I never got around to formally introducing myself last week, so belatedly—hi, my name is Austin and I will be your film columnist this evening/morning/afternoon/week/semester/however long they let me write it. Alright, cool, moving on.
Batman is awesome. I can say this loudly and proudly once again, thanks in large part to Christopher Nolan.
Before his “Dark Knight” trilogy, I would’ve been laughed at and reminded of the dark, dark days of ’80s and ’90s superhero movies. But now, because of Mr. Nolan, Batman is cool again, the gritty reboot is quickly becoming one of the most annoying trends in cinema and George Clooney’s Bat-Nipples are all but forgotten.
For this we owe Nolan a debt of gratitude. He emerged, cloaked and cowled by shadow, from the depths of the independent movie scene to take hold of “Batman Begins” and show a cynical world in which superheroes could be awesome once again. So he’s a lot like Batman in that way. In fact, he may be Batman, but that’s a topic for another column.
Three movies and a couple billion dollars later, he’s accomplished what he set out to do.
He’s basically a household name, on the level of Spielberg in the ’80s, but because he punctuated the DK trilogy with his own, original projects like “The Prestige” and “Inception,” he isn’t just known as “The Batman Guy.”
Considering the absolutely silly financial success of his Batman films (despite mixed reactions and the tragedy that took place in Aurora, “The Dark Knight Rises” still took in over $1.5 billion dollars worldwide) and the position of notoriety he finds himself in, the word around the Internet water cooler is that he’ll be given a “blank check” for his next project.
Quick explanation, a “blank check” just means that he’ll be given absolute financial and creative control over the film, free to operate without budgetary or artistic constraints.
Anyway, there is some doubt as to whether or not Nolan will actually be given his “blank check,” mostly because the last few times a studio tried it, they, um…collapsed. It was attempted by United Artists in 1980.
United Artists backed Michael Cimino’s “Heaven’s Gate” blindly, conceding to his demands and eventually swelling the budget of the film to $44 million. The film took in $3.5 million. United Artists went bankrupt and was bought by MGM.
American Zoetrope, a slightly less-well-known studio tried it again two years later, this time with legendary director Francis Ford Coppola’s film “One From the Heart.”
Fresh off the successes of “Apocalypse Now” and “The Godfather” trilogy, the studio gave him so much power that he was essentially his own studio head. The film cost $26 million to make and brought in only $636,000. American Zoetrope studios went bankrupt.
To put this in perspective, it’s like Justin Beiber recording a bad album… OK, bad example. It’s like Mumford and Sons recording an album so bad that their record label collapsed because of it.
So, needless to say, studios aren’t exactly jumping at the opportunity to try this experiment again. And the thing is, this isn’t necessarily bad.
See, something that’s often overlooked when giving credit for a great movie is the fact that moviemaking is a collaborative process, not a one-man show. This is perfectly exemplified in the Star Wars tragedy… trilogy, I meant trilogy.
Now, some of you may be saying, “but Austin, what tragedy? There are only three Star Wars movies, and they’re all awesome.” My roommate is one of you too, one of those who chooses to forget that the prequels exist, like Vietnam veterans repressing memories of all those awful things they saw…of all those awful things they did…
Sorry, I’m back. The point is, painful as it may be, there are things to be learned from the prequels. It’s OK, we’re going to get through this together. Just be strong.
Now. The original trilogy is, undeniably, awesome. I was, and remain, a huge Star Wars nerd. However, giving all the credit for those successes to George Lucas alone is just wrong.
If you look at the credits, Lucas only directed ONE of the original trilogy movies. On the other two, arguably stronger films, he was just an executive producer and writer, and throughout the production of the original trilogy he was compromising both with the studio and with other members of his creative team. This give and take led to the communal works that were the original, fantastic, Star Wars movies.
George Lucas did not compromise with the prequels. That was all him. We gave him absolute creative control. Nobody told him no. And what we got was Jar Jar Binks.
This is why, maybe, it’s a good thing Nolan won’t be given Supreme Overlord powers on his next movie. I don’t want to see Christopher Nolan’s Jar Jar Binks. God that sounds dirty.
Have an idea of what Nolan’s blank check creation might look like? Share your foresight with Austin at wellens@wisc.edu.
