Legends? Easy tiger. Christopher Nolan has still never done anything as great as Stanley Kubrick, Sam Peckinpah or even John Ford. These guys operated in a time when you had to do everything in camera, no digital cameras, no digital effects and no video assist. You had to know what the fuck you were doing.
I'd just set up a home theatre with a screen that took up, literally, the entire wall. I'd chosen an aspect ratio that matched my pc output which happened to match IMAX, without even realizing. I discovered the serindipity of my choice while watching Interstellar and being completely captivated by the space scenes, which completely envelope your senses. Utterly breathless. If someone questions why I went to such lengths as to dedicate an entire room to watching movies. I just pop in interstellar, and the questions melt away.
Awards as I see it is to promote other films that didn't make its money to the studio. Much like the Grammys, it's just to boost sales or make up losses.
@@rahulc2024 A cgi that lead to research journals being written on black holes, a cgi that gave a glimpse of the black hole even before one was imaged in real world.
Oscars don't deserve Nolan. There's a lot of campaigning going around in the background to get yourself a win or a nomination. It really says a lot about the academy than it does about Nolan that movies like Mad Max fury road and the shape of water can get nominations and wins but interstellar and Dunkirk don't make the cut.
He does. I prefer film over digital 10000000000% and only believe digital is the dominant medium for movies now solely because of its convenience, but Tarantino's arguments are directed towards people who already know what he's talking about. Nolan explains it in a manner that the average viewer would be able to understand. Nowadays, you can't really even watch a Nolan film in the way he intended because most theaters show movies on dcps. So there's really not even a difference between you watching it on your monitor or tv vs at the average cinema other than the bigger screen.
@@TweetBomb What makes this whole debate kind of meaningless these days though is that there are almost no film projection theaters left. I can appreciate how much Tarantino and Nolan love that experience and have the luxury of watching them that way in their own personal theater, but for everyone else it's a wash. Even if a filmmaker shoots on film, they're just going to scan it into a computer, digitally post process, composite vfx and color grade it, then project it digitally for the rest of the planet. Either that or the billions of other digital TV, tablet, and smartphone screens.
@@tronam Well yes but even when you use film to shoot and then scan it digitally, it still has a very different look and authentic feel and character compared to shooting digitally and the entire pipeline being digital from lens to audience screen. Old movies shot on 35mm and 70mm look phenomenal on 4K blu ray for example and are, in fact, some of the best movies to watch on the format. Not to mention the fact that shooting on imax film gives you immense future proofing. Digital right now can't replicate that level of fidelity but in the future, it will be able to and Nolan's films will benefit from future higher fidelity digital formats while other movies are already maxed out by what 4K can provide.
I've always felt it, and Nolan explained it with class. He is the master who has an eye for natural analog cinema. True film-making is the analog way. Modern digital movies take away the true cinema experience.
100% disagree Joker and Revenant are absolutely stunning and true big screen cinema type films, they do not suffer in any whatsoever for being shot digitally.
@@JCJW101 No one is denying the fact that digital movies can be fantastic. The average consumer who has no knowledge of the industry probably couldn't discern the difference between a film shot on a digital camera versus something shot on colour negative film. However, to the enthusiast nothing quite beats the authenticity and tactile nature of film and practical effects. The sheer effort and mastery of producing a motion picture on film is something to be admired. Digital production films are often churned out as the process is faster, easier and cheaper than an analogue production. If you're watching something shot on film with practical effects, you know you're in for something special.
Modern digital cameras are quite capable. If lighting is done properly, you cannot tell the difference between analog and digital. Again it is the eye behind the camera that matters.
@@SuperSy99 Well it is just a matter of time. With every passing year resolution and technology is improving. We don't live in past. What is gone is gone. Filmmakers don't have digital technologies back then that's why they used film. Even Roger Deakins said he cannot differentiate between film and digital now. It is actually the man behind the camera that matters.
He nails it regarding our ability to detect subtle differences in film/TV etc. Even on my screen at home, you can feel the difference watching a nolan movie!
That's because most people and studios lack a lot of talent and want to follow the easier roote/way thus being lazy that has it's costs tho that makes their products appear to be and look/feel cheaper and more rushed/fake compared to actual cinematography achievements Nolan does
@@jhinabloomingflower807 cgi isn't "easy" or "lazy" though. Just because it came out of a computer, doesn't mean that it's inferior to practical effects. It takes a lot of hardwork and talent to make cgi look and feel even close to realistic, and to make them flow well with the in-camera shots. And when done right, you won't even notice the cg parts. Plus practical effects can sometimes look bad as well. The truth is, both are equal. The quality of the results mostly depend on the talent and hardwork of the artists behind it.
@@arnabmukherjee6192 oh god I agree, I’m trying to learn cgi as a hobby and let me tell you.... just manually rotoscoping 24 frames a second for 10 seconds is complete pain and suffering and it still looks bad
@@arnabmukherjee6192 absolutely! There are Movies that require realism and then there are those that look surreal. I think the story, and, of course, the budget, dictate the complexity of those effects. CGI should not be the end-all-be-all of movies, such as most of Michael Bays works, recent Jurassic sequels, etc. They're just abusing CGI giving a bad name to digital artists.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
I understand your perspective, but the added grain you're speaking about is minimal to none. Remember, most films were not only shot but also projected on film until about 2013 and even dupes looked 1000x better than 35mm dcp showings. In the case of showing a film shot on film in dcp, the image looks trapped as well as flat and far lower quality than what it would look like shown through a film projector, thus, producing a higher quality image that isn't effected by the added grain from the projector. And the biggest reason is that you're actually watching the film in true 24 fps. Dcp from what I've noticed has a very subtle motion smoothing which takes away from the experience of true 24 fps. With film projection, the image feels alive, there's so much depth and it feels like you could reach out and touch the characters and interact with the world in front of you. I think one of the many reasons why cinema is dying is because most films feel like soul-less, overly digital, cgi videos. On top of that digital imagery has created a generation of lazy, let's just cut corners and fix everything in post directors and dps. There is NO visual advantages to digital in comparison to film, none. And films shot on film being finished using a digital intermediate is a because most theaters only show movies in dcp. If the argument is resolution, then there is no debate, film wins. But digital wins because of its convenience and ease of use. That's all.
Someone please explain to me how Tenet receives only 2 oscar nominations while Mank receives 10. I was blown away by Tenet's physicality and mind bending time effects. Watched it 3 times in the cinema. In my opinion one of the best and cinematic films since Inception. I hope Nolan keeps on making movies forever and ever and ever
The problem with tenet is that it was an experiment and not that great of a movie. Nolan tried to see if you can make an action movie without story and did not succeed. The action and acting is amazing, my adhd loved that it was a constant go go go go but... there is no Story. The main character is just that. Main character. It doesn’t show a name even in the credits.
Snobbed by most of the critics. Did very poorly at the box-office. Aside for the practical special effects it has, it's really not that great! If you want to reevaluate a film that was sort of overlooked, which is a true cinematic mastepiece, check out Steven Spielberg's Munich- beats Tenet about 100 times!!
@@daniellatteo_thefilmmaker It is not the quantity of critics but the quality. One of my faves is Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian. A hard-to-please critic indeed and who gave it 5 out of 5! I saw Munich already. Repeating your hyperbole, Tenet beats Munich about 10000 times. It's not merely the special effects. Really it's about the magical yet uncannily tangible world building that Nolan does like few others. My jaw dropped for most of this movie. Tenet, Inception and intro of Dunkirk show the true genius of Nolan.
Tenet is an amazing story with fantastic atmosphere and execution. Loved the actors as well, and especially the music. It has its flaws, but that doesn't keep it from being a great work of art in my book.
I totally understand Nolan's concern about lack of texture in a lot of predominant film these days. As a big Blomkamp fan I also feel there's a void for grittier content right now. Those finer details help sell the realism of a setting and could really elevate smaller budget films trying to ground their audience in the story's reality.
I watched TeNeT 100 times so far, and I'm going watch it again when it's back in theaters. That movie is Art. It's perfect. One of the best movies I've ever seen. And everytime I watch it I catch stuff I haven't notice.
Tenet is mind-blowing. I can't say how much I enjoyed that movie. I've never seen a movie twice in the theatre. Tenet I watched 3 times. Got better each time. How did he do it??!!
I've watched TDK and TDKR on IMAX 70MM and I can say with peace of mind that there is no experience compared to this format in relation to cinemas. Not only is the image a thousand times better, but the sound is designed for the experience. Out of curiosity, they are decreasing with the arrival of 4K onwards, in a while it will be the same thing as the 70MM that you rarely see out there.
It was sad that Tenet came out during Covid and I didn’t see it in IMAX. I hope they replay it where I live again I would love to see it how it was meant to be seen. I saw Dunkirk in IMAX and it has never been as good every other time I’ve watched it. It’s so true that seeing a film in a theatre is an experience you can get nowhere else.(especially when the filmmakers use the tools to there maximum)
In an Era where digital cameras are replacing film cameras Nolan understood the importance of film cameras and uses it in the best way by creating such a classic films.
With the majority of big blockbusters having CGI in the majority of the film. Christopher Nolan’s movies are like a breeze of fresh air. Tenet is a great movie from start to finish in my opinion and what stands out the most in that movie are all the practical effects. Even though CGI is nearly perfect when you know everything is real and see what they did I think to myself “now how did they do that with nothing going wrong.”
I'm fine with both approaches, in-camera film or digital. It's really up to the filmmaker to use their tools properly to evoke the desired feeling, vibe or mood from an audience. I think what people pick up on is a lack of inspiration or passion. Digital productions can feel pretty lifeless without the right care and attention to detail. Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: The Way of Water were filmed digitally, but both are clearly passion projects and their success is no accident. General audiences may not be able to articulate why, but they can recognize it.
Yeah film is good, imax is good but Nolan needs to improves his audio in films. I get that he’s a visual filmmaker but dialogue scenes is his weakness, Seems like it’s becoming worse with every new film, how music and sound effects are way louder than the dialogue and I miss what the characters are saying to each other half of the time that’s my only complaint and I will watch anything Nolan puts out
There's a video essay that touches on that explaining why some scenes from his movies are inaudible. Nolan does it on purpose and is meant to distract the viewer and the characters, to show how loud the environment the characters are in.
@@Suburban_Pantsula That's a bunch of horseshit. Nolan does that in every movies since TDKR (Bane's obvious ADR was hilarious to make up for its dreadful original sound mixing). You don't make movies heavy on pompous exposition that requires tons of dialogue to understand the clunky plot then drown it in a bunch of deafening noise (sorry the loud music is not "part of the environment the characters are in" because it's extra-diegetic...) just to flip the paying Imax audience that can't make out that dialogue that the whack sound mixing is on purpose. That's a lazy cop-out for his negligence and utter dismissal of a big part of the AUDIOvisual experience.
@@Suburban_Pantsula In my opinion it's not a good technique. If you want the dialogue to be inaudible make it clear that it's supposed to be. If the characters can hear each other but the viewer can't it pulls them out and distracts from the experience.
@@Suburban_Pantsula I've never seen a filmmaker use it like he does, normally it's so we understand that a character in the scene can't hear something so we are more connected with them but for Nolan the characters can hear each other and we can't hear them. In Tenet I couldn't hear about 30-40% of the dialogue, it was ridiculous and completely took me out of the movie, I almost walked out.
I love Nolan and Hoytema for this; the true, old-school idea of the suspension of disbelief. I'm bored with Nolan's stories and their lack of characters to care about, but this... this is cool.
As much as I like Nolan for creating very different stories and capturing in camera, it ultimately comes down to characters for me. I’d happily watch a film made on mini dv tape as long as the stories characters are people I care about and get behind.
I wouldn't call it a lack of characters to care about. Caring is very subjective anyways - for instance, Charles Foster Kane is a well written character and well acted by Welles, but for the life of me I couldn't care about him or anything he goes through in Citizen Kane. Nolan's divisive decision to make more experiential movies as supposed to his psychologically damaged antiheroes, works for me because I get to be the character. I'm on the beaches and shores and airspace of Dunkirk. I'm the protagonist of Tenet being exposed to this secret world of spies. I'm immersed completely, projecting myself into these blank characters, filling in the blanks with what I think their backstory is. Again, I realize this isn't for everybody and that good.
@@michaelotis223 yep, just a matter of taste, unfortunately some people think that just because something is outside their taste it means it's bad. Lincoln had plenty character but it bored me, Tenet perhaps has very little but it immersed me like nothing else.
I think the town binding scene of Inception would practically be developed and Nolan and his crew would bind a whole custom made city if it fitted on budget... Without VFX...
The man's love for practical effects is truly a breath of fresh air!.. I mean when he threw McConaughey into a super-massive blackhole, I stood up my seat and clapped!
Fifty years ago (holy cow!) I saw the first IMAX film produced for $270,000. It was commissioned for the screen at Ontario Place. "North Of Superior". They had separated doors and walkways for entrance and exit. I noticed a puddle of fresh puke on the walkway left by some one leaving. After one second of disgust I got an adrenalin rush thinking, "Cool. This must be some movie I'm about to see." And it was like a roller coaster ride. I was gripping the armrests and leaning left and right with the flight camera and so was most of the audience that I could see. What an experience. A six storey high screen and a drum beat intro that didn't give your senses a break.
Imax 70mm film has a resolution of 18k but the detail of the image is only 12k because the remaining 6k resolution of the image is film grain, I've always wonder why aren't there movies shot in 8k then presented in 70mm film? there aren't digital 8k projectors yet so the resolution of an 8k movie printed on 70mm film can still benefit from it.
IMAX Corp should make a 2-3 unit of new IMAX 65/70 film cameras. It costs expensive at first but still be the best investment in long term. I expected the price of newly-built cameras should have been recuperated within short time since the rent will never not cheaper than the current models.
As good-looking as tenet might be, I have to say that the plane scene was completely useless in the film. It didn't serve the story in any way other than to elevate production value. It seems that Nolan has been more obsessed with visuals in his latest films at the expense of the story.
As much of a flex that scene was it didn’t take away anything from the story. Knowing Nolan he put that in there just for making the trailer more bombastic or just to have almost a little side quest thrown in just to shift the dynamics up a bit.
@@transcendmeta That might be true, but it's inexcusable when you're handling a $200m. Making movies is a Luxury. The only art fort that requires huge budgets to come to life. All the set pieces of Inception, Batman Trilogy, or MCU movies were completely justified as a lot of people saw them, a lot of money was made, which turns into economical value for society. Tenet on the other hand didn't even make its money back and it's not due to the pandemic trust me. Nolan should've known better than to mess around just because he had the budget. He needs to go back to indie filmmaking to get back in touch with true cinema and remember the true value of a dollar.
I fucking love TENET because it shows that Nolan is learning. And he is trying shit. Unlike other directors that have one thing that works and only do that for the rest of their lives. But tenet? Nolan tries to make an action movie without story and learned that it doesn’t really work. I mean he named the ma8n character in the credits main character... it’s only Action. Everything is useless technically
@@roberthipolito1351 first: I never said CGI is cheap. Second: CGI of a 747 crashing into a hangar would, in fact, be MUCH less expensive than doing it practically. My point was they do these things practically BECAUSE they can afford to and don’t HAVE to resort to CGI.
@@thestuffmikedoes2309 if this was a marvel film they would do the plane crash in cgi yet disney has like over 300 billion. Yes they do it because they can afford it but at the same time they’re one of the only ones out their acc doing it
@Fabian Mayer Many directors used to wear suits on set before the casual style invaded every aspect of our lives. It's not because he "thinks he's the next Alfred Hitchcock" or some other fatuous nonsense.
One thing I've noticed about Nolan is that he doesn't take new actors much. He uses same old set of actors. Eg: Cillian Murphy, Micheal Caine, Christian Bale, Tom Hardy
Almost as Tim Burton does. I think it has more to do with vision, chemistry and trust. Idk. I've seen a few other directors do that as well (Tarantino with Samuel L. Jackson, Scorsese with Pacino and Deniro...)
Wally Pfister did an incredible job as the cinematographer for The Dark Knight. His work on this film has been widely praised by both critics and fans alike, and he even won the Oscar for Best Cinematography. Pfister's use of different camera angles and lighting effects helped to create the film's dark and suspenseful atmosphere, and he played a crucial role in maintaining the tension throughout the action scenes. Overall, his contributions to The Dark Knight were instrumental in making it one of the most iconic and celebrated superhero movies of all time.
I think both Hoyte & Wally work excellently with Chris.. but when it comes to composers nothing matches Nolan-Zimmer. (The others are great as well though).
While it is true that we can see when something is CG and when something is photographed, it is also true we can tell when walls are made to fall apart, and when explosions aren't really blowing stuff up.
Excellent video, Chris Nolan has is right using film on sets and not artificial with green screens. The quality is so much better visually. All of these high rate movies from Marvel are just not real, and you can see it in the movies you just know what's going to happen next. Its all faked with technology. 1917 was excellent movie again you knew this was really being filmed on the beaches, and you can get the realism of the soldiers waiting to get back to England. I respect Christopher Nolan and Tarentino, and Spielberg and others for using film. And the great movies they have made.
Nolan's "Tenet" is a strange piece, it behooves one to come back and re-watch it, even if simply for audio effects that mute the dialogues. What is creation!
To say that everything is in camera in Nolan and Hoytema's movies is a bunch of BS. No production gets to the screen without a heavy dose of post. Ever. And no VFX Sup worth a damn will ever say we should do it all with CGI. Production and post-production go hand in hand and the two should always compliment and serve each other.
Cinema should be an expeirence over just watching something on a 2d canvas, Nolan is one a very few directors left who can give us special experiences in the cinema. Interstellar is a very special movie and I will be seeing it at the BFI Imax in London this weekend. I saw Dunkirk at resortsworld NEC which was advertised as IMAX.
@@AlterCineYT love learning from channel like yours to develop my own skills. There is so much that goes into making films. Would you say making a film would be a goal for you ?
3:40 - I did love The Shape of Water... but also, I say DUNKIRK was robbed - imho, it should have been best picture. Even though (again), I Did love TSoW. But.. yeah, nonetheless, D was clearly the "Best" that year. 4:48 - Interstellar. A beautiful, beautiful film. 7:16 - As an artisan, anything CN says about film... is utterly utterly true here. He Knows his craft - He knows the medium. 10:05 - "clear - generous - tactile" - SUCH great words.
In general it's a fine rule I think, but having watched Dunkirk they really should have used CGI to make the scope of it all more realistic and just a few guys standing on a beach. The photos from that day are incredible, and it deserved to be shown to people in this movie in a more realistic way
When CGI came around, the industry abandoned practical effects. I would argue that it also stopped the evolution and development of practical effects. By now there would have been developments and far more sophisticated practical effects than in the past. At least Nolan is keeping the art alive.
The realism cannot be replaced by CGI however some young directors are heavily rely on CGI . Of course, on location cost money but producers and directors must know why people go to theaters. if not there is no point of making movies
This is one of the reasons why Christopher Nolan is my favourite director. He produces excellent movies with beautiful cinematography along with Hans Zimmer's musical score. I have watched more Christopher Nolan films multiple times than any other film. Marvel films are great but the CGI can be very noticeable and not realistic. Christopher Nolan makes you feel like you are there, fighting the Joker & Bane or jetting into space into a wormhole. It's like you are there and I am looking forward to Oppenheimer next year. Maybe it will be too realistic, does Christopher actually detonate an atomic bomb in real life, we will wait and see.
when he argues that with film you don't run into the limitations of resolution and bit depth that happen in digital... does that mean his films don't go through a digital intermediate?
Well due to how little to no cgi he does. He likely just optically prints straight from original cut neg to interpositive and internegative for further direct prints to 2383. At least for his movies presented in IMAX with real film. For digital distribution perhaps he just scans the IP which was entirely optically printed from the original neg. That's at least how it use to be done back in the 90s.
He's right about the quality and the naturalistic view of movies shot on 35mm film, and the untouchable resolution of large format negatives, for now, but let's get real: he's fighting a losing battle. Renown directors like Nolan or Tarantino have the clout and the money to do whatever they want with their movies , but for almost anyone else it will become harder and harder to justify the expense, lack of convenience, etc.. of going the analog route, and at the same time the quality of digital cameras will keep improving, making even the most diehard fans of celluloid question themselves about their choice.
100% on it when he says it's fun to do it. If you are a filmmaker of the calibre and command and respect and Nolan and Villeneuve where you ask for whatever you want, why wouldn't you?
Many of the greatest films are pretty complex requiring a good amount of attention from the viewer. This sometimes seems too much to ask for from the general population which leads to a whole slew of biased misinformation. Unfortunely many people will go through their life never realizing the power of film as an artform capable of breaking our psyche down to the soul's core. Take a look at one of my favorites of all time- Stalker (1979) for example: Imagine your average person going into the movie theatre to watch this film. I'd imagine most would either not fully pay attention or/and walk out of the theatre an hour in while the others who make it through the film undistracted may very well walk out that theatre a changed being (mentally/emotionally); similar to that of psychedelics & near death life experiences if that makes any sense.
It's sad that I have never seen any of Nolan's films the way he wants us to see them.. I live too far from a real IMAX screen. Only the small "IMAX" screens is near me. And I know it isn't the same
