Film
Movie theaters, reviews and showtimes in Chicago, plus articles, trailers and more
- Home
- Box Office
- Listings
- Trailers
- Features
Bookmark this page- Edition:
Why Christopher Nolan is not the new Stanley Kubrick
Tom Huddleston explains why the director of 'Inception' hasn't yet scaled the great heights of Kubrick
In their eagerness to praise director Christopher Nolan and his new film, dream-thief actioner ‘Inception’, the critics have taken one particular phrase to their collective hearts: he’s the New Kubrick. Their reasoning is simple: both men have been allowed to exercise total creative control over their projects, both explore science fiction concepts, both utilise an often icy, clinical style and seem rather uncomfortable with the vagaries of real human emotion and experience. But one viewing of ‘Inception’ should be enough for any viewer to find the holes in this lazy, facetious argument. Here are a few to get you started.Kubrick knew how people worked
The most obvious and endlessly repeated criticism of Stanley Kubrick is that he didn’t ‘like people’. True, films like ‘2001’ and ‘Dr Stangelove’ eschew characterisation in favour of ideas (and, in the latter, satire), but what about ‘The Killing’, ‘Paths of Glory’, ‘Full Metal Jacket’ or ‘Eyes Wide Shut’? Every one of these films features beautifully rounded and painfully human central characters struggling with forces beyond their control. In ‘Inception’, this equation is reversed: Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb may be a decently written tormented hero, but the other characters are, without exception, dull ciphers: empty vessels who exert total control over their world, down to the last detail. And where’s the fun – or emotional investment – in that? When Nolan directs a scene as shattering as the barroom finale of ‘Paths of Glory’, we can discuss it…
Kubrick lived in the real world
Though his films took place in a variety of different time periods and locations, Kubrick always dealt with very human problems, be they political, technological emotional or spiritual. As robotic as ‘2001’ is, it still takes time to sketch out its futuristic world as an environment so complex and controlled that humanity is getting pushed aside. ‘Inception’ has no interest in exploring the wider ramifications of the technology it depicts: for all its visual trickery this is a movie on a very small scale, with no interest at all in how such technologies might ripple out into the real world.
Kubrick kept things simple
This is, perhaps, the key argument. True, Kubrick wasn’t an action director, so we don’t know how he’d handle a mainstream blockbuster like ‘Inception’. But the few action sequences he did shoot – the battle scenes in ‘Paths of Glory’ and ‘Full Metal Jacket’, the fights in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ – give us a decent idea of how he might have approached it. ‘Inception’ is a visually busy, at times wholly confusing film, full of smash-cuts and zippy editing, crowding the screen with CG flashes and whizzing bullets. Kubrick, even in his most intense moments, like the Hue city firefight in ‘Full Metal Jacket’, kept everything simple: you always knew how the location was laid out and where the characters were within it, allowing the viewer to focus on what was happening, to feel its impact, rather than squinting through a blur of computer graphics and flying bodies.
Kubrick had a working sense of humour
This is, after all, a man who cast Leonard Rossiter in ‘2001’ and Peter Sellers in both ‘Strangelove’ and ‘Lolita’: Kubrick’s sense of humour may have been arch and even cruel, but it was painfully effective. But where are the laughs in ‘Inception’? It all comes back to character: both Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon Levitt are proven comedy talents, but here they’re reduced to such blank, lifeless caricatures that neither gets the chance to exercise their comic muscles. Sure, there are a few pithy kiss-off one-liners, but you can get that in ‘The A Team’.
Kubrick was an original thinker
The one thing everyone seems to agree on about ‘Inception’ is that it’s terribly original. Where’s the evidence? True, it has a solid, exciting premise (though hardly an entirely original one – has no one seen ‘Dreamscape’ with Dennis Quaid?). But Nolan’s treatment of this concept is tediously sterile: how many readers have regular dreams about empty city streets or wood-panelled hotel corridors? The central concept of the film should mean that all bets are off – a chance for a director to really let himself go, to imagine the unimaginable. Nolan never gets started. We can only dream (if we have the imagination to do so) of what Kubrick would have made of it: images like the Star Child from ‘2001’, the Korova Milkbar from ‘A Clockwork Orange’ or even his rough sketches of the futuristic city from his unmade ‘AI’ project are evidence of a visual mind unlike any other. Nolan seems to have taken all his inspiration from Volvo adverts.
Millions of people will rush to see ‘Inception’ on its release this weekend. Some will enjoy the film for its crackling action and breathless pace. Others will sit bored in the dark, wondering what all the fuss was about. But let’s hope none of them mistake it for what it so desperately wants to be: a masterpiece.
Author: Tom Huddleston
User comments on this story
-
- sebach said...
-
who the heck wants to compare these two directors??
Nolan does his work at best, with ITS style, with ITS themes and with ITS talent. And remember, nobody's perfect, neither Kubrick was. Posted on May 18 2012 10:38 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Christopher Nolan Rules! said...
-
You are all pretentious tits. This article is actually pretty solid, and one should be entitled to make whatever comparisons one deems appropriate, in order to illustrate a point. Kubrick is a cinematic icon, and we should continue to celebrate and the life of a man who devoted his life to cinema, creating new visual experiences, vesting copious time and interest into every sequence of film, and producing some of the most memorable, shocking, provocative and beautiful pictures the world cinema has ever seen. Inception may have been a wash with critics and the easily led members of society who expectantly gobble up all the CGI saturated guff that they are fed, but it takes the skills of a real filmmaker, relying on the strength of cast, sequencing, mise-en-scène and cinematography to remind us of what visionary cinema really is. The abundance of the feeling-driven sociopath responses to this article are laughable and you should all feel ashamed.
'Directors', such as the aforementioned Christopher Nolan, and other family-faves such as James Cameron and the unforgettable Tim Burton secretly wait in the lobbies of your local cinema, with their tiny sloppy cocks on the counter next to the money you gripe together in order to see one of their self-proclaimed masterpieces. Every time YOU go to see one of their efficacious nothingy films about nothing, you coax them that little bit closer to a massive load of self-satisfying jizz, all over your smug CGI faces. Make no mistake - as you walk to your car, get on the bus, or whatever method of transport you opt for, you will be ultimately wiping their spunk from your chops, and thinking to yourself:
"Yes! i went to see (insert repulsive film title here), and although i secretly found the film questionable and difficult to follow - due to the lengths of the directors excessive and masturbatory talents - tomorrow at work i can tell all my buddies in a typically pseudo-intellectual fashion that i have seen (insert sickening film title here), and i, (insert dreadful name here) understood it."
Good luck mate. The Universe hates you. Posted on Apr 30 2012 09:36 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Robert said...
- Nolan is a really talented popcorn filmmaker but a creator of thinker films he is not Posted on Feb 13 2012 06:05
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Andrew Russell said...
- I think you are wrong about Chris Nolan and don't seem to realise many of your criticisms can also be applied to Kurbrick. You recognise that Kurbriick was guilty of creating caricature's rather than real characters, yet, the flaws of Kurbrick are more widespread than this. As Peter Wollen states in his book Signs and Meaning in Cinema, Kurbricks world is one of obsessive pessimism in which people can never acheieve happiness or victory regardless of what they do. Everything is always doomed to failure. This contrasts more sharply with Nolan who recognises the potential for both good and evil to exist in all people even if they don't recognise it. Nolan invests in human emotions as in the end of Inception but recognises that human happiness in difficult to find but certainly not impossible even if it is an virtual world. Nolan does recognise that technology can spread into the real world unlike directors like James Cameron or the Wachowski brothers who often undermine their films because of their failure to recognise that the worlds they decry are built on the very technology they use. There is no moral lectures about the evils of technology or a film built on stylish scenery. instead Nolan recognises that failuring to live in the real world has dire consequences. As regards the idea that Kurbrick kept things simple, well thats just laughable. The truth is that Kurbrick wasted himself and his talent on grandiose projects making films that stretch his abilities too far. Inception is also grandiose project but again unlike Kurbricks grandiose projects Nolan's doesn't stretch himself to far. As regards your final two points, well, i don't think anyone would note Kurbrick for his sense of humour but of course, humour can also be seen as a good and bad thing. Hitchcock was often crticised by critics for his sense of humour which helped to stop him from being recognised as the great director that his was. Very few ideas are truly original but your can't say that Nolan doesn't have his moments, what about memento? Surely that qualifies. Remember Kurbrick started out as a photograph for Look magazine and one could argue that he never left that stylish angle. In summary i don't thinki of Nolan as the new Kurbrick or the new Hitchcock even though there are similarites. Instead i see Nolan as something different and it is important to remind ourselves of such. Posted on Feb 10 2012 19:20
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Joe said...
- Oh God, spare me. Kubrick was a pretentious bore, and so were his film. I'll take Nolan all day, every day, regardless of how he compares to Kubrick. Because at least his films do the one that few of Kubrick's films did. Entertain! Posted on Jan 09 2012 11:38
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Johno said...
-
I think people are too naive and stupid to be making claims that Chris Nolan is Stanley Kubrick or Hitchcock or "God"... without any evidence... other than "liking" Chris Nolan films. There's just too many people liking Inception and too many people defending it, that when it comes to someone saying no and saying that Chris Nolan is definitely not Stanley Kubrick, Hitchcock or "god". People who like Christopher Nolan will defend him and his movies.
All I can say is..people might be loving his movies a little too much, without really seeing it for what it actually is. It's just a piece of cheese in a maze for mice. Posted on Dec 23 2011 10:59 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Bambi said...
- I find this article pretty biased. I agree that he is the new Stanley Kubrick but disagree with half the crap you said. Have you even seen any of his other films besides Inception. And Sully compared to the other Batman films I found The Dark Knight pretty realistic. Instead of Joker falling in chemicals he made them scars. Posted on Jul 24 2011 04:05
- Report as inappropriate
-
- stalin said...
- I DID'T FIND MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY MATRIX AND INCEPTION TOLD ........mostly inception looks like idea born from the MATRIX ..............yep cristofer stolen the matrix CONCEPT to make INCEPTION...HEHEHEH Posted on Aug 21 2010 05:44
- Report as inappropriate
-
- jjim said...
- This article is obviously written by someone for whom the giddy heights (if we're honest, what are they?) of Kubrick will never be matched by some whizzy upstart. Yet Inception has strengths that for me, have never been seen in a Kubrick film, and the reviewer fails in many other areas to give Inception credit where it's due. Let us just say they are two different directors, each with their own strengths; but the considerable strengths, not to be underestimated, of inception are here being almost entirely overlooked. Firstly, it's one of those films that you simply need to see twice to 'get' it all. This isn't a weakness; it's just the way it is. The film doesn't make concessions to slowing down so audiences can catch every last detail - which is why you keep on puzzling about it after a first viewing, and why you appreciate it after a second viewing. You understand that it would have made the film worse to be more slowed down, have less going on, and so on, in order to pander to convention, as it simply works so well when you examine all the parts in more detail (like you do on the second viewing). On second viewing, for example, you realise that the ending isn't nearly so straightforward as you might have thought; it is clever enough to allow, in the way it is shot, for two different readings of it, and two different ways of reacting to it (or three, if you allow for the director obviously wanting to leave the ending so that both readings of it make sense...so he has done it deliberately like this which is a third reading of it...). As for the characterisation, which this reviewer finds so lacking, in fact this has got to rank as one of the best examinations of guilt and the way it pulls one in and back to a relationship (to try and make things ok), that I for one have ever seen. The whole film is in a way about Cobb's guilt over what has happened with his wife - the film could almost as easily be called Complicity - and it is a relationship beautifully depicted in regard to its complex and accurate portrait of what guilt can do in a close relationship. So the supposed superficial technical glitziness of Inception turns out to the interesting window dressing on a very very cool action thriller that is intellectually fascinating on many levels (like a Chinese box, or Russian dolls, in the way it all fits together), yet it has an emotional heart also, as the relationship at the film's centre is gripping and what is underlying the groovy intellectual effects-laden action drama too. Kubrick's strengths? Well there's been a few films that are undeniably great stuff - eg The Shining, eg 2001, yet they have their own, not exacly shortcomings but they don't feel like intellectual masterpieces. Suffice to say that directors have heir own strengths and weaknesses; not everyone will rate kubrick quite as highly as this reviewer, and for me, it is obvious that Nolan is one of the most interesting directors around on this showing: Inception is like a slightly more intellectual, cerebral version of the Bourne action dramas: it has a similar combination of superior action-drama and emotionally driven interest (we are interested in Bourne by his quest for his identity which has been taken away from him...which provides the nub of our sympathy and engagement with him...). It's Bourne on ice. If the reviewer here took an hour or two out from his 'appreciation of the old cinematic masters' classes he might appreciate this. Posted on Aug 04 2010 17:34
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Callum said...
- If I was to compare Nolan to a director, it would probably be Hitchcock. Each of Nolan's films work in variations of the thriller genre. However, I do agree with Stephen in that while it is easy to compare directors from the past with currect directors, directors, especially originals in a generation full of cabon copies like Nolan should be judged on the strength of their own individual body of work. Also, one cannot forget that Nolan is still a young film-maker by all means. While I believe that he has three masterpieces in Memento, The Dark Knight and Inception and greats films like Insomina, Batman Begins and The Prestige (I have yet to see his debut feature Following), I don't believe that he has made his true masterpiece yet, and in time I have absolute faith in his talents that he will. Posted on Aug 02 2010 10:30
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Amaris said...
- I find it incredibly degrading the way in which the article was constructed- the comparison of Kubrick's ENTIRE career against essentially one film. Nolan made the new franchise of Batman films, in addition to the film The Prestige which was masterfully directed. It seems hard to compare a man for one film when Kubrick made so many and across genres, adapting many books into films and if nothing else, greatly changing its content: The Shining and Lolita look nothing like the books dictate. Posted on Jul 30 2010 15:13
- Report as inappropriate
-
- paul weaver said...
-
how can you compare Stanley Kubrick to Christopher Nolan...??? Im sure Christopher Nolan would be embarrassed about this article.
one is a cinematic great, the other is a good director...
its as silly as comparing 2001: A Space Odyssey to batman, not even on the same page.....
can i get a job here as it seems pretty easy with silly articles like this and to sum it up you say
Kubrick kept things simple
have you ever seen a simple kubrick film....???
pants. Posted on Jul 27 2010 03:09 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Kyle said...
-
I find the comparison between Kubrick and Nolan very odd, it seems to me Nolan has more in common with Michael Mann than Kubrick, in the way his movies are set out and executed. While I consider Kubrick on of my favourite directors, I would have to say his far from a perfect director, apart from Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove, majority of his films are flawed classics, there are moments in 2001, Barry Lyndon & Eyes Wide Shut were you can feel your hair grow and saying Kubrick knew how people worked is laughable, here is a man who made 2001, 2 hour plus movie were the most emotional performances come from a man in a ape costume and a computer? And to say Kubrick was an original thinker is also a stretch, majority of all his work were based on published work and he had many writer collaborators, I would argue the source novels of clockwork orange, the shining and full metal jacket are just as good as the movies. I think Kubrick was great at delivery thrilling visuals and brilliant dark humour but his films lacked fluid character interactions, for example 2001, clockwork orange, Barry Lyndon, the shining and eyes wide shut, it is almost like how the actor looked when he delivered the line is more important that what they actual said. Nolan is far off from Kubrick greatness but his had a great start, his films are the best of any directors of the past decade and they stand up to repeat viewing, his action set pieces are great and pacing is good, only time will tell how good he can be but at the moment his better than the rest and what's left.
And remember Kubrick wasn’t exactly loved by critics originally, nearly all his movies received mixed to bad reviews on there release. Posted on Jul 26 2010 08:00 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Bogus said...
-
One thing the writer, and apparently many others, apparently missed - this is your spoiler alert - is that Leo is playing the only real character in the film. The others are archetypes, drawn from his subconscious. So of course they're not fully rounded.
Trite and Hollywood as it may sound, the whole of "Inception" is Cobb's dream. So there are really five levels of dream state...or six if you realize that Nolan is also commenting on the dream-like state of the viewer in a darkened theater, watching and hearing sounds and sights larger and more bizarre than life, yet seemingly believable in the moment.
Or maybe just one.
But either way, someone makes a good point above: Comparing the whole of Kubrick's career to one of Nolan's is a bit of straw-man setup.
And Nolan himself didn't claim any such Kubrickian pretentions, so relax.
And yeah, you kind of missed the point of the movie to begin with. Posted on Jul 23 2010 14:30 - Report as inappropriate
-
- johnny said...
-
I for one hated inception with a passion and generaly nolan fanboys have been so arrogant over me not liking it as to send me hatemail for it on fb lol. I thought it was a rippoff of other movies, dreamscape, the matrix, even citizen kane (dissapointing whisper and rosebud).
Thiers not even a comparison in my mind, this is like comparing hitchcock to micheal bay.
Inception felt like a script that had been rewritten too much and wasnt fresh simply because we just saw the same movie with shutter island and leo's imaginary dead wife in that.
some movies, kickass being another, Im left scratching my head. Leo has had no screen charisma with either actress in this or shutter island, the big mistake of inception is in letting us know his wife isnt real. she should have been introduced as a member of the team by leo and we learn through his prodigy he's nuts and shes the love interest to snap him back to reality.
badly done by nolan all around. Im a non fan of nolan after this along with micheal bay, mc g and j.j. abrams.
Terrific movies are multigenerational and dont copy other films, they add to the genre.
Can i have movies only 20-30 year olds love for 100 alex. I hated the batman redo as well. If its not broke dont fix it. nuff said. Posted on Jul 23 2010 01:23 - Report as inappropriate
Features
Gray's anatomy
James Gray wants to push buttons—again.
The next big thing?
Gigantic Releasing tries to rethink indie distribution…without movie theaters.
Red Diva: Lyubov Orlova, First Lady of Soviet Cinema
So you think you can dance, comrade?
Puppet master
Coraline director Henry Selick takes stop-motion animation into 3-D.
Socratic method
Laurent Cantet's approach on the set matches the message of his film.
Wander woman
Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy puts a Bush-era spin on the road movie.
Oscars
Read our interviews with the nominees, our reviews of the nominated films and more.
What do you think?
Post your comment now