I’ve never been a fan of war movies, in general. Somehow the
genre never really appealed to me. Nolan’s Dunkirk though is a one of a kind
experience. I don’t know if I should characterize it as a war movie per se or I
should reflect whether the others were really war movies in the true sense. It’s
a genre defining experience and is Nolan at his boastful best. Christopher Nolan,
that is, not his brother…
After having watched all the Christopher Nolan movies after
the epitome that was The Dark Knight, I have come to the conclusion that this
is what Christopher Nolan does best – wide angle IMAX cameras, a vision for
action in its most elemental form (not the Paul Greengrass shaky camera
variety), simple notes that build to crescendo, large explosions and giant
pieces with minimal CGI. Dunkirk gives this Nolan the best possible backdrop
and canvas and he paints with aplomb.
Nolan moves the camera lens from the sidelines to the very
heart – so much so that you live the experience as much as his characters. In a
war movie – that’s a paradigm shift. You aren’t see a bombing happening
somewhere on the horizon while you are safely in the trenches. Instead the
explosion goes off near your very ear as you crouch helpless and vulnerable, in
the middle of an unintended battlefield. And the onslaught is relentless – the explosions,
the gunfire, the roar of a fighter aircraft’s engines and to top it off, the
uncertainty of it all.
There are no heroes on this particular battlefield, just
desperate and helpless men trying to survive. This is what the actual war would’ve
looked and felt like and this is possibly our first, real look at it – and far
from looking grand and victorious – it looks and feels hopeless and despairing.
That is why when there is a glimmer of hope somewhere down the line, it feels
like a shining beacon instead.
While he uses a grand cast of characters – his staple
dependables like Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy as well as adding the masterful
Mark Rylance to the mix, its all for nought pretty much. This isn’t a hero movie and doesn’t require great acting chops.
This is just a director showing, no strutting, while he showcases what he can
do. This is the Joker armed with guns, gasoline and gunpowder, wreaking havoc
with our minds.
And he doesn’t make it easy. What could’ve been a simple
sequential narrative is split across 3 mind exhausting timelines that come
closer to each other as the movie progresses. When the movie abruptly breaks for
intermission, you aren’t sure what the ‘story’ is or if there is any at all.
It is in his final flourish that Christopher Nolan shows any
focus on emotions and a narrative. Done with his circus act of planes, boats
and bombs, the camera finally moves to his characters, the situation they are
in, their apprehensions, their little triumphs and the event in its entirety
that was termed a colossal military disaster. There are moments here and there,
strewn about – that indicate what the movie could’ve been had there been more
focus on its narrative as well – this is where Jonathan Nolan’s contribution is
missed the most, I suppose.
However, Dunkirk, as it stands is amongst the best that
Christopher Nolan has made and it is cinematic triumph at that. Its not
everybody’s cup of tea, mind you, there’s no tinted glasses here – there’s
death and despair at every corner and that can be depressing. However, it is a
masterpiece that re-defines this particular genre and gives all the other
directors of such movies, plenty to think about.
No comments:
Post a Comment