The controversy about the genius of Christopher Nolan already turned in some absolutely utter boredom. To hang on his paintings labels like “really smart mainstream” or to accuse them of pretentiousness and trying to give the audience what they are not, is a thankless job and, by and large, stupid. But one thing to deny is absolutely impossible: Nolan is an incredibly skilled craftsman in the film of his generation. The degree of innovation of Nolan increases with each new painting. Working with script and structure, visual and sound findings will definitely impress and command respect.
“Dunkirk” is another experiment. In the first place, because it is outside the classical canons of the modern war drama. In the picture is not as such the main character, through the prism of which the audience usually lives screen time and whose history should be empathetic. Missing the usual pictures of Paphos and the concretization of the image of the enemy. Even the historical note at the beginning of the tape is limited to one sentence.
Everything you need to know the audience, is that 400,000 people trapped on a Nude beach, they are constantly being bombed and they want only one thing: that there was at least some opportunity to leave it as long as their bodies primorosa sand. “Dunkirk” is the atmosphere, this is the situation, it’s impersonal, here and now. His task is to make the audience physically feel and live what is happening: to wince at the coming shot from the roar of the bomber, sinking along with the soldiers and under the skin to feel the tremendous degree of silent fear and despair that soaked a large part of screen space. Nolan and Zimmer work wonders with sound, bringing a sense of presence to some absolutely colossal level.
In “Dunkirk” Nolan once experimenting with the structure and re-makes “time” one of the main characters. He presses in a single space three different time: a week (soldiers beach), day, (civilian ship heading to Dunkirk) and the hour (air combat), skillfully combining them with tools installation. And cinematography Hoyt van Hoytema won’t haunt the mind of the viewer after watching.
“Dunkerque” really is technically perfect. This movie is definitely not to be repeated. But with all this splendor in “Dunkirk” it’s very controversial with empathy. Emotional catharsis “Dunkirk” is akin to the feeling of relief from finally bursting of a painful abscess you’re just glad it’s over. Nolan literally squeezes all the juice out of the viewer and the arrival of the civil courts on the beach of Dunkirk (which actually saved 80% of the soldiers) and Churchill’s speech in the final picture that survival is already a victory, lubricated and do not cause the desired emotional response.
“Dunkirk” is the most cold and detached movie in the career of Nolan, and the surgical precision with which he tries to “introduce” the viewer to experience, through the prism of which comes the realization of the horror of war as such, even in some degree cruel. However, all this is individual and very subjective.