All-Encompassing Christopher Nolan Discussion Thread

[hammerhedd11]

A major problem with Inception in my opinion, which I don't think anybody noticed, is that Ellen Page's character becomes an expert in the dream machine technology in a matter of weeks. The world Nolan created indicates that the dream machine has had major sociological repercussions, where old people are giving up their lives to dream all the time, where rich people have extensive neurological defense training, et cetera. That would mean it's a sophisticated trade where a small number of people are experts, and where there's a wide literature on the practice ... well, if you've ever been an expert in anything, you'll know that it takes more than a few weeks.

I haven't watched the film in a while, but wasn't that precisely why Ellen Page's character was chosen to be part of the team? She was supposed to be incredibly intelligent and learned quickly, as the scene with the maze made clear?

 

[BatLobster]

I find it pretty hard to believe that there hasn't been a general Nolan discussion thread int he Misc. Movies section until now.

All in all, he's my favorite filmmaker working today. I'd be lying if I tried to say otherwise. I'm really enjoying watching his career unfold, I feel like he's very aware the fortunate position he's in and wants to make the best possible grand scale movies possible that challenges both him as a filmmaker and the audience. It's been really cool to see his evolution from film to film, I don't mind at all that he's gone bigger and bigger. One day he'll do something smaller again, but now's not the time. He's in the position that every indie filmmaker working today dreams of being in.

In terms of ranking his films, my order isn't so concrete. I know I'd probably put Begins, Insomnia and Following towards the bottom...and I like all of those films quite a bit. The rest are all great to varying degrees and all for different reasons, IMO.

I could go on and on about what I love about his films, but overall it really just comes down to the fact that there's a true passion behind them, as well a certain confidence. Watching a Christopher Nolan movie is generally like listening to someone tell a great story where you're hanging on every word. He grabs you from frame one and doesn't let go. His characters tend to be dark, his plots may be meticulous, but overall I don't know that I'd describe his work as cold. I mean there's coldness there, but I wouldn't say that's the defining characteristic. Not when they're so easy to get lost in and emotionally invested in.

I'm excited to see his evolution continue with Interstellar.

 

[titansupes]

I find it pretty hard to believe that there hasn't been a general Nolan discussion thread int he Misc. Movies section until now.

All in all, he's my favorite filmmaker working today. I'd be lying if I tried to say otherwise. I'm really enjoying watching his career unfold, I feel like he's very aware the fortunate position he's in and wants to make the best possible grand scale movies possible that challenges both him as a filmmaker and the audience. It's been really cool to see his evolution from film to film, I don't mind at all that he's gone bigger and bigger. One day he'll do something smaller again, but now's not the time. He's in the position that every indie filmmaker working today dreams of being in.

In terms of ranking his films, my order isn't so concrete. I know I'd probably put Begins, Insomnia and Following towards the bottom...and I like all of those films quite a bit. The rest are all great to varying degrees and all for different reasons, IMO.

I could go on and on about what I love about his films, but overall it really just comes down to the fact that there's a true passion behind them, as well a certain confidence. Watching a Christopher Nolan movie is generally like listening to someone tell a great story where you're hanging on every word. He grabs you from frame one and doesn't let go. His characters tend to be dark, his plots may be meticulous, but overall I don't know that I'd describe his work as cold. I mean there's coldness there, but I wouldn't say that's the defining characteristic. Not when they're so easy to get lost in and emotionally invested in.

I'm excited to see his evolution continue with Interstellar.

I'm glad you're back, BatLobsterRises. t: I do concur.

 

[DA_Champion]

I haven't watched the film in a while, but wasn't that precisely why Ellen Page's character was chosen to be part of the team? She was supposed to be incredibly intelligent and learned quickly, as the scene with the maze made clear?

Skills don't work that way. It always takes significant time to become an expert unless the skill is a trivial one.

 

[slumcat]

It's not 'mightily apparent' and I'm not the only one to comment on it in disagreement. Presenting two lists of directors and writing this "And I concur, within the larger discussion of cinema, I don't think Nolan belongs in a "best directors working today" discussion at all. He can make a place in that discussion in the future but presently he woefully misses the mark and his work cannot be compared to the work that these film-makers are doing." as your conclusion seems a little more than conjecture on your part.

I'll say it one more time and leave it at this, as I'm sure no one is enjoying our conversation; I don't care that you dislike Christopher Nolan. What irks is me is that you went beyond your own personal opinion and made an entire post presenting what you felt was evidence that your opinion was factual, and that those who felt differently aren't real 'cinephiles'. It's extremely condescending and elitist, and just plain obnoxious. If you can't see that claiming superiority of opinion is not extremely patronizing and snobbish, and that you've just "touched a nerve", you might want to step down and get some perspective.

Ah well what can I say. Opinions cannot ever be factual. It boggles my mind that you would even think that. And in the quote that you very helpfully quote from my post I use "I think" which means it is only an opinion beyond all doubt. I also use "I concur" which means I agree with those lists and agreement is ofcourse always an opinion as well.

I don't know if you are skipping words or in what manner you are reading my posts since you seem to be seeings things that are not there and making up your own.

Atleast I agree this is a very stupid conversation to have even though I don't know why you started this "you are condescending!!!!!" shtick.

 

[Anita18]

Skills don't work that way. It always takes significant time to become an expert unless the skill is a trivial one.

It CAN happen. I'm a figure skating fan, and it normally takes a year for a little kid about 6 or 7 to learn how to do a single axel jump. US skater Johnny Weir started when he was 12 (which is ANCIENT for an elite figure skater) and learned how to do a single axel in a week.

Building dream architecture I'm sure isn't trivial, but it is a discrete skill that I can see someone being naturally talented at. Extraction and inception require soft skills that would need practice and experience running around in people's heads, but no one claimed Ariadne was good at that. Cobb claimed she was extremely precocious at dream structure and architecture, and that's what she shows in the film.

Like, Johnny Weir was fantastic at picking up the jumps quickly, but he didn't have the competitive mindset and mental centering of someone who'd done it for almost 10 years at the age he started.


My main issue with Inception is also the exposition. Of course, you need it when you're watching it for the very first time, but it becomes unnecessary after that. Usually I just skip the wordy parts and get to the meat.

 

[DA_Champion]

It CAN happen. I'm a figure skating fan, and it normally takes a year for a little kid about 6 or 7 to learn how to do a single axel jump. US skater Johnny Weir started when he was 12 (which is ANCIENT for an elite figure skater) and learned how to do a single axel in a week.

Building dream architecture I'm sure isn't trivial, but it is a discrete skill that I can see someone being naturally talented at. Extraction and inception require soft skills that would need practice and experience running around in people's heads, but no one claimed Ariadne was good at that. Cobb claimed she was extremely precocious at dream structure and architecture, and that's what she shows in the film.

Like, Johnny Weir was fantastic at picking up the jumps quickly, but he didn't have the competitive mindset and mental centering of someone who'd done it for almost 10 years at the age he started.


My main issue with Inception is also the exposition. Of course, you need it when you're watching it for the very first time, but it becomes unnecessary after that. Usually I just skip the wordy parts and get to the meat.

Whenever you read a story of someone famous becoming spontaneously successful off a base off nothing, just be skeptical and assume that the story is false.

Even Wikipedia refutes your assumption, here.

First of all, Weir had been an athlete his entire life. Then, prior to ever ice skating, he had been practicing extensively on roller skates and watching the sport. Then, he practiced for sometime using ice skates in his backyard. Then, he got group lessons, and then it took him a week to perform a single axel, a far cry from the triple axels that are routine in competition, never mind within the context of a 4 minute performance loaded with other moves and where 100% accuracy is expected. They probably don't tell you that Weir was doing the single axel dozens of times in a row, and falling, prior to getting his first solid landing.

Weir didn't win a national championship for another seven years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Weir

She didn't just build dream architecture in this movie, she was speaking to Cobb as an equal for the last third of the movie, and she was getting through the neurological defences of a CEO, all the while being trusted with an operation worth billions of dollars.

I'm ok with the exposition in Inception because I don't see any alternative. With less exposition, people would not have known what the movie was about, and it would have grossed less.

********

In contrast, in Batman Begins, they make sure to let us know that Bruce Wayne already had elite reflexes and hand-to-hand combat skills prior to meeting Ras Al-Ghul. He didn't become the greatest ninja from a base of nothing. It was like an elite tennis player picking up squash.

 

[Anita18]

Whenever you read a story of someone famous becoming spontaneously successful off a base off nothing, just be skeptical and assume that the story is false.

Even Wikipedia refutes your assumption, here.

First of all, Weir had been an athlete his entire life. Then, prior to ever ice skating, he had been practicing extensively on roller skates and watching the sport. Then, he practiced for sometime using ice skates in his backyard. Then, he got group lessons, and then it took him a week to perform a single axel, a far cry from the triple axels that are routine in competition, never mind within the context of a 4 minute performance loaded with other moves and where 100% accuracy is expected. They probably don't tell you that Weir was doing the single axel dozens of times in a row, and falling, prior to getting his first solid landing.

Weir didn't win a national championship for another seven years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Weir

She didn't just build dream architecture in this movie, she was speaking to Cobb as an equal for the last third of the movie, and she was getting through the neurological defences of a CEO, all the while being trusted with an operation worth billions of dollars.

I'm ok with the exposition in Inception because I don't see any alternative. With less exposition, people would not have known what the movie was about, and it would have grossed less.

********

In contrast, in Batman Begins, they make sure to let us know that Bruce Wayne already had elite reflexes and hand-to-hand combat skills prior to meeting Ras Al-Ghul. He didn't become the greatest ninja from a base of nothing. It was like an elite tennis player picking up squash.

Tons of kid skaters his age were doing other sports and falling just as much, and they didn't pick up the jumps as easily as Weir did.

Weir's background is exceedingly rare for an elite figure skater. I've been a big fan for about 10 years, and I can't think of another singles skater who started so late and achieved so much. You can look at Wikipedia all you want, but I'm telling you, no one else who has gone to the Olympics in recent memory started skating the way he did.

As you said, he didn't win a national championship for a while, but then again, neither did anyone else at that age. Like I mentioned, there's a lot more to winning championships than learning jumps in practice.


The thing about dream sharing in Inception is that we only see the industry through the microcosm of that one team. We don't know how truly difficult it is for a layperson off the street. It took Fischer some effort to remember the previous level, but he was able to do it. Miles, a presumably internationally renowned professor who taught Cobb and Mal their trade, handpicked Ariadne for the team because she had more talent than even Cobb did.

I didn't really see her speaking to Cobb as an equal at the end, but as a precocious student who doesn't know enough to doubt herself. (I've heard stories of graduate science students who point out unusual results that their mentors would usually wave away, and going down the rabbit hole has resulted in a Nobel Prize.)

Yes, it's convenient that she's able to pick it up so quickly, but there's nothing in the film that says it's impossible. -shrug-

 

[Dr.]

My main issue with Inception is also the exposition. Of course, you need it when you're watching it for the very first time, but it becomes unnecessary after that. Usually I just skip the wordy parts and get to the meat.

Generally speaking, I find Nolan’s use of exposition to be interesting and masterful. (I came across a screenwriters’ website and was amused by this piece of advice: Exposition is often necessary, but should be kept to a minimum - unless you can do it as well as Christopher Nolan. ) I think some folks have the idea that any sort extended exposition = weak writing. But it’s pretty much mandatory in, say, detective fiction and courtroom dramas. It’s also needed in sci-fi or tech-based movies where the “rules” are fantastical or unfamiliar. In Dr. Strangelove, for example, understanding the technical details of “Wing Attack Plan R” (the order for a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union) - as well as the attempts to signal a recall of the wing attack - was crucial to the narrative. Likewise, in order for the audience to understand the climax of Back to the Future, they had to be tutored on the importance of “88mph” and “1.21 gigawatts.”

 

[The Endless]

Nolan doesn't do exposition too well sometimes. Exposition dialogue is done well when it's a character explaining something to another character; the audience is learning as another character is learning. It has to be natural.

Inception did this quite well for the most part. But his Batman films don't. I recall Daggett explaining the "blank slate" to Selina. Absolutely atrocious exposition dump. That whole exchange just didn't make any sense at all. Why would Daggett be explaining exactly what it is to Selina when she already knows exactly what it is... otherwise she wouldn't even be after it. That's amateur writing. I'm amazed someone like Nolan let it out of the editing room.

Same can be said of Gordon's closing monologue at the end of TDK. But that capped off a great movie and a brilliant scene so it doesn't bother me too much.

It seems like a lot of the dialogue in the Batman films is characters pontificating AT each other. Instead of having actual conversations between each other. It seems kinda stilted a lot of the time. It makes it obvious their dialogue is predetermined by a script and not flowing naturally from one character to another.

 

[Schlosser85]

Yea, and Alfred conveniently knowing everything about Bane like he's got his own Wikipedia page.

 

[samsnee]

Good to see some fans here think TDKR is his worst movie. Forget that it's even a sequel. I don't think anyone expected it to be as great as TDK. But even as a stand alone movie, it felt so by the numbers, and lacked the scale that the story wanted to push (ie a nuclear bomb going off and the only people trying to get out are a busload of kids)

I would rate Insomnia higher. It has a great mood and builds up nicely, and is probably one of Pacino's last good performances. But I would place his top 3 as

The Prestige
TDK
Inception

 

[DA_Champion]

In hindsight, the best way to improve TDKR:

1) remove talia
2) remove john blake

But ... it's still better than the vast majority of CBMs. It does several interesting things, like the three navy seals getting killed off, Bruce's depression, the consequences of the Dent act, the police chase, and Bane's speech about hope and despair.

 

[samsnee]

I agree.

The themes and pieces were there, but it just didn't work as a whole. The Bane/Talia twist was not necessary and felt shoe-horned in to tie it back into Begins with the League.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Following and Insomnia both underrated by the public IMHO. Critics missed the boat on The Prestige, possibly the best script and direction of his career.

 

[The Shape]

I recall Daggett explaining the "blank slate" to Selina. Absolutely atrocious exposition dump. That whole exchange just didn't make any sense at all. Why would Daggett be explaining exactly what it is to Selina when she already knows exactly what it is... otherwise she wouldn't even be after it. That's amateur writing. I'm amazed someone like Nolan let it out of the editing room.

Dagget was mocking her. Did you not catch that?

Same can be said of Gordon's closing monologue at the end of TDK. But that capped off a great movie and a brilliant scene so it doesn't bother me too much.

That was not exposition.

 

[The Shape]

Following and Insomnia both underrated by the public IMHO. Critics missed the boat on The Prestige, possibly the best script and direction of his career.

I love Insomnia. It's a tight Nolan thriller that is based in the real world and features linear story-telling.

The Prestige is just brilliant, though. Gets me every time when Jackman says, "It was the look on their faces!"

 

[BatLobster]

Haha yeah, it seems the definition of "exposition" gets a bit loose some times when it comes to discussing Nolan.

Also, it still surprises me that so many hardcore fans overlook the fact that Alfred is heavily implied to be an ex-Mi6 type of guy who would undoubtedly have some contacts and sources, and instead jump straight to "wikipedia". And removing Talia and Blake would also really chop the whole "legacy"/"immortality through an heir" angle out of the story, which is a key component. The funny thing is I'll always hear someone trying to boil down TDKR to one or two "fatal flaws", but the truth is that people are always pointing to different things. There's no consensus even on the detractors' side. To me this just highlights the fact the movie could've used a little more length to flesh everything out a bit more.

Still, being a movie with some flaws doesn't stop it from being a great movie to me. All great movies have flaws. Now, some may say that TDKR's flaws are "unforgivable", but it's all relative to what a movie does right in your eyes. To me, the movie gets so much right and just SOARS in the right moments that it's able to transcend some of the shortcuts it takes to get there in 2 hours and 45 minutes- the fastest 2:45 movie I've ever seen for that matter. Just think- the first Hobbit film was the same length. And that felt well over 3 hours to me.

Not that this thread needs to be turned into a "let's debate TDKR" thread. Let's just agree that it's most Nolan's divisive movie to date. Divisive blockbusters seem to be the status quo now, though.

 

[Dr.]

I recall Daggett explaining the "blank slate" to Selina. Absolutely atrocious exposition dump. That whole exchange just didn't make any sense at all. Why would Daggett be explaining exactly what it is to Selina when she already knows exactly what it is... otherwise she wouldn't even be after it. That's amateur writing. I'm amazed someone like Nolan let it out of the editing room.

While I wouldn’t call that scene particularly artful, it was adequately functional - hardly “atrocious.” Bad exposition is often characterized by an awkwardly obvious “as you know…” setup. E.g.: “As you know, your husband, the mayor…” But better forms use various tricks to disguise the exposition as plausible and natural dialogue. In this case, Daggett claimed that Clean Slate didn’t exist. So his (necessary) description was couched as context-appropriate sarcasm.

Dagget was mocking her. Did you not catch that?

 

[The Endless]

I don't see how he was mocking her. He explained in detail what the thing was to Selina, even though she already knew what it was. In other words, it was basically breaking the fourth wall and telling us, the viewer, exactly what it was.

Which is the very definition of bad exposition. It's unnatural dialogue that doesn't actually make sense in the movie but is put there to tell the audience something, instead of you know, showing us.

 

[The Shape]

I don't see how he was mocking her. He explained in detail what the thing was to Selina, even though she already knew what it was. In other words, it was basically breaking the fourth wall and telling us, the viewer, exactly what it was.

Which is the very definition of bad exposition. It's unnatural dialogue that doesn't actually make sense in the movie but is put there to tell the audience something, instead of you know, showing us.

Based on the tone of his voice and the way his sentences were phrased, it's clear that he was sarcastically mocking Selina. "The clean slate? The ultimate tool for a master thief? Sound too good to be true?" To which she responds, "You're lying!"

He was ****ing with her. To his knowledge, the clean slate didn't exist. Was it technically exposition? Yes, but it was not completely unnecessary or unnatural within the context of the film.

 

[BatLobster]

His tone is clearly mocking and sarcastic. The point of the line is Daggett pointing out that it's too good to be true. It's a dual purpose line, yes it's exposition but there IS a motivation in the scene which keeps it from breaking the fourth wall.

Edit: TheShape beat me to it.

 

[The Endless]

So she asks "Where is the clean slate" indicating she knows it exists. He's like "ohhh the clean slate..." then begins to describe it's purpose in exact detail, even though she must clearly already know it's purpose in exact detail (otherwise why should she want it?) then she calls him a liar.

The whole exchange just doesn't make any sense, whether he's mocking her or not. To me it was "we need to explain in detail what this mcguffin does" then they did it in a horrible unnatural way that made me realise they are actors reading off of a script.

That is a problem i find with a lot of Nolan/Goyer penned movies. These characters don't seem like real people having natural conversations with each other. Sometimes it just comes across as though the dialogue is predetermined by a script. They are not conversing with each other, they are throwing speeches or monologues at each other.

 

[BatLobster]

It's a fairly common way to mock someone's intelligence, which is what Daggett was doing.

Example:

Big kid to little kid: "Santa Clause? The fat bearded guy who rides a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer around the entire globe and manages to deliver presents to every child in the course of one night, who sneaks into your house via your chimney? You still believe in that guy?"

That's the tone. We can both sit here and understand that Jonah Nolan used this scene as an opportunity to clue the audience in on the function of a MacGuffin, but that doesn't mean there was no attempt to supply a character motivation for the line. If it took you out of the movie, it happens. Nolan scripts do have this tendency you're talking about, but it can be argued that it's part of a heightened style. It wouldn't feel right to me to see a Nolan movie where people conversed like they do in real life, ala a Kevin Smith or Judd Apatow movie.

Gordon's speech to his son at the end of TDK is as grandiose as they come, and no father talks to his 8 year old boy like that. But I wouldn't change a word, it makes the whole ending for me.

 

[hammerhedd11]

So she asks "Where is the clean slate" indicating she knows it exists. He's like "ohhh the clean slate..." then begins to describe it's purpose in exact detail, even though she must clearly already know it's purpose in exact detail (otherwise why should she want it?) then she calls him a liar.

The whole exchange just doesn't make any sense, whether he's mocking her or not. To me it was "we need to explain in detail what this mcguffin does" then they did it in a horrible unnatural way that made me realise they are actors reading off of a script.

That is a problem i find with a lot of Nolan/Goyer penned movies. These characters don't seem like real people having natural conversations with each other. Sometimes it just comes across as though the dialogue is predetermined by a script. They are not conversing with each other, they are throwing speeches or monologues at each other.

I don't really find that most movies ever have naturalistic conversations or really aim to, because they would be boring and irrelevant. I never really understood this fascination with suddenly realizing you're watching a movie as a criticism. Do you forget where you are or something? I think something like seeing bridges blow up and fall into the water would be a bigger tipping off point.

I think most films have always tried to be larger than life, and to pull of something compelling and constantly moving forward, you're always abandoning reality whether you're The Dark Knight or The Bicycle Thief. I think the difference between good and bad exposition is not its realism, but whether it's genuine to the scene and dramatic context of the film. I think it has to be earned, not naturalistic. Because I don't think something like a butler telling his vigilante friend who dresses like a bat about the evil mercenary who came from a pit in the ground is ever going to sound naturalistic.