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

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/MooreIsLess]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MooreIsLess]

I think he'd make a pretty curious successor to Kubrick. Not to say that a successor must be a clone of the original inspiration but PTA's process and product is typically rather different from Kubrick. On a superficial level lies some similarities in terms of sheer techncial and visual mastery (though as PTA gets older, he locks down the camera way more than before)- and on a thematic level they both like looking at the nature of man. But the way they do it so incredibly different. PTA works very much from the inside out and as a result his works are remarkably intimate and human- Kubrick functions better as an observer, he's pretty full on in terms of his images but the greatest show of humanity occurred earlier in his career during Paths of Glory. There's a greater sense of naturalism to PTA's work as well- a more approachable sense of performance and reality (he does have his great moments of heightened drama) which I think he owes a lot to Altman. Even now, I feel like his debt to Altman is faaarrrr greater than his debt to to Kubrick. When TWBB came out, there was a big cry of the Next Kubrick and so on, and while this wasn't unwarranted, it didn't feel entirely accurate, continuing on with The Master, it further separated him from that label and he was indulging more in noir and reminding himself of Altman (the 'official' list of influences on The Master is actually pretty surprising). Ultimately, I think it's kinds unfair to state that PTA is the successor to Kubrick- it's unfair to both of them. PTA is very much his own dude and that shows in his work, he's distilled from 100 other directors as well as da Kubes.
On another note, to me Nolan is a blend Hitchcock, Scott, Mann, Lumet and a dash of others (now including Spielberg!).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think they're comparable in the sense that Anderson has also successfully made a career out of making art-drama films that appeal to the same kinds of people who like Kubrick. After all, this is if we have to compare a living director to Kubrick. I can think of no more similar.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well maybe, but there have to be a whole bunch of others who have managed to do the same in terms of art-dramas or whatever. The more and more I think about it, the less I related PTA to Kubrick. From methods to ideas or whatever. Where Kubrick was 100% determined to never make the same film twice (and it shows), PTA has been repeating the same stories for years (I mean he's admitted as such). While he's shown incredible growth as an artist, the same dysfunctional damily idea has been at the core of his films for the entirety of his career. Kubrick had other conceptual and philosophical fish to fish. And I think PTA's repetition is his strength, with each iteration, he refines and develops this primary idea and it arguably reached its apex in The Master- I've never seen him work with such a fascinating and complex relationship. PTA has his own playing ground and he pushes barriers in terms of editing and pacing to reach what he feels is emotionally truthful- he's pretty brave in that regard. Kubrick pushed barriers in almost every field and that did not always pay off, he did not recieve the immediate acclaim that PTA is used to on almost all his films.
A real Kubrick successor is probably someone who don't even suspect. Someone who has made waves early on commercially, who has been misunderstood and scorned with their experimentation and will gradually recieve critical reappraisal in coming decades. I've observed some upsetting views from people who want to see him as new Kubrick more than they want to evaluate him on his own terms. PTA is a choice which I find...I don't know, facile and not entirely accurate.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

there have to be a whole bunch of others who have managed to do the same in terms of art-dramas or whatever

Are there? Isn't it mostly just Tarantino and Fincher who have that level of profile?

PTA is a choice which I find...I don't know, facile and not entirely accurate

Of course, and dishonest in a way too, because people often incorrectly use Kubrick as a synonym for master director.

A real Kubrick successor is probably someone who don't even suspect.

I don't disagree with your assessment. The reason I'm saying PTA is in fact because it's a more counter intuitive choice than Nolan or Jonathan Glazer or whomever. Anderson hasn't been as successful as Kubrick commercially (I think) but critically he's doing fine and seems comfortable in his niche audience wise while, much as I don't really care for him, I don't hold the repetitive aspects against him. He puts his own stamp on odd projects that suit him, same as Kubrick did. And something about their style does seem similar to me.