What is deep, where is that substance? Well, watch Memento, The Prestige, TDK or Interstellar again... Pay attention to themes in those films, to dialogues and monologues, to ways how protagonists react to and reflect situations around them.
Pay attention to intentions of characters, how they put their ideas into action, what they sacrifice to get what they want, look at consequences of their actions. Heed the obsessive behaviour of Leonard, Angeir, Borden, Wayne... Those films are full of psychological and philosophical ideas you can think about for the whole rest of your life.
IMO those films are ground-breaking, I've never seen things like that put together in such manner. Entertaining yet so clever, sophisticated, emotional and original. To me they are amongst the best artistic endeavours I've ever experienced. Maybe because I'm psychologically flawed in very similar ways the protagonists of Nolan's films are. His films speak right to my core. I can understand those obsessive somewhat self-destructive idealists... I can understand them and I feel their struggle.
Baffled Leonard, going for revenge again and again, unable to tell what's real, what's some reflection, what's illusion of his mind. Angeir and Borden, giving everything dear in their lives and their lives themselves to achieve their, for other people incomprehensible, goals. Wayne's obsessive adherence to rules and ideas over pragmatism and self-preservation. Cooper's standpoint between the species or the individual. Etc., etc.
On the formalistic side, pay attention to structure of Memento or The Prestige, because their structures reflect the main perspectives of those films, i.e. loss of short-term memory and three parts of any proper magic trick. And watch how multi-layered their narration is. How sophisticated scripts for those films are. It's just mind-boggling. The amount of detail and complexity. I think scripts for TDK and Interstellar are just brilliant (it's like the borderline of human script-writing capabilities).
I have to see Inception again to take some standpoint.
I would love to discuss your observations from watching those films, there is so much to talk about. So if you want, just write here where's the subtance missing and we can look at that in detail.t:
And if you know some similar artists, please recommend.
I mean, their styles are wholy different. Nolan works really well because his ideas are more far-reaching and complex, yet are presented in a very relatable way, which amplifies its internal effect. Tarantino usually has very simple themes explored simply, but through interesting stories and characters, and are told through over the top imagery and actions.
It's apples and oranges. Personally I tend to find Tarantino's works pretty hollow (as compared to Nolan) - you rarely gain more appreciation the more you watch because it's almost all on the surface in terms of the deeper elements. With nolan, the more you watch, the more layers you uncover, and the more you realize that the 'stilted dialog' is always serving multiple purposes, both in terms of exploring the characters and their interactions with the world and the many themes throughout.
I would say Tarantino is better at writing dialog and playing with structural and cinematic conventions, but Nolan is the better writer in terms of crafting complicated, engaging and unique stories that only become more impressive and layered the more you watch them, and to me personally, are always much more relatable as a person. When I walk out of a Tarantino movie, my reaction is, "Damn, that was fun." But I quickly forget about the movie, beyond that I enjoyed it. When i walk out of a Nolan movie my reaction is, "Holy ****, I've never experienced that before." And the movie's themes and characters continue to churn in my brain for the next couple of months.
Having said that - they're both incredible filmmakers who bridge entertainment and the intellectual better than almost any other filmmaker working today. I would love to be able to save them both - and luckily, in real life, I still can appreciate them both without it aversely affecting the other.
I mean, their styles are wholy different. Nolan works really well because his ideas are more far-reaching and complex, yet are presented in a very relatable way, which amplifies its internal effect. Tarantino usually has very simple themes explored simply, but through interesting stories and characters, and are told through over the top imagery and actions.
It's apples and oranges. Personally I tend to find Tarantino's works pretty hollow (as compared to Nolan) - you rarely gain more appreciation the more you watch because it's almost all on the surface in terms of the deeper elements. With nolan, the more you watch, the more layers you uncover, and the more you realize that the 'stilted dialog' is always serving multiple purposes, both in terms of exploring the characters and their interactions with the world and the many themes throughout.
I would say Tarantino is better at writing dialog and playing with structural and cinematic conventions, but Nolan is the better writer in terms of crafting complicated, engaging and unique stories that only become more impressive and layered the more you watch them, and to me personally, are always much more relatable as a person. When I walk out of a Tarantino movie, my reaction is, "Damn, that was fun." But I quickly forget about the movie, beyond that I enjoyed it. When i walk out of a Nolan movie my reaction is, "Holy ****, I've never experienced that before." And the movie's themes and characters continue to churn in my brain for the next couple of months.
Having said that - they're both incredible filmmakers who bridge entertainment and the intellectual better than almost any other filmmaker working today. I would love to be able to save them both - and luckily, in real life, I still can appreciate them both without it aversely affecting the other.
He does the way it's supposed to be done. Treats everyone like they're humans, not like they're genders or races
Dude...
Dude.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuude...
Go back to 1993 and see what was in theaters. Then check out the output post Pulp Fiction. Does Nolan have a certain amount of influence? Sure. No doubt. Visually lots have been trying to recreate his neo-classicist sense of cinematography and impeccable, if somewhat sterile production design. But I think you are not quite remembering the effect Tarantino's work had when it came out, and what it still has today, on what can be done with dialog, character and narrative. I dare say that without works like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, that you don't get a Memento or a Prestige, full stop.
