Dunkirk: When Christopher Nolan Transcended his own SELF!

Categories Movie Review1 Comment

In Association with Amazon.in

dunkirk movie1

OPINION: I was perhaps unreasonably excited to see Dunkirk (Well, actually I had a solid reason if I think again)Christopher Nolan’s new movie about the evacuation of British forces from a French beach during World War II.

The historical event on which it is based is astonishing: unable to get enough warships close to the beach to load their fleeing troops, the British government mobilized a flotilla of small private craft, which ultimately helped evacuate more than 330,000 soldiers ahead of the German army. I was eager to see what one of my favorite directors would do with the story.

He did not disappoint, hell he surpassed his own self imo! This nearly flawless film put me on the edge of my seat for two hours. It is the best thing I’ve seen about war since the stunning opening of Saving Private Ryan– and Nolan, bless him, is not prey to Steven Spielberg’s compulsion to mar his creations by slipping them over with speechy goo.

As with all of Nolan’s films, it’s emotionally distant from its characters. Cillian Murphy plays an officer credited only as “Shivering Soldier,” and none of the characters have much in the way of backstory or goals, other than survival. Matt Zoller Seitz calls it an “Ant Farm Picture”, a portrait of a society in which individuals are almost incidental. That’s rather the point.

For the most part, “Dunkirk” is all action and no talk. There’s little emphasis on dialogue, but this isn’t a film that needs it. Once the first shots ring out about two minutes in, the film runs on adrenaline until the final credits. It trades the genre cliché of rousing, patriotic speeches for riveting action scenes that ruminate on the savagery of war as effectively as any monologue. The frantic assault scenes are tempered, however, by moments of careful restraint; Nolan knows when to hold back and when to dial up the tension, balancing moments of uneasy stillness with hellish dive bomber attacks.

The beachside imagery might seem reminiscent of the gut-wrenching Omaha Beach scene in “Saving Private Ryan,” but “Dunkirk” flips the endgame for its heroes. While Spielberg’s film kicks off with an offensive Allied assault, Nolan’s is unique among war films in confining itself to a harrowing retreat. Our heroes are largely helpless aside from the thrilling aerial combat, and most of the action is purely evasive. The film persuasively makes its case for a nuanced perspective on heroism and bravery; history doesn’t often valorize soldiers who flee the battlefield, but here we see escape as an inherent triumph. “All we did is survive,” one soldier mutters to an old civilian, who matter-of-factly responds, “That’s good enough.”

“Dunkirk” puts its story first and keeps its talented cast on a leash, drawing some outstandingly understated performances while refusing to give its actors a chance to showboat. Fionn Whitehead gets the most screen time while hardly speaking a word, admirably carrying the weight of a leading role with pure physicality. Nolan draws another stellar performance from a masked Tom Hardy, this time with a heroic follow-up to his turn as Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises.” Mark Rylance brings a convincing earnestness to a simple role, and even Harry Styles manages to blend in with his frightened comrades and avoid the spotlight. Any director who can get a quality performance from a One Direction member has officially made it in show business.

The real star here is the outstanding cinematography and the never ending soundtrack, working in the background creating tension all around! which pits the ugly conflict against a canvas of pristine beaches and a brilliant blue ocean backdrop. The camerawork is intimate and immersive, breathlessly tracking soldiers in tense underwater sequences or twisting through the sky behind Spitfire fighters. War films don’t often look this beautiful, but Nolan makes each shot vibrant and portrait-worthy. One notable omission from its color palette, however, is red. “Dunkirk” passes on the blood and gore that we typically expect in wartime imagery, but it hardly shies away from carnage and grit. Nolan knows we’ve seen it all before, and skillfully infers pain and suffering without lingering on the bloody details.

Another wise (yet unusual) visual omission is the German army. The camera sticks close to its characters and keeps a fair distance from hostile forces, rarely showing German soldiers directly in the frame. The enemy forces, however, loom large throughout the film; the German presence is unrelenting yet always just out of reach, constantly reminding us of the stakes with a surprise bomber run or a burst of sniper fire. Nolan’s less-is-more approach keeps us guessing when and where to expect the next strike, sustaining an uneasy tone from start to finish.

This is Nolan’s first crack at nonfiction, but it’s another triumph on his list of genre standouts. “Memento” is a mind-bending noir whodunit, “The Dark Knight” is peerless among superhero movies and “Inception” set brainier standards for heist thrillers. “Dunkirk” checks another box as a masterpiece of wartime cinema, a career highlight that cements Nolan as one of the great working directors.

Christopher Nolan is one of the few directors working today who could have got Dunkirk made.

Christopher Nolan is one of the few directors working today who could have got Dunkirk made.

A lesser director would have given in to the temptation to make this a story about the righteous crusade against the Germans, men fighting other men, but Nolan shows us the world in which  enemy is a plane, a torpedo, the water and the flying bullets, and men are reduced to little more than their rage to live.

The result is less a war film than a disaster movie. An exquisite disaster movie. I didn’t expect such a vivid and visceral illustration of how quickly a ship can sink, or just how difficult it is to hit a target in the sky. I left the theatre almost too overwhelmed to talk.

Having recovered, I began to wonder why we can’t have more pictures like Dunkirk. The easy answer is, of course, that there is only one Christopher Nolan, and only so many people willing to give him us$150 million to spend putting thousands of extras and some World War II-era ordnance onto a French beach. But the easy answer is incomplete.

It is getting rarer for a genius like Nolan to be given substantial sums of money to put their vision on the screen. Instead, the substantial sums go to “franchise films”. The pursuit of blockbuster movies is becoming less of an act of creation, and more an exercise in brand management. Franchises generate box office revenue, merchandising revenue and what economists call option value: Furious 7 does not simply bring ticket revenue for the studio, but also the ability to make more revenue through Fast and Furious Episodes 8, 9, 10 and onward to The Fast and the Furious 987.

Naturally, such valuable properties cannot be left to the quirky whims of some individual; studios have intervened more and more heavily to ensure that no director goes too far off the rails. As with other markets where mass franchises have taken over, the result is a sort of flattening of the available quality: There aren’t so many truly awful blockbusters being made anymore, but there aren’t so many truly great ones either. Indeed, there aren’t so many big movies being made at all, because studios find it much more attractive to rake in cash off of a predictable comic-book film with a big global audience than to make risky bets on greatness.

Dunkirk has been described as a near-flawless film.

Dunkirk has been described as a near-flawless film.

In some ways, it looks like a return to the studio system of yore, with its factory-like control over every aspect of production. But in the old days, the studios were mostly making lots of cheap films fast. The studios could afford to permit a little more variance, a little more creativity, and serendipity because the bets were reasonably small, and even an oddball picture might find an audience somewhere.

But if the old studio system was a well-diversified industry placing lots of bets – the cinematic equivalent of an index fund – the modern system is looking more and more like a hedge fund taking a few giant positions. When all the bets are potential firm-killers, the investment committee is going to want to oversee every detail, leaving less room for genius to emerge, much less thrive.

One reason Dunkirk is such a joy is that here is a film in which the deadening hand of the committee is nowhere evident. A committee would have wanted something with more merchandising and tie-in opportunities (“Just a thought: What if the captain of the destroyer is drinking a Diet Coke? Then we could give his action figure a detachable can that fits in his right hand.…”) A committee would have wanted a lovable band of misfits who could be taken into sequels. (“No, this is terrific: Next time, instead of fleeing France, they invade it!”)

The Fate of the Furious is an example of modern Hollywood's preference for franchises over new ideas.

The Fate of the Furious is an example of modern Hollywood’s preference for franchises over new ideas.

A committee would have wanted all the sentimental paraphernalia of the modern war picture – the crumpled photograph of the girl back home, the square-jawed lead who learns a Very Important Lesson about leadership and loyalty, and the speeches, oh Lord, the speeches, about what war is, and what it all means. Even the pictures that explicitly reject the cheap and easy sentimentality of the modern war movie are still hung up on rejecting it. Nolan simply ignores it, and does something infinitely more interesting.

That this movie got made at all in modern Hollywood strikes me as a minor miracle, an undeserved blessing for which we should all be intensely grateful. But it also makes me a little sad. It’s not that “no adult movies” get made anymore, as you sometimes hear: There are indie films, small films, studio-produced “Oscar bait” for the season between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

But the franchise pictures keep sucking up more of the oxygen in the room, threatening to strangle both the mid-budget “serious” films and the large summer blockbusters featuring one director’s original vision – ironic, considering that it was two such pictures, George Lucas’s Star Wars and Spielberg’s Jaws, that started Hollywood down its current road. (Never mind that one was retroactively franchised as Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope and the other was followed by sequels more painful than being eaten by a shark.)

The film that started the blockbuster revolution, Jaws, was very much the singular vision of Steven Spielberg.

The film that started the blockbuster revolution, Jaws, was very much the singular vision of Steven Spielberg.

As the “tentpole” picture increasingly becomes the main product of Hollywood, and directors are selected for their ability to please a committee, how many more memorable big films can we hope to get?

When a legend like Spielberg has so much trouble getting Lincoln into theatres that it comes “this close” to ending up on HBO, you have to wonder if the days of the original creative project are numbered within the studio system. If the flotilla of small craft disappears, all we’ll have left is a few big ships drifting inoffensively in international waters — and a lot of moviegoers stranded on the beach.

1 thought on “Dunkirk: When Christopher Nolan Transcended his own SELF!

  1. Comparing Spielberg and Nolan was a bit biased towards the latter but all in all the review is enlightening and implications regarding the “blockbuster” phenomenon is good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *