Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" (July 21, 2017) - Part 2

[JL Unlimited]

I still want to see Nolan make his Howard Hughes movie. The best script he says he's ever written.

 

[titansupes]

WftPotA finally comes out here tomorrow, so round two of this one will have to wait until next week for me.

 

[weezerspider]

To this end, I noticed several points where Nolan lingered on a particular shot more than he usually does in Dunkirk. There's a tracking shot early on of the soldiers carrying the stretcher across the beach and at the end of the film with the beautiful shot of [BLACKOUT]Farrier's plane landing[/BLACKOUT]. They were given ample room to breathe, which distinguished them from Nolan's typically frenetic editing patterns. There seemed to be a concerted effort on Nolan's part to push himself as a visual storyteller here.

I noticed this, too. To be honest, my biggest gripe with Nolan is his rhythm of editing. It's very in line with the modern day blockbuster of cutting, cutting cutting and I feel like Nolan is capable of so much more. I'm not saying every shot has to be the Copacabana shot from Goodfellas, but I think he could restrain more and do what he claims he admires so much about Kubrick: picking one image and having the confidence to hold on it and allow it to tell the story. I think he is capable of it and I've noticed his last two films, especially Dunkirk, have experimented more with it. He has a great eye. He'll compose a beautiful shot and it'll last 3 seconds. He doesn't need so much coverage all the time. He can hold on that beautiful shot.

Great posts about the Nolan/Hitchcock thing weezer and Velcro. Nothing further to add there.

You know, I've been thinking. Obviously I have no idea what Nolan will do next, but given that he's got cinephiles and critics falling all over themselves with Dunkirk (rightfully so), I do hope they don't hold him to this standard of every single movie he makes needing to be something of this importance. Dunkirk almost makes you forget that Nolan can be a very fun filmmaker when he wants to be. I mean, Inception is a total blast. It's pure Nolan, yet pure popcorn at the same time.

I just will be annoyed if he ends up making another more accessible film and his old critics who loved Dunkirk start snubbing their noses again. I think it'll be nice to see him return to a genre that allows for some moments of levity again. That was one of the really underrated aspects of Interstellar IMO, I think the stuff with TARS is some of Nolan's best humor to date.

Yeah, I believe he's capable of having the kind of career like Spielberg, where he balances "fun" films and prestige films. Spielberg released Schindler's List and Jurassic Park in the same year. Nolan's maybe the only other director I could see accomplishing something like that.

 

[weezerspider]

I still want to see Nolan make his Howard Hughes movie. The best script he says he's ever written.

I'm not sure how I feel on this. On one end, I completely agree with you. On the other end, I'm not sure one can make a Howard Hughes film that feels needed after Scorsese's. The Aviator's not perfect, but biopics rarely are. I've heard Nolan's supposedly is more about the older, hermit Hughes. If that's the case, that may work. Also, if that's the case, I'd wait a bit longer and wait for Christian Bale to get a bit older to play an older Howard Hughes.

 

[Loki882]

I'd like to see him direct a horror film. He'd probably be able to put an interesting spin on it.

 

[JackWhite]

I'm not sure how I feel on this. On one end, I completely agree with you. On the other end, I'm not sure one can make a Howard Hughes film that feels needed after Scorsese's. The Aviator's not perfect, but biopics rarely are. I've heard Nolan's supposedly is more about the older, hermit Hughes. If that's the case, that may work. Also, if that's the case, I'd wait a bit longer and wait for Christian Bale to get a bit older to play an older Howard Hughes.

This.

 

[harlequinade]

They did indeed hold several shots very long which along with the music that didnt let go of the rising rhythm until late in the movie also added to how great and relentless the whole movie was. Some visuals and music lasted so long it was almost impossible to endure the tension particularly with Collins in airplane/boat shooting practice. You kept expecting for the scene to cut away but it didnt

 

[BatmanBeyond]

Cheers to whoever posted that MTV podcast with Nolan, that was a great 'little' interview. t: Chris almost always comes across as understatedly authoritative in his interviews and I very much appreciate the 'audience member' perspective that he adopts when making his films, coupled with the idea of wanting to see something different on-screen, something that sort of challenges your senses and maybe preconceptions.

As for Dunkirk,

Spoiler

I loved it. t:

My immediate thought after seeing it is that it's one of Nolan's best, probably his most balanced piece so far, if that makes sense.

 

[Loki882]

Really the only critique that I have with it (and it by no means kills the movie), is that

Spoiler

It basically ignores the extreme bravery of the French troops at Dunkirk. Which wouldn't bother me so much, if the whole stereotype of the French as "surrendering losers" would just die already.

 

[harlequinade]

Has anyone figured out yet or has Chris spoken about his choice for final shot and what it is supposed to mean? BDM had some ideas in their article but I don't completely buy their reasoning

 

[BatLobster]

The way I see it-

Spoiler

I think it's meant to be a sobering moment of reflection. Alex finally sees that the people are celebrating their return and has gotten over his shame. He's so swept up in the moment that he's stopped listening to Tommy read Churchill's speech. But I think the look on Tommy's face is meant to convey that the fighting is not over, and when Churchill says "we will never surrender" it means that Tommy and other kids just like him may end up giving their lives anyway. I saw it as Nolan ending the movie on a subtle anti-war note. Having a young soldier read Churchill's speech in and of itself is a very intentional juxtaposition.

If there are other interpretations though, I'd love to hear them.

 

[titansupes]

I think he has addressed it in an interview, but for the life of me, I can't remember which one or what he said.

Personally, I took it as--

Spoiler

Ending on the image of British power being burned to a cinder on the abandoned beach, while very pretty and poetic, might have been too down beat and defeatist. Where as juxtaposing it with the smile of a young man who's been through hell-- but lives to fight another day-- gives it a bittersweet and hopeful touch.

 

[DKDetective]

The way I see it-

Spoiler

I think it's meant to be a sobering moment of reflection. Alex finally sees that the people are celebrating their return and has gotten over his shame. He's so swept up in the moment that he's stopped listening to Tommy read Churchill's speech. But I think the look on Tommy's face is meant to convey that the fighting is not over, and when Churchill says "we will never surrender" it means that Tommy and other kids just like him may end up giving their lives anyway. I saw it as Nolan ending the movie on a subtle anti-war note. Having a young soldier read Churchill's speech in and of itself is a very intentional juxtaposition.

If there are other interpretations though, I'd love to hear them.

That's my interpretation as well. I think that is why there is the false cut to black right before the final shot. It signifies that the battle may be over, but not the war.

 

[BatLobster]

I think he has addressed it in an interview, but for the life of me, I can't remember which one or what he said.

Personally, I took it as--

Spoiler

Ending on the image of British power being burned to a cinder on the abandoned beach, while very pretty and poetic, might have been too down beat and defeatist. Where as juxtaposing it with the smile of a young man who's been through hell-- but lives to fight another day-- gives it a bittersweet and hopeful touch.

I think that's a valid take- but having now seen it twice, I really

Spoiler

don't see a smile on Tommy's face at all. I think it's more of an ambiguous look. But I think that's what makes it a really good, tasteful way note to end the movie on. Given that it's Nolan, something tells me it's no accident that we both took it differently.

 

[OutOfBoose]

The way I see it-

Spoiler

I think it's meant to be a sobering moment of reflection. Alex finally sees that the people are celebrating their return and has gotten over his shame. He's so swept up in the moment that he's stopped listening to Tommy read Churchill's speech. But I think the look on Tommy's face is meant to convey that the fighting is not over, and when Churchill says "we will never surrender" it means that Tommy and other kids just like him may end up giving their lives anyway. I saw it as Nolan ending the movie on a subtle anti-war note. Having a young soldier read Churchill's speech in and of itself is a very intentional juxtaposition.

If there are other interpretations though, I'd love to hear them.

That's how I took it.

 

[Brother Jack]

That's my interpretation as well. I think that is why there is the false cut to black right before the final shot. It signifies that the battle may be over, but not the war.

Yeah. It was a way to ground it back to the individual soldier's perspective. Tommy was the closest thing to protagonist the film had and it was very much built around portraying the events from his perspective (with the characters driving the other plot-threads). I don't know if I would go as far as to call the last shot anti-war necessarily, just that it was human. The damaged humanity beneath the glory of victory.

 

[BatLobster]

A couple of things I noticed on my second viewing last night:

-This movie is still gorgeous to look at even in non-IMAX. But still, the IMAX experience is a must if you can swing it.

-I really like Kenneth Branagh in this. He brings a real warmth to the movie. Everything he does with his face during those climactic moments is so good. His reactions combined with what the music does there gets me legitimately choked up.

-I noticed in the credits that a bunch of the original boats from the rescue were used to recreate it in the film.

-The second viewing really cemented for me that the structure really is not a gimmick and was an elegant way to tell the story in a POV-driven way. It's also surprisingly easy and intuitive to follow. I think anyone that had trouble with it was overthinking it.

-Like Interstellar, I do look forward to watching this movie with subtitles. There are still quite a few lines I can't quite make out, particularly the stuff in the air.

Yeah. It was a way to ground it back to the individual soldier's perspective. Tommy was the closest thing to protagonist the film had and it was very much built around portraying the events from his perspective (with the characters driving the other plot-threads). I don't know if I would go as far as to call the last shot anti-war necessarily, just that it was human. The damaged humanity beneath the glory of victory.

That's fair. The anti-war thing might just be me applying my own feelings.

Spoiler

The thing that I find heartbreaking about the last shot is that this movie shows us right away that Tommy is far from Rambo. In those opening moments, he's just a frightened kid who fumbles nervously when under attack. And he has a big heart, not as ruthless as some of the others. He was very lucky to survive Dunkirk. But part of me feels like he's not surviving the war overall.

 

[harlequinade]

The way I see it-

Spoiler

I think it's meant to be a sobering moment of reflection. Alex finally sees that the people are celebrating their return and has gotten over his shame. He's so swept up in the moment that he's stopped listening to Tommy read Churchill's speech. But I think the look on Tommy's face is meant to convey that the fighting is not over, and when Churchill says "we will never surrender" it means that Tommy and other kids just like him may end up giving their lives anyway. I saw it as Nolan ending the movie on a subtle anti-war note. Having a young soldier read Churchill's speech in and of itself is a very intentional juxtaposition.

If there are other interpretations though, I'd love to hear them.

I think he has addressed it in an interview, but for the life of me, I can't remember which one or what he said.

Personally, I took it as--

Spoiler

Ending on the image of British power being burned to a cinder on the abandoned beach, while very pretty and poetic, might have been too down beat and defeatist. Where as juxtaposing it with the smile of a young man who's been through hell-- but lives to fight another day-- gives it a bittersweet and hopeful touch.

That's my interpretation as well. I think that is why there is the false cut to black right before the final shot. It signifies that the battle may be over, but not the war.

I think that's a valid take- but having now seen it twice, I really

Spoiler

don't see a smile on Tommy's face at all. I think it's more of an ambiguous look. But I think that's what makes it a really good, tasteful way note to end the movie on. Given that it's Nolan, something tells me it's no accident that we both took it differently.

Yeah. It was a way to ground it back to the individual soldier's perspective. Tommy was the closest thing to protagonist the film had and it was very much built around portraying the events from his perspective (with the characters driving the other plot-threads). I don't know if I would go as far as to call the last shot anti-war necessarily, just that it was human. The damaged humanity beneath the glory of victory.

That's fair. The anti-war thing might just be me applying my own feelings.

Spoiler

The thing that I find heartbreaking about the last shot is that this movie shows us right away that Tommy is far from Rambo. In those opening moments, he's just a frightened kid who fumbles nervously when under attack. And he has a big heart, not as ruthless as some of the others. He was very lucky to survive Dunkirk. But part of me feels like he's not surviving the war overall.

Awesome responses guys! i think it's the

Spoiler

fade out from the plane to Tommy's face

that was so bizarre for me. i don't remember Nolan ever doing that. I hope he discusses this on the commentary track

A couple of things I noticed on my second viewing last night:

-I really like Kenneth Branagh in this. He brings a real warmth to the movie. Everything he does with his face during those climactic moments is so good. His reactions combined with what the music does there gets me legitimately choked up.]

Honestly while I think what Hardy and Nolan acomplished here with Farrier - who appears to be audience's favorite with less than 10 lines and most of his face covered is remarkable but Branagh's reactions to the events were incredible. When he said 'Home' and the music just let go of that fast rhythm and we saw

Spoiler

the boats

....I think that's the most moving scene in any Nolan film and in large thanks to Branagh

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly while I think what Hardy and Nolan acomplished here with Farrier - who appears to be audience's favorite with less than 10 lines and most of his face covered is remarkable but Branagh's reactions to the events were incredible. When he said 'Home' and the music just let go of that fast rhythm and we saw

Spoiler

the boats

....I think that's the most moving scene in any Nolan film and in large thanks to Branagh

Completely agreed. Rylance does a great job in the movie too, but I don't think Branagh has gotten enough credit. The way they approached that musically was perfect too though. The score is at its most brutal and unrelenting right before that moment, and it just sneaks up on you. It's an incredible relief of tension and swell of emotion all at the same time.

Also, I wouldn't hold my breath for a Nolan commentary. The only ones he's ever done are for Following and Memento.

 

[Kreem Pi]

Yes! It's here. Filmcritichulk's breakdown of Dunkirk, Nolan, his films and even the common criticisms thrown at him,

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-christopher-nolan-the-cruelty-of-time

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Finally watched this today... incredible film!

 

[BatLobster]

Yes! It's here. Filmcritichulk's breakdown of Dunkirk, Nolan, his films and even the common criticisms thrown at him,

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-christopher-nolan-the-cruelty-of-time

It's a good read, I like the way he wraps it up.

I still think he completely misses the point of Interstellar though. To me, it's Nolan's most "spiritual" film. And it's a spiritual film wherein the "higher power" turns out to be a highly evolved form of humanity itself. The movie isn't just about the love between a father and daughter- that's just one part of it, but it's a film that's more about humanity's ability to transcend. I think that says a lot about Nolan's view of human potential. I think becoming a father has made Nolan more optimistic, and you can see this evolution in his work even if it's not super pronounced. It doesn't mean he's suddenly going to make happy-go-lucky films, and he obviously is always going to have a go-to bag of tricks that he's made a career out of. But I think that aspect of the evolution that's taken place over Nolan's career got overlooked by FHC. And similarly Inception, while framed as a heist film where a deception is the emotional catharsis, is still one that marvels at the potential of the human mind in a broader sense. Just as his Batman films marvel at the sheer will-power and dedication of one man turning himself into something extraordinary. And as Dunkirk is one that marvels at the bravery of those ordinary sailors on those boats, while also being a suspense driven survival tale about the horrors of war. I think the subjects that Nolan chooses to make his films about shouldn't go unlooked if you're trying to psychoanalyze the guy.

I enjoyed the article, but IMO it skews a bit too heavily towards Nolan being some sort of tortured soul, which I'm not sure I buy. Which is just my own projection/opinion, of course.

 

[The Shape]

I've never once pictured Nolan as a "tortured soul" or anything like that. He seems to be quite happy and all signs point to him leading a truly fulfilling life.

 

[BatLobster]

I could be misconstruing FHC's point a bit, and I don't know that he's trying to say that intentionally, but it's sort of the vibe I got. Still a worthwhile read though with some interesting things to say.

I agree, Nolan is living a pretty blessed life and I think he knows that. Anyone who can manage to work with their spouse professionally and keep the marriage stable must be in a very good marriage. 4 kids, working in his dream job, working with his family, carte blanche with a major Hollywood studio to make whatever film he wants to make, and he still seems just as motivated as ever to keep challenging himself.

 

[The Shape]

Plus, he just seems like a cool dude.