In my opinion it’s more the former, as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones. That doesn’t mean they are inherently bad films, but I do think they are often massively overrated by people whose only other regular experience with the cinema or film are the even more mass market, big budget, action films. I would like to think Nolan’s films play an important role in bridging the gap between Marvel and Disney slop and the larger film world, which (like any other art form) is too often reduced to the very mainstream stuff where all the money is.
I touched on this in the review thread for this film, but something I find pretty interesting about The Odyssey is that so many people have seen it or plan to see it, yet almost no one has seen or wants to see The Return, despite it being released less than two years prior. They are both based on Homer’s Odyssey, but one was directed by Christopher Nolan with a budget of $250 million and starred Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson, whilst the other was directed by Uberto Pasolini with a budget of $20 million and starred Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Charlie Plummer and Marwan Kenzari in the corresponding roles. One is a film with ~2 hours worth of non-stop violence, fast-paced action and deafening noise so it can explain the traumatic effect of the Trojan War on Odysseus, whilst the other is a slow and quiet film that never shows the war or any of the subsequent adventures/horrors - Fiennes conveys all of that through his acting alone, and since he doesn’t speak much it’s mostly conveyed via body language and much more subtle directorial techniques.
In my opinion, The Return is a significantly better film but most people will never be interested in watching it or even be aware that it exists. All the praise when discussing modern adaptations of Homer’s Odyssey will default to the mainstream Nolan adaptation that was designed for mass market appeal and that everyone has seen. There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great. It just needs to be good enough to a large enough number of people who don’t have the knowledge or experience to critique it more effectively, and at that point the hype surrounding it takes over and elevates it to mythical levels of fame.
There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great.
This is why I sometimes think that ‘better’ and ‘great’ are two distinct adjectives.
Were there better bands than ‘The Beatles’ but they never reached the popularity? Maybe. But were there greater bands than ‘The Beatles’? I don’t think so. I can’t even name most of their albums yet I’m aware of their impact on the popular culture.
Any other band you name as counter is going to be a band that was massively popular (Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Queen) too.
Another example I can give is of tremendously two Indian movies ‘Sholay’ and ‘Deewar’. Both released in 1975, both have Amitabh Bacchan in leading role, both written by the duo Salim - Javed.
In my opinion, ‘Deewar’ is a better movie by any metric yet it isn’t anywhere close to ‘Sholay’ when it comes to popularity or influence. The latter was a juggernaut.
Anyway, it’s past midnight here and I’m wondering if I’ve made any good point in this rambling.
as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones
The cut off is pretty much when he stopped collaborating with Jonathan Nolan on the script. Jonathan and Christopher split up after Interstellar where Jonathan went on to write for TV shows starting with Westworld.
Don’t get me wrong, Christopher Nolan is quite capable of making movies by himself, but there still was a quality loss in the writing after Interstellar.
In my opinion it’s more the former, as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones. That doesn’t mean they are inherently bad films, but I do think they are often massively overrated by people whose only other regular experience with the cinema or film are the even more mass market, big budget, action films. I would like to think Nolan’s films play an important role in bridging the gap between Marvel and Disney slop and the larger film world, which (like any other art form) is too often reduced to the very mainstream stuff where all the money is.
I touched on this in the review thread for this film, but something I find pretty interesting about The Odyssey is that so many people have seen it or plan to see it, yet almost no one has seen or wants to see The Return, despite it being released less than two years prior. They are both based on Homer’s Odyssey, but one was directed by Christopher Nolan with a budget of $250 million and starred Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson, whilst the other was directed by Uberto Pasolini with a budget of $20 million and starred Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Charlie Plummer and Marwan Kenzari in the corresponding roles. One is a film with ~2 hours worth of non-stop violence, fast-paced action and deafening noise so it can explain the traumatic effect of the Trojan War on Odysseus, whilst the other is a slow and quiet film that never shows the war or any of the subsequent adventures/horrors - Fiennes conveys all of that through his acting alone, and since he doesn’t speak much it’s mostly conveyed via body language and much more subtle directorial techniques.
In my opinion, The Return is a significantly better film but most people will never be interested in watching it or even be aware that it exists. All the praise when discussing modern adaptations of Homer’s Odyssey will default to the mainstream Nolan adaptation that was designed for mass market appeal and that everyone has seen. There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great. It just needs to be good enough to a large enough number of people who don’t have the knowledge or experience to critique it more effectively, and at that point the hype surrounding it takes over and elevates it to mythical levels of fame.
This is why I sometimes think that ‘better’ and ‘great’ are two distinct adjectives.
Were there better bands than ‘The Beatles’ but they never reached the popularity? Maybe. But were there greater bands than ‘The Beatles’? I don’t think so. I can’t even name most of their albums yet I’m aware of their impact on the popular culture.
Any other band you name as counter is going to be a band that was massively popular (Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Queen) too.
Another example I can give is of tremendously two Indian movies ‘Sholay’ and ‘Deewar’. Both released in 1975, both have Amitabh Bacchan in leading role, both written by the duo Salim - Javed.
In my opinion, ‘Deewar’ is a better movie by any metric yet it isn’t anywhere close to ‘Sholay’ when it comes to popularity or influence. The latter was a juggernaut.
Anyway, it’s past midnight here and I’m wondering if I’ve made any good point in this rambling.
The cut off is pretty much when he stopped collaborating with Jonathan Nolan on the script. Jonathan and Christopher split up after Interstellar where Jonathan went on to write for TV shows starting with Westworld.
Don’t get me wrong, Christopher Nolan is quite capable of making movies by himself, but there still was a quality loss in the writing after Interstellar.