On paper, “Dunkirk” probably shouldn’t have been a massive success. It’s a war film about a battle that, at least in the United States, not many people heard about. It’s a film that is epic, without being three hours long, and doesn’t have any huge name stars that these sorts of films always have. Yet, “Dunkirk” is one of the biggest films of the year, and sure to draw major attention during awards season. Why? Because of one name – Christopher Nolan.
Director Damien Chazelle, who knows a thing or two about good films, recognizes the achievement of “Dunkirk” and talks about it as part of Variety’s “Directors on Directors” feature. In the feature, Chazelle writes about his love of the Christopher Nolan war film, specifically why it stands as Nolan’s best film to date.
“What Christopher Nolan achieves in ‘Dunkirk’ feels like something he has been building toward his whole career. It’s cinema as music — a continuous, breathless flow of images and sound that feels elemental and primal. For such a giant motion picture, depicting such an epic event, it is simplicity itself,” says Chazelle.
READ MORE: Christopher Nolan Talks “Visceral Experience Of Cinema” In FilmLinc Podcast Talk
Also, Chazelle compliments the risk inherent in making “Dunkirk,” likening the film to a “giant middle finger” to those doubting that risks are possible anymore on the big screen. But ultimately, it all comes down to Chazelle’s appreciation of Nolan’s ability to make even the most fantastic story somehow personal.
“More than that, it feels like Christopher Nolan. This is a filmmaker who has managed, time and again, to make the most seemingly impersonal projects — superhero epics, deep-space mind-benders — feel deeply personal. ‘Dunkirk’ is, to me, his most personal — and most moving — work yet,” concludes the director.
No matter what critics say about the film, “Dunkirk” is clearly a passion project for Nolan. It’s also an important step for Nolan, as a director. Not since perhaps James Cameron or Steven Spielberg has a director been the selling point on a film, and “Dunkirk” shows that Nolan is right there with those legends. He doesn’t need Batman or Matthew McConaughey to get butts in seats. Chazelle and millions of film-goers around the world see that, and can’t wait for what’s next.
Ha. I say you guys are talking out of your backsides! ‘Dunkirk’ is a nothing but a mangled time frame piece of nonsense. Historically inaccurate, the sky would have been teeming with Spitfires and ships all over the place, not to mention the absurd British jingoism that permeates the whole plot. The so called suspense, stretched and drawn out, much like the last third of ‘Inception’ is dull and uninspired.
It seems to me that Nolan approaches these things like a mathematician overseeing an elaborate diagram. Cinema as art(and I believe that Nolan believes himself an artist) requires more heart and feeling than technical cleverness.
And that’s why all these great directors have come out praising the film. Personally, it my favorite film of the year and yet I’m afraid, like with most of Nolan’s films, it will get overlooked at the Oscars.
Oh well, Chazelle’s view! For what it’s worth, in my view, Dunkirk is the biggest nonsense I have watched in the last two years – total waste of 2 hrs, or however long it was. No story, no entertainment, just a bunch of self-important characters putting up a show for a self-important filmmaker. If it’s about daring and taking artistic risks, instead of running behind hype, I wish people gave credit where it’s due – Darren Aronofsky is really the one who displayed temerity this year when he made “Mother!”