Now, the man sure does make very well constructed movies, but does anyone else think that visually, his movies have a horribly clumsy feeling? I'm not talking about the lighting or the 'look' of the movie, but the intangible feel and flow that is made up of shot composition, camera movement and editing. Compare a Spielberg film to a Nolan film and you'll get the gist of what I'm saying. Any thoughts?

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: Apr 29 2008, 06:08 PM

Spielberg is seasoned while Nolan is not. Give him a few more years and I'm sure he'll do a better job. He's only in the business for about a decade.

As for me, I don't think his movies are visually clumsy. How can Memento for one possesses bad editing and cameraworks? Batman Begins, albeit was an intelligent action flick, could have been better in cinematography which I think is an integral part of the genre. Other than that, no complaints.

BTW, I thought this was one of your RIP threads again, scared the hell outta me.

This post has been edited by Makakeke: Apr 29 2008, 05:50 PM

What I thought LOL.

I have no complaints about him, The Prestige looked great. then again I'm not a pro in photography.

Not true. At about the same point in his career (and at around the same age, younger in fact), Spielberg had already made Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and Temple of Doom. Not one of Nolan's films up till now come close to those. Not as films, and neither in terms of the aspect we are talking about here.



I'm not talking about individual shots and moments, its the overall feel of the film made up of those elements mentioned. Nolan's films have a laborious and clunky feel to them (in a not good way), Spielberg's (for the sake of this comparison) glide along with a distinctive silky smoothness.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: Apr 29 2008, 06:09 PM

too abstract for me to comprehend. but I dont feel anything watching them.

changed the thread title

Well I guess there can only be one Spielberg then but Nolan does have the talent, i believe he'll do wonders in the future.

I also think it has gotta do with the technical team. Nolan so far has not assembled a strong team with him and that probably contributes to your question. I'm happy with Nolan's works so far, all of em', including Insomnia and Following.

It's weird now cz it's like a Spielberg vs Nolan thread

i think he is a splendid director, doesnt have his defining movie yet. but i do think he will one day

but hey, how can you argue against the things he do. those shows are like better then the norm

I think Nolan is a talented actors director, but a poor visual director. In a way, Nolan is something of the reverse of post-American Graffiti George Lucas. I doubt its got anything to do with the technical team, it does seem to be more of an innate thing. Its the command of the film language as a medium, the intangible quality which makes a film filmic. Sergio Leone was probably the greatest exponent of this quality. All the great directors possess this x-factor (but not all directors who have this x-factor are great) and its always clear to see no matter the circumstances.


I also think that Nolan is an average action director. Take Batman Begins for example. It is a fine film overall, a great acting showcase, a great exploration of the Bruce Wayne character but has rather poor action sequences. There was nothing wrong with the setup of the dynamics of the scene, but the execution was just rubbishly cackhanded

---

Added on April 29, 2008, 8:28 pmDuh, you study math and only math.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: Apr 29 2008, 08:28 PM

I agree with the Leone comment. His films has a very clear, distinct visual feel to it, much like Stanley Kubrick.

Also agree with Nolan being an average action director, but what he did with Batman Begins I feel has done the superhero genre justice considering the craps like Spiderman, Hulk, etc...

This post has been edited by Makakeke: Apr 29 2008, 08:34 PM

Damn you.

I agree on the action scenes though. The action was never the strength of the film, maybe it will be remedied in the dark knight? he's never done an action movie before batman anyway, and strictly speaking begins wasnt action for the most part.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM

No i dun really agree with your point there BurgaFlippinMan.Cuz if u really see the budget of the movies between both directors theres a wide margin between them. Except for the Batman movies most of the films created by Chris Nolan is what can be term as a small budget flick which also include great movies such as Memento and The Prestige. As for the action sequences in Batman, i guess that is not where he wanted to go with the movie. Even in the The Dark Knight Year One, where Begins is mostly being based on lacks the action as there are more spy works for Batman. But i have to agree maybe on the cinematography as that is where i think he lacks.U can compare the prestige and the illusionist. Illusionist will definitely wins on visual beauty but as for story and editing, hands down Nolan is a master.


Just my 2 cents

I think the Spiderman films are good examples of the genre. Even the much maligned third is still good as a summer popcorn flick. Hulk, is an admirable failure. Its also probably the most ambitious ever take on the genre.


Budget has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. Jaws was made on a shoe string budget, and Sergio Leone, who arguably possesses the best ever command of the film language, made many of his films on a tight budget. No, we are discussing Nolan's ability as a visual storyteller. Please note the difference between cinematography/editing/whatever. Its the overall visual vibe we are talking about. His movies (to me and some people I know at least) do not have what I can best term as a visual rhythm, a pulse.

And whatever you want to say about Batman Begins, you cannot deny its a summer blockbuster and it utterly fails to deliver in the action stakes thanks to inept direction. Look at it this way, The Godfather would not be the film it is had the execution of the climactic five assassinations been rubbish. It would still have been a fine film, but it would not be a great film. You can't use its 'not where he (Coppola) wanted to go with the movie' as an excuse for a poor execution just because The Godfather isn't an action heavy movie.

As for the Prestige and the Illusionist, I think the Illusionist is a superior film overall. I do not think highly at all of both films however, in fact I thought The Prestige was rather rubbish, though worth one viewing.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: Apr 30 2008, 05:24 PM

i like Batman Begins but the action scenes were horrendous. Half the time i didn't know what was even going on!

I have watched Batman Begins and The Prestige, and I have to say, this guy is one person we should all look forward to for future movies (The Dark Knight!)... His movies do look a bit 'messy' but nevertheless, a very very good director...

I don't see what the big deal is about The Prestige. It suffers from the same thing The Usual Suspects does, there isn't much meat to the whole movie. Its hollow. Yes, like Usual Suspects, the male leads turn in magnetic performances and like Usual Suspects, it never gets boring. That alone makes it worth one viewing for entertainment. But beyond that, there's nothing more to it. The characters aren't really developed, and the actors are doing what they can with sparse material. It starts off interesting in the way that the whole movie is an illusion, but Ebert got it right with his critique, its a cheat. Its like going to a magic trick where "the whole woman produced on the stage were not the same one so unfortunately cut in two." This brings me to another chink in Nolan's armor, his seeming inability to give us characters we can empathize with. He always gives us interesting characters no doubt, but they are always distant and cold to the audience, making it difficult to connect emotionally with his films.

Now, this isn't a bash Nolan thread, I look forward to his films but there are just aspects of his films which always leave me slightly disappointed.

I think in a way you've nailed it partially right. The problem I find with Memento and The Prestige is that the 2nd viewing doesn't feel more superior than the 1st, which in my standards is not a great film, BUT the 1st time experience was truly magical (no one can deny that).

I've always been a believer that good movies grows in you, e.g The Godfather and even films like Fight Club, Mulholland Dr (of the mindf*ck genre). Nolan's films on the other hand, are less impressive on successive viewings. His only movie that'll continue to mesmerize is in fact his lesser known debut Following, which is an awesome flick with the most shoe string budget. It's original, tight and concise. You should watch it if you haven't.

I actually like The Prestige very much. The entire trickery/illusion/cheat whatever you may call, it was superb. You could see a twist coming but it still gets you. I think for a young man like Nolan to have produced films like The Prestige and Memento, already makes him one of the best directors TODAY. There're ain't many films that astound you with the first serving but Nolan's did, and very well too. Whatever the man may lack, I'm sure he'll get it right in the future.

Seriously, cut him some slack.

Actually, I think thats the movie's main problem. It simply disregards its own rules. Its a different case from the Illusionist, where the tricks are never really explained and therefore its twist (with that mystery potion) is plausible by its own internal logic. To set the film up with the pledge/turn/prestige structure was a cool idea, but to cheat/cop out at literally the namesake stage with a sudden sci-fi twist was seriously uncool.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: Apr 30 2008, 05:16 PM

rules, i never get this. on imdb people rant for pages about this cheat, that it never followed the rules but i dont remember theres a set of written rules for it. it was a twist, he used sci-fi to bring forward his story thats all . are we forbidden to bend genres to make a better story, are we forbidden to use deus ex machina? cause as far as cheating goes there are tons of movies that use them but are considered classics in their respective areas

let me give a few examples. LOTR: Return of the king, the undead just came and like put a full stop to the whole battle of pelennor. theres not even enough time to grasp at the un dead and the battle finishes.

star wars. a moon sized battle station gets owned by two photon torpedo's? force or not if these things can be soo hard to shoot with the computer yet they can auto pilot down the long shaft to the core?

im not claiming that they are all bad shows, but just pointing out that cheating do happen in movies and its part of movie making. simply bad labeling one show cause they do it is kinda unfair

another thing i do agree on is that his movies normally rely on that twist soo much that once you know it the show loses its fun. but thats what he is great at, he makes great twists but would a director be considered below par when his midas touch is to make the shocking finale?

and be patient do give him time, comparing him to the likes of Spielberg further tells you what potential he has. he might have not made his spree of magnum opus just yet, he has just started his career and simply comparing one director to another on the basis of time frame would be unfair. who knows he might be a late bloomer, and shower us with tons of cinema magik in his later years.

He thinks the movie's twist is a cop-out because the movie seems to set out a strictly logic-based path and then resorts to sci-fi, but that's fine by me. It was cool to use a character like tesla, who had all his secret inventions taken away by the US after his death, so that added a cool allure to the all of it.

I love the twists. I had the same thoughts as hugh jackman's character, that no way Borden was using a body double. In the end that was pretty much the case, and it should have felt disappointing, but it was anything but. I should have guessed it when we see his twin magically appearing in Sarah's apartment, but the first thing that came to my mind naturally was there has to be something else, something so good we missed it all (which is impossible, just like there is no way someone can be cut in half and be alive)! The thought that he had a twin never in the slightest bit appeared in my head. Angier's twist was shocking because we see what he had become when he gave into his obsessions of revenge and his quest to be the best magician.

I see it as Borden's twin being the real twist all along, with borden sending angier to his adventures in colorado springs creating another twist. One twist was rooted in logic (the twin), the other was rooted in sci-fi fantasy (the duplication). It sounds clumsy as hell, but it worked for me.

The characters are meant to be cold and dark in the end anyway. I started out rooting for angier, and then borden, and by the end we realize they are both monsters. But there is an illusion here, because there are in fact 3 characters - the Angiers, one Borden, and the other Borden. One Borden was the monster - who tied the bad knot, who wanted revenge, who was locked up and hung in the end; the other was generally the 'good' guy - the one who loved sarah, the one who asked his twin not to pursue his obsession. Of course it is almost impossible to flesh out his/their characters 100%, as it would certainly give away the twist, you have to deduce this by paying clsoe attention to detail. In any case, you could always root for Cutter.