Steven Spielberg. Woody Allen. Martin Scorsese. Joel and Ethan Coen. Roman Polanski. Quentin Tarantino. Clint Eastwood. Francis Ford Coppola.
Those are a few who are still alive. No such list of great directors would be complete without Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Orson Welles, Jean-Luc Godard, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, and, and, and.
After seeing Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” — the finest film in a disappointing year on the silver screen thus far — I was left wondering how strong a director’s body of work needs to be before we add an individual to
this list.
“Inception” is just the latest reason to make a case for Nolan who, after more than a decade of work, has yet to helm a clunker.
Those who think “Inception” is complicated should revisit his 2000 feature, “Memento,” a film so complex theaters barred viewers from entering screenings once the movie started. It uses the unusual and demanding tactic of telling its story backward to accomplish the confusing sensation of being the film’s hero, Leonard, a man who suffers from anterograde amnesia, prohibiting him from making new memories.
“Memento” was a slingshot for what’s been a bright decade to follow, perhaps no moment brighter than the triumphant, billion-dollar success of 2008’s “The Dark Knight.” Nolan’s next feature is the hotly anticipated third and final installment to the Batman franchise he helped reinvigorate with “Batman Begins.”
Is there a more anticipated casting announcement in Hollywood right now than who will play the villain in the third Batman? I’m hard pressed to think of another.
Nolan also was in the director’s chair for the mystery thriller, “The Prestige,” as well as 2002’s criminally overlooked “Insomnia,” a thriller featuring Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hilary Swank.
It’s a body of work that, thus far, is pretty flawless, even including his first offering, a black-and-white feature named “Following.”
His style is distinct. Each of these films has its own flavor or distinct personality. “Memento” may hinge on its backward storytelling gimmick, but it also functions as a stone whodunit murder mystery.
Nolan’s take on Batman is so unflinching, it makes Tim Burton’s 1989 original look as tame as “Eat Pray Love.”
He crosses genres, styles and types of story devices. He makes it look good, too. He’s also been outspoken against the recent trend toward 3-D films, saying al- ready that the third Batman is being shot in IMAX instead.
His movies challenge us and demand our attention.
“Dark Knight” may just be the finest superhero film made, and that’s largely because it sees things in larger terms than good guys and bad guys — it makes the fate of Gotham City rest on the caped crusader’s shoulders.
It seems inevitable that Nolan will make a bomb. Great directors are not immune — Coppola made “The Godfather III,” Spielberg nuked the fridge in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and the Coen brothers somehow managed to make a movie with Tom Hanks, J.K. Simmons and Marlon Wayans dull (“The Ladykillers”).
Perhaps that’s what defines and tests a director and establishes our standard for greatness. Do they bounce back from such a failure or is the rest of their work strong enough to make it worth overlooking?
If that’s the standard, it’s worth noting that the Coens’ next film, “No Country for Old Men,” went on to win the Oscar for best picture.
But Nolan need not have a failure to be mentioned in the company of the all-time greats. He’s already made two must-see films in “Memento” and “Inception,” and “Dark Knight” is worth watching even if you don’t totally geek out on Batman.
To tap into that reservoir of brilliance once and make a career out of it is respectable, but hardly a reason for anyone to mention a director among the all-time greats.
However, doing it repeatedly for more than a decade makes the case that Nolan is an innovator and one of the finest directors working today, if not one of the all-time greats.
Comments