Christopher Nolan: Vastly Overrated?

[The terms ‘underrated’ and ‘overrated’ seem to have the primary purpose to fuel angered debate firing at misdirected targets. So apologies are in order seeing as the thread title was mostly chosen to dishonestly garner and whore out thread views. Nevertheless, the point of this post will be to offer criticisms of Nolan’s films in an itemised fashion.]

On the surface Nolan’s films appear to be intelligent and thought-provoking. Looking past the admittedly classy stylish film-making, this perspective starts to appear superficial once you try and piece together Nolan’s clumsy and often arduous jigsaw puzzle. Nolan’s films have lots going for them. There are interesting ideas that bind together nicely to pull the viewers in, but fall short in creating much sense of identity, thematic value and lasting impressions.

‘Memento’ and ‘Inception’ present ideas (read: many ideas) that you happily go right along with, before realising perhaps the journey wasn’t all that worth it. ‘Memento’ tells most of its story reverse chronologically, which appears brilliant on the surface. It seems like a great plot device as we learn new things along the way with the amnesiac-stricken protagonist. Where the film falls short is in its identity. At the end of the film the viewer, sits though a somewhat unique set of rules and nuances to follow, and leads them to ask just what exactly was the point? Were we supposed to root for the protagonist? ‘Inception’ is the best example of relying on convoluted rules to unjustifiably make the viewer care about the conclusion or any point to the story. Nolan all but highlights this with a last second deus ex machina baiting plot device: “Guess what: it might all be a dream!” With all these rules to keep up with, Nolan tries to answer any and all incongruities one may have – yet that just opens up the door to meticulous criticism. Our heroes invade Fischer’s (an arbitrary and unnotable character) mind, which happens to be armed with mercenary killers who know to attack our heroes, but are mysteriously mute. Both films ultimately try and force too many (albeit somewhat interesting and intelligent) ideas and plot-turns down our throats without a sense of relevant thematic value. Repeat viewings highlight this; you watch again for its stylised and cool presentation, not to find more coherence in a coherent-lacking story.

'The Prestige' also has an identity problem. It tells the story of two competing magicians – superbly acted by Jackman and Bale - set in a brilliantly believable late 19th century. Once Nolan has established this interesting rivalry, he unfortunately again pulls out a deus ex machina plot device. It turns out we’ve actually been partaking in a sci-fi universe, guys! Oh and you know that guy who doesn’t talk and has that weird fake moustache and looks exactly like Bale? It’s Bale, and that’s a major plot twist revelation. The thematic material is there, but its identity is comprised. Is it supposed to be about the magician rivalry or Tesla’s sci-fi achievements?

Nolan’s two ‘Batman’ films falter again with confused identity. Nolan pulls us into a very serious and grounded-in-reality superhero film - move over fans of the fun Burton films! What made the two Burton ‘Batman’ films in part so appealing was our strong intangible connection with the hero. He’s Gotham’s hero, unambiguously stopping at all costs extremely well fleshed out villains in the Joker, Penguin and Catwoman. Nolan’s films forego that path and instead focus on crime drama and thrills.

In ‘Batman Begins,’ we’re presented with Batman’s origin; a question which, apart from his brutally slain parents, isn’t all that relevant. So, Bruce Wayne decides that he should dress up in a fight-restrictive costume just so that the “symbology” of his fear can be noted. Sure, Gotham needs a symbol, but the costume itself doesn’t really matter and trying to justify this with a few sentences here and there is haphazard. And much like earlier, since ‘Begins’ is so grounded in reality let’s go prying a little, shall we? What are we supposed to make of Ducard’s (well acted by Liam Neeson) background – just what is his deal, where does he come from? Why does he care about Gotham so much? What exactly is The League of Shadows’ story? When Bruce was asked by them to execute a murderer he responds with “I’m not an executioner,” but then goes ahead and burns down their entire temple, to protect Gotham, just like Ducard was protecting life from the murderer, no? Next up we have Katie “I’m a district attorney” Holmes’ character – generic and perplexing. She gets accosted by a scary man in a bat costume and instead of fleeing or at least acting surprised, she calmly addresses him and slips in a “Who are you?” for formality. Ducard shows up towards the end literally and arbitrarily out of nowhere to let us know that Scarecrow was working for him all along – of all the things to sweep under the rug! Also, dear viewer, Wayne enterprises seems to be missing a water vaporiser device which is just what our villain needs to unleash toxin! Let’s just hope that he doesn’t figure out that a cool train sequence is the most effective way in doing so. Hey, Gordon is a main character of sorts, let’s get him to be a hero and use Batman’s tank to save the day. It’s all incredibly contrived. In Burton’s films our hero drives a Batmobile and Batwing which is an extension of his character. In ‘Begins,’ Batman drives a tank-car which might as well be driven by anyone rich enough to have one. In 'Dark Knight,' it’s a motorcycle this time around. I guess though that’s this films’ least of its problems (that scene was actually fantastic).

It’d be even far-reaching to call 'The Dark Knight' a film about Batman. It’s a crime thriller where the protagonist happens to be a vigilante dressed as a bat and the villain happens to (explained by a few sentences) be and look crazy. To again contrast with Burton’s films; Jack Nicholson’s Joker is very detailed and gives us one of the most memorable and iconic villainous scenes in history. “The MIRROR!” should be enough said. In ‘The Dark Knight,’ the Joker more or less just runs around creating havoc somehow. Just how did he rig the hospital or the ships with explosives – and just what was the point of that very unrealistic presentation of human psychology? All it did was distract the viewer from... well to be honest, the film cuts back and forth so much it’s hard to say. In summing up, Nolan’s ‘Batman’ films present us the paradox that plagues Nolan’s other films. This time it’s with ‘Batman Begins,’ a film grounded in “reality,” just not particularly coherent, and ‘The Dark Knight,’ which is a Batman film, just not about Batman.

Saving the best for last: ‘Insomnia’ is without thematic problem and Nolan’s best film. With the risk of sounding contrarian and to bolster ‘overrated’ claims, it should be pointed out that 'Insomnia' is Nolan’s lowest rated feature film on IMDb. Maybe it’s just coincidental that the only feature film that Nolan didn’t have a part in writing is his most coherent. The film has fleshed-out and interesting characters, an interesting and absorbing plot, and a satisfying conclusion with an appetite for more. And maybe it’s coincidental that Nolan had a great blueprint to work from – as it’s a remake of Erik Skjoldbjærg’s ‘97 version. Comparing the two we find that the original is quite a bit less hollow than Nolan’s effort, but each has their flaws. The main thing to take away from the comparison would be that a better connectedness with the characters exists with the original. But it’s a commendable effort from Nolan nonetheless which shows that his talents may be best served when he isn’t writing.

Nolan’s films are stylish, seemingly intelligent and well-made on all counts for the most part, but they lack that cohesive whole, that thematic resonance. 'Memento' and 'Inception' gave us gripping ideas, for no purpose; 'The Prestige' gave us structure, then broke it; his two ‘Batman’ films gave us heroism, if you looked hard enough; and 'Insomnia' is a good little film, although perhaps unnecessary of a remake. Conclusively, Nolan’s films present to us a nice fancy jigsaw puzzle that you happily start to complete – when you do, however, you’re left questioning the puzzles’ final shape.

No fucking way you actually just typed all that.

cliffs

"tl;dr" was never more appropriate

It's my work . It got longer than I hoped though.

Hopefully the length is appropriate considering that Nolan is universally loved and acclaimed.

Batman is funny lol

disgonbegud.gif

I will concede that both Inception and TDK tried too hard to walk the line of "smart" and "popular", and suffered as a result.

However, if you don't think that Memento and ESPECIALLY The Prestige are brilliant, then you are a fucking moron.

First of all, Memento: IT IS NOT "MOSTLY" BACKWARDS. I HATE when people say this. It is exactly 50% backwards and forwards, and he even color codes the damn scenes so you can tell the difference. Also, it is the rare movie that DOES have a point in non-chronological story-telling (compared to self-indulgent shit like Pulp Fiction). Not only do you experience the protagonist's condition via the disjointed timeline, you see the moral shades of gray that he navigates on his journey and learn that he's not as noble as we initially think.

In The Prestige, the twist you mention is something that we can all guess beforehand, and that's the damn point. The narration even talks about how the "trick" is disappointing when you figure it out. There's a scene with Christian Bale and Rebecca Hall about a bullet catch explaining the same point. She's disappointed to know how "easy" the trick is, but then Bale points out that there is still tremendous risk that's only enhanced when the volunteer knows the "real secret" and can exploit it (HINT HINT METAPHOR FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE). There is so much amazingly subtle symbolism in this movie, on top of the impeccable acting and perfect period detail that you yourself mentioned, that I can't understand how this is anything less than a 5/5 classic. I could write essays about The Prestige but I won't just now because no one will read it anyway.

Overall, Nolan has an incredible sense of vision and scope. Sometimes, he gets too carried away with "oooooooooh" moments and twists. However, he still sets a very admirable standard for Hollywood movies, especially with his work on the Batman trilogy and Inception. The point is, I can't agree that he's "vastly overrated". If you think that people are stupid for treating Inception like anything other than Philosophy 101 + James Bond, then you're partially right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a fucking awesome movie to watch.

For Nolan to be "overrated", there must exist SEVERAL directors who CONSISTENTLY put up both big box office numbers and better-than-average plots/screenplays/intelligence/etc. So, the burden of proof is on you: what directors meet this criteria that you think Nolan fails?

Threads like this make me hate this planet.

val is like the Skip Bayless of 5/8, but with movies instead of sports.

When are the admins going to do something useful and ban this phgt? Jesus Christ.

You might be right but I think less than 50% of the film is black and white, but it's a minor detail. I agree there's a point in the the way it's told (like I said, we're vicariously involved more), but when you get to the end you're left with just a "Okay that was pretty cool, with twists here and there" feeling and nothing more. We don't even know if we should have been rooting for this guy that we became so invested in. It was a cheap ploy to distract us from what the film is actually about: cool unorthodox story telling without a concrete sense of fulfilment. He's 'not as noble,' as we thought, yet didn't we just root for this guy for the entire movie? It's a shameful twist-ending.

Nope, the twist with Fallon is clearly supposed to be one major climax of the film. You say the trick is easy, and that's the point - would you call discovering and harnessing a cloning device easy? It flies in the face of 3/4 of what the film stood for . Don't give me an essay, just explain how you can forgive this poor bizarrely out of place sci-fi plot device.

Fincher. Seven, Fight Club, Zodiac and Button are all masterpieces compared to anything Nolan has done.

I don't have to name anyone for thinking that Nolan is overrated. All I have to do is note that almost of his films garner way, way more acclaim than they should. Even if he was the only director on Earth.

Zodiac and Benjamin Button being masterpieces, lol

I honestly am not going to do this whole breaking up quotes and point-by-point debate thing. The entire point of The Prestige is how far someone will go, how much they will sacrifice. How do you top someone who would live half a life 100% of the time for the sake of a magic trick? You willingly kill a clone of yourself 100 times in a row for the sake of a magic trick. The significance of the cloning is monumental because of the Tesla vs. Edison rivalry (which is a metaphor for the main plot WINK WINK WINK). Michael Caine even says "this machine wasn't built by a magician ... it was built by a wizard". It helps deconstruct the meaning of a magician by defining that magicians are really illusionists and distractors, whereas science can produce real "magical" results. Tesla is said to have laid the groundwork for wireless transmission before 1900.

Michael Caine's quote that I mentioned: "Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled."

This is the final line in the movie's narration for a good reason: you want it to be more complex than "oh that was really his brother". The whole point is that it's not. Angier kept searching and searching for an answer even though Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansen, and even Christian Bale (as Alfred) admit that it's "a double". In his insane search for "the secret", Angier pushes Tesla into horrific science fiction. We are shown the classic folly of hubris. Instead of conceding to a superior trick, Angier ends up living with truly awful things just to sell more tickets AND deprive Alfred's child of a real upbringing.

I would also like to point out that if Nolan were the only director on earth, he would also be the best director on earth, since there would be nothing to rate him against, rendering 'overrating' completely impossible...

For me so far Nolan's work is nothing more than high quality pop entertainment.

But it's work that I respect and enjoy, and believe that it is work that more films ought to strive for in the quality department.

I can't think what fallacy this is; maybe an argument from ignorance. If there was only one pizza shop on Earth, does that mean they would make the best pizzas, so someone pointing out that rat poison is the main ingredient wouldn't matter? Being overrated isn't about competitiveness; it's about the populace opinion weighed against your own.

oh look it's a valon thread

I commend your ability to connect some dots and string together concepts in your favour. The history of the Tesla vs. Edison rivalry isn't wholly relevant to the film. It's actually a red herring. Do you honestly think that clumsily introducing sci-fi more than halfway through the film is the appropaite way to demonstrate this theme of relentless competition and hubris? It doesn't belong in the film. Science, although can always be seen through the generations as 'magic,' isn't Science when you're inexpliably cloning yourself! There's a huge jump between making a metaphor (I'll even grant you an interesting one, although clichéd), and resorting to sci-fi in a non sci-fi film. Nolan just likes using deus ex machinas in replace of thoughtful plot devices.

>conversing with Valon and Cogancad

acualy is nolan

However, if the only pizza maker only made pizza with rat poison, pizza would be known as an elaborate form of rat poison, since we wouldn't understand pizza as food, since there was only one. Hence, if you believe Nolan's movies aren't good in the world where he is the only director, you don't have any films to measure it against, so it is by default the best. And the worst, and the funniest, scariest, most sexual, most prudish, unrated and c.

I also think that you are a bit hung up on the cloning aspect. The tesla stuff is not a red herring. It's a parallel, which is a fairly basic literary technique. And it also shows further how edison/tesla parallels the illusionists when edison's men come to destroy Tesla's stuff. They had a depraved one-upsmanship rivalry which devolved to ruining each others stuff.

You seem to be arguing that intelligent people can't possess even basic common sense without explicit points of references. If the only film in the world was a two hour piece consisting of just a black screen, common sense tells you it's a boring piece of shit. If everyone acclaims it, we call it overrated. The need for another film to make comparisons isn't relevant. It's not even needed for someone to point out that filming rain would be more interesting.

I tend to get hung up on terribly unnecessary dramatic shifts of prose. Sure, there are vague parallels with Tesla/Edison - to that I ask, so what? It's far removed from the story about two competing magicians. Next you'd argue that if we saw two squirrels outwitting each other in the background it'd be terrific metaphorical technique. The only reason for the sudden sci-fi inclusion was to make the film seem cooler than it is.

And you might want to read up on what really happened in the war of the currents. Many claims are greatly exaggerated.

You mean Tesla vs. Edison wasn't portrayed historically accurately? I was sure that Tesla invented a cloning machine!

Maybe YOU should read up on the war of the currents, since (among other things) Edison publicly harmed and killed animals with electricity to show that Tesla's current was too dangerous for home use.

Your squirrel remark shows how out of your depth you are in this conversation. It's fine if you don't like the sci-fi story ... many people have the same complaint. But you are saying "the film is weaker because of X, and shouldn't have done it, and did it poorly, and it's not valid cinema" etc. None of which are true. I know this probably pedantic of me, but if you said "I don't like the sci-fi part", this wouldn't even be a conversation. That would be fine. But you are flatly stating that Christopher Nolan is actually a poor filmmaker, and that people are being fooled by flashy parlor tricks. This is ridiculous, as sane people can tell that Nolan is AT LEAST a very competent technical filmmaker who also adapts engaging stories and directs excellent acting performances. What else do you want from a movie?

Well, this is a stupid argument anyway for me to bring up in the first place and I regret it, but also Christopher Nolan isn't directing fucking blank screens. In order to say Nolan's directing was overrated in a land where Nolan was the only guy making them, would be to claim that film in general is overrated because all you know of film is Christopher Nolan's take on it. Do you not understand that that is the point I'm making? It is a moronic thing to argue, regardless, because Christopher Nolan isn't the only director.

The story of two competing inventors is not far removed from the story of two competing magicians. The movie is about the lengths people will go to for one-upping a rival. Reality and actual Tesla-Edison history is arbitrary because in a film the only thing that matters is the film's universe. In this one Tesla invents a cloning machine and that is possible. Done. It's in the movie so you have to accept it as part of the movie's universe. In this one Edison burns down Tesla's machine because he is driven by being the better man. It's exactly parallel to the main story. It's thematically relevant because envy and one-upsmanship are primary thematic material of the film.[/quote]

Man you guys are fucking retarded.

every single artist who is praised for continuously spewing out quality work will be considered overrated at some point. who cares.

Fuck, this is such a great post.

Nah he pretty much rules.

I think Inception had like three layers of depth. That's deep. Then the van crashed in deep water.

I mean he has down:

Memento
3 batmans
inception

Eh...... no he isn't overrated at all. Most people probably don't even know who he is (not internet people, people in general) and those who do probably don't know much beyond batman

Nolan is overated, but Fight Club isn't.

lol

You are about 50 different kinds of fucking retarded

overated

I mean the way I wrote it out was pretty bad, granted, but the content is GOLD.

lol i thought the forum software was messing up but it turns out that i couldn't see this thread because i have val on ignore

You are not missing much, tbh.

lol let's argue about opinions on movie directors dude let's fuckin do it lol

Not gonna read this gay thread, but Nolan is pretty fucking awful.

The argument began because Taco claimed that I was obliged to list better directors than Nolan. This is like if I was arguing that the Christian God is ridiculous to believe in, Taco would respond with "Well how about you show that the Muslim God is more ridiculous!" It's a melding of an argument from ignorance, a red herring, a strawman, shifting of the burden of proof and shifting scope.

And saying that we need a point of reference to know anything is an argument from ignorance. So no, I don't understand your point at all.

I don't care if it was or wasn't portrayed accurately - it wasn't a huge talking point in the film; it was just minor subtext to make it seem more intelligent and so that the sci-fi inclusion would have more of an excuse for being there. On history: they worked together for Christ's sake! Edison wasn't really competing against 'Tesla's Current.'

The squirrel remark was actually quite apt. Considering it would make a fitting metaphor yet would just be a mindless inclusion. Reminds me of something like using Edison/Tesla for an excuse to turn a realistic film about character struggle into sci-fi.

I never said the sci-fi was done poorly nor that I didn't like it. Me liking or disliking that aspect of cinema isn't relevant (I actually love it). Hell, if Batman suddenly harnessed a teleporting device I'd think that would be awesome as shit, but it'd be silly because it doesn't fit into the universe. How many times do I have to tell you that sci-fi things don't fit in a world which is dressed up otherwise. It's a lazy deus ex machina plot-twist to try and further entertain the audience.

I 'flatly stated' nothing; it was an essay thank you very much! . I never claimed that Nolan is a poor film-maker, in fact I even pointed out that he's talented. The problem I have (if you read the opening and closing paragraphs), is that Nolan's films, although have nice aesthetics, try and be more than what they are. The films make you care about thematic resonance or a nice meaning to it all - but there largely isn't any to find.

THE WHOLE FUCKING THREAD/ARGUMENT IS RETARDED BECAUSE "BETTER" DIRECTOR IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF OPINION, FUCK

It is obviously not completely a matter of opinion, but surely a large part of it is. Without a good definition of "overrated" and Nolan's "rating" this argument is pretty fucked to start off with anyway.

Strong trying to sound smart by attempting to find deep reasons to hate on a popular director thread

I don't even like Christopher Nolan but this thread makes me want to burn an orphanage.

I haven't read any of it. If I did I think I would want to burn something too

No, it is COMPLETELY a matter of opinion. There is no objective precedent.

To suggest there is no variance that is independent from opinion is ludicrous. Taking that argument forward would lead to the conclusion that all directors are inherently equivalent, including aborted fetuses.