#the ghazi attack

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Cast – Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn – Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D’Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth, Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy (Most of them - unidentifiable and oblivious)

Producer – Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan

Production Company – Syncopy Inc.

Director of Photography – Hoyte Van Hoytema

Background Score – Hans Zimmer

Editor – Lee Smith

Written and Directed by – Christopher Nolan

It was an exhilarating ecstasy when I had the much treasured tickets of the most awaited film of 2017, Dunkirk, in my restless and ravenous fist. It seemed more like a Eureka moment - The happiness of watching Dunkirk. Dunkirk – A film I knew would be differently treated than other war films I have watched. A film I knew would be a visual treat. A film I knew would have gone through a lot of technical drudgery – on the sets and in the post production; and it was always going to be technically sound.

So, it would be redundant to analyse this film with technical details like lauding its bleak cinematography (by Hoyte Van Hoytema) which suited the subject matters and bragging about the enthralling background score by Hans Zimmer (who delivers it every time and this time too, and which evokes tension and keeps one at the edge of the seat. I found it quite repetitive, even though it happens to be the best element of the film). It would be inconsequential to extol the tempestuous presentation of events that seemed real, and much obvious Christopher Nolan’s visualization and directorial finesse; for all such praises would be futile, unctuous and insincere, because in any Christopher Nolan film, these are the integral observations and so is the case with Dunkirk. There are no central characters in the film that would implant a need of psychoanalysis. Moreover, appreciating the scenes in which the camera doesn’t follow the protagonist(s), and rather engages in a colossal capture of the event by increasing the depth of field of camera by showing people with respect to a particular premise, would be difficult, for the film was shot in the IMAX Camera and the aforementioned concept of cinema might end up to be just a fallacy.

It is again gratuitous to narrate the whole plot of the film for its comprehensive “appreciation”. It would be rather interesting to mention the three sequences in the film that has made some serious impact and appealed a rather disgruntled audience in me.

Act 1 –

There is this scene in the film in which soldiers find themselves in a dreadful wobbly when the enemy fighters start dropping the bombs from the air, they cower in tangible fear by crouching down; and in ten seconds we get to see a clump of sand shrouding one of the protagonists in itself. There is a sensation of a palpable relief in that scene with a wonderful capture of very humanely blank emotions on his face. The ashen pallor and the moment of shock he experiences depict truly humane disposition and a rather natural propensity. That is a true display of Christopher Nolan’s directorial prowess that everyone talks about.

Act 2 –

There is a torpedo sequence in film. The soldiers inside are just in status quo of anxiety hoping for some escape and all of a sudden one of them, in sheer fear ominously howls; “TORPEDO!!!!!”; and before they could get the hold of the fright and horror, the whole multitude of soldiers finds itself in a state of frenzy and an impregnable chaos. Unlike, 2017 film, The Ghazi Attack, there is no dramatization of this event, but it is rather a realistic and spontaneous display of it. That’s what war is. The war doesn’t give a soldier enough time to fear. The fear is just a consequence. It is inevitable, integral and almost immediate. This is where Christopher Nolan’s conviction of making this film comes into the picture.

Act 3 –

There is also a sequence in which soldiers are manifested watching the fighter (apparently Tom Hardy’s aircraft incessantly fighting with enemy for the rescue operation), with sparsely scattered emotions of fear, hope and anticipation; and we get to see a bunch of soldiers for three to four seconds. Here, the filmmaker perceptibly increases the depth of field (confirmation needed*), and shows each of them in the same layer of the frame; which is to say that there isn’t any focus on the main character. But the main character very minutely comes in the focus when he gazes up in the sky. This is one tremendous and again an avante garde modus operandi of creating a cinematic mise-en-scene that the audience witness in this cinema. In regular films that we see, there is contrast in the costumes which separates the protagonist from all other characters and vice-versa, which was obviously not possible in this film, for every soldier adorns same attire.

Frame – 1

Frame 2 –

Coming back to the film, the screenplay of the film is quite unconventional and so is inscrutable, as the story has been told in three different perspectives, which are the land, the sea and the air; and all three have different set ups, and when the confrontations of all the three coincide, it leads to the resolution of the whole film. I found the three act structure one of its kinds (at least new to me).

There isn’t any character arc (and so there is no character an audience identifies with), and there is no fervid exchange of dialogues between the soldiers either, for the characters were just portrayed like emotional yet shallow marionettes to depict a historical event. Christopher Nolan has foregone all the grammar of the war films. I would be lampooned as a nincompoop if I say that he has done it unconsciously. Of course, he knew what he was “doing”. Rather than using an audience’s perception, the director had preferred to create a scenario of an actual, uninflected and unabridged form of a historical event like it is being watched live. It is more of a pristine form of the war.

And probably, these are the reasons it happened to be a disappointing affair. There is nothing I would ever remember, except the above mentioned enthralling sequences that raises the panic and makes an audience shudder in the anticipation of “What Next?” It was just a palpable yet feckless experience to have watched on a non-IMAX big screen at my hometown.

What is Dunkirk to me and what it still “achieves”?

I might sound an imbecile here, but honestly, Dunkirk, to me, seemed like a game of Age of Empires. It is more of a cinema that one would love to create. It is indeed fascinating how the team has captured the well directed yet instinctual shots of the cast troop and the events associated with the history of Dunkirk; but again just like a game of Age of Empires, it is quite tame and torpid to watch someone playing it.

I found the film just as meaningless as a war (any war) is to me. It somehow depicts my ideology of war. That is how one feels when someone sits in front of television to see the snippets of an ongoing war. It never makes any sense – at least to me. And so is the case with Dunkirk. They are in a state of war for something? What something? - For the peace of their country. Does a war for peace make any sense? I guess, No (or maybe Yes, and such clouded thoughts that follow)! So, in my opinion, this is what the film achieves. Dunkirk thrives on such ironies and incongruous paradoxes.

All in all, for me, it’s a thrilling boredom, a static whirlwind, a calming catastrophe, a dull delight, a colourless iridescence; and in a make-believe business, it happens to be too real to be believed as a cinema. It is a disappointment in disguise.

That is what DUNKIRK is…

Special Mention – My favourite dialogue (quote) from the very few dialogues in the film happens to be a paradoxical one too.

“Take care of him. A dead man should be taken care of.” 

[ Words may not be precisely the same but it was something similar to this.]

Pictures Courtesy – Google Images

The Ghazi Attack  (2017)