Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
Well Beckett sometimes worked with even fewer actors but could rinse all kinds of complexity out of those.
I'm not really criticising Nolan. Like I say, I like his films, and would agree he's one of the most consistently good directors working at the moment, And yes, being 'all about the mind' is great, but only if you have something interesting to say about it and I'm not that sure he does. Interstellar came closest for me to him actually saying something genuinely thought provoking. I loved the Batman films but not when I felt like they were trying to make some kind of profound point.
All I'm saying is Nolan is an excellent filmmaker but it'll only damage his reputation in the longterm if people keep talking about him like he's the new Tarkovsky (not that Severian has, but I've had enough conversations wwith people who've at least alluded to it). He's the new Ridley Scott, and at a push maybe the new Kubrick, which is fine by me.
|
When I first read what you said about Roeg I thought you were talking about Refn (Nicolas Winding...) for some reason, and I actually kinda saw it. I thought about Drive, which I L O V E, and Only God Forgives (which... eh, another time), and how the pregnant pauses and art-house flourishes that hint at deeper significance, and how that "depth" is just kind of feels like an illusive, possibly non-existent ploy. (In Only God Forgives at least. Drive is perfect and says and does everything it needs to say and do.)
But when my brain caught up with itself and I noticed that, no, you'd said Roeg, and that I don't get. Sorry. I don't see any real similarities.
I do think that Nolan's is working with a pretty strong set of ideas and philosophical questions. I don't think his films are smoke and mirrors, or that he's using illusion of depth to pass off as an auteur. I think he genuinely is an auteur. Or, rather, that he and his brother are.
I'm not much on film theory, but I know a bit.
For instance, I know about the "180 degree rule" and I know that Christopher Bolan broke it very deliberately in The Dark Knight, when Joker and Bats are in the police station. "Breaking" the 180 degree rule is usually done to throw off the audience. To hide something in the shot for a shocker reveal. Sleight of hand for a cheap thrill. Nolan did not use it to this end at all. It wasn't meant to disorient or confuse... it was a narrative tool, showing how the two characters are inexorably connected to each other. The slow pan of the camera brings the opposite character into the speaking character's perspective, and it adds to this sense of overlap and uncertainty about whether what you're witnessing is actually a faceoff between "good" and "evil" or something infinitely more blurry and complex.
Right? Eh?
Basically I'm saying Nolan is not "fake deep." He's also not anywhere near the most brilliant director or storyteller out there. He's not at the level of Joel and Ethan Coen or Hitchcock or Welles. But he's still excellent, smart, and his films almost always have more to them than immediately meets the eye.
I won't disagree that he's comparable to Ridley Scott. He's DEFINITELY comparable to Kubrick. I'm fine with those assessments. But I do think he *wants* to be more like Spielberg. I think that's a professional goal of his based on what I've read about his process, the way he selects projects, and the way he brings a sort of heartbreaking reality to even his most fantastic and out-there films. Not saying he's there yet... he's probably not. I'm just saying I think that's an ambition of his.
He is definitely a very visual storyteller, and this lends itself to the cerebral mindfucky films he's made. He is more deft at creating a memorable
experience than he is at framing individual characters in memorable ways (though he's had some success with this too.. Leo's character in Inception comes to mind, and obviously there's the Joker.)
Anyway. I get what you're saying. Hope I don't sound like I'm glorifying him too much, or talking as though film is one of my areas of "expertise," because it's certainly not. I just really like the guy's movies.