You know Nolan? Really? Tell me how. Magazine interviews? Video interviews? Trivia? If so, then you know him about as much as any fan. Also, many of the people who have worked with him including Hans Zimmer and Michael Caine say he's a very complex man who is hard to know, so I doubt you know him as much as you claim you do. I apologise, I misread a post by mysteryfan as one of yours, however, Nolan does not have a right to look down upon someone's work and think his is better. No director does. I don't think Nolan would honestly look at his work as better than Scorcese's, Tarantino's, Scott's, Anderson's, or other highly acclaimed directors past or present. I don't think any of them would, and for good reason. You work in the industry? Really? I highly doubt it (especially when you have "Nolan, I love you forever" as a tag), and I doubt the Quay's are as good as Kubrick because Kubrick is the greatest director of all time, no doubt in my mind. "Or do not talented", amazing English genius. Plus, I'm a university student, so you claiming to be a "professional" in the movie industry makes your comment even more embarrassing. As you would realise that the movie industry is subjective and people can rate anyone's work above anyone else's. Someone could regard Ed Wood's films as better than Kubrick's, and they have every right too and are not wrong to say so. As while I believe Kubrick is the best director of all time, it's completely subjective and not factual. Also, you're most likely an adult in the late twenties or early thirties, and you're acting incredibly immature.
You don't know Nolan's mind. For instance, barely anyone would have imagined that Nolan enjoys Michael Bay's Transformer movies with all the computer graphics they have, and his cinematographer Wally Pfister said he loves them. What does loving Nolan's work have anything to do with who Nolan enjoys more, Kubrick, Scott or the Quays? It doesn't. Who knows? I cannot claim to know the man, and while it's evident he does enjoy the Quays, I do imagine that he's mostly inspired by Scott who I believe he mentioned was one of his favourite directors, and is inspired by Kubrick because of Interstellar. That's really irritating, as Kubrick and Nolan's films are different, as well as Scott's. Kubrick and Nolan are two different people, and it does Nolan a disservice when people compare him to Kubrick. Kubrick, for one, didn't deploy emotion in his movies, while Nolan tries to make the audience feel sympathetic towards characters such as in Interstellar with Cooper crying over the video messages. Kubrick's films are far more vague than Nolan's, and Kubrick doesn't tell the audience the answers behind everything, while Nolan does. Kubrick used a lot of nudity in his films and often featured scenes of sex, while Nolan hasn't. In Nolan's movies, the music tells you how to feel, while Kubrick allows the audience to feel however they want. Such as in A Clockwork Orange, when Alex is being tortured by the sound of Beethoven, there's no sad music telling you to feel sorry for Alex, there's just diagetic sound which allows you to feel how you want. Be it feeling sorry for him, or feeling he's getting what he deserves. They're different people and their work is different (Interstellar is the only work of Nolan's which is sort of similar to Kubrick's (2001 A Space Odyssey), but even then they're different still). Interstellar is in some ways similar to 2001 A Space Odyssey, but is not dedicated to Kubrick at all. It's Nolan's Sci-fi masterpiece that he has wanted to make. You can do documentaries about dead people, you know that right? And again, saying Interstellar is made only as a dedication to Kubrick, disservices Nolan.
reply
share
gstards
9 years ago
You don't know who I am. You can't know who I am. You can't judge about that only by my words, avatar and nickname. It makes no sense. Therefore, all your preconceived words in my direction are meaningless, erroneous and incorrect in advance, because you don't know who I am, what I am as a person. You're trying to talk about what you don't know and can't know. It's like a person on Earth would try to talk about life on Gliese 581 c. You can speculate and conjecture, but you can't bring a quality of reliability on you claims, just as you can't bring that quality to all the words in your posts. There is a connection between me and Nolan, a connection neither you nor the person like you can understand. I'm much much closer to him than you can imagine, and I know whereof I speak about him. My knowledge about Nolan is based not on videos or interviews with him, I even did't read all of them. As well as this my knowledge is based on some quotes by him or words, said by him, or his gesticulation or things like that. Read: my knowledge of Nolan is based on global understanding of his phylosophy and his mind. Everything concluded here.
The point is that Kubrick and Scott inspired all Nolan works in science fiction, why Quay inspired only The Prestige. The point is that Nolan references to Kubrick and Scott in many interviews and talks, while his desire to Quays was unexpected even for them ('He surprised us', they say) and was revealed only in this year. The point is that Nolan even didn't understand what he saw when he watched a Quays film for the first time, while he showed many times that he understands Kubrick and Scott's works. And Interstellar is totally a dedication to Kubrick, Nolan accentuated many times that this his film was inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey, and many people already called Interstellar this century's Space Odyssey. That is a point. Don't get me wrong, Quays are wonderful, great filmmakers, and Nolan is a fan of them, and they inspired his work, and he respects they work too, but all of this can't be even compared to Kubrick and Scott.
reply
share