Alea iacta est: The Films of Christopher Nolan

by Jillian Butler, Ampersandology



Thanks, Inception Cat. You've given me a terrific segueway, in my usual roundabout fashion, to a topic I like to call Christopher Nolan: Genius in the Making or GENIE IN THE BOTTLE? (see what I did there? It's a play on words! hahaha....oh, me.)

Slant Magazine has an outstanding essay by Tom Elrod on the films of Christopher Nolan, exploring the connection, if any, between his artistic merit and populist appeal. It's an idea that's certainly tested in his box offices grosses, at least post-Batman Begins. Read it: it's thoughtful and well-reasoned piece, if not without its flaws. 

Full disclosure: I have written for Slant before, but hey man. As ThreeMafia reminded us in their Oscar-winning song (?), it's hard out there for a pimp, so don't indulge in hating. 

Time will tell, but Inception has left me curious as to what kind if filmmaker Nolan is going to be. By now, I think it's fair to say that his name on a marquee has attained a mystical quality of 'headiness', for lack of a better term: a hushed reverence and a mimed mind-blown gesture from audiences departing the theatres. 

The basic premise of Elrod's article, as I see it, is that Nolan's film-making relies less on an artistic vision than a purely technical one: Nolan is a master of form and plot rather than theme, conceit or character. As he states: 

No matter what anyone may say, [Nolan] is no Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick's films, despite their objectivity and reputation for coldness, were studies of characters. Nolan's films, by contrast, are studies of plot. Indeed, you could say he's an artist of plot.

I enjoyed the article very much, though I couldn't help but think Elrod's argument hinged on the secretive knowledge of some platonic ideal of filmmaking. One point strikes me though, as particularly true: Nolan loves his plot. His films unravel with the postured certainly of being a film; in this way, I think, Nolan finds his real power. 

Part of what has always impressed me about Nolan's films is that very sense of deliberateness. I've seen Inception twice now, and on the second viewing, something strange happened. Once the viewing experience of his film is stripped of novelty, and you are far enough removed from the twists and jerks of the narrative, you can really appreciate how meticulously plotted his films are. I say this for better or for worse; while you can also see how the threads of the end was sewn into the beginning, the plot holes of this structure-worship become gnats buzzing in the ears of your viewing pleasure. 

Without talking much of plot, this is true of Inception; this also was true of The Prestige; and the years have since revealed this is true of Memento. The form of film seems to be the playground on which Nolan can cast his die and scatter his players; part of the enjoyment of these stories is watching the pieces click into orchestrated place. It's not quite the schlocky expectation that now haunts the M. Night Shyamalan School of Directing, and yet, it's not entirely divorced from it either. 

When you go to see a Chistopher Nolan film, you're signing over something for its duration; whether that be a suspension of reality or just any sense of narrative certainty remains to be seen. A film directed by Christopher Nolan is just that: it's ordered by his very particular vision, not unlike a wizened general plotting soldiers on a map, far removed from the battlefield. 

Alea iacta est. So buckle up, already. It's going to be a bumpy oeuvre. 

*

I think the larger point that Elrod misses is why Nolan rouses such passion in his viewing public, an ardour that now pours through the internet's veins fed by both critics and audiences. What is his appeal? 

And I think it's simple, really. Smart people can like his films without apologizing. That's it. Even if they stupefy by flash and confusion alone, at least they attempt to address its audience like educated, thinking beings. Nolan, for all his faults, makes films that are adult in their themes, not just in their content. Let me state that again: his films are made inappropriate for children not just through sex or violence, but by the very fact that children would find the heady clay at the feet of its characters utterly unappealing. 

Nolan may very well be carving the face of intelligent mainstream filmmaking in the 21st century. Sure, there are smarter filmmakers out there, exploring the nuances of their vision into boredom, but they aren't making any money. Nolan is, and in a cinematic landscape that has survived three Twilight films, is that really such a crime? 

Have a suggestion for a future Ampersandology topic? Got something you’d like to say? All feedback welcome! Shoot us an email at ampersandology@gmail.com, or follow Ampersandology on Facebook.