Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" (July 21, 2017) - Part 2

[redfirebird2008]

What makes this opinion even more laughable is Dunkirk is the closest he's ever come to Kubrick and it's the one you don't like. Anyone comparing Kubrick to Nolan has never watched a Kubrick film.

Dunkirk is a masterpiece. Nolan is a great director. He's nothing like Kubrick. I only see this comparison on this forum and it's ridiculous.

It is definitely a bad comparison.

 

[MadVillainy]

Why though

 

[redfirebird2008]

Why though

For starters...Nolan leans heavily on exposition, which completely undermines the Interstellar/2001 comparison people wanted to make. Dunkirk actually has more in common with 2001 since it's mostly about visual storytelling.

 

[MadVillainy]

For starters...Nolan leans heavily on exposition, which completely undermines the Interstellar/2001 comparison people wanted to make. Dunkirk actually has more in common with 2001 since it's mostly about visual storytelling.

That doesn't answer why it's a bad comparison. You're just saying why Nolan isn't exactly like Kubrick. Which he's not, no denying that.

But that doesn't say why it's a bad comparison

 

[BatLobster]

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/why-dunkirk-is-the-christopher-nolan-movie-weve-been-waiting-for-w493361

This is the Nolan movie that we doubters have been waiting for, the one that proves that it's all not just next-level expertise for expertise's sake. He's always distinguished himself as a "visionary" filmmaker, an intellectual storyteller, a man with multiple tricks up finely tailored sleeves, someone who'd earned the right to having his own genre and could deliver a $50.5 million opening weekend to the most unlikely of blockbusters. Now he's finally established himself as an artist. Everyone knew he had a mastery of the medium. Dunkirk proves he knows how to use it say something.

Nolan has certainly converted some of his skeptics with this film. Welcome to the party, guys. t:

 

[BatLobster]

Double post

 

[redfirebird2008]

That doesn't answer why it's a bad comparison. You're just saying why Nolan isn't exactly like Kubrick. Which he's not, no denying that.

But that doesn't say why it's a bad comparison

Here's another reason. Versatility. Kubrick covered a much wider range of movie genres. Nolan has kinda stuck to his comfort zone for the most part. Hard to imagine Nolan making films like Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, or Barry Lyndon. That's a pretty broad range of stuff right there...never mind the war/sci-fi/horror/noir stuff that Kubrick also did very well.

 

[Boom]

So are we thinking two years or three years until the next Nolan film?

 

[jmc]

For starters...Nolan leans heavily on exposition, which completely undermines the Interstellar/2001 comparison people wanted to make. Dunkirk actually has more in common with 2001 since it's mostly about visual storytelling.

I think the problem with Interstellar was he was tackling a difficult subject matter that isn't easy to simplify, so to a degree I feel the amount of exposition in that film was understandable. Less so in his other films though, especially Rises.

 

[redfirebird2008]

So are we thinking two years or three years until the next Nolan film?

Would be nice if we all of a sudden got one next year like Prestige after Batman Begins. t:

But that ship has probably sailed at this point. He's gonna keep going for the big projects until the budgets dry up...can't blame him, but still would like to see Nolan on a smaller project again.

 

[MadVillainy]

Here's another reason. Versatility. Kubrick covered a much wider range of movie genres. Nolan has kinda stuck to his comfort zone for the most part. Hard to imagine Nolan making films like Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, or Barry Lyndon. That's a pretty broad range of stuff right there...never mind the war/sci-fi/horror/noir stuff that Kubrick also did very well.

That still doesn't say why they're not comparable. Again your just saying Nolan isn't exactly the same as Kubrick, which me, nor anybody else claimed

 

[redfirebird2008]

That still doesn't say why they're not comparable. Again your just saying Nolan isn't exactly the same as Kubrick, which me, nor anybody else claimed

OK then...tell me why it's a GOOD comparison. I don't see it.

 

[BatLobster]

Hmm, it's a tough call as to whether it'll be 2 or 3 years.

FWIW, somewhere in the blitz of Dunkirk press I read that he was tossing around a few other ideas before Emma ended up nudging him toward Dunkirk. So he probably has some other things up his sleeve that he can continue developing, but it's a question of how far along they may be, or whether he gets inspired by something brand new.

I do wonder if he and Jonah will co-write a movie anytime soon. I feel like Jonah's time must be entirely tied up with Westworld.

 

[MadVillainy]

OK then...tell me why it's a GOOD comparison. I don't see it.

I use that comparison because I think Nolan is the only modern "big budget" or high profile director that brings a similar exploration of certain things (dreams in Inception, childhood trauma in Batman Begins, memory in Memento) that have to do with the human mind same as Kubrick (war in Full Metal Jacket, sex/obsession in Eyes Wide Shut, madness in The Shining)

Im not/I haven't said they they are comparable to the point where they are identical. I'm not saying that one is as versitile as another. And Im not/haven't I said Nolan is as good as Kubrick.

It's like when people say It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is the "modern day Seinfeld" or "Seinfeld on Crack" or when James Cameron called The Hurt Locker "This Generation Platoon" (allegedly I just remember reading that on TV Tropes) It doesn't mean that it's the same thing or it's as good as the earlier thing.
It's just saying that you can see where the later thing got it's influence and that it is carrying the torch, at least somewhat, of something that came before it. A spiritual successor (like Everybody Wants Some to Dazed and Confused) almost.
Again I'm not saying they're the exact same, but the way that I see Nolan dealing with the human mind, which again I dont think any high profile "big budget" director really does, reminds me of Kubrick. And that's why I say Nolan is a modern day Kubrick.

 

[jmc]

I just think Kubrick should stay Kubrick and people need to stop trying to find a modern day equivalent.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I just think Kubrick should stay Kubrick and people need to stop trying to find a modern day equivalent.

Yeah and just let Nolan be Nolan. Not the "modern day ____"

 

[redhawk23]

OK then...tell me why it's a GOOD comparison. I don't see it.

What's interesting g is that while I don't think they are that sar in their work or as people, Nolan oddly matches a lit of the stereotypes people ha r about Kubrick's work. Nolan actual can be as cold, at times stilted in humor and sexless as people accuse Kubrick of having been. Nolan's films actually fit those descriptions better than Kubrick's filmogrsphy in many regards.

For what it's worth, Matthew Modine drew direct comparisons in what it was like to work with them.

Nolan's films have never had the kind of edge that Kubrick's have. I can never see him make something as biting ( or as hilarious) as Dr strange love or as mean as A Clockwork Orange.

Nolan is just working in a different range of movies for a different audience. He is a highly cerebral and technical guy who himself loves Michael Bay movies and what they can do.

 

[redhawk23]

Here's another reason. Versatility. Kubrick covered a much wider range of movie genres. Nolan has kinda stuck to his comfort zone for the most part. Hard to imagine Nolan making films like Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, or Barry Lyndon. That's a pretty broad range of stuff right there...never mind the war/sci-fi/horror/noir stuff that Kubrick also did very well.

So far that is. Nolan may well rack up more than twice as many movies as Kubrick got around to making. We LL see where that leads.

 

[weezerspider]

That doesn't answer why it's a bad comparison. You're just saying why Nolan isn't exactly like Kubrick. Which he's not, no denying that.

But that doesn't say why it's a bad comparison

It's a bad comparison because they are nothing alike. Visually, their styles couldn't be any different. Kubrick was meticulous with every shot, often framing as symmetrically as possible. Nolan even recently mentioned how he awed at Kubrick's ability to find the perfect shot and have the confidence to hold on it, something Nolan has never done. Kubrick's average shot length over his career was around 10.77 seconds. Nolan's is 4.1. That's a huge difference. Nolan's never staged a single long take, while Kubrick's average take was over ten seconds. Likewise, Nolan has stated he doesn't use a shot sheet and shoots lots of coverage. Michael Caine called him a "machine gun" director. Kubrick often covered a whole scene in one shot, rarely shooting coverage, which is probably one reason why he could afford his infamous copious amounts of takes. Visually, Wes Anderson earns comparisons to Kubrick. His framing, composition and rhythm of editing is much closer in line with Kubrick's than Nolan's. Visually, Nolan and Kubrick have practically nothing in common.

Thematically, they are nothing alike, either. Both filmmakers create "difficult" films, but they are "difficult" for completely different reasons. Nolan's films are "difficult" because of structure(non-linear storytelling, twists etc) whereas, aside from The Killing, Kubrick's plots are rather basic. Kubrick's films are "difficult" because his films don't reveal much on the surface, instead forcing the audience to dig through the subtext to discover the meaning of the film. Kubrick rarely explains much, whereas Nolan's biggest criticism is his exposition and his tendency to over explain. Since many want to compare 2001 to Interstellar we can compare how the whole last act of 2001 is completely unexplained compared to Anne Hathaway giving a monologue about the possible power of love and Matthew McConaughey talking to TARS which effectively acts as a way for him to walk the audience through the non-conventional climax of Interstellar.

Continuing their differences thematically, one must look at how Nolan's films are often hopeful, showing the inherent good in mankind, whereas Kubrick's films are much more bleak and, on top of that, Kubrick often exploits the bleakness for a joke. Stanley Kubrick's The Dark Knight would have ended with those ferries blowing up.

This isn't about who's better or anything like that. I'm not trying to make a post claiming Nolan can't hold Kubrick's jock or anything like that. They just aren't similar filmmakers at all and I feel like the comparison is made because Kubrick is often called a genius and some posters feel calling Nolan "this generation's Kubrick" is a smart or cool way to say Nolan's a genius, when in fact that statement is a lot more flimsy than just saying "Nolan's a genius!"

 

[redhawk23]

Nolan's closest antecedent may well be James Cameron's just in terms of positioning himself with access to the largest possible canvas, the ability to move in and out of franchise filmaking and a strong influence on the business of how films are distributed. Chris Nolan has done more than anyone to grow the popularity of IMAX film both for capture and projection, much as Cameron was major force for 3d.

 

[Black Narcissus]

It's a bad comparison because they are nothing alike. Visually, their styles couldn't be any different. Kubrick was meticulous with every shot, often framing as symmetrically as possible. Nolan even recently mentioned how he awed at Kubrick's ability to find the perfect shot and have the confidence to hold on it, something Nolan has never done. Kubrick's average shot length over his career was around 10.77 seconds. Nolan's is 4.1. That's a huge difference. Nolan's never staged a single long take, while Kubrick's average take was over ten seconds. Likewise, Nolan has stated he doesn't use a shot sheet and shoots lots of coverage. Michael Caine called him a "machine gun" director. Kubrick often covered a whole scene in one shot, rarely shooting coverage, which is probably one reason why he could afford his infamous copious amounts of takes. Visually, Wes Anderson earns comparisons to Kubrick. His framing, composition and rhythm of editing is much closer in line with Kubrick's than Nolan's. Visually, Nolan and Kubrick have practically nothing in common.

Thematically, they are nothing alike, either. Both filmmakers create "difficult" films, but they are "difficult" for completely different reasons. Nolan's films are "difficult" because of structure(non-linear storytelling, twists etc) whereas, aside from The Killing, Kubrick's plots are rather basic. Kubrick's films are "difficult" because his films don't reveal much on the surface, instead forcing the audience to dig through the subtext to discover the meaning of the film. Kubrick rarely explains much, whereas Nolan's biggest criticism is his exposition and his tendency to over explain. Since many want to compare 2001 to Interstellar we can compare how the whole last act of 2001 is completely unexplained compared to Anne Hathaway giving a monologue about the possible power of love and Matthew McConaughey talking to TARS which effectively acts as a way for him to walk the audience through the non-conventional climax of Interstellar.

Continuing their differences thematically, one must look at how Nolan's films are often hopeful, showing the inherent good in mankind, whereas Kubrick's films are much more bleak and, on top of that, Kubrick often exploits the bleakness for a joke. Stanley Kubrick's The Dark Knight would have ended with those fairies blowing up.

This isn't about who's better or anything like that. I'm not trying to make a post claiming Nolan can't hold Kubrick's jock or anything like that. They just aren't similar filmmakers at all and I feel like the comparison is made because Kubrick is often called a genius and some posters feel calling Nolan "this generation's Kubrick" is a smart or cool way to say Nolan's a genius, when in fact that statement is a lot more flimsy than just saying "Nolan's a genius!"

Well put. Cheers bald man.

 

[weezerspider]

Nolan's closest antecedent may well be James Cameron's just in terms of positioning himself with access to the largest possible canvas, the ability to move in and out of franchise filmaking and a strong influence on the business of how films are distributed. Chris Nolan has done more than anyone to grow the popularity of IMAX film both for capture and projection, much as Cameron was major force for 3d.

The one director that came before him that he shares the most with stylistically is probably Michael Mann. Mann never got to work on the scope Nolan has gotten to. Scope wise, Cameron makes sense and, while their films themselves are nothing alike, Spielberg and Nolan are a lot alike in that they create artistically respected large scale films and their name is a brand in itself.

I don't remember who it was, but one of Nolan's contemporaries called Nolan "David Lean raised on Michael Mann and Spielberg films" and that kind of makes sense. Nolan's recent films have Lean's epic nature.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I thought Hacksaw Ridge is absolute trash. Dunkirk on the other hand... I'm not ready to call it a masterpiece yet (I need to watch it a few times more over the years), but it was really good and it was one of better Nolan movies for sure.

 

[StormC]

Stanley Kubrick's The Dark Knight would have ended with those fairies blowing up.

It took me a second to remember what "fairies" were in TDK.

But seriously, excellent post. Though I feel like Nolan's optimism about humanity is a more recent trend; Memento is pretty existential and bleak, and the Prestige isn't much better. I think he's definitely included more fist-pumping feel-good moments in his movies in recent years, TDKR and Dunkirk both trading in them (and from what I hear Interstellar).

I also definitely agree with the Michael Mann comparison. Heat was clearly a big inspiration on The Dark Knight. Collateral has a similar interplay of philosophy between protagonist/antagonist.

 

[weezerspider]

It took me a second to remember what "fairies" were in TDK.

But seriously, excellent post. Though I feel like Nolan's optimism about humanity is a more recent trend; Memento is pretty existential and bleak, and the Prestige isn't much better. I think he's definitely included more fist-pumping feel-good moments in his movies in recent years, TDKR and Dunkirk both trading in them (and from what I hear Interstellar).

I also definitely agree with the Michael Mann comparison. Heat was clearly a big inspiration on The Dark Knight. Collateral has a similar interplay of philosophy between protagonist/antagonist.

hahaha fixed the typo.

Yeah, Nolan's earlier work is a little more bleak, but I feel his overall body of work would lean towards optimism while, though Kubrick has optimism in Spartacus(though he was a director for hire without full creative control) and arguably the end of Paths Of Glory, Kubrick's overall body of work definitely leads towards bleakness. I mean, Nolan has been very open about Kubrick being a huge influence, but that doesn't automatically make their films similar. Bob Dylan was a big influence on The Beatles, but they didn't play folk music. Nolan clearly loves Kubrick's films and clearly was inspired by what Kubrick did with the art form, but it's also clear Nolan's not trying to ape his influences.