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.