His portrayal of the story is very much a literal translation of the screenplay. Have you ever read the actual screenplay of one of his films? Memento is online, as is the following, and he clearly adds nothing to it.
Of course he adds nothing more to it, because he WROTE the goddamn screenplay, you mutt.
It owuld not kill him to add a few etra nuances of character through framing, instead of using the camera like a primitive device, his most sophisticated work was Following, which began very strong, and actually showed some innovative camera work, however by it's end and in all his other films, the camera is merely a portal to his films, not a point of view. His success is due to the screenplay's rather than his direction.
Actually, Memento and The Prestige clearly show that he's a master at effortlessly weaving unconventional narrative structures with a film's storyline rather than using them as a gimmick. I liked how you conveniently gloss over the points I and DACrowe have made so far, and instead of actually addressing them, you go off on trivial tangents. It's downright amusing how you're clinging to distant straws here - first, it was Nolan's films not having a social commentary, now your criticism of his direction is based solely on the camerawork?
As a student of film, I'm sure you would've known that direction is not just one or two single jobs, but rather a sum of many different parts, bringing together the talents of different people and channeling them in the direction one requires. All of Nolan's films (well, aside from Batman Begins to a much lesser extent) have excellently written characters, great performances, unique narrative structures...even the one thing you're blowing your useless trumpet on, that his films are good because of the screenplay, well, it wouldn't hurt you to know he's written or co-written the screenplay of every single one of his films.
There is a particular school of thought amongst scholars about the science of cinema, I said that Nolan was basic, you agreed that he does not surpass the narrative, my point here is just that Nolan translates a screenplay, he does not enhance it whatsoever, he does not use the tools of cinema, he is simplistic and shows no huge understanding of the capabilities of cinema.
I clearly disagree. The way he masterfully channels Leonard's confusion through the audience with the back-and-forth structure of the film alone is enough to disprove your point. And The Prestige very clearly showed his talents at making a film that is both grim and gorgeous, atmospheric yet contained. It is not my problem that your "formal" education of film limits your perception of cinema as if it is some kind of mathematical equation.
To paraphrase what Lenin said, "cinema is by far the most important tool at my disposal." he went on to say how cinema was hugely important and could affect entire cultures and make a huge impact. A lot of people who assume cinema is harmless entertainment barely know about it's origins and capabilities, as a form of cultural scultory media.
I'm pretty sure your average Joe has more than enough idea that cinema is NOT just harmless entertainment and is often used as a significant tool of propaganda and cultural export. But that's not the point now is it? I'm sure it is terribly hard for you to understand my very simple assertion that cinema can be many different things at once, but that doesn't mean it always HAS to be. Your method of criticism is both shabby and weak. If I were to use your template, I would take the obscure foreign arthouse films of the ones you call "talented directors" and harp on them for being pretentious, self-important and absolutely worthless as pieces of escapism and thrilling populist entertainment. And even you can't deny it. But I suppose your broken logic would quantify that as blatant failures of the director, eh?
What you've stated thus far about Nolan's films not having deep social commentary or innovative camerawork does not diminish his status as a great director, especially when you've done absolutely NOTHING to refute his strengths as a wonderful filmmaker that myself and other posters in this thread have listed thus far. Rather than addressing the points made by other people, you simply indulge in even more blind rhetoric.
