Of the last four or so hits of Christopher Nolan; Memento, The Prestige, Dark Knight, Inception (we’ll leave Batman Begins out since the plot is fairly straight forward) have you found that they don’t stand up to deeper analysis upon repeated viewings?
I mean, the guy puts together some really thought provoking films that look great and appear on the surface to have complex plots that make you say “wow, I don’t think I caught everything the first time through, I’m going to have to see that again to see how all the puzzle pieces fit together” only to find the pieces don’t really fit together?
I haven’t looked into analysis of The Prestige or Memento but I have found several articles on-line deconstructing the storylines of Dark Knight and Inception only to leave the authors with a lot of “it really doesn’t make sense” conclusions.
Is Nolan not really the story telling genius he’s sold as but more a master showman?
Not really, no. I love all his films and have seen them multiple times. I’ve found that they do hold together pretty well. I’m sure you can nitpick some plot elements here and there that might not fit, but you can do that for almost any film if you wanted to.
He’s a master showman, but he’s no slouch as a storyteller. There are often things that might be nitpicked, but a good storyteller is allowed some dramatic license, and he does throw in some intriguing philosophical element to the mix.
as a storyteller? his stories are phenomenal. very creative, very original, and very engaging. however, i do think he could do loads better with a good editor at his side - especially with the latest 2 movies. dark knight has issues with the story being too long, and as a result the plot relies on too many coincidences to move it along. inception suffers from logic continuities, and even moreso with the “it’s-rushed-so-let’s-put-some-conveniences-together-to-move-things-along” aspect. in the end there were just too many questions that needed answering and not enough time to provide the background to answer/fanwank them.
overall, Nolan’s a great director and a great storyteller. i do agree that repeated viewings do tend to temper the initial shock-and-awe, which is disappointing because with a story like inception you can really do some cool stuff with it. i think it would have done better as a trilogy like the bourne series. the bourne trilogy was essentially one drawn out story of jason bourne’s quest for redemption, not unlike cobb’s. if the dream could have been sustained through 3 movies and the kinks smoothed out, it would have been a phenomenal trilogy.(or like the matrix).
the prestige doesn’t really have that many plot holes in it. there were some logic issues as always (things like: it’d have been easier and more feasible if they had just done X) but there wouldn’t be anything i’d call a massive plot hole. and memento has been hailed as a darn-near perfect movie (though even there you can really point out certain parts that don’t exactly fit). and in his first movie following, there’s a pretty big “convenience” he uses plot-wise to keep the story going as well.
i like nolan. i like his movies. i just don’t like how he takes artistic license at certain places just to make his story fit. the more freedom he’s given, the more glaring the suspension of logic, and that’s not a good thing. i hope someone close to him tells him “hey buddy, how about you tone it down a bit and make things a little more down to earth”.
I used to really like Memento. Then somebody asked me, “How would he even remember that he suffers from memory loss after he sustained his head injury? Because he wouldn’t.”
Without that one piece, the entire movie falls to bits.
I’m by no means an expert, but from what little I’ve read I think some people with anterograde amnesia (what he suffers from in the film) can remember a few details after they receive the injury/trauma. More often than not, one of the first things they remember is that they have anterograde amnesia.
From what I remember of the documentary, this fellow seemed to realise he had some sort of condition affecting his mind, but I can’t recall if he realised his memory was so out of sorts.
Leonard in Memento also has a tattoo that says “Remember Sammy Jankis”, the man he’d known who had (or at least seemed to have) anterograde amnesia. So whenever he thought “Wait a minute, where am I? What am I doing? I can’t remember what I was just…” then once he saw his hand he’d presumably realize “Oh God, I’ve got that weird amnesia like Sammy Jankis.”
There are a few points in the movie where Leonard seems to remember things he shouldn’t be able to remember. For example, he says something about how he got the police reports, but this must have happened after his brain injury. However, as bouv says people with anterograde amnesia haven’t always totally or permanently lost their ability to form new long-term memories. People with amnesia are also prone to confabulation, so while Leonard may sincerely believe everything he says some of it may just be his injured brain’s best attempts at filling in the blanks.
Part of the story in Memento goes into the fact that people with Leonard’s condition can respond to conditioning without necesarily forming a conventional memory. He’d faced the situation of being bewildered so much and remembering the story of Sammy Jankis that he might’ve been conditioned to at least understand his basic condition. I’m not sure if that’s possible with the real world condition.
You also have to remember that
Leonard is an unreliable narrator. The Sammy Jankis story may actually be the Leonard story. He may have had some degree of memory function post-assault, but accidentally killing his wife drove him off the deep end. To some degree, he remembers what he wants to remember.
I think Memento is pretty logical - and it can work either way, whether or not the above is true.
The biggest plothole I can remember from the movie
His tattoo with the license plate is way too specific. The other ones are vague enough that he can keep finding his targets, but that one pretty much puts a stop to the whole show. That may not be a plothole - maybe Leonard will realize this time that the cycle was completed because of that specificity. But either way, he can’t keep going on as he has.
I don’t think that’s a plothole at all.
Like you said, it just means that the cycle is over… maybe. Remember that one of his tattoos is “First name John”, and then scrawled under it, done unprofessionally, “or James”. Teddy can’t use him as a pawn anymore, but that doesn’t mean no one can.
Definitely not. When I think of films that get even more interesting upon further watching and/or investigation, Nolan films are at the top of my list. With the exception of the Batman films - they seem relatively straight forward to me.
Pretty much that from what I know. It’s like this:
Mostly intact memories…|…some fuzzy memories…|injury|…some fuzzier memories…|…little to no explicit memories forever
They can of course learn how to perform tasks and how to form associations, even if they aren’t aware of it. Memento isn’t a spot-on account of anterograde amnesia, but it’s better than any other fiction movie covering the topic.
Remember Sammy Jankis? Leonard concluded that Sammy’s condition was psychological, not physical. Teddy said that meant Sammy was a fake. But Leonard denied that. Sammy really had memory loss, it just wasn’t due to a head injury.
Now, which condition does Leonard have?
Not in my opinion, no. I think they hold up well.
Heck…
Leonard’s capable of using himself as a pawn - he deliberately aims himself at Teddy out of anger. In a future cycle, he may find Teddy’s car and Teddy’s body, figure he’s killed the killer but doesn’t want the chase to end, so he’ll efface or alter the license-plate tattoo (as he himself may have done with John/James) and carry on.
And as an afterthought, I didn’t really care for either Batman movie, mostly for having villains with absurd plans that strained credibility, and then gleefully broke it.
Best faker ever?