Hacker News Reader

Comment by npsimons | Hacker News Reader

> And it's interesting coming from a director

It's incredibly interesting to me, coming from this director, as I class him as one of the best, up there with Kubrick, and I also will discriminate on movies based on directors and screenwriters more than any other factor, because that's how I have found quality.

View on HN

This I disagree with. There is a sort of Nolan cult, which I think is undeserved. He is a fine film-maker, but his dialogue is often stilted, the scores overstated and the characters under-developed - and while he is a decent cinematographer, his pictures aren't something that he will be remembered for.

His films are good and incredibly entertaining, but Kubrick is on a completely different plane.

I suppose I'm in the cult. About the only complaint I can lodge against Nolan is that the exposition is heavy handed in a few of his films, which he spoke to in the article, and I agree he was forced into that position with the intense story he's often trying to communicate in a film's runtime. He's also not a cinematographer, and has generally worked with Wally Pfister or Hoyte van Hoytema.

I would disagree if you're saying the cinematography won't be remembered; van Hoytema's work on Interstellar and Dunkirk is something I remember quite positively even while typing this comment. I would also disagree on character development, as Nolan directed Robin Williams into one hell of an antagonist in Insomnia, a spectacularly underrated film.

His stories are often lazy, too. The notion of a magic machine that lets everyone wifi and have dreams inside dreams inside dreams together is fun but absurd. The same with the end of Interstellar. Too conveniently we've got a magic wormhole which saves him and drops him a few feet away from a ship around the ring of Saturn. The first half of TDK is incredible, the second is very anti-climatic (maybe not his fault).

Check out anything by Roger Deakins for world class cinematography. Nolan is just good. If you are looking for a director who people might one day consider in the realm of Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson might fit it, but he's got a lot of "weird" movies (even his masterpieces) which don't give him the same wide appeal. [0]

Williams was great in just about anything he was ever in, I wouldn't attribute that to Nolan. The greatest directors elevate their actors (see the crazy stories about Kubrick and The Shining). Nolan works with great talent, but the performances often leave a lot to be desired, this is uncontested even by fans.

Nolan makes movies with interesting themes and he never really does anything bad. But for him to be even be discussed in the same thread as Kubrick shows how overrated he is. I say this owning Interstellar (the teaser gives me chills) and I thought Dunkirk was great simply because he toned it down and worked within something realistic. Given 20 years and a Jurassic Park, we might see Nolan the same way we do Spielberg today, but Kubrick? Forget about it!

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/12/22/16809404/there-w...

> Williams was great in just about anything he was ever in, I wouldn't attribute that to Nolan.

I don't know, I might. You don't even see Finch for half the film, only hear him, and the villain left an impression on me not unlike Kiefer Sutherland's villain in Phone Booth (an otherwise unremarkable film). I can't think of another villain role that Robin Williams performed, probably because nobody was brave enough to take that kind of risk with a heavyweight positive actor -- Insomnia came out a few years after Good Will Hunting and Dead Poets Society, which helped establish his mastery of drama, but nobody wanted to make him the bad guy. Nolan did, and it was very satisfying to watch.

(I take that back, One Hour Photo was great, too. I knew I was forgetting one.)

Check out One Hour Photo for villainous and creepy Williams. Mostly it's impressive how many weird roles he was willing to put himself in.

I don't recall seeing Insomnia. I'll have to, thanks!

I think that Charlie Kaufman is also a contender for top modern original film director.

I'm glad to find someone else who agrees. I find Nolan to be an unremarkable director. He has inventive ideas but the actual direction is fairly pedestrian. I have a hard time remembering what his Batman films were even about let alone any outstanding direction (the terrible voice Bale used and the Sean Connery impression Hardy did show he needs to tell his actors no sometimes.)

I haven't seen Dunkirk so maybe it will totally change my mind

> His films are good and incredibly entertaining, but Kubrick is on a completely different plane.

I agree perhaps I misclassed Nolan with Kubrick. That being said, "Memento" and "Inception" really stand out to me. Could be that I just really relate to the themes of romantic loss, and as a musician I found the scores for both made a big difference to me. Granted, Zimmer's score for "Inception" was bombastic and could justifiably be called Wagnerian; I still find listening to that soundtrack cathartic, and in spots it's even very cerebral.

A good director has a chance to salvage bad everything else— no one else does. Stars with good taste can be a signal (think Tom Hanks), but that's a measure of potential rather than the final product— once they're on board, they don't really control that much beyond their own performance.

I can't think of any case where a good director has made a good movie out of a bad screenplay. At best they can distract you with style and spectacle, e.g. Gladiator.

If I wanted quality, I would read a book; movies are all about style and spectacle.

I can't supply a specific example, but I'm thinking of writer/director types like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, Bryan Singer, who are able to understand the larger story elements and at least work within the individual scenes to excise the worst dialogue, give characters meaningful and believable motivations, etc.

Commercially successful but mediocre. Dialog in X-Men is still widely mocked (Whedon and Singer), X-Men 3 was horrible, Abrams has never made a great movie (getting the Trek and Wars franchises is a lot of help). I find very little about what Whedon writes believable (maybe that's why he does superhero movies). It's all lowest common denominator snark so they can make a billion dollars.

Not sure why am going after you on this, but surely there are better examples than those guys.

> Not sure why am going after you on this, but surely there are better examples than those guys.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on this. A single line from "Avengers" really sticks out to me, and it seems all too Whedonesque:

> "What were you lying?"

I can understand that Whedon was going for a cutesy play on "what were you saying?", but it just feels so clunky. And it's delivered by a fairly widely recognized as at least competent thespian. This, and the fact that Whedon wrote the screenplay for "Alien: Resurrection" tells me that Whedon is not world-class. He's certainly very good, and definitely mainstream successful, but not in the same class as Kubrick, or even Nolan.

Abrams also feels to me like a one hit wonder, relying far too much on his "mystery box." I actually liked most of "Lost", and his Star Wars and Star Trek were entertaining enough popcorn flicks, but not really memorable.

> the fact that Whedon wrote the screenplay for "Alien: Resurrection" tells me that Whedon is not world-class

I think that's a bit unfair. Joss wrote the original screenplay, but it was butchered en route to the screen. He's still pretty narked about having a story credit: "There is always going to be a shitty Alien movie out there. A shitty Alien movie with my name on it."

I liked the original Avengers, and I think it did a great job handling a sprawling and convoluted brief (there's a 17-part breakdown out there if you're really keen [1]), but TV was his natural medium. Firefly, obviously, but there are moments in Buffy that I'd honestly defend as the best TV ever made.

Not going to argue about JJ Abrams, though. Possibly the most overrated director ever, with a perfect reverse-Midas track record when it comes to franchises.

[1] http://www.toddalcott.com/the-avengers-part-1.html

Fair criticisms. I'm definitely coming at this from the perspective of a mainstream media consumer; I think the most off-beat thing I watched last year was Colossal, and I didn't particularly care for it.

That said, despite everything else, these guys really do understand storytelling. Looking at Star Trek 2009 vs. Nemesis or The Force Awakens vs prequel trilogy, and there's just no comparison. And as far as Whedon, I haven't watched his recent superhero stuff; I'm basing that on being a long-time fan of the dialogue and plotting in Firefly.

I lost all respect for Tom Hanks when he became the history channel's boy: Nostalga and ww2 fantasy plays are not my thing. Bring back the Tom Hanks of Joe v the volcano, not melodrama about another captain america.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com