Is Christopher Nolan a great writer/director?

I absolutely agree. The editing of action scenes in TDK is atrocious.

It shows that he doesn't do retakes.

He learned to shoot films like a documentary when he did Following with his own money and friends and stayed like that. Handheld camera, one or two takes, natural light instead of putting up tons of artificial lights etc.

I guess it's mostly to allow him to shoot his huge films without a second unit. Most big films employ at least a 2nd unit, sometimes more, all with their own directors so that they can shoot more stuff quicker. So the film's director might be doing dialogue scenes in London while another unit is doing action scenes in Hungary. Nolan wants to shoot every frame of the film himself.

Why is*

So which is cheaper? Second units/multiple cameras or single camera with the director everytime?

Second unit if you shoot the films "properly". But if the director half asses everything like Nolan, it's about even.

He's inept at both but at least he has admirable ambitions

>shoot his huge films
DONE

NOLAN IS A GOD

BIGGEST SINCE THE SILENT ERA

Sure. He gets a lot of undeserved hate just as he gets as much undeserving praise. But overall he has a list of quality films.

I think he is mostly a really great editor and a visionary. Not so sure about his writing.

Yes, only reddit hates him

he's a good director and a god awful writer

He is not the 2nd coming of Kubrick, but he's definitely important. You could call him his generation's Spielberg maybe (fuck JJ), ideas man with big movies that has draw on the basis of his name alone

most visually and action coordination stunted director I ever seen from Hollywood

He is reddit the director.

Say what you will his movies are highly watchable.

kino

Attached: 1563884208611.webm (1280x720, 2.94M)

he’s a good director at everything except directing actors. Ol no more takes Nolan

The quintessential magician and meme artist of our time. What he lacks in directorial artistry and great writing he makes up for in sheer memery and idea implantation. The exposition is sloppy but he has gotten great at using it as sleight of hand.

His film consist of constant verbal explaining of plot instead of using the visual language of cinema to explain it.

This but exactly the opposite

For you.

That's really a grammatical argument particular to the medium. The only big misstep is in simplicity of dialogue and music. Nolan should be forced to listen to Alfred Cortot on vinyl for a month.

>I guess it's mostly to allow him to shoot his huge films without a second unit. Most big films employ at least a 2nd unit, sometimes more, all with their own directors so that they can shoot more stuff quicker. So the film's director might be doing dialogue scenes in London while another unit is doing action scenes in Hungary. Nolan wants to shoot every frame of the film himself.
I think the end product is much more unified when that is done, but the concept is potentially more narrow. Directors should be given more time on film shoots.

He can be great. Unfortunately, he misses more often than he hits.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but Interstellar is the greatest sci-fi movie of the last 30 years. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Attached: Interstellar primary1.jpg (1800x1012, 104K)

He's successful at shooting individual scenes and is capable of unifying a trilogy in a grand way. The balance between the autistically personal *feels* and the hugely commercial ambition is kind of unresolved at the moment. He's more of a poet than a novelist; more of a watercolorist than an oil painter. It's a curious blend of Anglo-Saxon sparseness in combination with Oriental ornamentation, I wish he would bank more toward ornament.

Replace 30 by 10 and I would agree.

watch Dunkirk

>literally nothing happens the movie
it doesn't even not-happen logically

>I'm a retard with ADHD: the post

He's a good director of middlebrow cinema. Better than the mainstream but anybody who says he's one of the greats immediately outs himself as a pleb.

Dunkirk is a genuinely great film though so his next movie will tell if it was just a fluke or if he's actually stepped his shit up.

It's like The Shining for sci-fi... a realist inversion of the genre, that part is successful. What is less successful is the 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' inspiration, which aims at aspirational kidults and ultimately grows both too childish and too morose. I think the secondary characters were sort of extensions of the main character but they weren't delineated very well and it never becomes cathartic.

b8

based paperbag poster

>Nolan great writer/director.
JUST LOOK AT THIS FUCKING SHIT

Attached: xxx.jpg (182x268, 15K)

I know right, TDKR is the best capeshit ever made

Hes ok, but got confused when given too much resources and making mess. His brother is a hack.

its shit though

Worst Batman film ever

this is his only newer film that really stands out to me aside from the dark knight.

not even close

Hey it's not his fault, he wanted to make 4 Batman movies in total, with the two after TDK featuring Joker. When Heath sui'd, he lost all interest and wrapped it up as a trilogy.

obviously

That would be Edge of Tomorrow, mein negro.

So? As long as he has at least one great movie, he's great.

He made Baneposting possible

Attached: CIA 1080.jpg (1920x1080, 182K)

Having worked with Chris I can say that he is great at what he does, but what he does is not great.

He's always on schedule and under budget but his works are not masterpieces.

>explicitly tells the audience the theme of the movie

Is he really colourblind?

better than making capeshit I suppose, you can always admire discipline and commitment in a man
also is he really a straight edge conservative type of guy or is he a pedo homo in private?

He can't write dialogue for shit

>implying straight edge conservatives aren't pedo homos in private

Lotsa hot-heads itt

Attached: 761AEFDC-5C4B-43A0-A779-F6D7AD6FC5C5.gif (477x512, 3.3M)

He’s good when compared to other blockbuster directors but I would hesitate to call him great.

but I'm not

No

For anyone who says he’s not great, what directors out there have been better within the last decade or two? The list wouldn’t be that long.

Attached: C3251EB4-B9CE-4170-AF45-D4F73DC0F71B.jpg (820x960, 135K)

It doesn't come up on set and I never dared to ask. But judging by the colors in his previous films and upcoming feature I would say yes. Hoyte himself is fucking obsessed with browns.
His wife visits on set and they have a great thing going. I'm super jelly desu. I never hanged out with him after hours so I don't know if he's a Eyes Wide Shut type of guy or not.
He visits museums with his wife and kids on his days off like a total middle aged normie.

Haneke
Lynch
Pawlikowski
lanthimos
Anderson
Tarr
Coens
Farhadi

Abbas Kiarostami
Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Béla Tarr
Michael Haneke
Terrence Malick
Aleksandr Sokurov
Paul Thomas Anderson

What's it like to be a world famous director loved by his fans and respected and revered by his peers, especially hardass kike producers?

>Bela Tarr
>Terrence Malick
>Roy Andersson
>Tsai Ming Liang
>David Lynch
>Theo Angelopoulos
>Wong Kar Wai
>Hou Hsiao-hsien
>Coen brothers
>Apichatpong Weerasethakul
>Paul Thomas Anderson
>Paul Verhoeven
>David Cronenberg
>Lars Von Trier
>Michael Haneke
>Jia Zhangke
>Pedro Almodovar
>Nuri Bilge Ceylan
>Andrey Zvyagintsev
>Aleksandr Sokurov
>Abbas Kiarostami
>Werner Herzog
>Terence Davies
>Wang Bing
>Lee Chang Dong
>Paolo Sorrentino
>Guy Maddin
>Mike Leigh
I could go on but you get the idea.

His films are mostly shit. But he's competent.

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Ah then the Russo brothers must be the greatest director of all time

None of those directors are even remotely obscure.

"It was the greatest magic trick I've ever seen."

Some of these guys made like 1 great movie and have been coasting on that success.

I don't give a shit. They are directors. Mass audience only knows Tarantino, Nolan and Spielberg.

That's one more than Nolan.

Which ones exactly

decent. i respect him for shooting on celluloid but he cant tell good stories since the prestige, his last great picture.

You say that but if the greatest novel ever was written and only a 100 people read it then it fades into obscurity, what’s the point? Directors should want to tell stories to audiences.

see

Hes also a great husband, father, brother, and neighbor

You’re saying every one of them are better than Nolan?

I saw it at the BFI when it first came out, on one of the only true-IMAX screens in Europe. I don't think I'd have understood what he was aiming for if I hadn't. The shot where Cooper's Ranger is falling into the black hole and you can see the universe quickly vanishing behind him like he's inside a drawstring bag been pulled tight gave me the most visceral lurching sensation I've felt in a cinema. It may not hold up at all on the small screen but I don't think it needs to. Nolan is a cinema guy. Oh, also, the scene with the tesseract closing and spitting out Cooper near Saturn perfected the catharsis of finally arriving home after a long journey. The dialogue may be clunky, the bootstrap faux-paradox may be a cliche way to resolve the plot, but as a sheer filmgoing experience it worked for me enough to be considered a classic. And you can't bitch about filmmakers like Nolan and then also bitch about CGI blob monstrosities like Marvel churns out.

Not that user but aside from the few I've not seen, he's right. Maybe not Chang Dong.

That is correct and i could name bunch of others.

>if the greatest novel ever was written and only a 100 people read it
If it really was the greatest novel ever than it would definitely be read by more than 100 people

youtube.com/watch?v=TV3IgZeQk_Q

They’re not exactly in the same genre are they? It’s a weird competition you’re having in your mind.

That’s part of the point. Obviously, there’s a balance to be had.

Oh no no no

Attached: noler.png (585x901, 54K)

see

Of course not. Question was who is better director, those directors are much better.

Johnathan Nolan is a better writer than Christopher is a director. Nolan's gotten worse with age. Last great film was TDK.

Obvious Disney/MCU shill

Attached: 1525649662467.webm (1280x720, 1.61M)

i love how they zoom into the character, instead of leaving the shot of him being in the floor, how embarrassing

Attached: ebony.gif (320x240, 2.65M)

>list of nobodies

Christ that's awful

Objectively, no. He's got a good eye. But he's a terrible writer and an awful director.
Pseudo-intellectuals love him because he makes them feel clever

Garbage pacing. An off screen death? Really? Nolan has no idea how to build up supporting characters. And that shot of him lying on the ground looking comical, and the camera zoom? WUURLD STAR tier shit.

fucking kek

I don’t get it

is this real ?

I bet you only watch mcu and disney garbage.

Go jack off the critics at Cannes

The cut is really jarring because the footage sucked. Look at the background.

>he didn't like interstellar

He's not that good, but he has own vision and he leaves a mark in his movies which are kinda unique to him, which means he is at least more interesting than 99% of big budget directors who could just as well be replaced by a remote controlled dummy for all their unique input.

they cut out the bit of talia telling them to shoot everyone so it looks even worse without that but it's still pretty bad

>film where love is used to travel across the cosmos
>film that completely ignores the laws of physics and time and then markets itself on being scientifically accurate
>film that not-so-subtly rips off 2001 in its entirety but much, much worse
>film with godawful dialogue, acting and story
This is good b8

Almost every film from last year Cannes is better than all of MCU films you retarded brainlet.

I dunno man i feel like he has too much exposition to cater to the normies, but then again if he didn't cater to normies he probably wouldn't make money.

>biggest since the silent era

Attached: bravo nolan war movie.webm (1280x720, 2.86M)

Good boy, cup their balls. Enjoy reading text from that pointless foreign melodrama.

cringe

What films did you see at Cannes?

>implying everybody is american
No wonder you are so retarded.
Cannes and Venice are based. They don't bend to political pressure and programme interesting films. Enjoy Black Panther 2,3,4 and 5 tho.

Venice is based, not cannes.

Cannes signed the same pledge as Venice. Frémaux basically that it's bullshit and he will carry on to select films that he likes. They programmed Kechiche who was accused of some sexual abuse on set and in his new film there was a very long pussy eating scene. Cannes is as based as Venice the only difference is that Venice tries too hard to be a launchpad for Oscar films. That's what's so fucking annoying about Venice but still both of those are based.

lol the ending was fucking trash

>jews and faggot leftists who push an agenda who protect their own is based

Attached: A7CC5482-145D-47E9-B5C9-33930218CDB7.jpg (373x406, 23K)

Attached: He didn't fly so good.webm (960x720, 2.41M)

Not bending under pressure from SJWs is based. Americans are already doing. Having quotas on the amount of films directed by men and women is retarded.
>push an agenda
Depends on the film. Every film has some agenda, message.
>who protect their own
Films should be judged by their own merit and if inclusion of Polanski makes American journalists and feminists seethe then i'm all for it.

>Based jews are BTFOing the SJWs who they supported in the first place. That’s so based!

I doubt Frémaux or Barbera are jews.

No

I can do better than this
does this mean I have a shot at being Hollywood's best?

>Apichatpong Weerasethakul

Did you have a stroke when writing this list?

No, but i had to look it up because i can never remember his name.