:) Thanks.

Yeah, I feel closer to OK than I have since 11-8. Not 100%, but I'm getting there.

Interesting. I wouldn't say I'm a Nolan fan, even though I do like most of his films. I wasn't even aware that he'd made Interstellar until it'd finished, and that's probably my favourite of his. Same with The Prestige, which I also really like. But I'd say even The Prestige, you could at least see the potential there for him to do his thing, whereas Dunkirk ... I'm not saying it'll be a bad film, just that I don't see where he can take it that'll qualify as 'Christopher Nolan territory'. But that only makes me more intrigued to see it than I would be about something more obviously in his zone.

I'm struggling to really compare him with another filmmaker, although I'd say Kubrick makes more sense to me than Spielberg, but only insofar as I can imagine him making something like 2001 or The Shining more than I can, say, Jaws or ET. But all filmmakers have their limits. I'm not generally a fan of Spielberg's more serious, 'adult' films. Not to say they're bad, just that I don't think they play to his strengths - and in some sense may even run counter to them. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the case with Dunkirk. But again, that only makes me even more intrigued to see it, just because it'll give a better impression of what kind of filmmaker he is.

Hmm. Do me a favor?
Watch this video compilation of scenes from Nolan movies that use close-ups of hands.

"Hands of Nolan" (Vimeo)

Why the fuck would you do that?
It's actually quite powerful. I think it illustrates how attentive he is to detail, and how much thought he puts into giving his characters a unique and human presence, even in their most fleeting moments.

He's a very careful filmmaker, and he takes cues from the art, literature, music... his films are, to me, always a seamless integration of the solid and the abstract, but he goes to great lengths to ensure that his characters are authentic.

Much as I love the Dark Knight films, I think he can sometimes be written off because of them, but he used the exposure he gained from Batman Begins to make The Prestige. Dark Knignt lead to Inception. And so on. In other words, those are incredible movies, but I think he's more than that. I get the feeling that he's kind of making the rounds with genre films (Tarantino has done the same thing). Challenging himself to do every kind of film in a meticulous and beautiful way. He's done "comic book" undeniably better than anyone ever has or probably ever will, he's done space opera with a very grounded and human elegance, he's done noir and thriller. Now he's doing a war film. I think there's an element "Can I do it?" going into his decisions, because Dunkirk is certainly a major departure.

But I saw the teaser, and it was entirely silent, but Tom Hardy's deliberate gait as he walked toward the water, and the eerie sound of alarms ringing over soldiers' heads totally hooked me.

I say he'll make something positively striking. The guy deserves a Beat Director Oscar. I believe his films will be studied by future generations, and the fact that he happened to be the guy to do Batman was just extremely lucky for those of us who love Batman.

Watch that hand movie. Maybe it's just artsy bullshit, but to me it was really quite beautiful and enlightening.

:)

I watched it and yes, it is beautiful, although I suppose the piano soundtrack adds another level of profundity to it. I appreciate that he's shown the industry that it's possible to make a mainstream film that's both popular and intelligent. He's the perfect answer to someone like Michael Bay. But I sometimes wonder if his penchant for mind-scrambling complexity and moody seriousness really represents any genuine depth. In that sense he reminds me a bit of Nic Roeg, whose films always suggest something really profound going on beneath the surface but the deeper I look the less I actually find. Or what I do find I think could've been said so much more straightforwardly. If we're comparing him with Spielberg, let's see him make a totally stripped down film like Duel, that offers absolutely nothing to hide behind. I'm not sure he can. But honestly, if you see something in him that I don't, then maybe it's just me who's missing it.

i think memento was his duel and it was pretty great-- very barebones and very effective. what was it, 3 actors?

he's definitely all about the mind and what is real and the construction of the self through memory and am i dreaming this?

so i imagine his dunkirk will be about some shellshocked soldier who wonders if he's alive or dead and if he has a best girl at home waiting for him or something and it will be sad like maybe he actually drowned while being rescued by a fisherman.

well at least from what i've seen from him.

I thought it was gross and stopped watching halfway thru.

yeah. i covered my eyes and shuddered and said "this is fucked up, this is fucked up..." over the screams

the fake fetuses i could handle, but the torture looked too real, and you know shit like that actually happens

=====

just finished JENNIFER'S BODY

a horror-comedy about female friendship i guess, written by diablo cody, featuring megan fox's curves and amanda seyfried's acting

it was too stupid to watch the other night, but as a daytime talkback-movie it's funny and entertaining, though it does have some moments of deeply disturbing shit

I love Jennifers Body. Fun movie.

Well Beckett sometimes worked with even fewer actors but could rinse all kinds of complexity out of those.

I'm not really criticising Nolan. Like I say, I like his films, and would agree he's one of the most consistently good directors working at the moment, And yes, being 'all about the mind' is great, but only if you have something interesting to say about it and I'm not that sure he does. Interstellar came closest for me to him actually saying something genuinely thought provoking. I loved the Batman films but not when I felt like they were trying to make some kind of profound point.

All I'm saying is Nolan is an excellent filmmaker but it'll only damage his reputation in the longterm if people keep talking about him like he's the new Tarkovsky (not that Severian has, but I've had enough conversations wwith people who've at least alluded to it). He's the new Ridley Scott, and at a push maybe the new Kubrick, which is fine by me.

oh yeah profundity he doesn't do

he does "mental" thrillers, but those don't ask any kind of big questions

the best of batman for me was the spectacle too. i didn't think it a great "film." but it was an okay "movie."

what's the name... inception? it was definitely fun in a sort of matrix kind of way but the first matrix was more philosophically interesting behind all the fancy action.

haven't seen interstellar but i probably should. also i think i missed the prestige-- or maybe i saw it and forgot it. hmmm... i should look into that too.

more: i guess the question "am i real?" and the construction of the self through memory is not a big one for me these days.

but that poor memento guy... damn. that was a great little gritty sad movie.

I thought Inception sucked.

When I first read what you said about Roeg I thought you were talking about Refn (Nicolas Winding...) for some reason, and I actually kinda saw it. I thought about Drive, which I L O V E, and Only God Forgives (which... eh, another time), and how the pregnant pauses and art-house flourishes that hint at deeper significance, and how that "depth" is just kind of feels like an illusive, possibly non-existent ploy. (In Only God Forgives at least. Drive is perfect and says and does everything it needs to say and do.)

But when my brain caught up with itself and I noticed that, no, you'd said Roeg, and that I don't get. Sorry. I don't see any real similarities.

I do think that Nolan's is working with a pretty strong set of ideas and philosophical questions. I don't think his films are smoke and mirrors, or that he's using illusion of depth to pass off as an auteur. I think he genuinely is an auteur. Or, rather, that he and his brother are.

I'm not much on film theory, but I know a bit.
For instance, I know about the "180 degree rule" and I know that Christopher Bolan broke it very deliberately in The Dark Knight, when Joker and Bats are in the police station. "Breaking" the 180 degree rule is usually done to throw off the audience. To hide something in the shot for a shocker reveal. Sleight of hand for a cheap thrill. Nolan did not use it to this end at all. It wasn't meant to disorient or confuse... it was a narrative tool, showing how the two characters are inexorably connected to each other. The slow pan of the camera brings the opposite character into the speaking character's perspective, and it adds to this sense of overlap and uncertainty about whether what you're witnessing is actually a faceoff between "good" and "evil" or something infinitely more blurry and complex.

Right? Eh?

Basically I'm saying Nolan is not "fake deep." He's also not anywhere near the most brilliant director or storyteller out there. He's not at the level of Joel and Ethan Coen or Hitchcock or Welles. But he's still excellent, smart, and his films almost always have more to them than immediately meets the eye.

I won't disagree that he's comparable to Ridley Scott. He's DEFINITELY comparable to Kubrick. I'm fine with those assessments. But I do think he *wants* to be more like Spielberg. I think that's a professional goal of his based on what I've read about his process, the way he selects projects, and the way he brings a sort of heartbreaking reality to even his most fantastic and out-there films. Not saying he's there yet... he's probably not. I'm just saying I think that's an ambition of his.

He is definitely a very visual storyteller, and this lends itself to the cerebral mindfucky films he's made. He is more deft at creating a memorable experience than he is at framing individual characters in memorable ways (though he's had some success with this too.. Leo's character in Inception comes to mind, and obviously there's the Joker.)

Anyway. I get what you're saying. Hope I don't sound like I'm glorifying him too much, or talking as though film is one of my areas of "expertise," because it's certainly not. I just really like the guy's movies.

You... huh?

Do me a favor and watch it again and see if you feel the same way. Unless you've already seen it a bunch of times.

I'm not pulling a "you obviously don't get it" thing here. Inception is not at all hard to follow or dense. I'm just saying I'm not sure once is enough to appreciate the movie's emotional elements and incredible technical qualities. Made my jaw drop. Is it Citizen Kane? No. But it's a great film.

I don't think I've never seen Alien Resurrection and given that I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon and of Jean-Pierre Jeunet I should give it at least one watch. Clearly it would appear that the studio 20th Century Fox has had a stranglehold on the Alien series and why both Alien 3 and Resurrection had such problems.

I think you're right to some extent about the profundity. At least with some of his films. But I think The Dark Knight is a legitimately great film that actually does grapple with some big questions and ideas. Inception might be less philosophical than people like to think, and more of a just-plain-good visually and thematically stunning action flick, but The Dark Knight is -- in my opinion -- smarter and more philosophically poignant than The Matrix by leaps and bounds, in addition to being an all around better movie.

See Interstellar though. That one kinda made me start to think of him in Spielberg terms. There are some pretty big questions and ideas in that one. And there's a nice family relationship that grounds all the environmental commentary and moral and ethical scientific conundrums. It's also visually quite incredible, and makes for yet another reliably memorable Nolan "experience." It's also quite sad. I think you might like it.

Ah! You like Jeunet too? Awesome. God he's an odd duck. I haven't seen a single film of his that I haven't adored. He's got kind of a Terry Gilliam vibe to him, but more whimsical and less prone to devastatingly depressing shit. :)

i just don't see it. not trying to be a dick or anything but i honestly don't know what those would be. don't spy on people? (if you're talking about the one w/ the cellphones)

you're a huge batman fan, so you'll want to like it more than most, but i think without that bias it's just a great show with no doubt some great actors but kinda "thin".

same with inception. looks great, good actors, some nice ubik-like plot, but mostly spectacle-- great CGI though.

i'll check out interstellar. but my favorite of his remains memento, so far.

--

and to the spielberg comparison: can't be. spielberg is all about "everyman." he's kind of like an ideological descendent of frank capra. he comes from an era that was more optimistic and outward-oriented. the world was "out there." and "everyman" has to face its dangers, and survive, often almost naked.

nolan on the other hand is the master of self-absorption. a solipsist. the adventures are not in the world but inside the head-- and you don't even know if they're real. i can't see nolan bringing to life someone like indiana jones. he's a fucking brooder smoking pot in his room wondering if he actually exists.

spielberg deals with the concrete world-- sharks, or japanese airplanes, or space aliens in your closet-- shit you can touch and everyone can see and verify. a.i. was the exception but it wasn't his project-- maybe nolan should have done a.i. instead.

Stil thoroughly disagree about Dark Knight, but don't want or need to press it and also have no intention of coming off like a dick. (Oh, but in answer to your question, I think the themes are mostly sociological and moral, somewhat psychological. Questions about the existence of evil and why people make the decisions they make that lead to those labels. I don't actually think spying was a very major part of the plot at all. I think it's a film about the chaotic nature of life and how much control we have vs. how little we believe we have in how we react to traumatic events.)

Anyway, oddly, what you just said about Spielberg ("everyman" and "out there") makes me think you should see Interstellar even more. Really. You eerily hit the nail on the head there by identifying exactly why I see a parallel with Spielberg.

But again I didn't mean Nolan was successfully "doing" Spielberg. I just think he wants to. That's all.

yeah, i'll totally watch it. i'll comment after i do.

but now i'm off to see BLOOD CAR. awesome cover/poster. fingers crossed for more awesomeness ha ha ha.

Wow. What is that? Haha.


I did love Dark Knight too btw.

Holy shit there's tots on that poster! What kind of magical place is this thing from?! (Not Katy Perry tots, but tots are tots.)

I'm sold on Blood Car. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780485/

Bonus points for Anna "My Girl" Chlumsky having a part too.

it was imaginative, cheaply done (really cheaply done), poorly acted (but it works great), resourceful, hilarious, absurd... and great. a bastard child of early john waters circa 2007 (so it goes with the times). very funny, very indie/ultra-low-budget, like a movie you could make with your friends if everyone could get their shit together. check it out. 4/5.

Anna looks good too.

She has been looking good on VEEP for the past six years. :)

Never seen it. Didnt even know she was still acting.

Great show. Seriously. Deserves the hype. Funny in a "nobody has a soul" kind of way, which makes it a great spiritual successor to Seinfeld. And Julia Louis Dreyfus is just a freaking delight.

It's up there with Silicon Valley as one of the best and ridiculously funny shows of this era.

I just dont spend much time watching tv. It was last year I fiinally saw Curb Your Enthusiasm for instance. I like shows but allocate very little of my time for tv.

Inception was a boring, slow movie full of old tired, rehash ideas about subconscious that are actually outdated and irrelevant. stupid fucking movie.

this is kind of how I felt, except less harsh. Y'all know Rob is coldblooded.

But yeah there are a lot of movies out there I haven't seen yet, and others I'd like to see again. Inception is not on my list of stuff I feel like I should watch again to see if I changed my mind. I'm all set.

Inception should have been titled "DiCaprio is far too short to believably play a movie leading man, ever.....ever...."

and Ellen Page and JG Levitt are not believable in any role so far (except 3rd Rock from the Sun for JG)

The worst part about having an education based in neuroscience is that I have to listen to people with an introductory knowledge of psychology wax pedantic about how "irrelevant" psychodynamic theory is. We all know the these pop-psych models of dreams and the subconscious are absurd, but that's not what Inception is really "about," and I think by focusing on the scientific "relevance" of the overt and flag-wavingly fantastical elements of the movie, you're kind of missing the entire point.

Inception is less about the subconscious than it is about ... movies. Seriously. The film draws a self-aware parallel between the experience of watching a film and the experience of dreaming. There are studies that have found neurological similarities between the two (pre-frontal cortex quiets down, visual cortex flares up, acetylcholine pumps). There's no question that Inception explores patently unfounded psychodynamic concepts, but ... so what? It can do that. It's a thriller, not a theory. In fact I think the entire movie is a dream (this is kind of obvious, though), so forget about the relevance of the pseudo-science ad take it for what it is: a movie whose concept is to mimic the experience of dreaming that happens to be about dreams (movies). :)

Finally, if there's any area of modern neuroscience or scientific philosophy that Inception actually tackles, I think it's "p- and a-" concepts of consciousness. Phenomenal (experiential) and access (propositional) consciousness. Imagine the characters are operating under the impression that they can detach from and mix and mesh these states at will, which is why they're Dream spies or whatever... but they can't. And the deeper "levels" in the film are actually closer to the surface, showing them how little control they have over anything. Mal asks Leo what he thinks is really happening at one point, and suggests that their fantasy life is real, and he's like "nah you're crazy *tears* I'm a dreamspy and stuff!" and then things get wrapped up, and it appears he's right until the top spins (leaving us with a very "Blade Runner: Director's cut" kind of existential cliffhanger).

To argue that the science IN the movie is "irrelevant" is to miss the point that the movie is designed to feel like a dream, so ... who gives a shit how sciencey the science is? There's a whole world of other, more interesting things to focus on in the movie.

I don't think it's conceptually brilliant, but I do think it's captivating and REALLY fun, and visually, just, wowza.

Is he short? I didn't know he was short. If Tom Cruise can do it Leo can. I'm not a huge fan of his, but I think he's growing into a pretty solid actor who's proven that he can play a leading man (when was the last time he played anything OTHER than a leading man?) that people really love it. He was good in Wolf of Wall Street. He can hold his own.

ugh I hate when you do this. "DiCaprio is too short to be a movie star," "that band sucks cuz the guy singing is fat," etc. I'm actually quite a fan of DiCaprio in general.

Ok, yeah, kinda. I still like Joseph Gordon Levitt though.

I think he was most believable in that Judd Apatow-y movie 50/50, where he plays a nerdy, quiet nice kid who gets some terrible kind of cancer. Ever seen that? It's pretty good. Probably his best performance.

Anyway I think a lot of people missed the entire point of Inception. It was supposed to make you go "ooooh, ahhh, really? Coool," and it did that.

Ok, yeah, kinda. I still like Joseph Gordon Levitt though.

I think he was most believable in that Judd Apatow-y movie 50/50, where he plays a nerdy, quiet nice kid who gets some terrible kind of cancer. Ever seen that? It's pretty good. Probably his best performance.

Anyway I think a lot of people missed the entire point of Inception. It was supposed to make you go "ooooh, ahhh, really? Coool," and it did that.

Yeah, I love Rob, but this stuff is disappointing. Remember "Kanye's teeth are too big for him to get his lips around so he can't rap"??

Also, hey Rob... how BOTNS coming?

yeah, usually when Rob resorts to insulting peoples' physical appearances and draws some parallel to their talent... I lose interest in the conversation.

Not a diss, Rob. Just saying.