"Dunkirk," Christopher Nolan's latest biographical film, opened this weekend, polarizing audiences on their opinions. Critics are raving about this summer war movie, however I've heard countless attendees roll their eyes at the reviews, finding the film dreadful. I've always been a fan of Nolan's work ("The Dark Knight," "Inception," "The Prestige) so "Dunkirk" was a natural addition to my ongoing watch list. I've also always been drawn to period films, especially ones centered around war. I was initially surprised that Nolan took on this project, as none of his past films have been centered around a true historical event. When the trailer was launched, I thought it looked pretty good but thought it wouldn't be anything spectacular. Seeing the film today, however, I was very pleasantly surprised with the movie.
The film's plot is centered around three different storylines- one for the air force, one for the military, and one for the navy. This in itself is brilliantly done because these stories switch off seamlessly, yet depict different spans of time. While the plot wasn't exceptionally complex, the attention time frames made this film unlike any other. The events on the beach take place over a week, the events in the sea span a day, and the events in the sky span only one hour. As the tension in the film builds, there are shorter cuts between the different storylines, heightening the excitement of the film. Most war films I've seen tend to fixate on a few specific characters, draw a storyline around them, and create an emotional investment in their outcomes. In "Dunkirk" the audience is introduced to many characters. While some have more screen time than others, the decision to incorporate many characters allows for the audience to get a better sense of just how many lives were effected by Dunkirk itself, let alone World War II. I definitely don't think "Dunkirk" was the most emotionally devastating war movie I've ever seen (in fact I may have found it slightly surprisingly unemotional) I think the immense attention to detail makes up for that. It is evident throughout the entirety of the film that every little detail was thoroughly thought through. For example, Nolan wanted to use as little CGI as possible, so he used real naval destroyers instead.
While I don't think there were necessarily any standout performances from the actors, I thought everyone performed well. Nolan intentionally cast a lot of young, relatively unknown (with the exception of Harry Styles) actors because soldiers at Dunkirk tended to be young and inexperienced. There is very little dialogue in the film, yet the audience can sense the feelings of isolation and despair, demonstrating strong performances. It was a great experience to watch this film in the theater. It is action packed and made for a big screen. It is also so beautiful- from the cinematography to the coloring, and everything in between. It reached new levels of complexity and technique, and will likely be the film to most impress me this summer. See it in the theaters while you can, it is worthy of the theater experience!
No comments:
Post a Comment