Christopher Nolan vs Quentin Tarantino ( Kill/Save)

[Matt Mortem]

Tarantino is probably the most important director to come out in the last 20 years. Nolan is destined to go the way of Ridley Scott. Starts strong, but after awhile loses his way.

 

[spiderman2]

While that is how I fell when I hear some one say that kill bill 1 and 2 is a classic.

 

[Squaremaster316]

Tarantino is probably the most important director to come out in the last 20 years.

How exactly is he more important that other directors who came out around the same time, such as David Fincher, Spike Jonze or David O. Russell?

Nolan is destined to go the way of Ridley Scott. Starts strong, but after awhile loses his way.

Every film he's made has been a critical hit and has made a profit at the box office, from shoe string budget to massive blockbuster; if anything, he's destined to go the way of Kubrick or Hitchcock.

Ridley was making critical and financial duds in his first decade.

 

[terry78]

I think people that say QT rips off genres doesn't really get what he does.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

While that is how I fell when I hear some one say that kill bill 1 and 2 is a classic.

Your opinion would carry more weight if you didn't consider TASM 2 one of the best cbm's. Just sayin

And Nolan being the next kubrick?

 

[Squaremaster316]

And Nolan being the next kubrick?

He has made a wide variety of films that have had significant influences in their respective genres, and film making in general, and all of the have been critically well received.

You can argue whether or not he'll be regarded in that same category 10 years from now, but at this rate, he's a hell of a lot closer to that vaunted title than being regarded in the same light as Ridley.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Tarantino is probably the most important director to come out in the last 20 years.

Yup.

 

[BatLobster]

Meh, this thread has descended into hyperbole on both sides. How you'd measure "importance" is pretty subjective anyway. Pulp Fiction is THE cultural touchstone of both of their filmographies, but besides a bunch of knock-off movies in the 90s (a lot of which were bad) how do you assign value to its influence?

Honestly, when you compare both Tarantino and Nolan to directors that came before them they both immediately pale in comparison in "importance", because everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. Both Tarantino and Nolan employ an thorough understanding of genre tropes and film history and exploit that in their own specific ways when they make their films. In other words both are very reliant on the history of cinema and riff on and/or against that- albeit in very different ways, with Tarantino calling more attention to that in a quirky way, and Nolan observing convention very astutely so he can be very precise about how and where he subverts a trope and gives you something that feels familiar, yet different.

There's probably an actual good conversation to be had here instead of all the fanboy/cinephile posturing. And also worth noting that both directors are fans of one another.

 

[Slade W]

Both are excellent directors and I love both of their movies. I slightly prefer Tarantino though.

 

[weezerspider]

How exactly is he more important that other directors who came out around the same time, such as David Fincher, Spike Jonze or David O. Russell?



Every film he's made has been a critical hit and has made a profit at the box office, from shoe string budget to massive blockbuster; if anything, he's destined to go the way of Kubrick or Hitchcock.

Ridley was making critical and financial duds in his first decade.

Well to answer your first question, David O. Russell said he probably wouldn't be a filmmaker if it wasn't for Pulp Fiction. Spike Jonze was one of many auteurs in the 1990's who got his start in films because producers made a big push in the 1990's to find young, bold talent auteur directors because of the success and impact of Tarantino and Pulp Fiction. For a very brief period, big Hollywood producers weren't looking for teen books to adapt, or the new teen star, or a comic book to adapt, or a fresh logline. They were looking for artists in the director's chair and that's directly because of Tarantino's two hit punch of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. PTA joked he should give something to his ol' pal Quentin because his first film was financed "due to Pulp Fiction hype". For a very quick glimpse it was almost like the 1970's New Hollywood....and then it was quickly discovered that great artistic voices don't inherently meaning financial success like Tarantino's films had, so it was back to the Hollywood we know now. Christopher Nolan hasn't had even a smidgen of that impact. The most his films have done is created the "dark and serious" blockbuster which lead to such classics as Terminator: Salvation and The Amazing Spiderman. I like Nolan, but if you look at it from a historical standpoint of the art of cinema, Tarantino has impacted it on a much much greater scale than Christopher Nolan has.

In regard to your second statement: Christopher Nolan couldn't be further apart from Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock. Kubrick was the master of shot composition, with every shot looking beautiful and perfectly symmetrical. He had everything planned out from the getgo. His vision was precise right to every inch of the frame. Hitchcock wasn't to the extreme of Kubrick, but his method was very similar. He had a real vision and saw it in his head and had every shot meticulously planned out. He would cut right when he knew he'd cut in the editing room. His editor joked that all you needed to do to edit a Hitchcock film was to cut the slate out.

Nolan, on the other hand, doesn't even make a shot sheet. He has no idea how he's going to cover a scene before he shows up in the morning. He's incredible spontaneous about it, which leads to him really creating his films in the editing room. Michael Caine has called him a Machine Gun Director, meaning he shoots and shoots and shoots some more(ironically, that very term is normally used as an insult for a director who doesn't know what he wants). He's very vocal about his style and his spontaneity and explains it quite well to Criterion for The Following Blu Ray.

Now these two approaches are about as far off as possible. Not only that, but these two approaches create completely different films. Kubrick's films are methodical, beautiful and precise. Nolan's are fast paced, jarring and all about escalation. Now, you could say Nolan's style fits the stories that he tells( certainly for Memento), but the guy's approach is so far from Kubrick and Hitchcock it's not even funny. The comparisons are silly, and I often wonder if those comparing them actually watch Kubrick and Hitchcock films.

 

[terry78]

I think South Park kind of had it right when they playfully took the "just because it's cerebral and confusing doesn't make it cool" jab at Nolan. He's a genius behind the camera, but I think it's something we've kinda seen in past geniuses also.

 

[BatLobster]

I definitely agree that Nolan is a more editing-driven type of filmmaker, but I also don't necessarily see a problem with that. The end result still usually feels very deliberate (aside from some clunk action scenes in the Batman films). Though I agree, the Hitchcock/Kubrick comparisons are off. Although I will say that Interstellar makes for a nice counterpoint to 2001, and the Kubrick influence certainly makes its way into some of his films (Clockwork Orange in TDK for example) but that shouldn't be mistaken for him being a similar filmmaker.

Maybe I'm biased because I edit for a living myself, but to me editing + music are the probably most powerful tools at a filmmaker's disposal, after great performances from the actors. I know Nolan's films are cuttier than average but I also think it's born of necessity a lot of the time just because his pacing tends to be fast, and his scripts are thick in plot. But he's been able to make that work for him. I really do believe there's a method to the madness. It can't just be dumb luck that he's consistently made so many quality movies. And when I say quality...well, I'll stop short at "great", but certainly a cut above what tends to pass for "good" these days. Though I do think he's made several great ones.

I don't know, lately it just seems like people are trying to close the book on Nolan like he's already finished, probably due to all the hype, but honestly he's still relatively early in his career. I guess many are starting to tire of his schtick, but I think he's got plenty of exciting places left to go. I for one, thought Interstellar was a remarkable film, and showed a tremendous amount of growth and maturity in terms of the emotional content. Meanwhile technically he continues to outdo himself. So he's still on an upward trajectory if you ask me. I wasn't sure what to make of it when I first saw it, but having watched it a few more times and having had the time to really digest it...criminally underrated film. I don't think we'll see another one like it for a long time. And no, The Martian...that's going to be a totally different type of film.

Also, speaking of Tarantino's influence, I might actually slot Nolan in as part of the very tail end of the 90s boom. Nolan himself on that Following Criterion Blu-ray says guys like Robert Rodriguez and even Kevin Smith inspired him to feel like he could do a no-budget film and still have it "count" as a movie. One thing that sets Nolan apart from a lot of those guys is he really was always keen to make mainstream blockbusters, but his self-made path into the industry gave him an indie sensibility.

 

[weezerspider]

I definitely agree that Nolan is a more editing-driven type of filmmaker, but I also don't necessarily see a problem with that. The end result still usually feels very deliberate (aside from some clunk action scenes in the Batman films). Though I agree, the Hitchcock/Kubrick comparisons are off. Although I will say that Interstellar makes for a nice counterpoint to 2001, and the Kubrick influence certainly makes its way into some of his films (Clockwork Orange in TDK for example) but that shouldn't be mistaken for him being a similar filmmaker.

Maybe I'm biased because I edit for a living myself, but to me editing + music are the probably most powerful tools at a filmmaker's disposal, after great performances from the actors. I know Nolan's films are cuttier than average but I also think it's born of necessity a lot of the time just because his pacing tends to be fast, and his scripts are thick in plot. But he's been able to make that work for him. I really do believe there's a method to the madness. It can't just be dumb luck that he's consistently made so many quality movies. And when I say quality...well, I'll stop short at "great", but certainly a cut above what tends to pass for "good" these days. Though I do think he's made several great ones.

I don't know, lately it just seems like people are trying to close the book on Nolan like he's already finished, probably due to all the hype, but honestly he's still relatively early in his career. I guess many are starting to tire of his schtick, but I think he's got plenty of exciting places left to go. I for one, thought Interstellar was a remarkable film, and showed a tremendous amount of growth and maturity in terms of the emotional content. Meanwhile technically he continues to outdo himself. So he's still on an upward trajectory if you ask me. I wasn't sure what to make of it when I first saw it, but having watched it a few more times and having had the time to really digest it...criminally underrated film. I don't think we'll see another one like it for a long time. And no, The Martian...that's going to be a totally different type of film.

Also, speaking of Tarantino's influence, I might actually slot Nolan in as part of the very tail end of the 90s boom. Nolan himself on that Following Criterion Blu-ray says guys like Robert Rodriguez and even Kevin Smith inspired him to feel like he could do a no-budget film and still have it "count" as a movie. One thing that sets Nolan apart from a lot of those guys is he really was always keen to make mainstream blockbusters, but his self-made path into the industry gave him an indie sensibility.

Oh I agree he's not done by a long shot. I'm not necessarily saying that the fact that his films are more busy with cutting is inherently a bad thing nor am I trying to say he's done. As you said, he's made too much quality work for it to be by accident. I think Nolan is a remarkable filmmaker, but there are much more remarkable and more important filmmakers and for the sake of this thread I'd say Tarantino is one of them.

And regarding your last comment, yes I would say Christopher Nolan making Following is for sure rooted in the DIY filmmaking trend that was really boosted due to Tarantino even though, ironically, none of his theatrical films are from that approach. Even Reservoir Dogs had studio backing...so then that also brings in Linklater with Slacker which Nolan said was a huge influence. And for the record, Nolan is apparently in Tarantino's posse of directors he invites to private screenings. It's all insestuous, really. That's art.

 

[Squaremaster316]

The most his films have done is created the "dark and serious" blockbuster which lead to such classics as Terminator: Salvation and The Amazing Spiderman.

What a disgustingly gross understatement towards Nolan's massive impact on the industry.

Without Nolan, high grossing, quality rebooted franchises such as Casino Royale, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Star Trek 09, X-Men First Class, and many sequels such as Skyfall, STID, Days of Future Past, etc. either would be far more cookie cutter and unsuccessful, or simply given up on by studios before the first scene was shot.

Without Nolan, boundary pushing, high budget, cerebral sci-fi mind-benders such as Looper, Source Code, Gravity, etc. would have been rejected or never put to pen and paper.

Without Nolan, detailed origin films which actually give the titular character layers of development would be lost to generic stock cliches posing as people.

This is like saying that Tarantino's films inspired nothing but low grade, pseudo-quirky Pulp Fiction knockoffs like Revolver and 8 Heads in a Duffle Bag.

 

[Black Narcissus]

And even after all that he ain't in the same league as Tarantino.

And I love me some Nolan.

LAwd.

 

[weezerspider]

What a disgustingly gross understatement towards Nolan's massive impact on the industry.

Without Nolan, high grossing, quality rebooted franchises such as Casino Royale, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Star Trek 09, X-Men First Class, and many sequels such as Skyfall, STID, Days of Future Past, etc. either would be far more cookie cutter and unsuccessful, or simply given up on by studios before the first scene was shot.

Without Nolan, boundary pushing, high budget, cerebral sci-fi mind-benders such as Looper, Source Code, Gravity, etc. would have been rejected or never put to pen and paper.

Without Nolan, detailed origin films which actually give the titular character layers of development would be lost to generic stock cliches posing as people.

This is like saying that Tarantino's films inspired nothing but low grade, pseudo-quirky Pulp Fiction knockoffs like Revolver and 8 Heads in a Duffle Bag.

So one guy paved the way for some of the best and unique voices in film we have right now and one guy influenced a batch of blockbusters. Hmmmm. Seems like an easy choice. Not to mention half of the films you mentioned are extremely cookie-cutter as they are.

 

[Ryan1985]

Tarantino for me. I've always loved his style and his movies and his name being attached to a movie is a way to get my attention.

I love what Nolan has done and I especially love what he did for Batman but I'm not going out of my way to see his movies like I have for QT.

 

[Squaremaster316]

So one guy paved the way for some of the best and unique voices in film we have right now

And giving birth to a plethora of wannabe's making bland, low budget, generic schlock trying to be "Hip". Such as his coffee boy, Bishop, and his pet project, Hell Ride.

and one guy influenced a batch of blockbusters.

High quality, critically acclaimed blockbusters.

Seems like an easy choice. Not to mention half of the films you mentioned are extremely cookie-cutter as they are.

And yet more acclaimed and influential than the films inspired by Tarantino.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Oh, you Nolanites.

 

[BatLobster]

Oh I agree he's not done by a long shot. I'm not necessarily saying that the fact that his films are more busy with cutting is inherently a bad thing nor am I trying to say he's done. As you said, he's made too much quality work for it to be by accident. I think Nolan is a remarkable filmmaker, but there are much more remarkable and more important filmmakers and for the sake of this thread I'd say Tarantino is one of them.

And regarding your last comment, yes I would say Christopher Nolan making Following is for sure rooted in the DIY filmmaking trend that was really boosted due to Tarantino even though, ironically, none of his theatrical films are from that approach. Even Reservoir Dogs had studio backing...so then that also brings in Linklater with Slacker which Nolan said was a huge influence. And for the record, Nolan is apparently in Tarantino's posse of directors he invites to private screenings. It's all insestuous, really. That's art.

All good weezer. I respect your opinion and I know you weren't trying to say Nolan was done. Others in this thread have, so I was addressing them.

I'm not surprised Nolan would be in that posse. If nothing else, the two are definitely on the same page about keeping film alive and were a part of that group of directors (along with J.J. and Judd Apatow) that banded together to extend Kodak's contract with the studios.

And yes, it's awesome how everything influences everything with art. I'd say Tarantino probably even had some direct influence too.

Q: You’re a longtime fan of detective novels, which often employ flashbacks and other time-shifting devices. Is that where your fascination for non-linear storytelling comes from?
A: Well, I had a couple of big influences. When I was 16 I read a Graham Swift novel, Waterland, that did incredible things with parallel timelines, and told a story in different dimensions that was extremely coherent. Around the same time, I remember Alan Parker’s The Wall on television, which does a very similar thing purely with imagery, using memories and dreams crossing over to other dreams and so forth. Nicolas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell to Earth and Performance were also influential. Those stuck in my head, as did a lot of crime fiction—James Ellroy, Jim Thompson—and film noirs like Jacques Tourneur’s Out of the Past, which was just staggering. Then, somehow, I got hold of a script to Pulp Fiction before the film came out and was fascinated with what Tarantino had done.

Source: http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1202-Spring-2012/DGA-Interview-Christopher-Nolan.aspx (great read about his process too)

 

[weezerspider]

And giving birth to a plethora of wannabe's making bland, low budget, generic schlock trying to be "Hip". Such as his coffee boy, Bishop, and his pet project, Hell Ride.




High quality, critically acclaimed blockbusters.




And yet more acclaimed and influential than the films inspired by Tarantino.

More acclaimed than the works of David O. Russel, Spike Jonze, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson and Darren Aronofsky, all directors who's career was made during the boom of the 90's auteurs which was indirectly caused by Pulp Fiction? ....which actually as BatLobster has shown, Christopher Nolan himself owes a lot to that era.

 

[weezerspider]

All good weezer. I respect your opinion and I know you weren't trying to say Nolan was done. Others in this thread have, so I was addressing them.

I'm not surprised Nolan would be in that posse. If nothing else, the two are definitely on the same page about keeping film alive and were a part of that group of directors (along with J.J. and Judd Apatow) that banded together to extend Kodak's contract with the studios.

And yes, it's awesome how everything influences everything with art. I'd say Tarantino probably even had some direct influence too.

Source: http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1202-Spring-2012/DGA-Interview-Christopher-Nolan.aspx (great read about his process too)

Very interesting link and I respect your opinion as well, man. It's unfortunately become cool to hate on Nolan simply because of the Nolanites. I'm very much in the middle of the situation. My cinephile friends underrate Nolan and my GA friends overrate him. He's certainly an above average director and I dig him a lot.

 

[BatLobster]

Very interesting link and I respect your opinion as well, man. It's unfortunately become cool to hate on Nolan simply because of the Nolanites. I'm very much in the middle of the situation. My cinephile friends underrate Nolan and my GA friends overrate him. He's certainly an above average director and I dig him a lot.

Thanks, good sir. Yeah, I could see that. After all, I don't think anyone else right now is straddling the line between being an auteur and a mega-blockbuster filmmaker quite like Nolan. So I guess it's inevitable that he would become controversial...cause I think at worst, he always runs the risk alienating both crowds. For whatever reason though, he seems to really touch a nerve with a lot of people with his movies.

I just think all the hype needs to go away for a bit. It's distracting and I feel like it ends up contaminating most conversations about his work because people are either reacting out of blind worship on one hand, or a clouded and biased place of annoyance with something they feel is overrated on the other. It takes away from better conversations that could be had IMO, cause it just amounts to a whole lot of people nay-saying each other.

As a fan though, I just thoroughly enjoy his movies and I try not to let all the surrounding noise get in the way, although admittedly it's tough lately. I don't want him to be Tarantino, I don't want him to be Kubrick, I just want him to keep making Chris Nolan films and hopefully find new ways to push himself with each one. I don't mind that his reach often exceeds his grasp, for me that's one of the most charming and refreshing qualities about his work. With auteurs, I feel like their films are extensions of their own personalities. I think that's certainly true with Tarantino and Nolan. I think it'd be pretty easy to tell which filmmaker was which just by looking at them, if you'd never seen them before. Their movies just ooze their personalities to the point that it's written all over both of their faces. To be a fan is almost to be a fan of the person behind it- their taste, influences, bag of tricks, point of view on things, etc. That stuff is infused in every frame.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Very opposite ends of the filmmaking spectrum Nolan and Tarantino are. While Nolan may be the filmmaker who has influenced me the most and directed three of my favourite films of all time, I am not blind to his flaws. Just as much is the same with Tarantino, though I have always found him to be a tad overrated, but I would never deny the influence and impact his work has had on cinema (Pulp Fiction is the ****). I will go with Nolan purely based on subjectivity, but they both have had their own equal impact on the industry in different ways.

 

[Squaremaster316]

Very opposite ends of the filmmaking spectrum Nolan and Tarantino are. While Nolan may be the filmmaker who has influenced me the most and directed three of my favourite films of all time, I am not blind to his flaws. Just as much is the same with Tarantino, though I have always found him to be a tad overrated, but I would never deny the influence and impact his work has had on cinema (Pulp Fiction is the ****). I will go with Nolan purely based on subjectivity, but they both have had their own equal impact on the industry in different ways.

Exactly. Both have influenced cinema, and it's ridiculous hyperbole on both ends to say that Terminator 4 or * Heads is the extent of their respective influence.