The single greatest director of the past 10 years?

[weezerspider]

I wouldn't say it's a flaw. Loads of people thought Rorschach was cool and bad ass and agreed with him.

That wasn't Alan Moore's fault. It's the fault of the prats in the readership who completely missed the point.

Same applies here.

I actually got that Durden was parody with how over-the-top most of his actions are and how awful his living situation was (essentially showing him as the complete absolute opposite of a consumerist), but misaimed fandom will do that. Like Endless said, the same thing happened with Rorschach. Sometimes, there's nothing you can do about it without drastically chanaging the character.

When it comes to film, it's completely different. As Martin Scorsese famously says on the Criterion laserdisc commentary on Taxi Driver: "A director grabs the hair of the audience and makes them see the world as they see it". You can't do that with comics or novels. The comic book novelist can't force you to look at a certain panel in a certain way. Film? Hell yeah a director can do exactly that. He wants you to see the leading lady in slow motion, he shoots it in slow motion. He wants you to focus on Batman's face, he cuts to a close up of Batman's face.

Now with this in mind, we have to look at how Fincher directed Fight Club. Every creative decision he made was made to glorify Durden. The most obvious example of this is how often Durden is composed in low-angle shots, which give off the feeling of power to the subject. Joker and Calvin Candie aren't shot to look glorious. They are cool characters sure, but the film doesn't use cinematography, lighting and editing to glorify them like Fincher does with Durden. The film also clearly points to them being the villains. Perhaps Fight Club portraying Durden as God is because the film is told from the Narrator's point of view, and his point of view of Durden is exactly that for most of the film. However, in that case, once Durden is revealed to be the antagonist, you would think Fincher would shift the creative choices to reflect The Narrator's new point of view of Durden. Honestly, I need to see the film again for more exact examples, but it's there. Still a great film. I honestly think that's it's one really problematic attribute.

Goodfellas and Wolf Of Wall Street are shot to glorify two horrible life-styles because both narrators are looking back on it extremely fondly. It's supposed to be tempting. Scorsese only hopes the audience has the morals to resist the temptations and acknowledge how bad those characters are. Perhaps Fincher was trying to do that since The Narrator sees Durden as God for most of the narrative. I don't know. There's a good article on this subject here. I don't totally agree with it, but an interesting read, none of the less:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/01/22/...-vs-fight-club-and-the-work-of-david-fincher/

Are you annoyed by the fact Nolan's so highly-rated on a comic book site, or is your frustration also due to additional observations elsewhere?

The fact Nolan would be the most beloved director on a comic book movie discussion board doesn't strike me as either potentially annoying, frustrating, etc. Just predictable and matter of fact.

I'm personally not that bothered by it, but I can see his point. It often times just feels like misinformed opinions. Doesn't make anyone smarter or dumber than someone else, but often times on this board in non-comic film related posts, there aren't many opinions that seemed to be judging based on a strong knowledge of the history and/or process of the art form. It's certainly predictable. I'm not denying that.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm personally not that bothered by it, but I can see his point. It often times just feels like misinformed opinions. Doesn't make anyone smarter or dumber than someone else, but often times on this board in non-comic film related posts, there aren't many opinions that seemed to be judging based on a strong knowledge of the history and/or process of the art form. It's certainly predictable. I'm not denying that.

Well, it's your burden as one of the most informed posters on this site that you'll inevitably feel that a lot of posts are under-informed and thus be frustrated by a frequent absence of reciprocated conversation. Most of us do have sparse knowledge of the history and process of the art form.

I do get frustrated when it becomes the case elsewhere, though (not on this site where Nolan should dominate). Every conversation on The Dissolve (a general movie site) seems to be about CBMs, for example. Four of the top five highest grossing 2014 movies are CBMs. CBMs are really dominating the cultural landscape right now.

 

[The Endless]

When it comes to film, it's completely different. As Martin Scorsese famously says on the Criterion laserdisc commentary on Taxi Driver: "A director grabs the hair of the audience and makes them see the world as they see it". You can't do that with comics or novels. The comic book novelist can't force you to look at a certain panel in a certain way. Film? Hell yeah a director can do exactly that. He wants you to see the leading lady in slow motion, he shoots it in slow motion. He wants you to focus on Batman's face, he cuts to a close up of Batman's face.

Now with this in mind, we have to look at how Fincher directed Fight Club. Every creative decision he made was made to glorify Durden. The most obvious example of this is how often Durden is composed in low-angle shots, which give off the feeling of power to the subject. Joker and Calvin Candie aren't shot to look glorious. They are cool characters sure, but the film doesn't use cinematography, lighting and editing to glorify them like Fincher does with Durden. The film also clearly points to them being the villains. Perhaps Fight Club portraying Durden as God is because the film is told from the Narrator's point of view, and his point of view of Durden is exactly that for most of the film. However, in that case, once Durden is revealed to be the antagonist, you would think Fincher would shift the creative choices to reflect The Narrator's new point of view of Durden. Honestly, I need to see the film again for more exact examples, but it's there. Still a great film. I honestly think that's it's one really problematic attribute.

Goodfellas and Wolf Of Wall Street are shot to glorify two horrible life-styles because both narrators are looking back on it extremely fondly. It's supposed to be tempting. Scorsese only hopes the audience has the morals to resist the temptations and acknowledge how bad those characters are. Perhaps Fincher was trying to do that since The Narrator sees Durden as God for most of the narrative. I don't know. There's a good article on this subject here. I don't totally agree with it, but an interesting read, none of the less:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/01/22/...-vs-fight-club-and-the-work-of-david-fincher/

Great points. I kinda understand, but then, isn't Durden supposed to be viewed from Norton's characters POV? So it kinda make sense that Durden would be glamorized in that context.

 

[Greater Geek]

A few names pop to mind. The first is Darren Aronofsky. Although his career is hit-and-miss (especially after Noah), his hits have been pretty incredible. Black Swan is a master class in tension, tone, and build-up that crescendos at the end of the movie. His grasp on pacing and rhythm, especially at the end of his films, is unparalleled (when he's on, that is).

Another name that pops to mind is Nicholas Winding Refn. Drive might be the single best movie to come out of Hollywood in the past decade. It's effortlessly directed, but the films that look effortless are the hardest to create. It's story is told visually and create memorable moments because of the way a scene is SHOT, which you don't see very often. That's what makes a great director.

Another name is Gus Van Sant. He's another hit-and-miss guy, but his career turn toward indie art movies is something you gotta respect. Gerry and Last Days are bold movies that I think puts his name in a conversation like this. There are few directors in the world--let alone American directors--making movies with such care and subtly.

 

[Greater Geek]

It is a work of startling ambition.

And a new bold language of cinema.

Hahaha! Did you get that off the DVD box?

 

[Greater Geek]

The real question is: How's your sex life?

That always trumps any topic on a message board.

 

[BatLobster]

Great points. I kinda understand, but then, isn't Durden supposed to be viewed from Norton's characters POV? So it kinda make sense that Durden would be glamorized in that context.

That's always how I took it. I dunno, I saw Fight Club for the first time when I was 13 and I understood that Durden was ultimately the villain of the movie then. A larger than life, intoxicating cult figure who is battling for supremacy in Norton's character's consciousness the whole movie.

I think audiences would still find him "cool" no matter how Fincher shot him, cause of the way Brad Pitt brought him to life.

I'll check out the Film Critic Hulk article though.

 

[The Endless]

Of course. Pitt's performance is magnetic.

 

[DA_Champion]

A few names pop to mind. The first is Darren Aronofsky. Although his career is hit-and-miss (especially after Noah), his hits have been pretty incredible. Black Swan is a master class in tension, tone, and build-up that crescendos at the end of the movie. His grasp on pacing and rhythm, especially at the end of his films, is unparalleled (when he's on, that is).

Another name that pops to mind is Nicholas Winding Refn. Drive might be the single best movie to come out of Hollywood in the past decade. It's effortlessly directed, but the films that look effortless are the hardest to create. It's story is told visually and create memorable moments because of the way a scene is SHOT, which you don't see very often. That's what makes a great director.

Another name is Gus Van Sant. He's another hit-and-miss guy, but his career turn toward indie art movies is something you gotta respect. Gerry and Last Days are bold movies that I think puts his name in a conversation like this. There are few directors in the world--let alone American directors--making movies with such care and subtly.

I quite liked Noah.

 

[weezerspider]

Well, it's your burden as one of the most informed posters on this site that you'll inevitably feel that a lot of posts are under-informed and thus be frustrated by a frequent absence of reciprocated conversation. Most of us do have sparse knowledge of the history and process of the art form.

I do get frustrated when it becomes the case elsewhere, though (not on this site where Nolan should dominate). Every conversation on The Dissolve (a general movie site) seems to be about CBMs, for example. Four of the top five highest grossing 2014 movies are CBMs. CBMs are really dominating the cultural landscape right now.

Yeah, comic book films are dominating pop culture right now, so I guess that's just how it is and how it will be for a little while. Like I said, ultimately, it doesn't really bother me. Besides, Nolan is a great director. I think if people discovered more films they'd realize he's not a god, but at least people are obsessing over a guy who is on the low-end of greatness, with plenty of years to rise. It would get really annoying if someone like Bay or Berg were discussed at the lengths Nolan is. Often times in more cinephile areas, I'm defending Nolan as more than a dumb blockbuster guy, so the tables are flipped in different arenas.

Great points. I kinda understand, but then, isn't Durden supposed to be viewed from Norton's characters POV? So it kinda make sense that Durden would be glamorized in that context.

Yeah, like I said, that could be it, but based on that, I would think once Norton starts fighting against Durden in the end, Durden would be represented differently in cinematography/lighting/editing ect.

That's always how I took it. I dunno, I saw Fight Club for the first time when I was 13 and I understood that Durden was ultimately the villain of the movie then. A larger than life, intoxicating cult figure who is battling for supremacy in Norton's character's consciousness the whole movie.

I think audiences would still find him "cool" no matter how Fincher shot him, cause of the way Brad Pitt brought him to life.

I'll check out the Film Critic Hulk article though.

Oh he'll always be cool, but a character can be "cool" and still be portrayed by the director as a piece of ****. Tarantino, IMO, did that pretty well with Candie, IMO. Joker is super cool in TDK, but again, the vast majority of the audience comes out of the film knowing Joker's the bad guy, despite being cool, where as so many young people left Fight Club thinking the film is a celebration of Durden's teachings. That's a flaw IMO. I don't want to come off as not liking Fight Club, I love it and still think it's a great film. I just find this as like that one flaw that holds it back from being as amazing as so many people see it.

I quite liked Noah.

I did too. I found it vastly unique and engaging.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, comic book films are dominating pop culture right now, so I guess that's just how it is and how it will be for a little while. Like I said, ultimately, it doesn't really bother me. Besides, Nolan is a great director. I think if people discovered more films they'd realize he's not a god, but at least people are obsessing over a guy who is on the low-end of greatness, with plenty of years to rise. It would get really annoying if someone like Bay or Berg were discussed at the lengths Nolan is. Often times in more cinephile areas, I'm defending Nolan as more than a dumb blockbuster guy, so the tables are flipped in different arenas.

I honestly can't fathom how some cinephiles could try to argue that he's just a dumb blockbuster guy. He has huge amount of respect from within the industry, so thinking he's great is far from just some fanboy phenomenon. Unless James Cameron, PTA, Spielberg, Lucas, etc. are all just Kool-Aid drinkers too.

Oh he'll always be cool, but a character can be "cool" and still be portrayed by the director as a piece of ****. Tarantino, IMO, did that pretty well with Candie, IMO. Joker is super cool in TDK, but again, the vast majority of the audience comes out of the film knowing Joker's the bad guy, despite being cool, where as so many young people left Fight Club thinking the film is a celebration of Durden's teachings. That's a flaw IMO. I don't want to come off as not liking Fight Club, I love it and still think it's a great film. I just find this as like that one flaw that holds it back from being as amazing as so many people see it.

This is sort of murky territory because this is more of a moral issue and deals with the moral duty of filmmakers. Personally I don't think moral ambivalence is automatically a flaw. I guess if one takes it as Fincher not knowing what he's trying to say that could be a flaw, but I never took it that way. Maybe that's just coming from a place of having grown very accustomed to the dark, morally ambiguous protagonists of the 21st century (Tony Soprano, Vic Mackey, Walter White etc.). And plenty of people celebrated The Joker's philosophy and talked about how he was the only character of the movie that dealt in truths, etc.

 

[weezerspider]

I honestly can't fathom how some cinephiles could try to argue that he's just a dumb blockbuster guy. He has huge amount of respect from within the industry, so thinking he's great is far from just some fanboy phenomenon. Unless James Cameron, PTA, Spielberg, Lucas, etc. are all just Kool-Aid drinkers too.



This is sort of murky territory because this is more of a moral issue and deals with the moral duty of filmmakers. Personally I don't think moral ambivalence is automatically a flaw. I guess if one takes it as Fincher not knowing what he's trying to say that could be a flaw, but I never took it that way. Maybe that's just coming from a place of having grown very accustomed to the dark, morally ambiguous protagonists of the 21st century (Tony Soprano, Vic Mackey, Walter White etc.). And plenty of people celebrated The Joker's philosophy and talked about how he was the only character of the movie that dealt in truths, etc.

Sure, and those are the people who who "didn't get it". Whether you personally and/or morally agree with the Joker, there's no doubt that the film is crafted with Batman as the hero. The film even ends with a monologue about it. Same with Django. The film is crafted with Candie clearly as the villain.

A better example may be Taxi Driver. The protagonist of the film, Travis Bickle is one of the coolest 'anti-heros' in film, and he even saves Jodie Foster at the end and is deemed a hero in the papers. Yet, Scorsese crafts the film where it is obvious that Bickle is messed up in the head. The jump cuts, cutting out of continuity, the double dolly shots, the focus on the violence at the end, ect all make it clear Bickle is clearly out of his mind and clearly f***ed up, where as the camera moves, the lighting, even costume design in Fight Club is made to make you think Durden is one badass mother****er! I just think if Scorsese can take one of the coolest anti-heroes being played by one of the coolest actors of all time and make it clear he's a psychopath, there really is no excuse for any director to not convince the majority of the audience that a particular character is of a particular moral background.

 

[BatLobster]

I just feel like it becomes a whole different movie if Fincher bent over backwards to do that, and I'm not sure I'd like that movie as much. On the plus side, this conversation has gotten me interested in the film again and now I want to revisit it, which I haven't done in years.

 

[DA_Champion]

My issue with Noah is that it doesn't bear the director's stamp (the very reason he belongs in a discussion like this).

If you didn't know Aronofsky directed it and you were engaged in the story as it was told, sure, I could see you enjoying it. But if you were looking for an "Aronofsky" version of the Noah myth (which I was), then the film is pretty disappointing.

What did you like about it?

I saw a lot of similarities to requiem for a dream and black swan, principally in the obsessive and sonewhat self destructive main character, as well as in the use and style of music.

Aronofsky's movies have protagonists but they don't have good guys. The dramatic tension is dialed to the max throughout the movie.

I liked the steampunk vision if antediluvian society. I like that this movie gives me the opportunity to properly use the word "antediluvian" in a sentence.

There's a clever visual of the Earth covered in hurricanes. I also think it's a towering creative achievement to add to the Jewish legend while bring consistent with the Jewish legend. He had a parallel to the sacrifice of Isaac where Noah fails to go through with the sacrifice. This communicates that Noah was less of a saint than Abraham, something stressed greatly in Jewish teachings, Noah was good but not great.

 

[DA_Champion]

Wasn't the climax when he was holding his knife?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

All well said, Weezer!

Goodfellas and Wolf Of Wall Street are shot to glorify two horrible life-styles because both narrators are looking back on it extremely fondly. It's supposed to be tempting. Scorsese only hopes the audience has the morals to resist the temptations and acknowledge how bad those characters are. Perhaps Fincher was trying to do that since The Narrator sees Durden as God for most of the narrative. I don't know. There's a good article on this subject here. I don't totally agree with it, but an interesting read, none of the less:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/01/22/...-vs-fight-club-and-the-work-of-david-fincher/

That is what I was implying. When I was reading the first part, I was actually to bring up what Scorsese said recently about Wolf Street, that he wanted to didn't want to present in a positive or negative and just wanted the audience to make the decision themselves and see just by their actions. Durden lifestyle and ideals are so ridiculous that I didn't really see it as glorifying. I saw Fight Club as a satire of both consumerist and anti-consumerist ideals.

I've always saw that Durden was glorified by the Narrator for being an outsider of mainstream society; a rebel of sorts, kinda how we, normal people who choose participate in the consumerist, capitalist society idolize rebels who don't play by society rules. I figured he was satirizing Durden through his actions, like living in a dump, making soap, that scene with his hand etc. I figured that fincher was showing that this guy wasn't a cool rebel, but a man who is unhinged. Essentially, I figured that Durden represented the extreme opposite of mainstream society, good and bad, formed in Narrator's mind as a need to get away from mainstream society.

I need to see the movie again in order to see if there actually was a change in creative choices.

 

[weezerspider]

Wasn't the climax when he was holding his knife?

Yes. The climax in Noah was clearly when he tries to kill his grandchild.

 

[DA_Champion]

After FC came out a whole lot of people would joke arond "we should start a fight club" which imo suggests a whole lot of people were enamored of Durden.

The head poster of one of the most popular and influential non-mainstream geopolitical+economic blogs on the net (zerohedge.com) goes by the screen name tyler durden.

 

[DA_Champion]

I think the reason is his lack of skill as a visual director. Since film is a visual medium, a great director should be someone who commands control over the film language, which Nolan struggles with. Yet, even with his semi-incoherant shot choices, he's garnered an astonishing amount of credibility amongst the masses, which you can understand would be frustrating for "cinephiles" to deal with. They want everyone to see what they see, which of course is never going to happen.

This in combination with Nolan's faux-intellectual screenplays that are filled with plot holes, he comes off like a populist director uninterested in making sound, quality movies, but rather only being interested in entertaining the dumb masses.

That's how the cinephiles feel at least, I think. Does that help explain it?

Can you give examples of Nolan being a weak visual director?

 

[georgec]

Can't believe I forgot to mention Steve McQueen. Three amazing films in the past 6 years.

 

[BatLobster]

I think the reason is his lack of skill as a visual director. Since film is a visual medium, a great director should be someone who commands control over the film language, which Nolan struggles with. Yet, even with his semi-incoherant shot choices, he's garnered an astonishing amount of credibility amongst the masses, which you can understand would be frustrating for "cinephiles" to deal with. They want everyone to see what they see, which of course is never going to happen.

This in combination with Nolan's faux-intellectual screenplays that are filled with plot holes, he comes off like a populist director uninterested in making sound, quality movies, but rather only being interested in entertaining the dumb masses.

That's how the cinephiles feel at least, I think. Does that help explain it?

It explains why I think many cinephiles (and "elitists" of any kind) are often pretentious and bitter, yeah haha. You've said a lot here that relies on someone finding these faults to be "objectively" true...problem for me is I don't think they are at all.

Personally, I think Nolan's visuals are strong. He doesn't usually go for a flashy aesthetic that draws attention to itself, but composition and lighting is usually pretty spot on, and camera movement is often used in very subtle and effective ways. And I think there's a lot of iconic imagery in his body of work. Add to that the fact that he still shoots on film (and the most impressive format in the world IMAX), and I end up gravitating to the visual quality of his work over that of a lot of other modern filmmakers. I think Pfister and Nolan worked really well together, and so far Hoyte van Hoytema's work on Interstellar looks fantastic. I think what you're talking about might be referring to editing of his action scenes, which admittedly can be a little rough around the edges at times. But I think he's made some pretty big strides since Batman Begins and seems to be continually improving in that department.

Furthermore I think it's hugely mistaken to assume that he regards the audience as dumb. On the contrary, I think he got where he is by trusting the audience and respecting their intelligence. He's said so explicitly numerous times, but it's pretty clear to me from looking at his filmography. He's become quite the populist filmmaker for sure, but in the very best way IMO. I think no matter what there's always going to be some backlash from the elitists when an indie person goes mainstream. Be it art, film, music, literature, etc. But I think Nolan has found a nice balance and that's why he's been so successful.

 

[weezerspider]

I wouldn't go as far as to call Nolan's visuals weak, but they certainly are vanilla and often times very generic. I think one of the reasons is his LOS(length of shot). As Orson Welles famously said:

"A long-playing full shot is always what separates the men from the boys. Anybody can make movies with a pair of scissors and a two-inch lens."

Nolan's LOS for his filmography is 3.1 seconds. Compare it Michael Bay's who's is 3 seconds. Nolan's visuals when it comes to editing and shot selection aren't much different from the average blockbuster. His films, like most blockbusters nowadays, feel like they just shot a bunch of coverage and then threw it together in the editing room which shows a lack of a distinct vision from a visual perspective. Compare that to Hitchcock who shot only what he needed and said cut right when he knew he'd cut the shot in editing. His editor once said all he had to do to edit Hitchcock's films was chop off the slates and put the shots in order. I'm not saying Nolan needs to have a bunch of long takes and have an LOS of 17 seconds like Woody Allen, but he could visually becoming more clear and make each shot count. Spielberg, who's LOS is 6.5 seconds(not ridiculous like Allen's but twice as long as Nolan's) has a vastly distinct visual set up for each film, making each film feel meticulously planned and controlled unlike the cut/cut/cut of coverage that modern blockbusters like Nolan give off(not saying he doesn't plan, I'm sure he does, but it looks that way). Again, it doesn't mean he's gotta be Allen or Cuaron and have long ass takes, but it would be artistically refreshing to do something not so blockbustery. A good video example of Spielberg's great middle ground in this category can be found here:

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/study-steven-spielbergs-cinematography-help-you-master-long-take/

Furthermore, Nolan's cinematography is vanilla due to his choices in shots. Whenever you expect a close up, you get a close up. Whenever you expect a wide shot, you get a wide shot. It's just very vanilla, predictable and boring. Sure there's times when that works. The interrogation scene for example in TDK. All we need is a shot reverse shot of each characters face because the drama in the scene and acting is enough. That's a scene where minimalistic, vanilla cinematography is all you need. However, Nolan sticks to the norm through out all of his films. I'm never wowed, surprised or thrown off (in a good way) by a shot selection of Nolan's like I am with many of the other directors mentioned in this thread. Nolan doesn't challenge the audience visually. Look at this shot from Taxi Driver:

http://youtu.be/UeLbZEalGus

Scorsese elects to dolly right not when De Niro walks right like a traditional move, but instead does it as De Niro continues to talk on the phone. We sit watching the empty hallway for seconds as we hear De Niro talking on the phone, then he walks down the hallway. Is it confusing to the audience why we're staring at empty hallway while the action happens out of frame? Sure. Is it unique? Certainly. Does it have a purpose? Certainly. Scorsese said the scene on the phone is supposed to be extremely awkward. She won't return his calls, he took her to a porno, it a very embarrassing moment and one where we don't want to watch, and the camera doesn't wan to watch, so it quits watching. However, watching the hallway is extremely out of the norm in a film and extremely awkward in itself which is the point. It heightens the awkward feeling in the audience for the whole scene, putting us in a similar mindset as Travis and yet we don't even realize the magic trick. We don't get why we're so awkward in the heat of the film. Genius, subtle move by Scorsese. This is the kind of visual challenges and uniqueness that is missing from Nolan's films.

Nolan's visuals aren't unique in other ways as well. His visuals don't differ much from the generic drama/thriller. They especially look like Michael Mann's particularly. You can't watch a Nolan film and instantly pick up its a Nolan film like you can with Scorsese, Ophuls, Welles, Mallick, Kubrick, Truffaunt, PTA, Wes Anderson, Tarantino and Goddard.

Again, I don't think weak is the right word for his visuals and IMO, that is much too harsh of a criticism. Nolan's shot composition is at lest average, and his lighting is always really good IMO(though all of Pfister's lighting is great so that may be more him than Nolan, we'll see this November). In Nolan's case it seems each piece of the puzzle looks fine, even good, but the way he puts the puzzle together is rather vanilla and often boring.

Nolan's strength is narrative and creating characters who convincingly move the narrative themselves, which IMO, is a good strength to have.

I like Nolan. I hold him to a high standard because everyone else does and his popularity demands it. Some directors have evolved their styles over years. If he was to start handling shot selection in less traditional ways and not edit his shots so by the book, he'd have potential to be really amazing.

 

[antonydelfini]

I agree 100 percent.

My top 10 fave of the decade:

1. Paul Thomas Anderson
2. Martin Scorsese
3. Alfonso Cuaron
4. Richard Linklater
5. Quentin Tarantino
6. Wes Anderson
7. Coen Brothers
8. Steve McQueen
9. David Fincher
10. Darren Aronofsky

 

[weezerspider]

I agree 100 percent.

My top 10 fave of the decade:

1. Paul Thomas Anderson
2. Martin Scorsese
3. Alfonso Cuaron
4. Richard Linklater
5. Quentin Tarantino
6. Wes Anderson
7. Coen Brothers
8. Steve McQueen
9. David Fincher
10. Darren Aronofsky

Good list. Before Midnight and Boyhood certainly put Linklater in the conversation.

 

[The Endless]

I wouldn't go as far as to call Nolan's visuals weak, but they certainly are vanilla and often times very generic. I think one of the reasons is his LOS(length of shot). As Orson Welles famously said:

"A long-playing full shot is always what separates the men from the boys. Anybody can make movies with a pair of scissors and a two-inch lens."

Nolan's LOS for his filmography is 3.1 seconds. Compare it Michael Bay's who's is 3 seconds. Nolan's visuals when it comes to editing and shot selection aren't much different from the average blockbuster. His films, like most blockbusters nowadays, feel like they just shot a bunch of coverage and then threw it together in the editing room which shows a lack of a distinct vision from a visual perspective. Compare that to Hitchcock who shot only what he needed and said cut right when he knew he'd cut the shot in editing. His editor once said all he had to do to edit Hitchcock's films was chop off the slates and put the shots in order. I'm not saying Nolan needs to have a bunch of long takes and have an LOS of 17 seconds like Woody Allen, but he could visually becoming more clear and make each shot count. Spielberg, who's LOS is 6.5 seconds(not ridiculous like Allen's but twice as long as Nolan's) has a vastly distinct visual set up for each film, making each film feel meticulously planned and controlled unlike the cut/cut/cut of coverage that modern blockbusters like Nolan give off(not saying he doesn't plan, I'm sure he does, but it looks that way). Again, it doesn't mean he's gotta be Allen or Cuaron and have long ass takes, but it would be artistically refreshing to do something not so blockbustery. A good video example of Spielberg's great middle ground in this category can be found here:

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/study-steven-spielbergs-cinematography-help-you-master-long-take/

Furthermore, Nolan's cinematography is vanilla due to his choices in shots. Whenever you expect a close up, you get a close up. Whenever you expect a wide shot, you get a wide shot. It's just very vanilla, predictable and boring. Sure there's times when that works. The interrogation scene for example in TDK. All we need is a shot reverse shot of each characters face because the drama in the scene and acting is enough. That's a scene where minimalistic, vanilla cinematography is all you need. However, Nolan sticks to the norm through out all of his films. I'm never wowed, surprised or thrown off (in a good way) by a shot selection of Nolan's like I am with many of the other directors mentioned in this thread. Nolan doesn't challenge the audience visually. Look at this shot from Taxi Driver:

http://youtu.be/UeLbZEalGus

Scorsese elects to dolly right not when De Niro walks right like a traditional move, but instead does it as De Niro continues to talk on the phone. We sit watching the empty hallway for seconds as we hear De Niro talking on the phone, then he walks down the hallway. Is it confusing to the audience why we're staring at empty hallway while the action happens out of frame? Sure. Is it unique? Certainly. Does it have a purpose? Certainly. Scorsese said the scene on the phone is supposed to be extremely awkward. She won't return his calls, he took her to a porno, it a very embarrassing moment and one where we don't want to watch, and the camera doesn't wan to watch, so it quits watching. However, watching the hallway is extremely out of the norm in a film and extremely awkward in itself which is the point. It heightens the awkward feeling in the audience for the whole scene, putting us in a similar mindset as Travis and yet we don't even realize the magic trick. We don't get why we're so awkward in the heat of the film. Genius, subtle move by Scorsese. This is the kind of visual challenges and uniqueness that is missing from Nolan's films.

Nolan's visuals aren't unique in other ways as well. His visuals don't differ much from the generic drama/thriller. They especially look like Michael Mann's particularly. You can't watch a Nolan film and instantly pick up its a Nolan film like you can with Scorsese, Ophuls, Welles, Mallick, Kubrick, Truffaunt, PTA, Wes Anderson, Tarantino and Goddard.

Again, I don't think weak is the right word for his visuals and IMO, that is much too harsh of a criticism. Nolan's shot composition is at lest average, and his lighting is always really good IMO(though all of Pfister's lighting is great so that may be more him than Nolan, we'll see this November). In Nolan's case it seems each piece of the puzzle looks fine, even good, but the way he puts the puzzle together is rather vanilla and often boring.

Nolan's strength is narrative and creating characters who convincingly move the narrative themselves, which IMO, is a good strength to have.

I like Nolan. I hold him to a high standard because everyone else does and his popularity demands it. Some directors have evolved their styles over years. If he was to start handling shot selection in less traditional ways and not edit his shots so by the book, he'd have potential to be really amazing.

Great analysis. I agree. Nolan's camera techniques are... boring, quite frankly. With The Dark Knight Trilogy a lot of that is to do with those IMAX camera being so big and cumbersome.

I notice it a lot in his action scenes and chase scenes. It's like you can tell certain shots are not from the same take. It's a series of shots from the same scene stitched together in the editing room (poorly i might add). It makes the action scenes incoherent.

The big chase scene in The Dark Knight gets a lot of praise. And i really don't know why. It's so poorly edited and i think that is mainly because of the sheer number of shots Nolan does of the same scene. You can see so many continuity gaffs. Cars magically appearing and disappearing etc. It's especially noticeable the moment the Tumbler jumps over a car to take the brunt of Jokers RPG. You can see it's a totally different take and it's just stitched together in the editing room. There is no sense of spatial continuity or flow. This goes for all his action scenes.