The single greatest director of the past 10 years?

[BatLobster]

Spoiler

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.

That's the subjective part of it though, because for me traditional and by the book isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. I feel that it's a good way to keep the audience grounded and orient them in the familiar which is probably a smart choice, when his narratives have a tendency to be a little more demanding and engrossing. And, like the video said, Spielberg's oners were really just a reflection of the old tradition of Hollywood filmmaking. So he wasn't really being that inventive or outside the box, but he certainly was being effective. I struggle to understand what average length of shot really proves as far as quality. There are different methods of achieving things. Maybe it's because I edit for a living, but I take somewhat of an opposition to the idea that abandoning editing as much as possible and letting things play out entirely in camera= better. There's a lot of possibilities that open up if you choose to let the editing take more of a front seat in the storytelling. It really just depends what you're trying to accomplish and what kind of rhythm you want your film to have. Concepts of what makes a film too fast or too slow are completely subjective.

I guess to me, the whole "film is a visual medium" thing has always felt like a half-truth. It's not just a visual medium. It's an audio medium, it's a literary medium, it's everything. Visuals are one piece of the puzzle, a very crucial piece, but it's very possible to be very effective while playing by the rules visually and someone like Nolan is proof of that. It's great when directors can challenge an audience visually, and I usually love Scorcese's visual choices, but for me being outside the box visually isn't the one true measuring stick of a great filmmaker, regardless of what Orson Welles said. There are many paths to greatness.

 

[weezerspider]

That's the subjective part of it though, because for me traditional and by the book isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. I feel that it's a good way to keep the audience grounded and orient them in the familiar which is probably a smart choice, when his narratives have a tendency to be a little more demanding and engrossing. And, like the video said, Spielberg's oners were really just a reflection of the old tradition of Hollywood filmmaking. So he wasn't really being that inventive or outside the box, but he certainly was being effective. I struggle to understand what average length of shot really proves as far as quality. There are different methods of achieving things. Maybe it's because I edit for a living, but I take somewhat of an opposition to the idea that abandoning editing as much as possible and letting things play out entirely in camera= better. There's a lot of possibilities that open up if you choose to let the editing take more of a front seat in the storytelling. It really just depends what you're trying to accomplish and what kind of rhythm you want your film to have. Concepts of what makes a film too fast or too slow are completely subjective.

I guess to me, the whole "film is a visual medium" thing has always felt like a half-truth. It's not just a visual medium. It's an audio medium, it's a literary medium, it's everything. Visuals are one piece of the puzzle, a very crucial piece, but it's very possible to be very effective while playing by the rules visually and someone like Nolan is proof of that. It's great when directors can challenge an audience visually, and I usually love Scorcese's visual choices, but for me being outside the box visually isn't the one true measuring stick of a great filmmaker, regardless of what Orson Welles said. There are many paths to greatness.

Sure it's subjective, no one is saying it isn't. I'm just speaking my opinion and trying to make you understand where many cinephiles are coming from with their dislike for Nolan. Still, IMO, a cut is the most powerful tool in a filmmakers arsnel and the over-use of it(which is the majority of the MTV generation, including Nolan), weakens the power of it and as Endless said, often just makes everything disjointed with not feeling for the real space of a scene. Quick cutting is a great tool when used well, like the hip-hop montages in Pi and even to an extent in Boogie Nights. The cut also gets repeative. Say Scorsese wants to change perspective in a scene. There are many ways he does that that have become iconic to his style, whether it's a quick dolly zoom ala Goodfellas, quick push in dropping frames ala Raging Bull, use of slow mo, slow push in or yes, a cut. Nolan pretty much always cuts to change perspective in a scene. That's so vanilla and boring to me. Imagine the hallway scene in Inception as a long take, or slow mo or dropping frames... It becomes so much more unique and cinematic IMO. Also Nolan's films aren't half as demanding as There Will Be Blood or Raging Bull IMO. A deep, real character drama is always more thought provoking then a narrative twist because it deals with reality and real human nature IMO, so that just doesn't seem like a good excuse to stick to vanilla visuals.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I do get it and you've made some great arguments weezerspider. It's all just taste in the end though. IMO you can be up the middle and "safe" but still pull it off with gusto and what feels like a strong command of the artform. I like up the middle more often than not...if that means my taste would be considered "vanilla" then so be it. The very thing that excites one cinephile could be the very thing that feels too showy to me and takes me out of the movie.

Filmmakers all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[The Endless]

Things like tracking shots or long takes aren't used to show off though. They are there to immerse us in the film.

You have ones like in Children of Men that make us feel like we are in the middle of a war zone.

Or you have ones in Hunger where it's just two guys talking.

I think Nolan cuts too much. And not just in action scenes, but in dialogue scenes. It makes it all feel fake and staged sometimes. Like the actors aren't actually holding a conversation... but it's 10 or 20 conversations chopped up and edited together to make it look like one conversation. One that stands out is in TDK when Bruce and Alfred are talking in the bunker. The dialogue doesn't even match up to the actors mouths sometimes because it's clearly not just one take... it's multiple takes stitched together. I mean, why is that even necessary? I'm sure these fantastic actors like Caine and Bale could stay in character for a 2 minute conversation.

Now that takes me out of the movie.

 

[BatLobster]

It's funny you mention the bunker, cause my mind goes to that nice tracking shot where they're walking away from the camera as the lights are turning off. I can't imagine a movie without camera movement, it's way too valuable a tool. I don't think anybody here is saying static shot-cut-static shot through the whole movie is the way to go. Nolan has plenty of camera movement in his films, it's just usually pretty subtle, albeit not earth-shatteringly original.

In one of the videos weezerspider posted, they talk about how there are two movements going on in cinema now...the quick cutting style, and then the polar opposite where some directors are going out of their way to do extremely long takes. Cauron being at the forefront of that. I get the intention is immersion, but it still has an element of showiness to it. It's impressive and awesome, and personally I do enjoy it. But every time I notice I'm in the middle of a long take, be it Gravity or that episode of True Detective, the second I notice it, it becomes the dominant thing in my mind and I start to admire the form more clinically as my immersion in the story decreases.

The one in Children of Men is probably the best recent example, because it felt pretty fresh and unexpected then, and with the chaos of the scene it took me a while to realize it was all in one shot. Even then though, once I noticed it, I couldn't unnotice it. Instead "holy crap this is so chaotic and scary" my thoughts morphed into "holy crap this is the longest take ever!". Again, not that I really mind, but I can't claim that the full immersion aspect of it is wholly effective.

Again, all taste.

Edit: It's nice to have an actual fleshed out discussion with points and counterpoints for a change, rather than dealing in the usual hyperbole that often envelopes this topic. Very refreshing. Gotta run for now though.

 

[slumcat]

Hahaha! Did you get that off the DVD box?

Lol. Certainly sounds like that when you read it out of context. Maybe I can be a quote-****e critic like Peter Travers.

 

[slumcat]

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?

I agree with a lot of things in this post. What strikes me as patently absurd is the general masses would conceive of something like the Nolan Batman films and Inception as intellectual movies. Which can only stem out of lack of exposure to other cinema. I would go like seriously, those are intellectual movies? In what universe?

I find Nolan formally so uninteresting, like I never marvel at a shot composition or think about what he is trying to say. There is no "worldview" in his movies, they seems psychologically empty to me. His command of cinema is fleeting at best. When you watch a film as a succession of shots framed and composed as the director wants, you can just make out who is a great director and who is not. I simply don't see it with Nolan.

And like I said before, it kinda feels reductive having to discuss him over and over at such length, its almost like spitballing and besides the point when other actually interesting directors can be discussed but the biases of the CBM community lead to see Nolan as some kind of Bergman which always results in very tiring discussions riddled with half-baked insights into the "depth of his cinema".

But yeah, those might just be the biases of a CBM forum, one would hope that discussion of cinema in other avenues is better informed and more various.

 

[DA_Champion]

A major achievement of Cuaron's Gravity is that he integrated 3D as an actual narrative device. For all other recent 3D films, it's there because it looks cool, for example a sword coming out of the screen. 3D was a gimmick.

In Cuaron's Gravity, it tells the story, motion and cycles are very important. it contributes to the sense if danger and suspense. All in all, a first for modern Hollywood.

***************

A lot of people have said that Gravity is not as good if you watch it on your laptop. I'll point out that most musicals are not as good if you watch then with the sound turned off.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Mel Gibson.

 

[weezerspider]

A major achievement of Cuaron's Gravity is that he integrated 3D as an actual narrative device. For all other recent 3D films, it's there because it looks cool, for example a sword coming out of the screen. 3D was a gimmick.

In Cuaron's Gravity, it tells the story, motion and cycles are very important. it contributes to the sense if danger and suspense. All in all, a first for modern Hollywood.

***************

A lot of people have said that Gravity is not as good if you watch it on your laptop. I'll point out that most musicals are not as good if you watch then with the sound turned off.

I agree. Gravity is the first film to not use 3D as a gimmick. You have to see it in 3D to truly experience just as you need the audio to enjoy a film. In that regard, it is groundbreaking, whether the narrative is interesting to one or not.

It's funny you mention the bunker, cause my mind goes to that nice tracking shot where they're walking away from the camera as the lights are turning off. I can't imagine a movie without camera movement, it's way too valuable a tool. I don't think anybody here is saying static shot-cut-static shot through the whole movie is the way to go. Nolan has plenty of camera movement in his films, it's just usually pretty subtle, albeit not earth-shatteringly original.

In one of the videos weezerspider posted, they talk about how there are two movements going on in cinema now...the quick cutting style, and then the polar opposite where some directors are going out of their way to do extremely long takes. Cauron being at the forefront of that. I get the intention is immersion, but it still has an element of showiness to it. It's impressive and awesome, and personally I do enjoy it. But every time I notice I'm in the middle of a long take, be it Gravity or that episode of True Detective, the second I notice it, it becomes the dominant thing in my mind and I start to admire the form more clinically as my immersion in the story decreases.

The one in Children of Men is probably the best recent example, because it felt pretty fresh and unexpected then, and with the chaos of the scene it took me a while to realize it was all in one shot. Even then though, once I noticed it, I couldn't unnotice it. Instead "holy crap this is so chaotic and scary" my thoughts morphed into "holy crap this is the longest take ever!". Again, not that I really mind, but I can't claim that the full immersion aspect of it is wholly effective.

Again, all taste.

Edit: It's nice to have an actual fleshed out discussion with points and counterpoints for a change, rather than dealing in the usual hyperbole that often envelopes this topic. Very refreshing. Gotta run for now though.

There Will Be Blood is a great recent film that has longer takes that are quite subtle. Most French New Wave films and classic Woody Allen films are basically all long-takes but they are all very subtle. We don't need the opening of Boogie Nights every shot, I agree, that kind of defeats the purpose of those badass shots if you over use them, but there are plenty of older(and a few newer) films that handle it in such a subtle way its really amazing. You should re-watch(assuming you've seen it) Jaws when you get the chance. That to me is kind of the perfectly shot blockbuster. A lot of great subtle longer takes, but never show offy. The last act kind of drops it for more traditional cutting, but thats when the action gets going, so it makes sense.

And yes, I agree. It's nice having a real conversation, friendly debate even, without people calling each other names and calling each other stupid and what not.

 

[The Joker]

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.

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.

 

[slumcat]

I guess I have a very opposite view of long takes. I first things first notice the form of a film even offhand, that interests me very much and I am as much interested in how the director has directed the film as much as what is happening in the film. I think most mature viewers can make a demarcation where they are able to notice both and enjoy both at the same time. Some directors even intend it this way, for the viewer to notice the form as well as the content.

Haneke, my favorite current director and choice for the greatest now is a great example. He actually draws attention to the form where the viewer is extremely aware he is watching a film. He basically creates a distance between his characters and the viewer and deliberately forces the viewer to observe his characters objectively.

Even a movie like Amour with two characters and set within a house, it is very heavily directed almost entirely in static long takes where he deliberately doesn't cut and forces you to watch and even become aware that you are watching. I really admire that.

I love long takes in films, and don't mind if they the form is apparent because I notice it anyways. But I guess it might be a more academic way of looking at films where most viewers just want to be immersed in a story. Film direction and formal classicism might not interest everybody. But it does interest me and I take great pleasure in it.

Just like Gravity would lose nothing for me on the small screen because it would remain as formally accomplished and its principle pleasure for me (its direction) would remain undiminished.

 

[antonydelfini]

Showy long takes ala Goodfellas restaurant and Boogie Nights opening do make me think in my head "how the hell did they do that? Amazing. That must have taken a lot of work".

But Id rather have those thoughts than think "what kind of shot is that? There's no creativity and depth to that shot. Why too many cuts?"

My opinion on Nolan: he has great and ambitious ideas and concepts, he makes sure his movies have themes, i love his use of practical effects over CGI effects, and he he picks great actors. He's top notch IMO in thos departments. But I wouldnt look at his films to study and appreciate cinema. His editing, his shot compositions, the way his characters speak, the way he gets his themes across, do not geek me out too much. The same with Peter Jackson. I watch their movies more for entertainment, but I dont get too geeked out with their filmmaking techniques.

 

[weezerspider]

Showy long takes ala Goodfellas restaurant and Boogie Nights opening do make me think in my head "how the hell did they do that? Amazing. That must have taken a lot of work".

But Id rather have those thoughts than think "what kind of shot is that? There's no creativity and depth to that shot. Why too many cuts?"

My opinion on Nolan: he has great and ambitious ideas and concepts, he makes sure his movies have themes, i love his use of practical effects over CGI effects, and he he picks great actors. He's top notch IMO in thos departments. But I wouldnt look at his films to study and appreciate cinema. His editing, his shot compositions, the way his characters speak, the way he gets his themes across, do not geek me out too much. The same with Peter Jackson. I watch their movies more for entertainment, but I dont get too geeked out with their filmmaking techniques.

This is very fair, IMO.

 

[Doc Ock]

I have spent a lot of time going over this, being mainly a sci-fi/fantasy fan first and foremost the variety of films I have seen is kinda limited. I would elaborate more and go into detail as well as honorable mentions but on an iPad with a sleepy mind it's kinda difficult so maybe I will expand upon some things later when I'm at my computer. But my choice would have to be Edgar Wright. Four movies over the past ten years I have enjoyed immensely.

 

[BatLobster]

I love long takes in films, and don't mind if they the form is apparent because I notice it anyways. But I guess it might be a more academic way of looking at films where most viewers just want to be immersed in a story. Film direction and formal classicism might not interest everybody. But it does interest me and I take great pleasure in it.

I'm glad you said this because this is kind of what I was getting at by repeatedly bringing up the subjective and taste aspects. More cinephile-y inclined people simply watch movies a bit differently and more academically than the average viewer. And that's great. That comes from passion for the artform and that's wonderful. But this also doesn't make the average viewer dumb. For a lot of people, the escape aspect is the primary reason for watching a movie. Luckily there are plenty of filmmakers out there who like to be more experimental with the form, and there's plenty of variety out there. Everybody wins.

And like I said, I think this was actually a productive conversation because I think both sides were able to make their side of it a little more clearly understood. The reasons arguments tend to repeat themselves is a lack of understanding which leads to bitterness.

To change topic, what are people's thoughts on Clint Eastwood? I haven't seen him brought up a ton here. He's hit and miss for me, but it's undeniable that he's made some pretty significant films over the past decade. I think he's sort of become the go-to guy from the older moviegoing crowd.

 

[The Chris]

I like Clint a lot. I like how often he works too. It's something i'd like to emulate. His last three haven't been as good as say million dollar baby, mystic river, letters from iwo jima, and unforgiven but i still believe has a great film in him and i hope it's American Sniper. He seems like an actor's director because even in his lesser films the acting is up to par, and that is something i admire very much.

 

[slumcat]

I think Clint is a much greater director than he gets credit for. I even like Hereafter and love J. Edgar. He is one of the last great classicists in cinema today. He is much more beloved in France than he is in the U.S. I love his mis-en-scene, I find it effortlessly elegant and his pace is patient and deliberate. He is also extra-ordinary with actors. Even a hammy actor like DiCaprio gave his most measured and sober performance under Eastwood. I love the washed out colors, I like how stately his films look. They are somber but not self-important.

He's easily one of my all time favorite directors. I would take him anytime over the likes of Scorsese. I prefer sobriety over flashiness and Eastwood exemplifies that, he's literally a film-maker from another time period.

 

[BatLobster]

I like Clint a lot. I like how often he works too. It's something i'd like to emulate. His last three haven't been as good as say million dollar baby, mystic river, letters from iwo jima, and unforgiven but i still believe has a great film in him and i hope it's American Sniper. He seems like an actor's director because even in his lesser films the acting is up to par, and that is something i admire very much.

I'll agree with that, with the one exception being Gran Torino. Not only did I find that film a bit on the preachy side, but I thought the supporting cast felt very second-rate and poorly acted in some instances. Felt a bit uncharacteristic of Eastwood. Even so, still a good film.

I know it's not in the "past 10 years" category, but I think Unforgiven might still be his masterpiece. But yeah, Clint is great. I wouldn't call him one of my personal favorites but I definitely respect him a lot and could see a good argument being made for him being one of the best.