Started By
Message

"With Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan has finally hit the heights of Kubrick"

Posted on 7/19/17 at 1:18 pm
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22783 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 1:18 pm
Article saying Nolan is now on a Kubrick level. Although I would disagree with the headline no matter how great Dunkirk is, the author does have some valid points regarding Nolan's talent and films compared to the rest of the garbage mainstream Hollywood puts out today.

LINK

quote:


For quite a while now – at least since the release of Inception in 2010, Christopher Nolan has been regularly touted as the modern counterpart to the late, great Stanley Kubrick, whose dazzling accomplishments across multiple genres are generally held as the benchmark of American cinema. Back in 2010 those comparisons seemed absurd: how could the writer-director of classy-but-overthought superhero movies, as well as middling oddities such as The Prestige, be seriously thought of in the same bracket as the lambent mind behind Dr Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon?


Well, it probably helps that Nolan and Kubrick share a studio – Warner Bros – whose marketing department have been probably the most active in seeding the whispers of equivalency. Nolan – wisely or not – made the link himself when Interstellar emerged in 2014, comparing his film to Kubrick’s 2001. The obvious conclusion is that Nolan’s work, while not exactly trivial, has never measured up to Kubrick’s direct embrace of the big ideas: war, love, sex, social breakdown, human consciousness. That’s not to say Nolan hasn’t aimed high in his “big” films. Interstellar in particular approached some rarefied intellectual heights with its time-bending narrative, but as the Guardian’s critic Peter Bradshaw concluded, it “leaves behind the subversion, the disquiet and Kubrick’s real interest in imagining a post-human future. What interests Nolan more is looping back to a sentimentally reinforced present.”


But with Dunkirk, Nolan may at last be able to walk the Kubrick walk. Most obviously because as a high-impact, morally scrupulous war film, Dunkirk bears direct comparison to Paths of Glory, Kubrick’s diamond-hard fable of outrage from 1957. Having made his name with time-shuffling racecourse-heist thriller The Killing – which although not a commercial success on its release, had accrued considerable critical acclaim – Kubrick lost no time in leaving behind the B-movie pulp world and heading toward the impassioned dramatic theatre of the first world war. Paths of Glory is “about” something very big indeed.

Dunkirk is Nolan’s 10th feature film: you can argue that Kubrick got to a major cinematic statement in three. (That is, if you discount Fear and Desire, his largely disregarded feature debut about an group of soldiers behind enemy lines.) Nolan started out with promising material – Following, Memento – but in retrospect looks to have been diverted by the demands of big-budget Hollywood film-making, even if he managed to retain a certain intellectual credibility in the midst of it all, as well as positioning himself as a champion of traditional cinematic values. Nolan would make his reputation with fantasy and sci-fi, and it’s not to belittle either genre: Kubrick was a major genre-hopper too, and were he around today he would undoubtedly be noodling at a superhero film himself. But it’s fair to say that Nolan – while accruing armies of fans and spawning oceans of hype – has not elevated and uplifted genres in the way Kubrick managed time after time.

But Dunkirk is different. With it, Nolan has – at last – put himself in the Kubrick league. Will he be able to do it again and again, like the master? Only time will tell – but, at 46, it’s on his side.





This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 1:19 pm
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
39207 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 1:21 pm to
Fincher and Villenueve have more in common with Kubrick. Nolan is a more of a new Spielberg.
Posted by mindbreaker
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2011
7639 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 1:58 pm to
quote:

Nolan is a more of a new Spielberg


Nolan really hasn't missed on anything he has done yet Dark Knight Rises wasn't bad just worst of a epic trilogy

Spielberg has a few misses though *cough* AI *Cough* Indy 4 *cough* Jurassic park Lost world*

I see your point though he isn't as mesmerizing as Kubrik was. Just my personal opinion he's a probably a good mash up of both Spielberg and Kubrick. Stylistic enough to make something unique while also savy enough to keep it in the blockbuster realm.
Posted by Bench McElroy
Member since Nov 2009
33943 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:05 pm to
I think James Cameron is a more accurate comparison for Nolan than Spielberg or Kubrick.
Posted by Breesus
House of the Rising Sun
Member since Jan 2010
66982 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:07 pm to
quote:

Spielberg has a few misses though *cough* AI *Cough*


That's my vote for worst movie ever made.

quote:

Indy 4 *cough* Jurassic park Lost world* 


Give Nolan some time. He hasn't decided to reboot and rape his franchises yet
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
18414 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:09 pm to
Kubrick stretched the limits of film making and invented new ways of telling a story through visual media.

I'm not sure Nolan is there. He's good with twisting plot points to surprise the audience and does a solid job with creating suspense. But he's mostly just successful at making solid films. When I think Kubrick, I think Hitchcock or Lynch. Even Aronofsky falls more into the "Kubrick" category than Nolan. Charlie Kaufman on the screenwriter side of things.

As mentioned, Nolan is more of a Spielberg or Cameron. Knows how to make a good movie that appeals to a wide range of people and should be respected for what he does well.
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 2:10 pm
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35239 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

Fincher and Villenueve have more in common with Kubrick. Nolan is a more of a new Spielberg.
The thing that I think males Nolan more like Kubrick is that they both write and direct, and both make movies across genres.

All of these directors listed above are talented and acclaimed (Villenueve is really just breaking through though).

The thing about Kubrick and Nolan is that their films are not just their vision of an idea bit their idea itself.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35239 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:22 pm to
quote:

Kubrick stretched the limits of film making and invented new ways of telling a story through visual media.
And so does Nolan. I think that given the changes in technology, where even poor directors are stretching the limits visually and often in
effectively, he stetches the limits in the presentation of the narrative instead.

The Dark Knight trilogy aside (and Insomnia), his work is far from typical, whether in the conception the presentation or both.

Memento, The Prestige, and Inception all provided unique approaches to the telling the story. And Interstellar and Inception were unique in their conception.
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 2:23 pm
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35239 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:29 pm to
quote:

I see your point though he isn't as mesmerizing as Kubrik was. Just my personal opinion he's a probably a good mash up of both Spielberg and Kubrick. Stylistic enough to make something unique while also savy enough to keep it in the blockbuster realm.
This is probably the best comparison.

At the same time, I think Kubrick's work in present day would have been much more mainstream with the importance of word of mouth.

I mean sci-fi films and comic book films dominate the box office. La La Land, a musical, was a hit. Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are two of the most popular shows. All of those films are in genres that were traditionally associated with a specific type of viewer, even stereotyped. Now they are mainstream.
Posted by FairhopeTider
Fairhope, Alabama
Member since May 2012
20770 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:41 pm to
quote:

middling oddities such as The Prestige


I'm going to pretend I didn't see that. Ready to fight the author IRL.
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
39207 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:44 pm to
Compare both directors at the same point in their careers though. Spielberg has done a lot of bad, or just ok, movies lately but the first 15-20 years of his career was solid. Give Nolan about 10 more years and we'll see a few more duds from him.
Posted by The_Joker
Winter Park, Fl
Member since Jan 2013
16319 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:47 pm to
quote:

The thing about Kubrick and Nolan is that their films are not just their vision of an idea bit their idea itself.


The Prestige is based off a book and Memento was Jonathan Nolan's idea
Posted by SCLSUMuddogs
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2010
6867 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:47 pm to
Travers said it is the greatest war movie ever made. I'm super excited

LINK
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 3:20 pm
Posted by SCLSUMuddogs
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2010
6867 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:51 pm to
Also 2001 was a collaboration with Arthur C Clarke, The Shining is a Stephen King novel, A Clockwork Orange is an Anthony Burgess novel.
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22783 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:56 pm to
Everything Kubrick did was based off of another medium (except maybe his really really early stuff like the Boxing doc).

Kubrick himself stated he was not creative enough to come up with an entire story from thin air. He needed another author's spark and then he could take it anywhere he wanted.

That's why he had book readers all over the English speaking world reading and reviewing books for him all the time. (and the readers never knew it was for Kubrick)

He needed to sift through thousands of stories before he became fixated on one and passionate enough to dedicate 3-5 years of his life or more to a project.
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 2:58 pm
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
39207 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:58 pm to
2001 was basically all Kubrick. He hired Clarke to write the book as he was writing the movie. Kubrick was aware of everything Clarke was writing but Clarke was not aware of what Kubrick was doing with the movie. I'd say the movie is entirely Kubrick, while the book is mostly Kubrick.

The Shining movie also had a lot of changes from the book, so much so that King hated the movie. The movie story is still mostly King's though.
Posted by Dire Wolf
bawcomville
Member since Sep 2008
36652 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 3:01 pm to
Dr Strangelove is loosely based on the book Red Alert
Posted by ohiovol
Member since Jan 2010
20829 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 3:04 pm to
If The Dark Knight Rises is arguably your worst movie (which, despite what some people think, was definitely well received by fans and critics), you're a damn good director. Nolan is very good. Not perfect, but it's clear a lot of the dislike for him is a direct response to some of the praise for him.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35239 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 3:05 pm to
quote:

The Prestige is based off a book and Memento was Jonathan Nolan's idea
I wasn't implying that every concept or premise was his own creation, but he was involved in the writing for every film except Insomnia.

So whether it's original or adapted, he's taking an idea (everything had a basis), and creating a story to then make that story possible on film.

I'm just saying that him and Kubrick actually wrote the stories that appear on film, whereas the other directors mentioned (besides Cameron), were mainly or exclusively directors.
Posted by meeple
Carcassonne
Member since May 2011
9376 posts
Posted on 7/19/17 at 3:09 pm to
quote:

Stylistic enough to make something unique

Just like one of the other greats...

LINK


... oh
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram