I originally wrote this on another board, but it applies to yours also and I don't want to reword my very extensive and fervent opinions on Nolan films, so...:
Nolan's entire approach to filmmaking is centered around making his audience feel special and intelligent. He picks topics that seem complex on the surface - [...] which, when well explained, are surprisingly simple. But as his scripts overly convolute the topic only to then overexplain it in long, unfocused exposition dumps, they're are given the illusion of depth precisely because they feel like a lecture.
He insists on presenting himself as a cinema purist. Refusing to mix sound for anything less than top-tier speakers might seem like a commitment to quality, but really it's just a technical failing. Great sound sounds amazing on any system. It's an aesthetic choice to appeal to the film bros with a slightly pretentious streak who want to feel that they're getting something no one else will give them, even if what they're getting is worse.
Nolan references to deep philosophy without actually diving into much depth. Quoting a line from the Bhagavad Gita might sound profound, but it's just surface-level intellectualism. He's giving his audience a taste of something profound without actually having to deliver on profundity. It simply isn't needed. Even if the audience isn't familiar with whatever philosophy he's espousing, they know from the surrounding culture that it's important.
In short, Oppenheimer won best picture because Nolan panders to his audience's egos, which includes many academy voters. Once your audience believes that they're the most special, smartest guy on the planet, you don't need to make anything good. If the script is scatterbrained, design uninspired, pace meandering - it's just because they're smart enough to
see his vision, man and anyone who would hold his films to object standards of quality is
just too stupid to get it.
reply
share
maul (1533)
19 days ago
Nolan's fans are basically the type of person to go on genius.com and create some lengthy explanation for some pallid song lyric.
"I looked up to the sun"
Explanation: "In this line the metaphorical analogy is that the sun represents enlightenment, and the songwriter is reaching toward it, ever-clinging to the hope of a greater future. The phrase 'looked' in particular indicates that they can visually see the blazing aura of future wisdom, but are yet unable to fully grasp it. The sun is also portrayed in ancient texts as God, and etc, ad infinitum..."
The illusion of depth and intelligence for the sake of it. Like those horrific Youtube essays that jerk themselves off over the framing of a particular shot, conjuring up some obtuse commentary for the most mundane of things. This is why the "you just didn't get it" response is so popular among these types, and why they think rather shallow, easy-to-comprehend concepts are next level genius. They're not particularly smart, but these movies allow them to feel like they are... which is what they crave the most.
reply
share