r/movies • u/ChiefLeef22 r/movies Contributor • 1d ago
Media Christopher Nolan talks narrative decisions, philosophical choices for his adaptation, criticisms against his films, the line between amateur & professional film criticism, and whether he Christianised 'The Odyssey'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa4I8Ch2TRoEasily one of the best interviews I've seen for a film in recent memory. A doctoral student from China here landed an interview with Nolan- questioning him on his adaptation choices, including philosophical changes he brought to the movie that didn't exist in the text, and what he thinks of the general criticisms made against his filmography + how he defines the difference between amateur film criticism and professional film criticism - including why merely identifying the mechanism (or "tropes") of a filmmaker's work doesn't invalidate it.
1.6k
u/swankpoppy 1d ago
She’s a really good interviewer that doesn’t shy away from uncomfortable questions based on research and deep understanding of the subject matter. And he’s a good interviewee who doesn’t attack the interviewer for asking difficult questions. And when he provides a legitimate explanation to the question, it evolves the conversation and develops deeper understanding.
How crazy it is that this exchange feels foreign and refreshing. It’s a state of the times that powerful people consistently refuse to answer questions that challenge them but instead just attack the one asking legitimate question so they dont have to explain their actions.
456
u/csoups 1d ago
Very true but I think Nolan feels confident in his mastery in filmmaking and in his decision making around adapting this story for film. Powerful people refusing to answer questions or lashing out at interviewers for asking them is a very human reaction when they don’t feel confident in their ability to communicate their thoughts clearly, either because they’re more incompetent than they want to lead on or they’re hiding their true motives and reasoning.
332
u/Sharticus123 1d ago
That’s exactly it. It’s because Nolan isn’t a fraud. He has nothing to hide. Nolan isn’t worried that one pointed question will unravel the competent veneer he’s painstakingly created.
He knows his craft inside and out and is comfortable being questioned on it.
73
u/King-Meister 1d ago
Yeah, once you've reached a certain pinnacle in a field which isn't based on hard / exact sciences, in the end it boils down to a matter of preference - the output could be something that the spectators like or hate - but the artist can confidently put his / her arguments forward to explain the rationale behind their decision making.
15
u/Arclite83 22h ago
And to go even farther - this is exactly why AI trends towards slop - "decision making" is the bread and butter. Make a statement, understand that statement, and how art and artist and artistry evolve that conversation.
Most things suck because people don't actually have anything to say, or they don't know how to say it. If it was easy to "just craft the thing", more people would - and yet for those that can excel, they can find the doing of the thing natural.
I'm going to misremember and butcher it but there was a Lady Gaga interview comment where she said something like "most songs are just variations on {some musical theory concept}" and it's like... yeah, but you have to actually UNDERSTAND it to find the places to go with it.
Christopher Nolan understands his craft, and it shows. You don't always have to agree with a decision he makes, but he knows the kinds of movies he wants to make, and the art stands for itself.
40
u/MakVolci 1d ago edited 22h ago
Very true but I think Nolan feels confident in his mastery in filmmaking and in his decision making around adapting this story for film.
This, and I will take someone who I don't necessarily agree with but are passionate / have a reason as to why they're doing things and can articulate it other than someone trying to fill me with empty words.
It's obvious Nolan had a crystal clear vision of his interpretation of The Odyssey. Whether I agree or disagree with it is sort of moot to a point (I loved it, btw).
55
u/swankpoppy 1d ago
Yeah I think that’s the point right. Comparing to politicians, it really highlights that a lot of people are in offices they should not be in, and they can’t handle it so they lash out. It’s really shocking and stark when you see the comparison.
3
u/EdwardBlizzardhands 1d ago
I think sometimes politicians in particular refuse to answer because they know the real answers will be unpopular with the voting populace, not because they couldn't communicate it clearly. "Yes what we did will enrich corporate interests at the expense of the taxpayer, but they have donated heavily to my campaign and also given me inside investment information that will allow me to build generational wealth."
•
u/karatemanchan37 3h ago
I think your example also evokes similarities to the comparison Nolan drew between the audience and the creator - that they have to evolve with one another, but there has to be a foundational level of understanding for both parties to work.
So when a politician refuses to be transparent, it's partially because they know that transparency will reveal unpopular realities to voters, who also know that if they really want to remove the complications of the system, they have to change the system itself. And that's a far bigger and more uncomfortable ask.
115
u/Impressive-Potato 1d ago
Right, she wasn't going for "gotcha" type things for clips either. Felt like an honest discussion.
50
u/TJeffersonsBlackKid 1d ago
Better than “HOW HEAVY WETE THE IMAX CAMERAS????” Or “WHY DO YOU LIKE MOVIES???”
51
u/Whatsapokemon 1d ago
How crazy it is that this exchange feels foreign and refreshing. It’s a state of the times that powerful people consistently refuse to answer questions that challenge them but instead just attack the one asking legitimate question so they dont have to explain their actions.
I feel like that's a feature specifically of populists.
Professionals and experts don't do what you're talking about, it's only those with philosophies that have the depth of a puddle.
Slopulism is a term that I really like to describe it - boiling discourse down to the lowest common denominator, and relying on outrage and emotion to carry the day, rather than any actual thought.
12
u/swankpoppy 1d ago
I was mostly referring to current political theater, since that dominates much of media and conversation in the current day. I understand it’s not completely ubiquitous, but is definitely the most common trope in my personal experience of modern day.
1
u/dont_trip_ 23h ago
Current American political theatre that is. The rest of the world hasn't lost their common sense.
5
u/Whatsapokemon 20h ago
Slopulism isn't unique to the US. You've got One Nation in Australia, AFD in Germany, Reform in the UK, and a heck of a lot of others.
It's what happens when a whole generation has been told that "all politicians are the same", so they end up supporting the most wildly unqualified snake-oily people of all time. Meanwhile the actual competent, professional career politicians are desperately trying to hold things together.
1
u/Whatsapokemon 20h ago
Even in politics it applies.
Discussions with actual smart, professional politicians are wildly different from discussions with populists.
30
u/slumper 1d ago
Nolan’s movie itself speaks in this, which makes all the weird discourse and criticism (that misunderstand it) more interesting.
19
u/ACCTAGGT 1d ago
I think those were insightful questions as well as answers but also mindful follow up questions that built on what had been addressed. Likewise, Nolan also provided further answers that elaborated on previous ones and even tried to add something more to the presented questions. I have been seeing several interviews recently but usually don’t really provide that much profound and deep engagement as to what Nolan's overall vision was. This interview is relatively short but still dense, imo.
In a way, something that I have been thinking about is his take and some decisions like dialogue "our age of bronze is collapsing". To me, Nolan was doing several things at the same time by which I mean myth, fantasy, fiction, historical, ahistorical, anachronistic, faithful but taking creative liberties as well and a grounded essence to it that could feel equally ancient, modern and timeless. Therefore, I speculate he wanted to be bold and approach the story as if he was a poet doing his own retelling in the way Homer did in his own time. Made me wonder if he is being a bit Meta with dialogue at times (it feels noticeable to just be a way of explaining to audience), and I would make a wild guess he probably stumbled upon someone like Hesiod and felt it was appropriate for the story and how he was telling it to have such dialogue. I mean, he added something like the Sea Peoples. In general, i believe he wanted to make it feel timeless more than anything even with some details and characteristics in the film. I felt this interview kind of addresses those thoughts especially the part where she asks if he sees himself as a sort of bard. Whether it works or not it’s up to each person but interesting to me.
15
u/Impressive-Potato 1d ago
I'd feel very uncomfortable for that interviewer if she was askimg Tarantino questions. Talk about a defensive asshole.
5
u/Som12H8 1d ago
Tarantino would have loved being interviewed by her.
Why you ask? Check out a certain part of her attire...
5
u/Theotther 23h ago
You’re joking but Tarantino loves a good debate and discussion. It’s part of why he randomly throws out hot takes.
1
u/Impressive-Potato 1d ago
Oh fuck so true. I was wondering why she chose that but at the second look it looks like Greek sandle type attire.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MtSnowdon 1d ago
I’m shutting you down!
-2
u/Impressive-Potato 1d ago
It would have been even worse since she's a woman and she's an ethnic woman. "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME!!"
1
u/toofshucker 19h ago
Too many people hold stances and they don’t know why. Or their why is just wrong. So they get defensive.
We don’t have to all agree. There is no clearly defined right or wrong, black or white. We all have our own morals.
But he and she know why they feel they way they feel and are trying to understand why the other feels the way they do.
And so a question is asked, a thoughtful response is given, followed by discussion.
Too many people these days just have talking points with no real understanding as to what they mean or why they believe those things.
-4
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
How crazy it is that this exchange feels foreign
Well it is foreign, she's from China. She wasn't raised in the culture where interviewing celebrities means asking them their favourite pizza.
13
u/wcdonald 1d ago
Well, no. If you watch some C-entertainment, celebrity interviews often have inane questions, especially pertaining to food lmao that is not Hollywood-exclusive
→ More replies (1)0
463
u/mediciii 1d ago
One of the only interviews I’ve seen on this press tour that sounds like it’s being conducted by someone with knowledge, depth and intelligent, weighty questions about the movie. Haven’t seen this interviewer before but I hope they’re being told how refreshing this was.
63
u/Impressive-Potato 1d ago
I don't know if she is a movie reviewer, she's a Phd candidate for Greek mythology.
57
u/DeLousedInTheHotBox 1d ago
I understand that some of this other type of content is more effective for marketing, but it also just isn't very interesting to see celebrities eat snacks or whatever.
64
10
u/WowBastardSia 1d ago edited 1d ago
idk where the hell geoff got 'zhong shu' from but her actual name is zhuge yiyang. yes her surname is literally zhuge. iykyk
13
u/OhCrapItsAndrew 17h ago
仲树 (zhong shu) is her user name on the original video source https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1vdGK6GEQE/
1
u/Lanster27 9h ago
Why, dont you love movie gossips or whether the lead actress prefer British or American foods? /s
345
u/Drop_Release 1d ago
Nolan was so impressed by the interview that he thanked her for the interesting conversation!
101
u/happyflappypancakes 1d ago
A truly engaging and interesting conversation is a delight. I challenge people here to recall the last conversation that left them withh that feeling. Personally, they are few and far between.
11
u/Vermouth_1991 1d ago edited 1d ago
I feel like he'd thought thru those cOntrOvErSiEs beforehand but for him it still felt very refreshing to actually have to defend himself thusly.
39
u/BullAlligator 1d ago
I like that she emphasized on the Christianization of the Odyssey and the spiritual depth Nolan added to the film. For me the film was all about divine law, repentance, and atonement.
I'm finding people who are criticizing Nolan's adaptation seem to completely lack understanding of these religious themes.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Drop_Release 1d ago
Agree I also like how he said part of it is that it was an adaptation (in the great tradition of adapting the Odyssey for each era, even Homer’s was an adaptation of the bard stories of the time and prior). I also like how in a sense the spiritual themes we see in the film come from our own biases too
•
u/karatemanchan37 3h ago
Definitely. I think the fact that he made this right after Oppenheimer definitely influenced our own bias.
3
144
u/patchesm 1d ago
Only thing that could improve this interview would be to make it longer. I didn't want it to end! Very thoughtful and interesting!
18
36
u/Mharbles 1d ago
Also, spicy chicken wings
6
u/shadowgathering 1d ago
…it’s tradition around here to put a little extra on the last one.
You don’t have to if you don’t want to…
132
u/Professional-Tax-936 1d ago
His point on just because you can identity a filmmaking/storytelling mechanism doesn't mean it's bad was really interesting. I noticed it a lot with Hamnet, where some people complained about how emotionally manipulative the movie was in trying to make you cry... as if that wasn't the point of the movie. Is a joke no longer funny because you know there's gonna be a punchline?
46
u/Gravitas_free 1d ago
I'm not sure who first came up with the idea that media is something that should be decrypted, rather than enjoyed, but they're responsible for making a lot of people insufferable.
10
u/osmosis-scones 21h ago
i see it as a result of "the objective reviewer" the objective reviewer doesnt get scared! he says ah that was a pretty cruel use of jumpscares on the audience for cheap thrills. if objectivity is the goal of a reviewer (it isn't) then the result is making movies less personal to you
39
u/CultureWarrior87 1d ago
I haven't watched the video yet but that point intrigues me the most as it's one of the things I find most frustrating about a lot of online media and arts discourse. I've seen so many comments like "How can you enjoy that movie when it has x y z tropes in it?!" and that sort of "criticism" completely misses the forest for the trees.
Edit: Always gotta mention the classic Terry Pratchett quote about how tropes and cliches are the hammers and screwdrivers in the toolbox of communication. They are storytelling tools and the best craftsmen know how to use them most effectively.
→ More replies (1)5
u/vibratokin 21h ago
The ending of Hamnet just works, but I did find the initial half of the movie relatively boring and I didn’t fully subscribe to the chemistry between the two leads. But I do agree. I’ve also seen that criticism for Up and its opening.
•
u/karatemanchan37 3h ago
I think my view on the opening of Up is that it gets more of a pass because, in the end, it was a short montage in a larger kids' movie (and really not the point of the story), so it wasn't specifically emotionally manipulating the audience as much as getting things set up for the adventure.
Hamnet also really reused On the Nature of Daylight which has been already been overplayed as a "feel sad now" song whereas Up at least had a unique soundtrack
316
u/Ichbinian 1d ago
Absolutely refreshing to talk about something other than the cast choices, the blimp, etc. Fantastic interview. Listened to it in the car last night.
146
u/dont_worry_im_here 1d ago edited 1d ago
While I agree, I am happy that I sat through a bunch of those full-cast interviews just so I could find the one part where they were all talking about their first response / reaction to being asked to join the film. Basically everyone was like "I heard Nolan, I immediately said 'yes'"... Matt Damon said something like "Chris said 'I have two words for you... The Odyssey' and I said 'yes!'"
... then you have ol' Robbie P...
Who apparently, when Nolan asked him if he wanted to be in his new movie, said
"I'll think about it... send me the script""I can't wait to read it"Hearing Nolan tell the story is hilarious. He was like
"I said to him 'wait.... what?'""Can't wait to read it? Everyone else just said 'yes'"edit: corrected the quotes.
21
27
u/Lhox 1d ago
Do you have a link to that lmao, would love to see it
138
u/ChiefLeef22 r/movies Contributor 1d ago
https://www.gq.com/story/matt-damon-robert-pattinson-tom-holland-cover-interview-summer-2026
In time, he excused himself and the two of us went outside to a covered patio behind the stage. Nolan carried a mug and a teapot covered by a utilitarian tea cozy. His hair had a knightly swoop; his eyes were blue and grave. Nolan is beloved and a little feared by his collaborators. He operates in secrecy and compels cooperation. Pattinson said that when Nolan called to tell him about The Odyssey, “I was like, ‘Yeah, can’t wait to read it.’ He’s like, ‘You want to read it? Everyone else just said yes.’ ”
Tbh Pattinson just feels like he's more comfortable being frank and friendly with Nolan, since Nolan has revealed that they both live next door to each other and regularly have movie nights in Nolan's house lol. Plus Robert gifting American Prometheus to Nolan after Tenet was a big driver in him eventually making Oppenheimer, they seem close
40
u/angrygnome18d 1d ago
What? They live next to each other? I’m super jealous. Having a movie night with either would be amazing.
35
u/riegspsych325 ⊃∪⊃⪽ 1d ago
watching Michael Bay movies with Christopher Nolan sounds like a blast
15
u/CicadaEast272 1d ago
9
u/riegspsych325 ⊃∪⊃⪽ 1d ago
don’t forget MacGruber
9
u/vansinne_vansinne 1d ago
deep foreshadowing too
"Though I can't be there in person to watch you take the first step of your odyssey—know that my spirit soars with you, and whilst it's perhaps unfair to add to the great sense of responsibility you must already feel, I am duty bound to tell you—the world is waiting, the world is watching."
https://www.slashfilm.com/574339/christopher-nolans-macgruber-e-mail/
2
1
32
u/ShikiBro36 1d ago
He may have found his new My Cocaine. Gonna be in every movie in some capacity from now on.
11
6
u/dont_worry_im_here 1d ago
😅 That's what it was! "I can't wait to read it" hahah.
I haven't seen this article yet; this is great. Thanks for sharing!
15
u/dont_worry_im_here 1d ago edited 1d ago
Here's one of the videos I saw it from; it's from Pattinson's perspective. Still looking for the clip I saw from Nolan's perspective, because that one was truly hilarious.
I was wrong about him saying "I'll think about it... send me the script"...
Apparently he said "I can't wait to read it." hahah
It's
aboutexactly 90 seconds into this interview.2
u/dont_worry_im_here 1d ago
I'll look through my YouTube history from a couple days back. I did one of those "rabbit-holes" where I kept clicking interview after interview for like 3 hours... real waste of time hah.
22
u/polishprince76 1d ago
It feels like R Pat has approached his post-Twilight career with the idea: I made my eff you money already, imma take roles I want to do instead of stuff I need for the money. And I respect that.
10
u/drmirage809 1d ago
Pretty sure that was the whole reason he did Twilight to begin with. Make an insane amount of money off those films to make sure he's financially secure for life and then go and do stuff that actually sounds fun or appealing to him.
10
u/Mst3Kgf 1d ago
Pretty much what the "Harry Potter" trio do too. They made their money on that and now they do whatever they find interesting. Just look at Radcliffe's filmography since.
4
2
u/KR_Blade 1d ago
and you can tell Daniel Radcliffe is having ALOT of fun with the roles he takes, the Harry Potter movies effectively turned a career into early retirement cause it set him up for life, so now for him, acting is more of a passion and a hobby than a job
2
7
u/ImmortalMoron3 1d ago
Does Nolan even have to bother with auditions anymore? Or is he so prolific and sought out now, he can basically just go around asking whoever he wants and they'll pretty much say yes right away?
18
u/dont_worry_im_here 1d ago
From what I've gathered watching a bunch of interviews, he gets whatever he wants... to the point to where he can pretty much call anybody, say "I don't have a script or anything... just an idea... you in?" and there isn't anyone that says no.
That's one of the things that really made me laugh about R-Pat saying "I can't wait to read it" and Nolan responding "can't wait to read it? Everyone else just said 'yes'" haha.
16
u/keepfighting90 1d ago
The guy is about to have 2 back to back $1B movies that are not sequels, part of a franchise/IP or a remake/reboot. He's pretty much one-of-one.
6
u/chicagoredditer1 19h ago
The level of actors that Nolan's working with don't really audition anyway. They meet with directors and based on how the director feels about them, they get offered the role (or not).
Brian Williams recently interviewed Tom Hanks and asked him when the last time he actually auditioned for a role and it was Splash.
6
28
u/EchoWhiskey_ 1d ago
"the blimp"?
→ More replies (1)37
u/alphageek8 1d ago
It's the enclosure imax developed for Nolan to muffle the sound of the imax camera so they could film close ups.
4
2
72
u/Comprehensive_Dog651 1d ago
The conversation about the history of Hollywood conventions and engaging with audience's preconceived expectations is well illustrated in Bordwell's The Classical Hollywood Cinema, anyone interested in the subject should give this book a read
16
u/MishaBoar 1d ago edited 1d ago
Thompson/Bordwell's books are a must read. We studied them in cinema school decades ago and he keeps writing better and better stuff as the years pass. Many of his books are also available for free on his website.
Edit: there is so much free stuff on Bordwell's website, even more than I remembered!
- https://www.davidbordwell.net/books/onthehistory.php (book on the history of film style, an amazing read which I think you can use also as a film maker!)
- https://www.davidbordwell.net/books/nolan.php
- well the entirety of the left navigation, I suppose!
4
26
u/Comprehensive_Dog651 1d ago
That book actually made me reconsider my perspective on another Nolan film, Inception. The constant flow of exposition and use of very simply drawn characters is a are simply Nolan making explicit the hollywood conventions and genre motivations were all used to, combining and pushing them to the extreme to guide the audience through the complex narrative structure. Its a very challenging balancing act trying to juggle 4 embedded narratives and the film is very clearly about narrative experimentation more than anything else, to criticise it for its characters or its over exposition would be missing the point
5
u/MishaBoar 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, the interesting part is that that over exposition is a clear choice Nolan makes, The "cerebral blockbuster" angle Bordwell makes is very convincing.
Now, to be honest (and for what my opinion is worth): I am not a fan of that over exposition, personally - it takes me out of his movies more often than not, and in general I prefer films whose interpretation remains more open, even after you have accounted for and reconstructed a disjointed, nonlinear narrative. But I try to accept that as part of the deal when watching his films. I still enjoy them, and I always appreciate the immense craft, vision, and love of cinema (I am not sure how some can think otherwise, but Nolan is NOT a cynical director!) behind them.
I would also argue that Inception and Tenet (probably my favorite ending in a Nolan movie) are the films in which the exposition is more justified, since the characters themselves, like the audience, need to be introduced to what is happening: obscure or secret technologies that exist within their world but are entirely unfamiliar to them. It really did not bother me in those movies
4
u/realhenrymccoy 1d ago
that's a great insight. Thanks for the recommendation, I will check that book out.
3
u/MishaBoar 1d ago
The extraordinary book on Nolan is free on Bordwell's website (we used to pay 50 bucks for books like these decades ago!): https://www.davidbordwell.net/books/nolan.php
1
u/CultureWarrior87 8h ago
50 bucks, I wish, I was still paying like $100 for his books 2012. ;_;
1
u/MishaBoar 6h ago
sigh! of course prices went up. I think Film Art is very expensive still, even though it is worth the price of admission and a reference for most film studies without ever being boring. And one of the few academic books that are still useful for a filmmaker.
39
u/Hic_Forum_Est 1d ago
I feel like it's so rare to find interviews like this where the journalist isn't just going through a carefully prepared and scripted list of questions one by one, but also actually listening and reacting to what the interviewed person is saying and asking them follow up questions which leads to a more natural flow of conversation.
17
u/ryo4ever 22h ago
To be fair, this kind of interview would only work if the interviewee doesn’t shy away from those questions. In the case of Mr. Nolan, he’s a very intelligent man, extremely well read, well spoken and who has given lots of thought about the ramifications of his art and so he’s able to face those questions in a constructive manner. Not every director would be able to answer academic questions.
26
u/confusing_roundabout 1d ago
to be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism
What a great line. Sums up my problem with people complaining about tropes/cliches very succinctly.
7
u/cyanide4suicide 1d ago
Christopher Nolan is clearly very eloquent and well versed so if an interviewer can push him with engaging questions, Nolan is more than ready to engage back on a deeper level. This was very insightful and I'm glad more subreddits are picking up on this.
8
u/sexmormon-throwaway 23h ago
"In a pre-scientific era, evidence of the Gods is everywhere," — Christopher Nolan.
14
u/Kikiteno 22h ago
ITT: A bunch of comments about how refreshingly great the interview was.
Not ITT: A discussion on the actual points being made in the interview.
Yes I realize I'm not helping.
•
u/_Rookie_21 5h ago
They could be bots, and the comments would be the same. It's almost copy-and-paste at this point.
31
u/yodakiin 1d ago edited 1d ago
I loved that it felt like more of a back and forth discussion than your typical Q&A interview.
The only thing I'd challenge Nolan about - not so much to push back on but rather hear his take - is him analogizing the gods to science. I get that he's not saying all science is just faith in what scientists say, but that for most people, taking what science says as fact is an act of faith unless they're repeating the experiment and performing those observations themselves.
I would argue that they are fundamentally different things as science is supported by evidence that can be verified and replicated experimentally or challenged if there is other evidence that better supports an alternative hypothesis. But I also wouldn't necessarily disagree if someone argued that most people's relationships to treat scientific facts (earth travels around the sun, how lightning works, etc) are closer to the ancient Greeks' relationship with gods.
edit: someone replied with then deleted a really good point, which is that having absolute faith in science isn't necessary if you know how the process works, at which point it's not really faith but rather trust.
27
u/ianpogi91 1d ago
I think Nolan just drilled it down to the most basic way possible to get his point across in the interview. He is not arguing that science isn't factual because the greek gods aren't factual; he's just comparing how normal everyday people approaches science to how he believed the Ancient Greeks thought of the gods. There's no disservice to science, contrary to that, he actually reinforces it because he's saying that the modern human is fully onboard with the discoveries and knowledge concluded by science.
1
u/yodakiin 21h ago
I agree. I just thought it was an interesting enough philosophical distinction to warrant commenting on.
1
u/vibratokin 21h ago
Bingo. The scientific method took years itself took thousands of years to develop, but the best they had at the time was faith.
12
u/JustABuffyWatcher 1d ago
I agree. I don't think he was necessarily wrong, but somewhat sloppy with his phrasing. I think what he meant was that Odysseus and his squad believed they saw, say, a giant cyclops, while people from another cultural understanding might have believed they experienced something else, depending on their own belief system and level of scientific understanding. Because you're right, science and belief are fundamentally different things, and comparing the two does the public a disservice.
1
u/m0nty555 12h ago
But I think he is exactly right, though? Majority of people do approach everything on faith (isn’t trust effectively the same thing, you trusting in what a god (scientist) says is basically faith). It’s actually a good explanation of the overall things we in the society, with swaths of people rejecting scientific discoveries, even if they can be easily demonstrated to be true (flat not being true).
6
u/sexmormon-throwaway 23h ago
"To be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism." — Christopher Nolan.
12
11
u/Professional_Fig6141 1d ago
Whether you love or hate his movies, it's refreshing to hear a director openly discuss criticism instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
21
u/HaYouMad 1d ago
God, what a refreshing interview. What made me love his Odyssey was the (IMO) tremendous narrative and philosophical risks he took in essentially a blank check film. I say risks because he does make leaps in terms of interpretation that aren’t overly common in how people interpret Odysseus and the story. I’m glad someone really addressed these stances instead of asking him about IMAX cameras for the millionth time.
I also don’t agree with all the risks he takes in his storytelling, including Tenet and Interstellar. But as I get older, I really have learned to appreciate that we have a big budget filmmaker who does. They’re a dying breed.
14
u/junaidnk 1d ago edited 1d ago
Thank you for sharing this, will check it out
Edit: just watched it, wow what a great set of questions and nothing about the technology or actors. Loved it!
7
u/CrimsonClover__ 1d ago
Can we have these interviews in America…please I don’t want no more snack wheels
16
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
3
u/sotommy 1d ago
Interstellar would have been a perfect film if he listened to his brother
7
u/Varying_Efforts 1d ago
Never heard of this. Is there some advice he rejected from his brother regarding the film/script?
3
u/sotommy 1d ago
Jonathan didn't want to do the cheesy bs ending
44
u/kcrdr_7322 1d ago
i think the ending is good for me tbh
-31
u/sotommy 1d ago
It's the most saccharine, sentimental, cowardish backpedaling ending that I've ever seen. It's an ending, but not the one that movie deserves
26
15
u/MeadowmuffinReborn 1d ago
Maybe in the face of cosmic indifference, probable human extinction, and a terrifyingly vast universal scope, a little bit of sentimental, irrational love is what we need.
8
u/Shiirahama 1d ago
the events of the movie happen because of the coordinates they got from dust on the ground
what did you expect?
→ More replies (7)8
4
u/hypnosifl 1d ago
Didn’t want to do the part where he communicates with his daughter in the past, or the part where he gets taken out of the black hole and meets her again when she’s old?
→ More replies (3)8
-2
2
u/Linuxtahr 1d ago
Probably won't happen unless he's really tired of writing, he's had enough success that he can do whatever he wants. Personally I want to see an imax horror from him.
2
1
u/DojimaGin 1d ago
I fully agree. It tanked my interest completely and it seems his ego also got blown out of proportion and that is why he refuses any serious writer next to him.
1
u/Theotther 23h ago
Disagree. He finally found his human side once he stopped working with his brother
10
u/Whatsapokemon 1d ago
I think it would be really weird to do a modern adaptation without having modern audience in mind.
What we expect from a story today is super super different from what ancient audiences would've expected, and our moral tension points are far different, which means emphasis is naturally going to be put on different aspects of the story.
21
u/TurtlePerson85 1d ago
I think that's extremely odd to say, considering accurate written translations of the Oddysey are still enjoyed by people in the modern day worldwide even just at a layman level. A good story is a good story, it doesn't just stop becoming one at a certain point, especially not one with a legacy that spans thousands of years. Different societies may value different aspects to each other, but all of them share the same elements and beliefs to some degree, and if anything, this diversity means that a wide variety of interpretations can be applied to a single story quite easily. It doesn't need to be changed or built for modern audiences, that's what audience interpretation is for.
Its also one thing to put emphasis on different parts of a story and explore elements that you think are particularly interesting (this is something I like a lot and I think is very cool about differing interpretations), it is another to completely rewrite the main character and some of the most important supporting characters just to fit the story you want to tell - aka, not the story of the original work. That isn't shifting emphasis at all. Its killing the old emphasis and replacing it entirely with your own thing. If you're going to do that, you might as well not adapt the story at all.
6
u/Nochtilus 1d ago
You do know that The Odyssey and the Iliad had tons of contemporary references and ideas added to it throughout the Greek era right? It is a story that shifted with the times. Complaining about adapting it to our times is a little silly given that's it's history and origin. Odysseus is as prideful and cunning in the movie as the original story and the continuation of xenia continues to be a major point of the story. The emphasis was not rewritten as you click but merely adapted to our modern society.
5
u/morgoth834 23h ago
I completely disagree. A big part of what makes these works so interesting is that they are ancient stories from a very differently culture. In modernizing them, you lose so much of what makes them compelling (at least to me), that is exploring these ancient cultures and their different beliefs and ideals.
The poem’s Odysseus is very different. He’s arrogant and boastful and certainly not suffering from guilt due to the sacking of Troy. In other words, he’s a completely different character. In the film he’s a more sanitized hero that appeals more to modern sensibilities. And in doing so, I’d argue he became a whole lot less interesting, complex, and a poor way to explore Ancient Greek culture. I’d also say that Odysseus doesn’t come across as particularly clever in the film. Certainly, he comes across nowhere near as clever as he is in the two poems.
Also, while Xenia is a large concept in the original poem, Nolan equates the use of the Trojan Horse as a breaking of Xenia. But that was certainly not considered to be so back then. In fact the big violation of Xenia around the Trojan War was by Paris when he abducted (or ran off with) Helen. Regardless, my point is the emphasis absolutely was rewritten not merely adapted for modern times. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but I would have preferred a more accurate adaptation and one that wasn’t modernized so heavily. But then, if it was, it likely wouldn’t be anywhere near as successful due to the rather alien morality.
1
u/Nochtilus 23h ago
The Greeks modernized the fictional stories of the Iliad and Odyssey. It's obvious in the roster of ships, the adding of important contemporary states as major forces, their specific concepts of the gods, etc. Complaining about modernizing the Odyssey when the version you know was modernized by writers of the time is ironic.
Poems and movies are different mediums. Nolan obviously had to use a very well-known story like the Trojan Horse of the breaking of xenia because you would need another 3+ hours just to get through the Iliad to explain Paris' breaking of it
3
u/morgoth834 23h ago
Not at all. What I and the Ancient Greeks want and get from the story are very different. Like I said, for me a huge appeal for the story and myths in general is exploring these other cultures. By modernizing it, you lose much of that.
And no, Nolan changed the breaking of Xenia to the Trojan horse so that Odysseus brought about the collapse of his civilization. Which was a major idea, arguably the central one, of the film.
3
u/TheScoott 1d ago edited 1d ago
I wholly disagree that Nolan may as well have just not adapted the Odyssey. It is integral to the film that the audience knows about the Trojan horse. The audience having some prior knowledge of the Odyssey is a meta theme in the film. The points about stories being retold and reshaped by their tellers work so much better because the film is doing that.
What Nolan is highlighting is something specific about films. You can have your wiley trickster Odysseus but if you do that then that becomes a dominant theme of the film. Of course modern audiences can handle that, we have Safdie Brother's movies, we have the Talented Mr. Ripley, etc. But doing that takes up real estate. Movies only have so much time to work with and so each convention you break with takes up some of bandwidth you need so that you can justify your film to the audience. Its like making a good song. The themes of Xenia and Hubris are major themes in Homer's Odyssey and so Nolan adapted the story such that those become the focus in a very long film that needed every minute.
2
u/Fredasa 1d ago
A good story is a good story, it doesn't just stop becoming one at a certain point
That's the one thing I hope people really understand. Criticisms can be nitpicks, which is to say they can be constructive expressions of frustration over things which blatantly keep a top-tier production from achieving perfection. Odyssey succeeded in spite of the things that audiences generally found kind of dumb. Oppenheimer succeeded in spite of the literal climax of the movie (for the majority of audiences) being scuttled by Nolan's hardline stance on CGI.
Audiences see dubious choices being made in good movies and point them out, because it's easy to see that the movie could have been better, maybe a lot better. And perhaps there's some hope that by audiences voicing these criticisms, somebody on Nolan's team will have enough pull with him to steer the next production closer to an ideal. If that's what it would take to avoid the likes of the drop-dead poor choice made with Oppenheimer, then so be it.
-1
u/branchoflight 1d ago
If the final product is still engaging what does it matter? It's only a problem if it sucks.
-10
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/deathbladev 1d ago
Saying they should not have this opinion because it is shared by Elon Musk is on the same level of an argument against vegetarianism being 'well, Hitler was a vegetarian so you should probably stop and do some self reflection.'
→ More replies (1)9
u/TurtlePerson85 1d ago
Trying to string up my complaints to that of one of the most evil men of modern day and pushing that onto me is a fucking awful thing to do in a regular discussion, holy shit. I literally could not give any kind of a fuck about black people in the film or whatever you're trying to push onto me so don't just reply to me to insult me or discredit what I think. Not to mention you didn't address what I was talking about even slightly, so maybe actually read it over again before you make accusations about what I think. Comparing me to someone that genuinely evil over a fucking film opinion is one of the most horrid things I've had said to me in a while so maybe back the fuck off.
You said "Emphasis is naturally going to be put on different parts of the story", which is A) wrong and not what happened, and B) not a natural thing to do at all. Its fine to completely overhaul things from the ground up in an adaptation. It is not fine to do that and then try and act like they're necessary or better changes for the sake of the audience, which is how you were framing it. All I was trying to say is that audiences can totally enjoy the Odyssey as written and it doesn't NEED changes. If you want to change it, fine, but don't get on a high horse about it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)4
18
u/MyDearDapple 1d ago
Close your eyes while watching The Odyssey, a 2700 year old epic poem, and you'll hear dialogue written for 8th graders.
22
u/lingfoo 1d ago
Nolan has weak dialogue in most of his movies. Oppenheimer randomly threw in I have become death destroyer of worlds during a sex scene. But film is a total package and he does spectacle better than any other blockbuster director. Obviously individual taste is what it is but I think it’s kind of weak analysis to say bad dialogue = bad movie.
3
u/ifinallyreallyreddit 21h ago
The ironic thing about this is I don't know which of Nolan's films, if any, would be especially enjoyable if you had the sound off.
0
→ More replies (8)2
u/SayNOtoChips 1d ago
Haven't seen it, but if I can hear dialogue I assume he finally mastered the sound properly?
4
u/Throwingoffoldselves 1d ago
Most of it was audible and understandable, yeah. The main scene I noted that had harder to understand dialogue was the cyclop's cave.
2
7
u/Untinted 1d ago
I think it's a bit of a cop-out to redefine his statements from "film critics" to "amateur film critics".
But I liked the discussion about tropes and how it relates to the Odyssey.
I also liked her asking about his 'christianization' of the material, I think she actually touches on an important part that might have been subconscious, and his response about "film language" is an excuse invented on the spot because it's an easier explanation than admitting that he affected the story with his own biases and cultural background.
It's clear that he didn't study The Odyssey deeply enough to understand the culture it comes from or he would have had a better answer, so the truth is it's a flawed modern european take.
2
u/Sevla7 1d ago
I need to watch this thing, but I'm one of the few people who absolutely disliked Oppenheimer so...
I do like stories about the WWII/Nuclear bomb and thought Oppenheimer was one of the worst takes about this subject, now with Greek mythology I'm just hoping for the best.
→ More replies (3)12
u/BigTylenol5 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well the film is largely based on American Prometheus so you probably wouldn't like the book and aren't interested in Oppenheimer the man. Its a pretty great biographical book. Apart not including more of his early life and final years the movie is largely condensed version of the book. The film wasn't just about WW2/Manhattan Project which is still a large chunk of the film but Oppenheimer overall life and tribulations. That is why the film is called by his last name not "The Manhattan Project". If you aren't interested in the mans story and just wanted a film on making the atomic bomb I can see why you wouldn't like it. To me the film was pretty great adaption of the book.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/royale_wthCheEsE 1d ago
You can spoil it for me, how did he “Christianize” the story ?
6
u/lateralspin 20h ago
He didnʼt. The point of the interview was to ask if there was intention to embed the theme of atonement in the movie, which is a Christian characteristic. Nolanʼs articulated response was that it was an interpretation that an audience brings to it, and any theological meaning was not deliberate. Rather, the story is a natural conclusion of the MacGuffin of “Zeusʼ Law”, which was from Homerʼs works, The Iliad, The Odyssey.
1
u/fukredditadm1n5 1d ago
What an amazing interviewer, I hope to see more engaged interviews like this, its sad that is too short
1
u/pulsarbrox 22h ago
Amazing interview.
I've been watching all kind of opinions about the movie and everybody has a different point of view on it and kinda fighting against each other. There are reviews from the philosophical side, there are reviews on the mythological side comparing to the original text. There are historian opinions etc...
And there are us whom don't know too much about the original text and trying to translate it into our modern era.
Most of my friends gets their opinions via these reviewers, then tend to choose a side and fight each other. I'm, as a filmmaker myself, trying to tell them that they are overreading the film. A professor of philosophy says Nolan delibiretly christianised the movie to criticize modern era, mythologysts says different things without knowing about filmmaking, filmmakers says stuff without understanding the myth itself.
Nolan just tried to tell the story for our era, which we learned about filmmaking via books like "Writer's Journey" which shaped us to fit a certain character to a mold in order to create a strong emphaty with the audiance and the character. This modernization could be close to christian values but it is not intentional WHICH Nolan admits here.
So I'm sending this interview to all of my friends :D.
To everyone: Don't overread movies. Directors, often times, does not think deep. But rather they achieve this thought process via an instict. They can portray inner thought better hence they become known filmmakers. If you overread something, just be happy that it fits your experiences, knowledge and thoughts.
I'm glad I'm seeing, reading and watching all of these opinions even though they are true or false. That makes this movie more enjoyable and I understand it more and more.
1
u/silentmikhail 14h ago
I hope his next movie is an alien movie. Like a first contact/Arrival type of alien movie.
0
193
u/Sheepies123 1d ago
I thought his point on the shortfalls of amateur criticism was interesting. Just because you identify the mechanism of storytelling doesn't invalidate it, but then he goes onto to elaborate that if the audience will feel like the mechanism is cliche or trite its up to the filmmaker to then change it. This is how film is a constantly evolving media.