Challenging Christopher Nolan
Poor Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes. All they want to do is go see the Russian ballet. You know, take a much deserved night off, unwind, relax, etc. Alas, Bruce Wayne, that monopolizing playboy, has gone and absconded with the entire Russian ballet so they can indulge in a bit of yachting on the high seas.
Ah, but as you may or may not know Bruce Wayne doubles as Batman and, in fact, this little pleasure boating excursion is merely a glamorous cover for Batman to fly off and find villainous Lau, the Gotham mob’s ace accountant, who is holed up in Hong Kong.
This is to say that every moment in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is a set-up for something else, one piece of a tapestry so elaborate you could probably lay the whole thing out in Gotham’s own Chinatown and still not have enough room.
Harvey and Rachel go out for dinner and Bruce Wayne drops by with Russian ballerina Natasha and what could have just been a night of gab (did the Gotham Black Canaries make the NBA finals or didn’t they?) and too much wine turns into soliloquies about Julius Ceasar in order to set up the money line toward the end.
Harvey shows up late for court and before he is set to launch into a cross examination he discusses his lucky coin with Rachel. But hey, he’s not just talking about his lucky coin because it’s his lucky coin and he sort of digs the thing, he’s talking about it so later when he transforms into Harvey Two Face we are all up to speed on the status of the Lucky Coin.
We are introduced to Detective Ramirez, right-hand woman of Lt. Gordon, and Gordon asks about her mother and Ramirez advises her mother was just put back in the hospital and while this appears to just be a friendly chat, nope, it’s set-up for later when The Joker needs to kidnap Ramirez’s mother for a bit of leverage.
The Police Commissioner can’t even enjoy a nice glass of scotch without finding it poisoned!
And we haven’t even discussed Alfred, Bruce’s faithful Butler, who manages to spend an entire film speaking in platitudes that either 1.) Explain entirely the situation at hand (“Perhaps both Bruce and Mr. Dent believe Batman stands for something more important than the whims of a terrorist, Miss Dawes” or 2.) Set up events for later (“Know your limits, Master Wayne”). Couldn’t Alfred get an afternoon off to just lounge around the Wayne loft, drink an espresso and read a little Chaucer? Yeesh.
On and on and on and on and on and on.
I’m not saying this necessarily a problem. You can say anything – good or bad – about The Dark Knight but you can’t say Christopher and Jonathan Nolan didn’t take a screenwriting class. These two dudes know their set-ups and payoffs. I can’t be certain – and I don’t necessarily want to do the research to find out – but The Dark Knight may contain more set-ups and payoffs than every single movie made in the 1980′s combined.
Thus, I issue the following challenge to auteur Nolan on the forthcoming The Dark Knight Rises: give us one throwaway moment. Just one. That’s all. Nothing else. A teensy, tiny, five second scene or line of dialogue, something, anything, that doesn’t have anything to do with anything else.
Bet he can’t do it.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? CAN HE DO IT? YES? NO?
12 Comments
Great post. I was just thinking about Christopher Nolan’s considerable writing vs. directing skills this morning. It’s hard to say what he is better at, but you make a good point about the cohesion in his screenplays. In Nolan We Trust.
Personally I tend to think of Nolan more as a storyteller than as a great visual director.
Fun post, Nick. I guess it shows that there is always a purpose to everything written. It’s almost like a fundamental rule to writing, because it begs the question, “If there isn’t a point, then why are you writing it?”
I think the difference with Nolan and other screenwriters is that there is a very purposeful and PRACTICAL reason for every scene, every line of dialogue. Nothing isn’t pre-planned. All of Nolan’s movies are psychologically in depth, so they really all require this air-tight writing. Otherwise people are going to be searching for the loopholes and errors (well, it still doesn’t stop them . . . ). Other screenwriters appreciate little bits of comedy and randomness. Not Nolan. He prefers perfection or as close to it as he can get–it’s his style. I don’t see him straying anytime soon. He’s too meticulous for that.
My issue with The Dark Knight – and this is going to sound kind of odd because it’s not really even technically a “problem” – is that it was SO tense. Nolan never really gave any moments as it went along to RELIEVE that tension. It just became this unrelenting ball of fury and by the end I felt exhausted rather than exhilarated, and I still feel that way every time I watch it.
On the other hand, in “Batman Begins” there were so many moments packed in there to remind us of the awe that Batman can inspire. Serious moments yet still simultaneously fun and cinematic moments.
Like I said, that’s not necessarily a “problem”, but it’s how I felt. It’s why I prefer the first one.
As you imply, most screenwriters are taught to do this. Of course, the knock on Nolan is that he overdoes it with exposition. But when you’re talking about a guy making big budget summer blockbusters, and that’s how far people have to dig to knock it… well, it speaks volumes for the quality of his films as summer blockbusters.
Great article. It makes me think of something like Hot Fuzz. Think of every single seemingly throw-away quip in that movie… and then it comes back in some way or another, mostly in the hilarious final 20 minutes.
I LOVE Hot Fuzz! Makes me think Nolan should challenge himself and do a great British action comedy. Bet he could do it, the question is, would he ever want to?
John: I certainly thought he overdid exposition in “Inception”, though my issues with that one stem from other places. I think he does a fine job, though, of dramatizing all the information that needs to be relayed in the “Batman” movies.
Awesome post, Nick, you and your astute observations!
Ha..ha.. I’m sure Nolan could give us one throwaway moment, I mean that Batman sign on the apartment door post in ‘Following,’ what does that have anything to do w/ the story?? Well other than it being sort of a harbinger of things to come for him, but to the story?? Hmmm? Anyone?
Be careful what you ask for though Nick, I think we’ve got way too many directors who are *experts* in creating throwaway moments involuntarily.
I will admit I actually DO think there are a couple standalone moments in The Dark Knight – for instance, that shot of The Joker leaning his head out the car window. It’s just there to be there. I just couldn’t help but write this post, though, to kind of showcase the way Nolan has crafted these movies. Goodness, just think about what’s he’s going to do with two hours and forty-five minutes!
I think the Joker leaning his head out of the window might signify that he can’t be contained in a certain space. He’s kind of a free spirit, if you will. Or he just needed some air
I’m currently working on an Auteurs piece on Nolan for this month. So far, I’ve covered his early films. Next up is Insomnia but I’m delaying it so I can watch the original first and then Nolan’s version. Then I go for everything else and then The Dark Knight Rises to complete the piece.
Great piece Nick! I’m trying to think back to Insomnia, which I saw for the first time recently, and see if Nolan did similar things with that.
I think I’d rather have multiple set ups and pay offs rather than a film flooded with throw away moments.
Trackbacks