Why Nolan??

[Cinemaman]

He doesn't create meaning, just general mood.

Meaning of what?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Man my Biel joke bombed

 

[Cyrusbales]

Like my previous example, when it objectifies the woman, creates more than just a woman walking in, it create an air of sexuality.

The ultimate in simpleness, would be using a high angled shot to make the character look small and inferior, or a low angled to make them intimidating etc.

 

[Cinemaman]

Like my previous example, when it objectifies the woman, creates more than just a woman walking in, it create an air of sexuality.

The ultimate in simpleness, would be using a high angled shot to make the character look small and inferior, or a low angled to make them intimidating etc.

I see your point. But lets look at other filmmakers, who did the same. For example, the Mastrer of Supense - Hitchcock. How did he shoot his films, only in full shot. He very rarely used close ups or angles, as he preffered to show audience the whole scene in all meanings. And as any another director Nolan wanted to take some aspects from Alfred's style. So that's what became the base of Nolan's style.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Like my previous example, when it objectifies the woman, creates more than just a woman walking in, it create an air of sexuality.

But that may not be the point of the scene and is little more than a camera trick.

The ultimate in simpleness, would be using a high angled shot to make the character look small and inferior, or a low angled to make them intimidating etc.

He used that in Batman in order to cover Bales Size.

 

[Mr. Socko]

yeah dude in the time we live in with this kind of hollywood we should appreciate his origniality and creativity

I'm sorry but telling a film out of order in non-linear storytelling and adding in a minor plot twist at the end of the movie stopped qualifying for "originality & creativity" after his third film or so.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I see your point. But lets look at other filmmakers, who did the same. For example, the Mastrer of Supense - Hitchcock. How did he shoot his films, only in full shot. He very rarely used close ups or angles, as he preffered to show audience the whole scene in all meanings. And as any another director Nolan wanted to take some aspects from Alfred's style. So that's what became the base of Nolan's style.

Hitchcock's fine works have lots of camera work, for example, when Norman Bates looks through the hole in the wall, we are put in a voyeuristic position, making us side with him to a degree and see the issue from the other side, flipping our psychological stance.

 

[echostation]

After seeing Yuma, I so want James Mangold to do a superhero film... god I hate the Western genre but two films I absolutely love are Tombstone and 3:10 to Yuma.. what a brilliant film

It's really hard to say whether Singer or Mangold are better directors than Nolan or not... they've all done different styles of films, hard to compare them

 

[Cyrusbales]

The revies for 3:10 to Yuma haven't been amazing, 3 stars in empire and the observer said it wasn't a patch on the original

 

[Cinemaman]

Hitchcock's fine works have lots of camera work, for example, when Norman Bates looks through the hole in the wall, we are put in a voyeuristic position, making us side with him to a degree and see the issue from the other side, flipping our psychological stance.

Just watch either Catch A Thief or Reaer Window and you'll understand what I tried to say

 

[Cyrusbales]

Rear window's camera work is highly meaningful, the lack of motion mimicks the characters disposition, look at spellbound, the motion in that(whilst a rip off of Sidomak), shows an almost etheral trance like state, and the surrealist motion reflects the character's situation to a degree.

For the best example of how to use a camera's motion and shots, watch la mala education. just wow, sick direction!

 

[Cinemaman]

Rear window's camera work is highly meaningful, the lack of motion mimicks the characters disposition, look at spellbound, the motion in that(whilst a rip off of Sidomak), shows an almost etheral trance like state, and the surrealist motion reflects the character's situation to a degree.

For the best example of how to use a camera's motion and shots, watch la mala education. just wow, sick direction!

But what about full shots of interiors or tht whole street? And did you notice that he rarely used close ups and other camera effects? He didn't want to draw anyone's attention, because he wanted to focus on story and it's characters. He used some camera effects only during action scenes, when they were really necessary.

I saw it two or three years ago, but right now I don't remember most of what happened in the movie. Is it Pedro Almodovar's NC-17 film?

 

[Cyrusbales]

But what about full shots of interiors or tht whole street? And did you notice that he rarely used close ups and other camera effects? He didn't want to draw anyone's attention, because he wanted to focus on story and it's characters. He used some camera effects only during action scenes, when they were really necessary.

I saw it two or three years ago, but right now I don't remember most of what happened in the movie. Is it Pedro Almodovar's NC-17 film?

La mala education (bad education) is packed with perfect examples.

For instance, when our main protagonist jumps into the pool over his oolging director friend, the camera is used i na way usually reserved for women, objectifying him as a sexual object etc. Completely changes the perspective of the shot.

 

[Cyrusbales]

This shot from Todo Sombre me madre, is worth at least 20 mins of analysing.

The camera moves to show this next image, but I can't find the image in between where you see, the woman in red, his mother, in the distance of the above shot.

 

[Cinemaman]

La mala education (bad education) is packed with perfect examples.

For instance, when our main protagonist jumps into the pool over his oolging director friend, the camera is used i na way usually reserved for women, objectifying him as a sexual object etc. Completely changes the perspective of the shot.

Yeah I remember something like that. But Nolan isn't Pedro and weren't we talking about Hitchcock?

 

[Cyrusbales]

That's what direction is though...

 

[Cinemaman]

^^^

But if every director had the same style (like Pedro's for example), would we call it style? Style is something that presents different vision of director with his manner of filmmaking.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Yes, but using the camera as more than point and shoot, is what direction is. Creating meaning through the how.

 

[Cinemaman]

Yes, but using the camera as more than point and shoot, is what direction is. Creating meaning through the how.

But evey film has it's own direction, doesn't? For example, The Insomnia. Do you remember that chase scene between Al Pacino and Robin Williams? That shot, when Pacino falls in the water. How did Nolan show it? He just allowed cam to fall down with Pacino. Or the final scene? Didn't Nolan chose the right angle sto show it's every moment right?

 

[Warhammer]

I can't believe how all of this debate is about camera work.
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about it's various techniques?

 

[Mr. Socko]

I can't believe how all of this debate is about camera work.
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about it's various techniques?

Quiet! The Superhero Hype film seminar will hang you say something like this.

 

[echostation]

I stopped believing Empire when they gave SR a 5 star and called it the LOTR of Superhero films... utter ****

 

[Sandman138]

I think most people like him because he's accessibly deep. His films don't require active participation, but they aren't brainless either. He asks harder questions than most of his peers, but he doesn't force you to grapple with ambiguity all that often. As for any auteur style to his directorial approach, you have to see Following, his studio work has had much more focus on actors as others have said.

 

[Sandman138]

I'm sorry but telling a film out of order in non-linear storytelling and adding in a minor plot twist at the end of the movie stopped qualifying for "originality & creativity" after his third film or so.

Indeed. It was already old hat when he did it in Memento.

 

[Hunter Rider]

The revies for 3:10 to Yuma haven't been amazing, 3 stars in empire and the observer said it wasn't a patch on the original

Empire gave Shoot em Up 4 stars and SR and Bourne Ultimatum 5 stars, i quit buying the mag months ago.

Yes, but using the camera as more than point and shoot, is what direction is. Creating meaning through the how.

But there is also a lot more to direction than that, you are fixated like a film student on camera moves but not on emotion and creating a connect with the audience, camera movements and shot framing are but tools in a massive belt and you are hinging your entire view around that.

But evey film has it's own direction, doesn't? For example, The Insomnia. Do you remember that chase scene between Al Pacino and Robin Williams? That shot, when Pacino falls in the water. How did Nolan show it? He just allowed cam to fall down with Pacino. Or the final scene? Didn't Nolan chose the right angle sto show it's every moment right?

Good point, not every scene needs some slick camera move to get it's meaning over, sometimes the simple shot with the right sound and ediitng works better.

I can't believe how all of this debate is about camera work.
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about it's various techniques?

Yes it's become quite pretentious in here.

I stopped believing Empire when they gave SR a 5 star and called it the LOTR of Superhero films... utter ****

Co - signed.