HOW THE ENDING OF THE DARK KNIGHT RISES IS FEEDING THE NOLAN MYTH

First, the inclusion of the biggest failed Next Big Thing in an article about the bona fide Next Big Thing made me laugh out loud.

Second, I have to commend you on one of your best pieces ever.

And I have to say that even though TDK really didn't have any blow you off you feet action scenes, outside of the Hong Kong one, I'm dying to see him try again post Inception. A Batman fight on the level of the zero g fight will probably make me cry from joy.

(Edited to remove brain fart) 

Well done.

Very good, and kudos on comparing Shyamalan and Nolan's career paths, which was downright genious.

you need to watch Insomnia!

by far his best movie between memento and dark knight

It is interesting that Nolan receives so much praise as a director.  I happen to love The Prestige and Memento, and I enjoyed Insomnia.  I'm getting a bit tired of Inception.  I think I might have just over-exposed myself to it.  Of course, I've seen the Batman films more times than I care to admit.  And that's where the rub is.  Nolan's Batman films are probably his worst-written films.  The third acts in both films are ridiculous, and yet those are the films that I would say most people associate with him. 

Personally, I think he's a very strong director who clearly has powerful interests and a desire to tell compelling stories.  I don't think the word "genius" should be thrown around lightly, and I don't think he's done anything yet to prove that he's earned it, just as Renn stated in the editorial.

So, yes, it's interesting that this mystique that he's created around himself serves to further build the hype.  More power to the guy.  I hope he can keep the ball rolling.  I know I'm first in line for The Dark Knight Rises, third act be damned! 

I have a similar issue with Insomnia that I do with Collateral.  The interplay between the two leads are so good that I'm sad when both eventually have to end with a shootout.

A good piece, but I do think you might be overestimating Nolan's worth to the laymen.

Shyamalan got on the map because he was making Shyamalan movies. Whereas BATMAN will always be a bigger name than NOLAN. It's inescapable.

If there's a Nolan sequence that needs dissection, it's that "rampage through Eric Roberts' club" in TDK. Clumsy action, zero sense of geography..what a mess.

Renn's Ruminations.

Column, please.

Excellent.  However I balk slightly at the Kubrick comparison because I think Nolan lacks the attention to continuity minutiae that Kubrick displayed.  Or because he's making goddamned superhero films.  One or the other. 

Do tell though, Renn, would you invite the comparison in the classroom to up and coming film students?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

A good piece, but I do think you might be overestimating Nolan's worth to the laymen.

 

He wouldn't be what he is without the baggage of that franchise, but I think he's the brand that's emerging from it, even moreso than Bale. Lest we forget that the gross of Nolan's entirely original sci-fi heist film is less than $200m shy of The Dark Knight gross. I'm fully confident that he's a brand now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

If there's a Nolan sequence that needs dissection, it's that "rampage through Eric Roberts' club" in TDK. Clumsy action, zero sense of geography..what a mess.

That scene is composed of maybe 5 or 6 total set-ups. It's actually extremely easy to understand because it all takes place in an exact straight line. It's just deliberately mirror-cutting back and forth across the almighty line while light strobes until Bats reaches the end of the walkway. If I'm remembering its place in the narrative correctly, it's actually a flimsier emotional beat because the confusion and energy of the scene cuts into the film in such a way as to imply Batman is raging and furious because of Gordon's death... which obviously is hollowed out by the silly "gotcha" turn-around later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm 

Excellent.  However I balk slightly at the Kubrick comparison because I think Nolan lacks the attention to continuity minutiae that Kubrick displayed.  Or because he's making goddamned superhero films.  One or the other. 

 

Do tell though, Renn, would you invite the comparison in the classroom to up and coming film students?

Sure, but there would be a lot of balloon bursting in that classroom. The logical end is that there are grounds for comparing/contrasting the supposed emotional coldness of their films, the architectural sensibilities, and the general brooding artist aura they both have. Patrick's podcast (linked at the bottom of the piece) had a decent conversation about it, if I recall correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

If there's a Nolan sequence that needs dissection, it's that "rampage through Eric Roberts' club" in TDK. Clumsy action, zero sense of geography..what a mess.

Or how about the finale with Batman in a building full of SWAT and the Joker's thugs all brought to us in gloriously incomprehensible "Bat Vision"? I've seen this movie at least half a dozen times and I still can't make heads or tails of that sequence.

I know I'm not saying anything new here, but Nolan is a great storyteller with an excellent grasp on scope and theme who struggles - and often fails - in delivering coherent action scenes. It's one of the most glaring flaws in his Batman films. I think Jim Emerson got it right. Hell, I think Inception is his masterwork and it's one of my favorite films of the last ten years, but even I have to admit that the snow fortress sequence is a mess in terms of geography and clean action lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

He wouldn't be what he is without the baggage of that franchise, but I think he's the brand that's emerging from it, even moreso than Bale. Lest we forget that the gross of Nolan's entirely original sci-fi heist film is less than $200m shy of The Dark Knight gross. I'm fully confident that he's a brand now.

 

Yeah, make no mistake people. Nolan is a brand in himself. Inception made that crystal clear. People lately seem to be underestimating what that movie was. I'm 100% sure that Nolan is going to be the major focal point of TDKR's campaign.

First, excellent article, Renn. You started out as a strong writer in your early days here, and you simply continue to produce thoughtful, worthwhile essays and reviews. A huge boon to the site.

Second, I fully agree that Nolan as a brand name has emerged from Batman's shadow; I'd even argue that, with the one-two whammy of TDK and INCEPTION, Nolan is now a bigger draw than the character (although I'm really trying to split two sides of one coin here). TDK is what helped the masses know his name; INCEPTION is what showed them he's a name worth remembering.

The contrast of Shyamalan and Nolan was a particularly inspired one, especially when bringing in the auteurs they're often compared to themselves.

Utterly fantastic piece Renn, possibly your best yet.

It's true and while I've never put it into words your spot on, we are watching the creation of a new icon of cinema I reckon. The Kubrick comparisons are of course there but Nolan seems to have a natural flair for popular storytelling that evokes almost a Spielberg as well. It's interesting too because we don't need to say "if you but Kubrick and Spielberg in a gene splicer" because we have a piece of work they both shared and frankly, it kinda feels a bit Nolanie-Before-Nolan to me these days anyway.

I also love that Nolan's able to simultaneously build his aura with the whole "the endings only in his head" while also working out a very effective way for the ending not to leek to the net or anywhere else.

Oh, and linking to Patrick and Jim's podcast was a great touch.  Love listening to those guys.  Looking forward to you guesting on it!

I still think the "Nolan can't direct action" thing is bullshit. Regarding Batman, I'll take the opening sequence of The Dark Knight, the much-debated truck chase, hell I'll take the finale (which I've never found to be confusing) over the clumsy stuntwork of the Burton and Schumacher films any day of the week.

I thought all the action in Inception was great, though zero-g was the obvious highlight.

Just because he doesn't direct action in a traditional way doesn't mean it's bad.

Excellent article. Nolan's "affable genius" tag is perhaps his greatest asset outside of his technical and storytelling skillsets. Obviously, your regular filmgoer probably doesn't watch extensive interviews with the man, but one of those very early interviews, his first (I believe) w/ Elvis Mitchell for Memento, contained a moment that serves as the one and only time that I've seen him grow even a shade pissy. There's a moment where he somewhat irritably corrects Mitchell's reference to Leonard's condition as "amnesia". It's funny in an uncomfortable way, b/c you can see Mitchell's face sort of slacken when he hears it (sorry, I pay a whole lot of attention to the minutaie of human behavior, I love it).

Outside of that, for a guy who appears quite anal about how he makes films (though, like any good filmmaker, he knows when to roll with a technically imperfect scene if it does what he needs it to do cinematically), he's remarkably inoffensive when discussing his work. He speaks intelligently, he gets you interested, concurrently places no value on it outside of it being meant to entertain you, and then makes you feel like you actually know some shit when the screen cuts to black and the credits roll. Whether you do or don't is ultimately not the point. It's that at least you feel like your intelligence has been respected. That's the true power of Nolan's burgeoning brand. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

I still think the "Nolan can't direct action" thing is bullshit. Regarding Batman, I'll take the opening sequence of The Dark Knight, the much-debated truck chase, hell I'll take the finale (which I've never found to be confusing) over the clumsy stuntwork of the Burton and Schumacher films any day of the week.

 

I thought all the action in Inception was great, though zero-g was the obvious highlight.

 

Just because he doesn't direct action in a traditional way doesn't mean it's bad.

Nolan can direct action. He can't direct a straight fight scene for shit. The zero g scene is not a straight fight scene.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

I still think the "Nolan can't direct action" thing is bullshit. Regarding Batman, I'll take the opening sequence of The Dark Knight, the much-debated truck chase, hell I'll take the finale (which I've never found to be confusing) over the clumsy stuntwork of the Burton and Schumacher films any day of the week.

 

That's a really, really low bar to set.

I really appreciate all the kind words and the sparked discussion guys, very gratifying. I'm going to try and be more aggressive about these kinds of pieces, but it's also a little rare that my 23-year-old brain cooks some shit up that I feel people need to hear. My next long, thoughtful piece will probably be about Adventure Time, so... just be careful what you ask for!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

I really appreciate all the kind words and the sparked discussion guys, very gratifying. I'm going to try and be more aggressive about these kinds of pieces, but it's also a little rare that my 23-year-old brain cooks some shit up that I feel people need to hear. My next long, thoughtful piece will probably be about Adventure Time, so... just be careful what you ask for!

 

Misread what you posted.  Trust me, we want to hear from you.

Renn's Ruminations.

Dude, hit us with as many of these as you can... This site needs someone with an opinion, stat*!

*not saying that the other writers aren't great as well.

Adventure Time?

FUCK YES.

Bravo Renn. This was an amazing piece of writing!

What a compelling, thoughtful piece this was.

A lot of valuable, well-reasoned insight and it wasn't peppered with any of the mean-spirited cynicism that sometimes marred Devin's work.

By that same token, though, I think it's time to address the elephant in the room and I, for one, want the comparisons to stop. It's unfair to call you "The New Devin" as some people have done on comments and in the boards. He's doing his thing over at Badass Digest and you're very much doing your thing here - with what I see as a unique and worthwhile voice.

At the risk of sounding a little condescending, I'll also add that your relative youth is a very positive factor in what makes your pieces work. There is an enthusiasm and a hunger for learning more through the artform. A lot of internet writers can sometimes have this pedantic "I know so much more than you do about film and that makes my word much more valuable than yours" attitude that makes their articles tiresome. Your pieces lack that precisely because you aren't afraid to admit you don't know everything.

Case in point - you haven't seen Insomnia, and yet you went ahead and did a very concrete analysis of Nolan's career regardless.

It is that lack of pretentiousness and a genuine eagerness to explore new concepts that makes your pieces interesting to read. This is probably the best one you've done. Kudos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erix 

At the risk of sounding a little condescending, I'll also add that your relative youth is a very positive factor in what makes your pieces work. There is an enthusiasm and a hunger for learning more through the artform. A lot of internet writers can sometimes have this pedantic "I know so much more than you do about film and that makes my word much more valuable than yours" attitude that makes their articles tiresome. Your pieces lack that precisely because you aren't afraid to admit you don't know everything.

This can't be reiterated enough as a strength of your growing voice Renn. That dash of humility and openness to the concept of not knowing everything but being keen to learn gives you're writing a spark that makes it really enjoyable. The fact is for much of the cinephile and geek bluff and bluster here and elsewhere on the net, none of us know everything, we've all got blind spots be it Russian classics of the soviet era to Corman exploitation films shot in the Philippines. 

That ability to admit you don't know it all combined with a curiosity and openness to new types of films is what has characterised both these boards and chud in general when it's been at its very very best. This site has taught me a huge amount about film in the last ten years and helped shape many of my filmic opinions in that time, and it's that sense of a community that all have different movie specialties and loves, but are keen to learn from each other, that makes this site better than any other.

Having a writer that reflects that ethos so perfectly is the exact direction chud needs to be pointing.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that I loved the article, Renn. My earlier comment was directed more at Emerson and his ilk, not you. Excellent stuff, good sir.

Excellent work, Renn!  I can't wait for your Adventure Time piece!

Count me as someone who also enjoyed reading this.

Really nice job Renn. I'm not the hugest fan of Nolan's work but I love his attitude.

Really enjoyed this piece as well Renn, especially how you use the last next great auteur as a counterpoint.

For the sake of completion, have you ever caught FOLLOWING? It shares a lot of what you bring up in Nolans later work.

I've seen it, definitely dug it.

Renn you're going from strength to strength man. Just an excellent piece of writing. It's quite something to see your voice emerge. And it's a bonus that you don't come bile-soaked like the previous maitre'D. Good on you man.