The opening moments of Christopher NolansDunkirkbegin neither on a beach nor at sea.
And every bolt is landing terrifyingly nearby.
Its as if we are witnessing a tautly wound violin string being methodically pulled for 106 minutes.
This isnt a franchise and it isnt about selling; its a visceral vocalization of the nightmarishness of war.
The idea of studios allowing filmmakers such autonomy appears ludicrous a scant five years later.
In a summer like this one, its ubiquitous.
None of the characters inDunkirkhave any backstory.
Nor or they distinguished by characteristics that make them instantly identifiable or beguiling to the viewer.
Even his characters name, Tommy, is a misnomer.
And even then, that doesnt mean at all that its plot-driven.
This pushes back against more than the codification of modern blockbusters.
Its honestly a case of Nolan challenging his own classicalist impulses by ignoring traditional cinematic rules.
It also faintly echoes one of Nolans greatest influences, Stanley Kubrick.
Kubrick also made his fair share of war films, none of which are likeDunkirk.
But he always valued a minimalist approach to characterization and narrative.
Letting events breathe and unfold in a way some might find cold or distant, perhaps deservedly so.
In a recent interview withPlayboy, Christopher Nolan was asked what terrifies him.
We were making great progress in the world, Nolan said.
Things were going well.
We had two generations of prosperity, didnt have direct experience of war.
Im very frightened that this leads people to not remember how wrong things can go in this world.
In short, how war is an experience unto itself when all else fails.
Often World War II films wish to underscore the nobility and sacrifice of the Greatest Generation.
The film quietly nods toward an unspoken virtue while in a landscape overcast by an unseen, omnipresent enemy.
And that goes deeper than IMAX.
