Christopher Nolan

[Omar]

wetdog said:

Omar and MistaMista said in their Proviews that they saw the final twist (the Prestige) coming. I'd like to call them in here and ask, "REALLY?!"

I never said that.

[RNL]

Oh, my mistake. I remembered you agreeing with Mista. Sorry, I should've checked.

[Omar]

wetdog said:

Oh, my mistake. I remembered you agreeing with Mista. Sorry, I should've checked.

No problem. I'm glad the film is well liked. I also need to see it again.

[Capo]

I remember when we first saw The Prestige, wetdog, and the enthusiasm circulating this board was phenomenal. Would you be inclined to say your view of it has dampened somewhat, since then?

(It hasn't for me.)

[svsg]

svsg said:

Following

Memento
Prestige

[Blib]

Batman Begins (2005) -
Memento (2000) -
Insomnia (2002) -

I would have rated Memento higher after the first time I watched it, but after a couple of viewings since it doesn't stand out to me because it was so unusual the first time.

[Michael]

Is it me or is Memento ridiculously shallow and one-dimensional?

[RNL]

Judging by that post, it's you.

[Capo]

I actually can't wait to see Memento again. Terrific film.

Can you elaborate, DVC?

[Michael]

The film's would-be complexities lie strictly in the narrative, and the narrative ceases to be complex after the viewer understands it. The film is manipulative. It's all on the surface; the editing, Pearce's voice-over, the switch from B&W to color etc. At it's core, it's a conventional action/mystery/fill in the blanks bullshit film with chronological rearrangement. Nothing special.

[Michael]

How many times have you guys seen it?

I loved it on the first viewing, but the second and third viewings were underwhelming to say the very least.

Laughably stupid film, really.

[Capo]

mikevronsky said:

The film's would-be complexities lie strictly in the narrative, and the narrative ceases to be complex after the viewer understands it.

So you think its non-linearity is a gimmick? A cool trick the director wanted to do just to disguise how "conventional" it really is? It has no allegorical significance for you?

The film is manipulative.

Well, it's necessarily from the subjective viewpoint of a guy suffering from extreme amnesia. As far as it can be. I think it's very effective. What do you mean by "manipulative", anyway? And is it a bad thing? (I'm not saying it's not, I just want to know your working definition of the word, since you're using it as a criticism.)

It's all on the surface; the editing, Pearce's voice-over, the switch from B&W to color etc.

This seems familiar. Pearce's confused voice-over is necessary - it's a film about a guy keeping up with time only by written memoirs to himself; he's furiously trying to keep up with the present. As we are as viewers who are seeing both the past and the future happening without really seeing the present - the "present" is both the opening credits sequence (played backwards) and the final scene of the film, which takes us back in a cycle to the opening again. Other than that, what we're seeing are, simultaneously, the events leading to this point and the events following it.

At it's core, it's a conventional action/mystery/fill in the blanks bullshit film with chronological rearrangement. Nothing special.

The entire fragmentation coming into one at the end is colour-coded to help the viewer, I think (black and white going forwards and colour going backwards, blending together for the climax and revelation). It's a re-working of noir - you see the common elements of a far-from-heroic guy getting into trouble, helped and misled by a dangerous, mysterious femme fatale; only now the questions of existentialism that arose from the genre in the 1940s and '50s taken to a newly-acknowledged level: Pearce is, quite literally, "living in the moment" because of a memory defect.

What, for you, distinguishes the terms "core" and "surface"? Surely we've got past the stage by now of treating one simply as subject matter and the other as formal technique?

I've seen the film about three times, maybe just two. I'm seeing it again soon.

[svsg]

I've seen it twice, but I can't recall if the non-linear narrative was tied to the fact that the guy had amnesia or was it an independent editing choice?

[Michael]

admin said:

mikevronsky said:

The film's would-be complexities lie strictly in the narrative, and the narrative ceases to be complex after the viewer understands it.

So you think its non-linearity is a gimmick? A cool trick the director wanted to do just to disguise how "conventional" it really is? It has no allegorical significance for you?

Oh, I fully understand the allegorical significance of the non-linearity. But honestly it's one of those things that's easily dismissed with "Oh, wow, that's an interesting idea." For me it's nothing beyond that. Instead of viewing it as a "cool trick," as you put it, I view it more as a "cool idea" executed well. This "cool idea," which places the audience in the shoes of Leonard Shelby and ultimately allows them to actually experience anterograde amnesia on the first viewing through chronological rearrangement of the events which occur in the film, doesn't hold up on repeated viewings...actually it doesn't even hold up after the film finishes. As soon as all the loose ends are tied up and the viewer fully grasps the plot, there's nothing left really. All the plot twists and all the big revelations are related strictly to the narrative. That's not a bad thing necessarily, considering it is effective, but for me it creates a detached feeling from the film. I feel like instead of having a relationship with the film, I view it from the outside looking in, so to speak. This isn't to say I can't enjoy a plot-driven film, but in this case Nolan's way of unveiling information is all too...contained...for lack of a better word...for the film to reward upon rewatches. It's actually quite similar to The Usual Suspects, a former favorite of mine.

What do you mean by "manipulative", anyway? And is it a bad thing? (I'm not saying it's not, I just want to know your working definition of the word, since you're using it as a criticism.)

Manipulation as in keeping the viewer on their toes...keeping them constantly wondering about the significance of each scene and how each scene relates to one another until it's all revealed and they can put the pieces together in their head. I do realize the significance in doing this, but I do think it is shallow, for the reasons I explained above.

What, for you, distinguishes the terms "core" and "surface"? Surely we've got past the stage by now of treating one simply as subject matter and the other as formal technique?

Oh, we've gotten past this stage loooooong ago (I think I remember talking to you about this on the BB years ago). If you look at what I said:

It's all on the surface; the editing, Pearce's voice-over, the switch from B&W to color etc. At it's core, it's a conventional action/mystery/fill in the blanks bullshit film with chronological rearrangement.

I wasn't really separating "surface" from "core" as much as I was using the words because of their convenience. "Surface" meaning the technical aspects of the film, meaning things that can be created and altered in the editing room and after actual filming, "core" being used to explain my feelings on the film after the second and third viewing. I could've phrased it better, I was being lazy.

[svsg]

I tend to agree with DVC in that the film is most rewarding during the viewing. BTW, no one wants to answer my question in my previous post?

[Michael]

Well, every film is more rewarding WHEN you watch it; that's the whole point of the film - to watch it. I don't mind that I don't think in-depth about Memento when I'm not watching it, but the second and third times I DID watch it (the third was involuntary), were underwhelming experiences. I knew the significance of every scene in the narrative, and I knew how everything unfolded. The film was almost literally unwatchable.

[Michael]

svsg said:

I've seen it twice, but I can't recall if the non-linear narrative was tied to the fact that the guy had amnesia or was it an independent editing choice?

It was tied to the amnesia. I think that's pretty clear.

[svsg]

mikevronsky said:

Well, every film is more rewarding WHEN you watch it; that's the whole point of the film - to watch it.

I can clearly tell you that it is not the case with me. The images which have remained in my mind after watching "The Red Circle" and "Satantango" (for example) are far more powerful than what I experienced when I watched them (I've watched them only once). I did like them during the viewing, but now I can't stop thinking about them. So is the case with many of the movies I like.

[Pherdy]

1.Memento
2.The Prestige
3.Batman Begins
4.Following
5.Insomnia

Memento is in my all time top 5, even after many viewings. I am currently writing my Bachelor's graduating paper on the color-blackandwhite contrast in that film.

I never quite understood how people could say that "without the complex narrative the film is a standard thriller" and then judge the film as just that, a standard thriller. isn't then the choice of the achronological structure the perfect way to lift this film beyond the level of a normal mystery film? it seems unfair to strip a film from its better components and then rate it. but that's just me.

his other films are excellent too, even Insomnia is okay and that's not his own screenplay.

The Dark Knight is my most anticipated film of 2008. It has the risk of becoming the best superhero movie of all time, the way the buzz is going right now...

[RNL]

pherdy said:

I never quite understood how people could say that "without the complex narrative the film is a standard thriller" and then judge the film as just that, a standard thriller. isn't then the choice of the achronological structure the perfect way to lift this film beyond the level of a normal mystery film? it seems unfair to strip a film from its better components and then rate it. but that's just me.

I remember arguing exactly that position with you a few years ago about 21 Grams.