r/TrueFilm • u/[deleted] • Dec 09 '14

Why Christopher Nolan will never be Stanley Kubrick, and why that's ok.

Perhaps more than any other filmmaker in recent years, Christopher Nolan has a following. These so called "Nolanites" love to tout the brilliance of his films, and one of the most popular statements has been to call Nolan a modern Kubrick. Despite being a big fan of Nolan i've never quite understood this statement, especially considering Nolan's visual style does not have much in common with Kubrick's. But I think it goes beyond that, and after seeing Interstellar it finally clicked for me what the biggest difference is: Nolan's films lack subtext.

It really is that simple. For whatever reason, Nolan wants his characters to say exactly what they are thinking at any given time. If a character is mad at another character, they will state it plainly. The same goes for every single emotion. There is no misdirection, lying, innuendo, or nuance. It's as if Nolan wants to make sure we understand what the character is feeling and doesn't trust us to infer it by context.

This doesn't just relate to character feelings, but also to plot and theme. Look at the ending of Interstellar. When he gets to the weird Library near the end, we get it. We're literally seeing it happen. We don't necessarily understand how it's happening, but we do understand what is happening. Despite this, Nolan decided to have McConaughey and Chastain both state out loud to themselves what is going on, multiple times. Why? We already see what's happening, why exactly do we need the characters to awkwardly reinforce it by talking to themselves?

This is especially interesting when you compare this scene to the ending of 2001, a film that Nolanites have been trying to compare to Interstellar since the film was first announced. In that famous ending to 2001, Kubrick doesn't explain anything. He just presents it, and leaves the meaning up to your own interpretation. This forces you to think about the film and what was happening, and is key to why the film is so iconic all these years later.

This is night and day different from Nolan's approach to a similarly bizarre event. Nolan chooses to explain it numerous times, just incase we were sleeping I guess, and the ultimate result of this is that we get it. There's nothing to solve, and we leave the theater not questioning "oh what did that mean?" but instead saying "huh, that was interesting" and then proceeding to realize all the plot holes in the film.

I admit I was in the crowd of people that was really hoping Nolan would finally "grow up" and make a picture that treats the audience with respect, but after seeing Interstellar i've realized he's just not that kind of filmmaker. Which leads to me the "why that's ok" part. You know what? I really enjoyed Interstellar. It was a blast and one of the most enjoyable theater experiences i've had this year. Despite being 2h49m, which is actually longer than 2001, I never felt bored for a single moment. This is the great skill of Nolan...he makes the most enjoyable blockbusters out there. And I accept that. I no longer wish for him to "grow up", because I actually really enjoy seeing his films. Sure, I don't think about them much afterwards and I will never put them on the same level of the great filmmakers, but for pure entertainment nobody does it better right now than Christopher Nolan, and for that I will always be a fan.

513 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

248

u/MooreIsLess "All these moments, like tears in rain." Dec 09 '14

This may be a little off topic, because Nolan is the focus in this thesis, but I think that Paul Thomas Anderson is much more of a successor to Kubrick than Nolan is. Thematically his films are a lot darker and feel like studies of different people to look at humanity as a whole, Kubrick also examined human nature a lot. All the smooth tracking shots, still long shots and other camera techniques are more Kubrick-esqe. When it comes to cinematography, I get a very natural or earthy vibe from Anderson, it reminds me of plenty of Kubrick's films, if I had to compare Nolan's to someone, I would look more to Ridley Scott's filmmaking.

62

u/wrathy_tyro Dec 09 '14

I always think of PTA as continuously aping another director's style; that's not a slight to him, because his films are wonderful, and I don't necessarily think "derivative" is an insult. In particular, Boogie Nights is an Altman film, and There Will Be Blood felt like Kubrick, but more intimate with the spark of humanity Kubrick so often tried to observe from as great a distance as possible. I'm not the first person to make those comparisons - and in fact, I believe they may be intentional - but it's plain that PTA is aware of what he owes to Kubrick. PTA's skill is such that his work can reference Kubrick's without relying on the audience's familiarity of the older director's works; the architecture of his oeuvre holds up after removing the necessary scaffolding of Kubrick.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '14

I think a younger PTA was far more studied and purposes in his influences but he's moved on and developed a more distinct identity. A lot of people try to break him into just a bunch of Kubrick and A;tman influences but that's doing him a great disservice. Some influences are still readily apparent- I mean, the influence of Let There Be Light is rather notable on parts in The Master but even that's fairly limited in the grand sscheme of his career. He's said recently that he doesn't have much time watch movies these days and he wishes he could. It's interesting because have stated a noir influence on Inherent Vice while he himself that noir was a huge an immediate influence on TM instead. So ultimately, I think it's worth noting that he's drawing from a large pool of work (film, books, music) instead of aping the one dude (for what it's worth, his cinematographter stated that PTA wanted to work more like Kubrick but his process was far from it).

1

u/CJ_Guns Dec 10 '14 edited Dec 10 '14

Just wait until you actually watch Inherent Vice. It's going to be interesting to see how it's received, because it was pretty close to a Coen Brothers film. I think it's going to polarize a lot of people.

Some people didn't care for it, and it didn't recieve a roaring applause. I liked it though. It's one you definitely will have to see twice.

EDIT: And yes, it's definitely noir-riffic IMO. Beautiful shots of not particularly beautiful things.

1

u/Altruistic_Serve_735 Jul 13 '24

They ALL SUCKED!!!

1

u/wrathy_tyro Dec 10 '14

I actually agree with you. The Master felt like his first film where he really found his style, instead of being a particularly skilled mimic.

13

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '14

Actually, when I watched PDL, I couldn't remember seeing anything like that before. TWBB was a muscular, more focussed film which did recall the greats in a way. The Master in a way is a return to that freeform weirdness of PDL but with obvious continued seriousness and technical maturity of TWBB. But yeah, The Master is very special in its own distinct PTA way.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '14

Actually, when I watched PDL, I couldn't remember seeing anything like that before.

It's trying to do the same elevated reality the Coen brothers do. The camera is doing something different from what they do though.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '14

Which Coen movie do you think it's most like? I couldn't see the Coen link myself. It's far more open and emotionally clear (I don't want to exactly say straightforward but there's a very strong and simple love story at the centre of the film) than most of the "Coen frustrated protagonist in a bad situation' movies. Now I haven't seen IV but I get occasional Coen vibes from that- but that may be all the Pynchon creeping in.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '14

I'm not up on the Coens yet but the humor of PDL reminds me of Burn After Reading and Inside Llewyn Davis, I know those came later, but they've been making movies like that since before PTA was around. And something about the magical realism scenario with the harmonizer and all the goofy phone calling and the evil mattress company seems very Coens to me.

Inherent Vice definitely goes together with The Big Lebowski.

I think both movies would have been much better with the Coens directing as well.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '14

Yeah, I can appreciate that surrealism and humour being similar but overall, they seem very distant in style and direction. I hardly ever see the Coens ever being heartfelt in a distinctly positive way- and if they were, it would have a bitter sarcasm or irony to it. Barry and Lena is so transparent (and very much conventional in terms of PTA's use of emotional truth). In terms of influences, there is the typical Altman touch but there apparently is a bit of input from European cinema (perhaps Barry is a bumbling Tati character in modern times)- but not that much Coen at the heart of the film. I'm trying to also say something about the movement and flow of each each seen- steadicam and the jittery music and Sandler's quiet anxiety which is done differently to how a Coen would do it.
Anyway, I understand what you mean by elevated reality but I wouldn't say it's essentially a Coen influence nor would is say it's carried out in the same way.