Talk:Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Sources look good - those of dubious reliability seem good for what they're sourcing
  • Lead is a good length. It might be a bit too detailed, but serves as an overview for the body text and is mostly listing of the identifiable aspects of style.
  • Lead is well written
  • Images commons licensed
  • Some things are wikilinked more than once in body text: Memento, Escher and David Lean  Done
  • Ref format should be consistent

Style[edit]

  • 'Metafictive' isn't a word - metafictional  Done
  • The sentence Discussing The Tree of Life (2011), Nolan spoke of Terrence Malick's work and how it has influenced his own approach to style, "When you think of a visual style, when you think of the visual language of a film, there tends to be a natural separation of the visual style and the narrative elements. But with the greats, whether it's Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick or Hitchcock, what you're seeing is an inseparable, a vital relationship between the image and the story it's telling". seems unusual and also inaccurate - it singles out Malick even though three directors are discussed. The film being discussed is Malick, but the quote also mentions Kubrick and Hitchcock (who doesn't need a wikilink unless Kubrick is also getting one). Could some editing be done here?  Done (simply removed as this is covered in the previous sentence)
  • I also find it strange that "notably mise en abyme and recursions" are introduced in parenthesis in the section on Nolan's style, when they are important elements of said style - especially since mise-en-abyme is a term that needs some explanation; the next paragraph looks at it a lot, but you couldn't tell if you didn't know what it means in film terms. If this part is meant to introduce the terms before unpacking, it could do that better  Done
  • I feel like the analysis of Nolan's style could have its own section or be broadened out. After reading the style section, I don't feel like I've learnt anything more than surface level about his actual style, there's too many quotes and too much theory. Added a bit more

Music[edit]

  • Can you define "lush" as is used in the music section, it's a very transient term  Done (changed to exuberant)
  • Again, I kind of know nothing more than who Nolan worked with to create the music. The specific examples also don't really discuss how they're in line with Nolan's style, just kind of mention that they exist. In particular, the Interstellar quotation actually says they went in a different style. I worry that this article's content isn't going to match up to the scope it should achieve.

Themes[edit]

  • The second sentence is just a quotation, with no attempt at introduction, integration, explanation, or even who said it. The third sentence then picks back up from the first. Can it just be removed?  Done - Added introduction, this is an descriptive and important quote from Nolan himself. Better than editorializing from wikipedians.
  • The second paragraph starts Apart from the larger themes of corruption and conspiracy, despite not having mentioned these themes directly before and not looking at them anywhere else in the article, either.  Done
  • The Penrose staircase is depicted, but not mentioned in the text? Actually, even when Escher is brought up a few sections further down, nothing about impossible structures, labyrinths, or the like are mentioned in terms of theme. Done
  • Some of the theory is better incorporated in this section.

Commentary[edit]

  • I'm not sure this section is really relevant. From the content, I'm also not sure if it's saying that there has been socio-political commentary about Nolan's works (as the first sentence would indicate), or in Nolan's work, which I would assume it should be. The first paragraph is wavy, while the second one does seem to be saying that his work has been subject to such commentary.
    • I don't see this point at all, and its very clear that its interpretation of his work - which is encyclopedic.

Method[edit]

  • I'm not sure if being secretive is really relevant, let alone if it needs multiple examples.  Done Removed
  • Is Branagh's quote relevant? Especially with two more pertinent ones before it. Though I don't think the Oldman part about Nolan not raising his voice is important to his style, either. Yes, a simple description to understand how Nolan behaves and works with actors
  • An entire block quote, presumably from Nolan, with no context  Done

Collaborators[edit]

  • Does the word recurring need to be in the header? It's a bit redundant.  Done
  • As an aside, Johnathan Nolan probably deserves his own article. Not needed here
  • How is Pfister's quote relevant? describes his ability to collaborate with his crew
  • Ditto with Caine's praise I think it's relevant and notable because Nolan has worked with Caine on eight different occasions, and he has over 6 decades worth of experience.

Influences[edit]

  • Thanks for a paragraph-long list of Nolan's personal favourite films, with no indication (beyond Bond) that they are, in fact, influences. The list of directors would be better as more than a list.
  • Again, for his overall cinematic style, surely it should be influences on his style, rather than lists of what has influenced the storytelling in some of his specific films? That info (most of the last paragraph) belongs at the films' articles. Storytelling = vital part of his style

Views on the film industry[edit]

  • Go into detail of his love of 70mm in 'method', the rest of this section is completely out of scope. I disagree, why isn't his opinions on the film industry important to his development/style as a filmmaker?

Overall[edit]

  • Though the prose is generally well-written, this article struggles with appropriate use of quotations, which are both used inappropriately and yet relied upon. The biggest issue, though, is the lack of adequate coverage for the topic. I also think I never saw the word postmodern, which should be in there somewhere. Kingsif (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif, Thanks for the review! While I certainly do not agree with all the feedback here, you bring up some valid points and suggestions. I'll take a crack at it when I have some more time on my hands. All the best. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammyjankis88: Thanks - if you want to work on it, or another review, feel free to leave me a message. Kingsif (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the "lack of adequate coverage for the topic", I'd like to see other articles on filmmakers with better coverage on the given topic. For GA this is broad enough. Unreasonable, I think.185.176.244.95 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, random IP? I don't mean it's not got a lot of coverage in general. It's not got much coverage that's actually on the "cinematic style" at all, though. It's probably too broad, okay. Go read the GA criteria. Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Cinematic style" can (and should) be about much, much more than the image on the screen, I would expect an editor on Wikipedia, taking on a specific and demaning subject like this, to understand that a directors collaborators, method of working, opinions on the industry and so forth is important to his style and his cinematic signature (or development of). That's why that section is titled "Aesthetics". But I have suggested (below) to change the name of the article, since some here apparently only function on a 1:1 basis. And this "random IP" happens to have a 5 year master in film history, studied art and has worked in the film industry for years. I don't have an account on Wikipedia, and English is not my first language, but does that make my opinion less valid? Sincerely, "random IP".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.244.95 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage with you (ETA: especially since you're completely misunderstanding several of my comments). A random IP's opinions are not less valid, but when they randomly appear to insult a GA review, they're most likely a troll. There is no indication you have any experience or qualifications you claim, so that all means nothing. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif In what way am I insulting you or your review exacly? And how am I "misunderstanding" it? Please enlighten me. It is broad in its coverage, the article addresses the main aspects of the topic and it's focused on the topic (which is broad). I'm calling out the fact that much of what you write in your conclusion here is misguided in the context of this specific article, and should be better explained at the very least. I agree with several of the things you adress, and if you look at the article you can see some of those had already been adressed. Let me make this clear, I could not care less if the article get a "GA" symbol in the top corner. The fact that a "veteran editor" falls to the level of calling me out as a "troll" and a liar for pointing out some problems with a review is not a good look on your part. 185.176.244.95 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting this back on track, I've started to adress some of the feedback from the review and left some comments in bold. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan" a good enough name for the article?[edit]

Since this article is more comprehensive than just a description of this "style" (although that is a broad term), I'm wondering if this should change name to something like "Filmmaking of Christopher Nolan"? Sections like "Views on the film industry", "Influences" and "Method" supplement interesting information on how Nolan works, how he views filmmaking and technology, and thus it is both encyclopedic and vital in the context to how Nolan forms his cinematic approach, or style.

What do you guys think? 185.176.244.95 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why this article exists at all. There're no articles on the Cinematic Style of Stanley Kubrick/Spielberg/Scorsese/Hitchcock/Antonioni, or anybody else for that matter. What makes Nolan so special that this information can't simply be folded into his main page, or similar pages for filmmakers with equal - or even more - 'points on the board'?Robbmonster (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of argumentation is this? Feel free to make them, Robbmonster, Wikipedia would be better for it. It is separated due to the size of the article(s), per Wikipedia's guidance. And how is it Nolan's fault that Speilberg's article isn't up to snuff or thorough? Several other filmmakers with these kind of pages, look at Rivette or Kiarostami.185.176.244.95 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Cinematic style' is a very broad description, I think the name of the article is solid. And there is no need to adress Robbmonster's concerns any further. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent collaborators[edit]

Does anyone else think it's silly to have everyone who worked with Nolan only twice to be in the table? It seems that giving an actor a second chance isn't proof of some special connection or ongoing relationship. A lot of other tables go 3+ and I think that's a better idea. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, twice shouldn't be considered "frequent". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On comedies[edit]

Ser what you can add: [1]. Finding the right place and paraphrasing are not my strong points. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinematic_style_of_Christopher_Nolan&oldid=1214824552"