All-Encompassing Christopher Nolan Discussion Thread

[The Endless]

It's a criticism because a film is supposed to immerse you. When two characters are not conversing with each other, but throwing long speeches at each other, i can't be immersed and thus, give a **** about what's going on because it makes it obvious it's not two characters, it's two actors reading from a script. Obviously this all depends on the actual execution more than anything. Gordon's speech at the end of TDK works well because it nicely caps off the movie.

And by natural i of course mean natural in context with the film. Like i said, one character explaining something to another character who is actually learning something new, along with us the audience, is fine.

But a character explaining something to another character who already knows the explanation just comes off as spoon feeding the audience in my eyes.

Don't tell me, show me. Don't tell me why i'm supposed to like/hate this guy, show me why i'm supposed to like/hate this guy. Don't tell me what this mcguffin does, show me what this mcguffin does.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I guess I just don't understand the idea of not 'realizing you're watching a movie' as either a positive or negative thing. Everything reminds me I'm watching a film. A film that's firing on all cylinders reminds me I'm watching a really good movie. I guess I don't even see the appeal of being 'tricked' so to speak by a film. I think the distance between a viewer and the film is something that's a necessity, because I realize there's a story being condensed into two hours and presented as such, and the joy is in seeing it depicted, which can't really happen unless there is that distance.
Maybe it's just me.

 

[The Endless]

I get what you are saying. But when it comes to characters specifically, i need to BELIEVE, to care.

 

[Dr.]

It’s clear that Daggett disputes the existence of Clean Slate. He (as others here have noted) calls it “too good to be true” and a “myth.” So by way of ridiculing Selina’s search, he reiterates the device’s fanciful capabilities. This (as also noted) is actually a natural and familiar way to express sarcasm. Instead of a succinct dismissal, one tends to a fuller description so as to underscore the derision. In POTC, for instance, a “ship with black sails” is merely mentioned. To which, Mullroy responds with mockery: “You've seen a ship with black sails that's crewed by the damned, and captained by a man so evil that Hell itself spat him back out?” Again - valuable exposition for the audience that’s suitably camouflaged by a sarcastic context.

 

[redfirebird2008]

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.

Yes, Nolan's dialogue can be pretentious and I can understand why some folks might not like it. But I enjoy it. The Interstellar teaser trailer has barely any footage from the movie, but I really enjoy the voiceover.

 

[Anita18]

I think exposition bothers me most when it's coming from a character who shouldn't know that information, or displays their knowledge at a very convenient time. (Still looking at you SM3...)

Nolan's exposition in TDKR and Inception is a little clunky, but done as well as could be expected in that sort of situation.

 

[Anita18]

Yes, Nolan's dialogue can be pretentious and I can understand why some folks might not like it. But I enjoy it. The Interstellar teaser trailer has barely any footage from the movie, but I really enjoy the voiceover.

I thought of the term "operatic" for TDK and I think it suits Nolan's films very well.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I didn't really have a problem with the Clean Slate dialogue. However, the scene where Alfred is telling Bruce about Bane is cringeworthy exposition. I found myself wondering, "How the hell does Alfred know so much about Bane?" Not to mention that scene also features the magic knee brace. It's just a lazy scene all the way around.

 

[Schlosser85]

Inception's exposition doesn't bother me, which is kind of ironic considering that a LOT of the dialogue is basically Leo, JGL, Hardy, Watanabe, and Dileep Rao standing/sitting around taking turns lobbing chunks of it at each other, and Ellen Page is such a thinly-veiled audience stand-in to ask a million questions and give Nolan an excuse to explain everything.

I'm aware how exposition-dense it is, but for some reason it doesn't bother me. It seems to have a flow and a smoothness to it.

All 3 Batmans have some clunky exposition.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The only exposition in Inception that bothered me is when Ariadne asks Cobb about the projections during the snow fortress dream level.

 

[slumcat]

Inception's exposition doesn't bother me, which is kind of ironic considering that a LOT of the dialogue is basically Leo, JGL, Hardy, Watanabe, and Dileep Rao standing/sitting around taking turns lobbing chunks of it at each other, and Ellen Page is such a thinly-veiled audience stand-in to ask a million questions and give Nolan an excuse to explain everything.

I'm aware how exposition-dense it is, but for some reason it doesn't bother me. It seems to have a flow and a smoothness to it.

All 3 Batmans have some clunky exposition.

I noticed the exposition in Inception even on the first viewing.

Page has the most awful thankless part in that movie. She basically just follows around DiCaprio and at regular intervals stops the story and asks "What now what does this thing mean?" and then DiCaprio explains to her. They just stop short of putting it in text on screen and asking the audience "All good?" and then proceeding from there. The movie can play like a filmed manual.

The problem with exposition is this - it can kill a movie for you on repeat viewings. The exposition portions will become very frustrating for you when you already know them. And it begs the question that if the story where you have to spend so much time stopping every now and then and explaining what is going on is even a good one?

I wish modern blockbusters would put a little faith in the audiences and take a leap of faith and expect the audiences to fill in the blanks for the information that they don't provide.

That's the thing with today's blockbusters, many of them are so high concept and so convoluted, that they take forever to set up their premise and keep interrupting the narrative to get the premise across to the audience.

 

[redfirebird2008]

That's the thing with today's blockbusters, many of them are so high concept and so convoluted, that they take forever to set up their premise and keep interrupting the narrative to get the premise across to the audience.

I completely disagree. If anything, most blockbusters today are brain dead stuff like Transformers. Not much exposition needed for that. Giant robots beating the crap out of each other.

Then there's the superhero genre where about 99.9% of them follow a certain formula and it's the same thing over and over again.

And then there's adaptations of popular book series where a lot of the audience already knows what will happen in the movies. There are not a lot of risks taken in Hollywood these days, especially not on big budget properties.

Inception, even with the heavy dose of exposition, was a HUGE risk. Audiences could have easily rejected it considering the subject matter wasn't something they were familiar with like so many other blockbusters produced today.

 

[slumcat]

I completely disagree. If anything, most blockbusters today are brain dead stuff like Transformers. Not much exposition needed for that. Giant robots beating the crap out of each other.

Then there's the superhero genre where about 99.9% of them follow a certain formula and it's the same thing over and over again.

And then there's adaptations of popular book series where a lot of the audience already knows what will happen in the movies. There are not a lot of risks taken in Hollywood these days, especially not on big budget properties.

Inception, even with the heavy dose of exposition, was a HUGE risk. Audiences could have easily rejected it considering the subject matter wasn't something they were familiar with like so many other blockbusters produced today.

Having never seen a Transformers movie (nor having the intention to ever see one) I can't comment.

But Inception was definitely one of the movies I was pointing at. There seems to be a whole lot of mumbo jumbo to go along with for your narrative to work. All kinds of kicks, and architects, and projections, and limbos and what not. It doesn't seem very elegant.

Another example is Divergent (though I haven't seen the movie but gathering this from the synopsis)... there's factions like Abnegation, Amity, Candor and god knows what all and it all begins to become a totally preposterous and overwrought manner of world building.

Another example is Thor 2 - poor Anthony Hopkins for 5 minutes straight delivering poker faced some **** about the worlds aligning and the fabric of time and the conception of the world and such.

Most YA adaptations are guilty of this. These stories takes place in worlds so built by facile design that you can't have any real investment in the story knowing that these stories are occurring in some absurd plane of imagination. It adds a specificity to these stories that actually reduces their scope.

I would prefer more elegance of construction in these sort of movies, less clutter and more structural sophistication. And less explanation for to the audiences.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Divergent is an adaptation of a popular young adult book series. Those type of movies have large built-in audiences, so Hollywood will keep going back to the well. Harry Potter showed the way and they will continue relying on those kind of young adult book series until the money dries up.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I have a lot of respect for Nolan.

My only beef with some of his films is the awful dialogue explaining everything! The first 10-15 minutes of Inception pretty much explained dreams with in dream mumbo-jumbo. I don't need Juno explaining **** to me. Let the dumb crowds not get it, but don't dumb down scenes for the rest of us. Be Clear. Snakes on a plane! You already know what it is.

 

[Pink Ranger]

If I ever write a screenplay, I will include a line where a character says, "Explain this to me as if I'm just a guy watching us like we're in a movie."

 

[Black Narcissus]

If I ever write a screenplay, I will include a line where a character says, "Explain this to me as if I'm just a guy watching us like we're in a movie."

Send me the script!

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm not sure if it's a problem that a movie is less fun on repeat viewings.

 

[DA_Champion]

Having never seen a Transformers movie (nor having the intention to ever see one) I can't comment.

But Inception was definitely one of the movies I was pointing at. There seems to be a whole lot of mumbo jumbo to go along with for your narrative to work. All kinds of kicks, and architects, and projections, and limbos and what not. It doesn't seem very elegant.

Another example is Divergent (though I haven't seen the movie but gathering this from the synopsis)... there's factions like Abnegation, Amity, Candor and god knows what all and it all begins to become a totally preposterous and overwrought manner of world building.

Another example is Thor 2 - poor Anthony Hopkins for 5 minutes straight delivering poker faced some **** about the worlds aligning and the fabric of time and the conception of the world and such.

Most YA adaptations are guilty of this. These stories takes place in worlds so built by facile design that you can't have any real investment in the story knowing that these stories are occurring in some absurd plane of imagination. It adds a specificity to these stories that actually reduces their scope.

I would prefer more elegance of construction in these sort of movies, less clutter and more structural sophistication. And less explanation for to the audiences.

Divergent is specifically aimed at teenage girls. What is obviously preposterous to an educated thirty five year old will probably appear fine to that audience.

The world building is very much a metaphor for the problems teenagers face in their lives, about examinations and needing to pick one path in college without necessarily knowing which path is best.

If you don't like metaphor then you will probably hate nearly all of Science fiction, which is too bad. These planes of existence need not be 100% plausible, that's not a healthy way of looking at literature imo.

 

[Dr.]

The problem with exposition is this - it can kill a movie for you on repeat viewings. The exposition portions will become very frustrating for you when you already know them. And it begs the question that if the story where you have to spend so much time stopping every now and then and explaining what is going on is even a good one?

I’ve seen Inception a number of times; and for me, there are no “boring bits” (e.g., exposition on how the dream levels work) that tempt me to hit the FF button. I find it all fascinating and engaging, even on repeat viewings. Indeed, I generally enjoy the dialogue/exposition scenes more than the gun battles and car chases (which sometimes tends toward the generic - though the zero-g fight was rather spectacular).

Analogously, part of the fun of (good) detective fiction is when the hero explains (via extended exposition) how s/he solved the complicated crime. And this enjoyment persists beyond the first reading or viewing - even though the solution is now known.

I wish modern blockbusters would put a little faith in the audiences and take a leap of faith and expect the audiences to fill in the blanks for the information that they don't provide.

For better or worse, Inception was deliberately fashioned as a complex puzzle (much like a dream is a complex puzzle in need of decoding and interpretation). And even with its extensive exposition, it has generated volumes of conjecture, debate and critical analysis - which somewhat belies your idea that Nolan was spoon-feeding the audience. Seems like Inception (more than most mainstream movies) was challenging the audience and trusting in their collective intelligence. In fact, it’s more than a bit surprising that a movie this complicated would go on to earn over $800M at the BO.

 

[Anita18]

Inception aims to be clear on its plot-related mechanics, unlike say, 2001: A Space Odyssey. But it's not as clear in explaining its thematic elements, which is why people have so many theories about it. People can put whatever they want into their interpretation, which is why it became a water cooler conversation topic.

Even though most of that conversation revolved around the last shot. But what people believed also said something about themselves.

I don't think many people caught the specific thematic references to "kicking" yourself out of a depressive slump and moving on with your life, and inspiring others to do the same. That has inspired me in hard times.

 

[terry78]

I do think sometimes that whole "interpret it how you want" thing can come off as lazy since it's become such the in thing to do.

 

[Deserana]

If I ever write a screenplay, I will include a line where a character says, "Explain this to me as if I'm just a guy watching us like we're in a movie."

There was a show in the UK last year that was a spoof of all Police Procedural shows which literally involved the line "Could you explain it like I'm some sort of viewer, sir?"

Anyway Nolan for me is my favorite director around I'm only young so It's probably because I grew up with his films but he really just brings the films I really want to see. I could watch all his films multiple times other than maybe Following which I still like but for some reason ultra low budget films like that can grate on me. The ending is still brilliant. TDKR like many people is the only slight blip I can think of. I still love that film though and it gave me a cinema experience like I've never had!

It just felt very... UnNolany though. Sure you could say Nolan has had issues with dialogue before but it never ever bothered me in Inception. It sorta had to be explained? But with TDKR it just had many "wait did they just say that?" lines. Like I never expected "Get the president on the line!" in a Nolan film. And for someone who expertly dealt with timelines in Memento and Inception to suddenly just butcher the pacing. It would just skip 6 months in a shot then about two scenes after skips another 28 days. TDKR really should have been two movies. And for a film that routed itself so firmly in reality in TDK it seemed jarring to suddenly have flying vehicles! The storyline itself in TDKR is perfect for a finale it was just too rushed.

 

[DA_Champion]

If exposition is intrinsically bad, why are the opening paragraphs of A Tale of Two Cities so incredibly famous?

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

I noticed the exposition in Inception even on the first viewing.

Page has the most awful thankless part in that movie. She basically just follows around DiCaprio and at regular intervals stops the story and asks "What now what does this thing mean?" and then DiCaprio explains to her. They just stop short of putting it in text on screen and asking the audience "All good?" and then proceeding from there. The movie can play like a filmed manual.

The problem with exposition is this - it can kill a movie for you on repeat viewings. The exposition portions will become very frustrating for you when you already know them. And it begs the question that if the story where you have to spend so much time stopping every now and then and explaining what is going on is even a good one?

I wish modern blockbusters would put a little faith in the audiences and take a leap of faith and expect the audiences to fill in the blanks for the information that they don't provide.

That's the thing with today's blockbusters, many of them are so high concept and so convoluted, that they take forever to set up their premise and keep interrupting the narrative to get the premise across to the audience.

But TDKR sucks because we haven't seen how Bruce was able to enter Gotham!