Okay, bear with me here. If one were to live in an environment with clean air, and then go live in the sewers for 10 years, and afterwards, come back to that first clean enironment, it is, quite literally, a breath of fresh air. My point is that if something is absent for a long period of time, once it's brought back, it's still "a breath of fresh air" even though you've experienced it before.Originally Posted by turtlex
I think you said it here ... he brought that aspect "back to films" ... so it's not exactly new.Sure. By that, I mean (in one example) that he's brought the psychological aspect back to films in a society where it's a statistical fact that the average movie-goer doesn't want to sit through a movie and actually think and have their minds prodded. To do that and to do that successfully deserves a large amount of respect. And from me, he's got it.Can you explain, please Ricky ... breath of fresh air? What has he done that's so counter to everything else we've seen before?
I mean, okay, I think he's got talent, but he can't touch Spielberg .. and if he can ... we haven't seen it yet. IMHO.
Pair that with his directing skills and artistic perspective, and you've got one director who's truly showing us something, not just making films to make them.
And yeah, SS has done some pulp, but he basically makes films that make you think, even when they're pulp. Feev himself used a great example of that when he was speaking with Jean about Jurassic Park being more than just a dinosaur movie () .... I just think that Nolan's catelog isn't near as impressive as Spielberg.
And in regard to Nolan vs. Spielberg film numbers. Of course Spielberg has more under his belt, as he's been in the industry longer. However, I think that if you compare both their beginnings, it would show that Nolan is growing at a much more rapid rate. Just my three cents.
Reply With Quote