Tuesday, July 17, 2012
So it's Batman time again and people are already grousing about whether or not the movie is good, or whether or not Nolan is a good film-maker, or whether or not Batman's voice is a hate-crime against movie-goers. The argument as to Nolan's talents is an interesting one to me. He is accused of being too literal by many critics which is a fascinating thing to me to understand.
The criticism started picking up steam with The Dark Knight and really got going with Inception. He is often accused of not showing his ideas, but rather telling them through dialogue and exposition. Which I kind of agree with, but after watching most of Nolan's work, I would argue that these are more stylistic choices than any inherent flaw of Nolan's movie-making.
From my own perspective, the biggest problem most people have is a disconnect between expectation and execution. People want campy Batman, or some sort of French New Wave auteur, or David Lynch or something. Instead, Nolan gives them an earnest, almost abrasive storytelling style that reflects a clear, analytic, almost cold perspective that Nolan has towards his subjects. It is shocking to me that he has become a director of blockbusters because if you look at his work it is not for the faint of heart or the simple of mind.
Is Christopher Nolan a great film-maker? I don't know enough about film to say yes or now, but he knows how to create films that can challenge, intrigue, and resonate. I'd rather spend my money this way than by lining Michael Bay's pockets.
Posted by Homer at 8:35 PM