The Purist vs The Chameleon: A critique of Nolan coming from a Nolan fan as compared against Denis Villeneuve
Before I start getting some slack, let me state it clearly that I do agree that Nolan is currently one of best non-franchise large scale filmmakers out there, and he has shown his consistency for more than a decade now. I am a Nolan fan myself but I'm a bigger fan of filmmaking. Batman Begins was my first major Hollywood film experience in a theater. The follow-up to that - The Dark Knight hit me hard (I was already a Batman fan from the graphic novels and from the animated series), it stayed with me a long time and that was the first Hollywood film for a 13 year old kid which portrayed the power of cinema through a superhero, using a grounded and gritty approach. Interstellar is the film I have rewatched the most. In many ways, Nolan is what made me transition from a casual moviegoer to someone who is interested in the backstage too. How was this scene shot? What's the writing process? What happens on the cutting room floor and so on. Quick shoutout to The Studiobinder and the Corridor Crew for exploring various aspects of filmmaking so brilliantly.
That being said, I discovered Denis Villeneuve in 2017 or 18 when Blade Runner 2049 got released and my view on Nolan was never the same again. Watching BD2049 got me into a rabbit hole which started with Incendies, which to this date, is one of the hardest hitting movies I've seen but I still never re-watch it or recommend it, especially after I read about the Lebanese Civil war. I was still a Nolan fan but after that, every time I watch a Nolan film, I ask myself “Would Denis Villeneuve have made this already great film into an even better one?”. Aside from The Dark Knight, Inception and Tenet, the answer for me is always a Yes. And don't get me wrong, when I watched Prisoners I asked myself if David Fincher would've made this into a better film, the answer to that, for me, was a maybe. I am still a Nolan fan but I think Denis Villeneuve is a much more complete filmmaker than Nolan, a better writer-director than Nolan too.
It's a very common debate on whether Nolan's stance on physical film vs digital is right or not. And that purist in him is what I think, is one of the reasons which is stopping him from hitting his peak, realising his full potential and the other is not paying attention to the human aspect in his writing.
- Let's explore the writing part first:
When you watch the Dark Knight, it's well established that Alfred and Rachel anchor Bruce from going off board, from going insane, they are what reason with Bruce. It is my theory that in the “some people just want to watch the world burn” scene, Batman is the one who is asking the questions and wondering about the “why” of the Joker but Alfred is answering and reasoning with Bruce, not Batman. Bruce is the one who needs to understand, because the human in Batman is what anchors him, what reasons with him, the same way Alfred and Rachel do with Bruce. All of this is portrayed with a very subtle and human conversation. Same with Interstellar, the conversations and scenes between Coop and his young daughter are part of the reason why the movie forces us to not just vouch for Coop’s success but also that he makes it back home on time. the criticism I have is that this human aspect is missing from his latter works, even major parts of Interstellar and so on. His character interactions are more about the larger picture, the plan, the implications of someone's actions on humanity, or the world, or a city. It barely deals in the subtle, more personal and human aspects of those characters. And when it does, it's still more about the extraordinary human actions. His screenplay is written in a very self indulging way. And there's always an undertone of hope or resilience or “we'll do better” throughout all of his works. In a way, almost in all of his post-The Dark Knight works, you get the sense of how it's gonna end. It's gonna end with a larger than life statement or implication about humanity and civilization. This trait took it's full form in Tenet, where the movie and it's characters were way too busy dealing with and portraying the technicalities, to the extent that it forgets to do any character development for either of the main leads. The bromance in the end is called out, but remove that from the ending, and you'll never say that there was a great friendship brewing between both the leads. The movie also starts with a “fill in the blanks” backstory of the Protagonist, but it's never explored, there are no callbacks. It was almost like they asked “wait, why is the Protagonist doing all this?” after they had written the whole screenplay, so they put the first scene in, as a filler. Throughout the movie, there are no real personal stakes for the protagonist than “save humanity”. Saving humanity is the larger than life stake, it's his mission, it's why the hero is doing all of this, but why is this character as a human doing all of this? What differentiates him from Pattinson’s character when it comes to leading the film? Is the audience simply being told that John David Washington’s character is the protagonist enough?
This is where I believe where Denis Villeneuve gets ahead. Both are great filmmakers and both have had their fair share of low budget as well as non-scifi/fantasy genres. But Denis’ works are far better written and displayed because they have a better core, a more organic one at that. The difference is that Denis' action, thrills have a weight to it while being high stakes vs Nolan's action and thrills having more of a high stakes urgency, as in, the idea is so big and complex that the action and thrills have to live up to it. The action in Nolan's movies are more in context with the larger plot than in context with the characters and their decisions. Denis' characters seem human first, and protagonists/antagonists later. Paul Atreides is a son out on revenge first, and a prince trying to save a civilization and liberate a planet later. Keller Dover is a desperate father first, and an anti-hero going out of his way to get his daughter back, second. Denis' writing is much more grounded in humanity even when dealing with sci-fi stuff and even when dealing with larger than life fantasies, which allows his characters to have a much better core and be more nuanced. You can never tell how his story is going to end because his characters aren't moving in just one direction, they can stumble in their path and there might not be any coming back from that as compared to Nolan's characters which are heroes first, moving in that one direction “do anything and everything you can to succeed” and you can already sense that even if they fumble, they would rise back up. The shorter comparison is transitioning from the “why” of a hero to the “how of a human” as compared to the “why and how” of a human becoming the “why and how” of a hero. In a way, Nolan's characters thrive on escalation, there's only going upwards in stakes.
- Coming to the cinematography part:
We all know that Nolan or Villeneuve alone aren't responsible for their masterful cinematography, a large part of the credit goes to Roger Deakins, Hoyte van Hoytema and Greig Fraser. However, what I think stops Nolan's work from reaching its full potential is the purist in Nolan. A lack of colour and contrast. If you look at his works, it's how the scene plays out that's appealing, it's how large the scale of a scene that is appealing, not the frame itself. Not the colour or contrast, but the live action. The chase in Tenet, the airport action scenes in Tenet, the docking sequence in Interstellar, the police convoy chase in TDK, the opening sequence of TDK and TDKR. Why does all of that seem exciting? The answer is never “the frame” or the beauty of it. It's never the colour or contrast elevating the quality of the scene. It's how the scene plays out, it's the buildup to that moment. “Oh, he's gonna take out the batpod!”, “he's gonna say “it's necessary” and the iconic music is gonna kick in”, “the sheer idea and brilliance of the chase sequence, only Nolan could've thought this out”. “The hotel alley is gonna flip upside down!”, “They’re gonna showcase the full potential of lucid dreaming! Buildings are gonna flip on to each other!”. Do we ever pause and say “how beautiful this frame looks”? The colour? The contrast?. This is where the critique of him being a purist comes in. Nolan is well known as the gatekeeper of physical film use for filmmaking. And this forces him to colour his films photochemically instead of digitally. This also gives a lot of his work that grainy texture. One of his reasoning is that physical film is what essence of cinema is for him, the fun of shooting with it. However, I do not disagree with his stance, mainly due to two reasons:
- His conservative approach limits his options in post. And also limits his flexibility. It's a one and done form of filmmaking which hurts the film more because as a filmmaker, you should do and choose the best options for your film. If a physical film makes the film look more authentic, choose that. If digital allows you better post processing, makes your film look more alive due to the punchy contrast or colours, choose that. You should not force your film into adjusting with the tools. You should adjust your tools according to what's required for the film. Denis Villeneuve is a chameleon at this. Although he's very supportive of physical film, it still doesn't stop him from adapting. His stance is not rigid. For Dune, they shot a lot of parts digitally, color graded it, then put it on physical film. That's a very creative approach which does not constraint the filmmaking.
- The suffocating pressure in filming and post: Physical film IMAX cameras can only shoot for 2.5-3 minutes in one go. Have we ever wondered what that implies? That means that his rigid approach is a nightmare for his editors and moreover, the overall crew. I think his “pressure tight sets” are hiding a worn off crew. If you limiting yourself to physical film, the lighting has to be perfect, positioning, shot composition has to be perfect. Nothing can be fixed in post. And I definitely do get that a lot of incompetent directors and producers use “we'll fix that in post” as an excuse for half assed work and planning but for a master filmmaker like Nolan, having that flexibility would only elevate his quality of work instead of it being reduced down to an excuse for incompetency. But above all, it'll be a relief for his crew and they'd be able to explore more ideas, more options.
The above is the reason why I think Nolan still hasn't hit his peak and why Denis Villeneuve is a much more complete filmmaker.
