But, that is where it well go eventually...

Well, i've got nothing against Nolan, i think he's a great director, The Prestige asked for a debate. The threads turned into a debate on the auteur theory and i think i've had enough, unless someone can post something different but it's not 'my auteur is more auteuristic than yours'.

And what's an e-cock blocker?

In this case, it's someone whose borish posturing keeps me from wanting to jump to the defense of a director I like. Anyway, I guess you guys are right, the original intent of the thread-starter seems to have been an excuse for that in the first place, so most of my scorn should go in that direction and I appologise for accusing you of that.

Anyway, in order that this not devolve further into a discussion about a discussion... I wouldn't say Nolan or Fincher should be inducted into the canon, yet. But when I look at the filmographies of both those guys I think more of Stephen Soderbergh, who is immensely talented but seems to have this more long-run "one for me, one for them" career outlook. For that reason I think it's too soon to really measure their careers (unlike more fiercely independents like John Sayles and Hal Hartley, who you could get a feel for where they were going really early on).

Re Sedai - I don't really see where you're coming from saying a focus on structure is just a gimmick. As long as a complex structure isn't just a distraction from the film's basic soullessness (which excessive "signature styles" are just as likely candidates to fill that sort of function -- just look at some of tarantino's films or [most of?] de Palma's films) I don't think it's a gimmick. With Memento, that structure is essential to the story and even opens the possibility of completely different interpretations of everything you see in the movie. It's definitely held up to multiple viewings for me. To say it doesn't work in correct chronological order misses the point because that makes it a very different movie.

I also strongly disagree that dramatic situation in Prestige wouldn't be satisfying without the twists. It is a bit more distant, because some of the motivations of characters are left deliberately murky, but if anything I thought that made it more compelling than The Illusionist, which is straightforward by comparrison. But it's not really for me to tell you how you should be moved by one film versus another.

Now THAT'S what i'm talking about! A man who understands what i'm saying. Linespalsy knows that other users were just nitpicking just for the sake of trying to prove me wrong. Linespalsy mate , I told the other users about a trillion times that Memento's narrative structure is there to serve a PURPOSE and isn't just some random gimmick. It's there so that the spectator is able to experiene Leonard Shelby's state of confusion and distortion. The result is we not only know what he knows, but we too have to be careful about which of the other protagonists we can trust. Not only is this an ambitious device, it's also well executed and the results are remarkable in my book. Maybe the other detractors of Nolan should have taken that into consideration, innit.

As for your views on The Prestige, you, my friend, hit the nail on the head again. Hard. It's fair enough for those who liked the The Illusionist to say they preferred it over The Prestige, but to suggest that I and others only like the film because of it's twists is pretty ignorant as well as presumptuous . I guess those guys had forgotten that the protagonists were deeply flawed and complex characters who were studied in-depth unlike the 2 dimensional magician that was Edward Norton in The Illusionist. What was so compelling about his character? Or original about the story? Was it the fact that he had the ability to grow a plant from his hands or his shoddy English accent? Ha, the more I think about the film the more it pales in comparison to Nolan's magic showstopper.

Ok, now I told Prometheus that i'd come back from him, and now i'm here.

Prometheus,

I feel as though I should apologise for really upsetting you. I honestly didn't mean to. It wasn't my intention to wind you and others up on this board, but if I have, then I owe you a bit of an apology, mate. I admit I was purposely being a little cheeky but I meant no harm in it, just the way I am at times.

With that said, I do feel I should criticise you about one thing: Instigating a dream face off between me and this guy 'Holden Pike' . Now what's that about, man? I haven't even had beef with the bloke and now you're trying cleverly compel him into the debate just so he can 'stick the knife in and twist it'. I guess that's why he's called 'Holden Pike' then, eh? Because he holds the Pike in just so I can submit and say that i'm wrong about Christopher Nolan? Do youself a favour mate and keep him out of this. It was uncalled for to try and lure him in. You don't see other people doing that just to try and prove me wrong, do you? Exactly.

Also, why assume that when I say thank you for playing a part i'm suggesting that you or Pyro Tramp are losers? How in the world did you decide to take THAT as an insult? I was just saying thanks for playing a part in my debate. /:

I also apologyse to Pyro Tramp if he feels I patronised him. I'm just a lad from East London mate and I have somewhat of a London baed personality that might come off a certain way to certain people. No offense meant there, mate. However, I do feel that you calling me immature whilst making references to me being inside Mr Nolan's anal is sort of oozing irony..

But anyways, back to the main topic of discussion...

RE Sedai: I've seen most of Kubrick's films and he was one damn fine director, but it's not about him...it's about Christopher Nolan and David Fincher as auteurs and who's better. I NEVER said that David Fincher wasn't an auteur, but I do feel that Nolan is more deserving of that tag simply due to the fact that he writes his own SCREENPLAY and then some. I'm not saying that a director has to have written his own screenplay to be considered an auteur, but I do feel that this is what ultimately sets Nolan and Fincher apart. Yes, Fincher is an auteur but I feel Nolan is a better one because his signitures aren't too over the top and a little bit more subtle without coming across as pretentious or artsy fartsy.

RE Prometheus: Yes, I know that Martin Scorsese is an auteur...never said he wasn't /: He is an alrightish director but not really my cup of tea. I more appreciated of auteurs who write their own screenplays and try to put a fresh spin on particular genres whilst staying faithful to it. Easier said than done, I know. But this is why I admire Christopher Nolan so much. He does just that and does so well.

Anyways, kudos to linespalsy for offering intelligent and thought-provoking insight into an already interesting debate.

Caught "The Prestige" on a pay-for-view channel the other night without at first connecting it to this forum mud-fight. As always, Michael Caine was a delight to watch. But as regards the outcome of the film (spoiler warning) .

By the time that Caine's character said the trick would be performed by using a double because that was the only way he (Caine) knew it could be done, hadn't most viewers already figured out that Alfred Borden’s (Christian Bale ) silent accomplice was in reality his twin brother? Big clue: when Borden tells his wife, “Some days I’ll love you and some days I won’t,” meaning some days he’s her husband and some days he’s her brother-in-law. Second Big Clue: All the men are hooked on wearing false beards that look like false beards! And as Caine's character Cutter kept pointing out, the only way to do that trick was with a double!

Too bad the setting was too early for Harold Lloyd’s silent movies to have been showing in those theaters: Maybe the twins then could have figured out how to disguise the one brother’s mangled hand in gloves without having to cut off his twin’s fingers.

One wrong guess—I figured the hillside of top hats was a plant by a couple of con men who were about to bilk a mark who wanted to believe in magic. That would have made a better story, with one magician then bilking another. Instead the script opts for a fantasy solution of electricity creating clones. Should have stuck with illusion, which is more interesting than magic any day.

You actually don't know what Linespalsy knows, at all. Also, a trillion times? I remember reading that once or twice, so, I now question your math skills, too. I never said it was a random gimmick, wither. No one did. A gimmick doesn't mean random. I see the technique as a gimmick, because, after seeing it once, my interest in the film diminished considerably. Without the "What's going on here", um, gimmick, going on, the film is less interesting to me. I did like the film a whole hell of a lot after I saw it the first time, so it's pretty damn good. Keep in mind like the film when discussing things with me. I just don't think it's one of the only 5-star films in existence. Not even close.

So...who said you only like the film because of the twists? I targeted the twists as part of the issues I have with the film; I never said you liked it because of the twists. Please do not attempt to attribute views or stances to me that I haven't personally articulated. Thanks. As for Norton's character. he was mysterious, enigmatic, tortured, patient, and intelligent. A deep, well drawn character. How you missed that, I don't know.

Also, the production techniques and mise-en-scene in The Illusionist were so much better realized, so much more elegantly executed, that there is just no comparison to me. In other words, The illusionist captured the period perfectly, and drew me in to the time, while The Prestige seemed staged and anachronistic some of the time. The Prestige was compelling as a period piece some of the time, too. The Prestige also had some great sequences, that I really liked a lot. I certainly consider it to be up to par with The Illusionist in some ways, but as a package, I felt The Illusionist was more, well, magical.



Fair enough, and this line of argument was uncalled for, and I think I was the one to bring others into the mix. More of an attempt to put some perspective on your ludicrous claim about 5star features, once again. I took the wrong route, and I shant comment on other Auteur filmmakers in this thread again. That said, let's keep on topic, and get back to respectful discussion. Myself included.

I just said I wouldn;t bring others into the thread, but, I must comment on this. Scorsese is THE man. Head and soulders above either of these two chaps. 'nuff said.

Sorry the rest of us dullards are littering the thread with incoherent and foolish blather...oh, wait....

CAUTION Spoilers for the Prestige:


Rufnek, regarding the fingers thing, that's well and good but the other twin would have had a hard time explaining the non-missing fingers to his wife and child (when he was impersonating his brother). There was also the bit about using the hand to further back up the illusion (it's the same man with missing fingers who reappears), but that was conceived of by Scarlett Johansson's character and not Borden. Either way it backs up the illusion that the Bordens want to keep going (that they're one person) to their loved ones as well, though I guess you could point to the fake beards thing as comically undermining that point (though don't bother pointing that out to me. I was actually fooled by the beards!)

Now there’s another part of the plot that doesn’t make sense to me, linespalsy. Exactly why was it necessary to fool the wife and daughter? Was the husband required to make long mysterious trips that the wife couldn’t know about? If so, the plot does not indicate such a requirement. In fact, it seems to me that the wife’s problems could have been resolved had she known that it was her brother-in-law, not her husband, who was having the affair with the Scarlett Johansson. Would she have hanged herself had she known it was her brother-in-law who was playing around with the hired help?

I can see the need to fool the magician’s assistant to prevent her from leaking the truth to Angier (Hugh Jackman). But why keep the information from the wife before the competition for the trick even begins and some years before the assistant sells out Angier and joins Borden? In fact, it appears at the start of the movie that Borden has worked with Angier and Cutter for some months, if not years, in the employ of the “conservative” magician. Usually when people work together for some time, they discuss their families. Seems to me that something as interesting as a twin brother would have been discussed at some point. Instead, from beginning to end, Borden, Angier, and Cutter know no more about each other than do we in the audience.

To summarize, there’s no reason for hiding the existence of the twin until a trick is developed that requires the existence of a double. But there is no such trick until later in the plot. Even then, the Bordens could have fooled their general audiences simply by wearing gloves with cotton stuffed in two fingers of one glove to replace the missing fingers. (Even if they had not used gloves, isn’t an audience less likely to notice that someone enters a box with 8 fingers and emerges with 10, as done by the Bordens, then that Angier enters a box cold sober and emerges as a falling-down drunk.). There’s no good reason for needing to mislead the wife unless the twins are taking turns having sex with her, but there’s no indication of that. And it’s only necessary to fool the daughter so that she’ll think that the man she visits in prison really is her father and the same man who she leaves with in the end. That seems to imply both men love her equally, which would suggest that the uncle is awfully fond of his niece, or maybe neither is sure who is the father.

No, the whole plot depends on hiding the existence of the twin brother until the last moments of the film and convincing the movie audience that Angier—who as a magician should know better than anyone else—believes Borden is using real magic instead of an illusion. This is exactly what Truman Capote’s character rails about in Murder by Death when he accuses a roomful of top mystery writers of always cheating and frustrating their readers by revealing unknown clues and introducing new characters in the last few pages of their books in order to make their otherwise weak plots work.

Either way you slice it, Borden and Angier come across as weak and petty characters leaving a trail of death behind their senseless ambitions

First, I totally agree with Sedai. Secondly, the little mention of Holden Pike was just a facetious remark and I have no intent in luring the guy simply because I'm not too fond of him

And like I think rufnek was saying as well, I was greatly disappointed by the climax, the twist, and the ending. It was futile attempt to save the struggling story arc.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. The plot doesn't work unless you bring in this load of hither unknown elements in the last moments to fill in all of the holes.

Here's another possibility--what if the magician had not killed his first clone but passed it off instead as his twin? He then could have duplicated the other magician's trick exactly without the ritual nightly murder of clone after clone after clone.

Moreover, don't you think the repeated murder of one's "self" and single-handed disposal of the remains would have worn on a person? It would have been a different and possibly more interesting story if all the sinful murders of the clones had been reflected in the magician's face and figure as a sort of real life The Picture of Dorian Gray [1945].

Hmmm, I remember discussing the first clone murder with a friend as we watched. I was firmly in the camp that Angier was actually murdered by the first clone, ala Solaris. In retrospect, I can't remember how they set up the cloning thing, or where the original hat/person ended up. Did the original get whisked away, leaving a clone, or vice-versa? Not sure if they ever made that clear, or if this fact was also obfuscated to confuse us more. The more I think about this aspect of the film, the more I want to re-watch those scenes to see exactly what was going on. The reason I think the original Angier was killed by the clone is based on the split-second reaction of the entity that was murdered, which seemed one of recognition mixed with confusion. As if Angier got teleported away, leaving a clone, while expecting the clone to appear in the machine, only to find himself stepping out of the machine to find his clone reaching for the gun. If this is the case, I would think that each time the cloning occurred during the trick, at a later time, a slightly altered, perhaps slightly lesser clone would survive, while the current "original" or oldest clone would die.

Anyone clear this up? Watch that first reaction closely...