The plot: Screenwriter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton) is asked
by Britain’s Ministry of Information to make a film about two twin sisters who
take their father’s boat out to help in the evacuation of Dunkirk. As she works
closely with writer Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin) and actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill
Nighy), they put together a film that they hope will meet the Ministry’s wishes
for a production that will bring the nation together. However, as a series of
uncontrollable events and mandates fall their way, up to and including being
forced to include American Carl Lundbeck (Jake Lacy) into the film despite his
lack of acting experience, they’ll have to work hard to make a uniting film
before it tears them all apart.
Arterton is about as perfect a choice for our
lead as we could possibly hope for, as she manages to convey quiet assertion
with a pleasant demeanour and nimble wit that makes her feel like a person who
could make the tough convincing needed to keep the film-within-the-film
running. Claflin works very nicely alongside her, with the back-and-forths over
the specifics of their script making for a large portion of film and a portion
that is never not engaging. Richard E. Grant as the head of the Ministry of
Information’s film division makes for a welcome addition, like pretty much any
role taken up by Grant, and Jeremy Irons as the British Secretary of War makes
for a good scene-stealing presence. As for the actors portraying actors, Nighy
has a lot of fun as the very type-cast and quite pompous Hilliard, showing the
kind of pretentious thinking that makes for entertainment rather than
teeth-grinding, and Lacy as the token American (both in and
out-of-universe) is very funny as the actor who can’t act.
As I got into earlier this month, the way we
tend to categorise ‘propaganda’ is a bit misguided. Partly because it only
seems to get brought up if it’s explicitly propaganda that we disagree with,
ignoring similar fare that appeals to our sensibilities, but also because
decrying cinematic propaganda ends up disregarding how much the art form owes
to political propagandists. It got its first real push in Soviet Russia as a
means to push communist ideology, and every single filmmaking technique can be
traced back to their use in the Russian propaganda machine. It’s the dirty
secret of filmmaking that’s so open that barely anyone considers it to be a
secret.
I bring this up because, in the way that this film portrays the making
of a film that is explicitly meant to be propaganda for the British government,
we see another example of why forms of propaganda can be necessary. When your
country is entrenched in war, something needs to be presented to convince the
populace to keep fighting. Or, to put it in more familiar terms, keep calm and
carry on. Funny how that little phrase rarely gets brought up as an example of
propaganda.
Far more than an ode to influencing the masses,
this film shows the kind of understanding of the filmmaking process that you
would expect from people who are heavily involved in it. Seeing Catrin and Tom agonising over the script, trying to piece together a story that the Ministry
would approve of, all while trying to juggle the numerous mandates they are
given, it’s shown to be not that dissimilar to any other 9-to-5 occupation.
It’s fun, it’s difficult, it’s taxing, it’s distracting, it’s minute, it’s
grand, and it’s endlessly fascinating to watch as shown in this film.
Whether
it’s explaining the ins-and-outs of the production process, making in-jokes
about the way that films are made like a scene where Dunkirk is depicted as
still images on a sheet of glass in front of the camera, or looking at the
varyingly difficult situations that the filmmakers have to work around to get
things done, this film makes the act of making films to be as engrossing as the
product itself. It does what films about films-within-films should do.
Have to admit, it’s kind of surreal seeing this
film about the making of a film about the Dunkirk evacuation, considering we
actually did get a film about Dunkirk
in the same year. That feeling is only made stronger by how much this film
delves into the line between reality and fiction, how they influence each other
and just how much one is supposed to adhere to the other. It’s a tightrope that
must be walked when dealing with any
form of media based on real-world events, and it’s one that some people can get
a little too hung-up on. If the core of what it makes real, the historical
event and the emotions attached to it, is still there, then how many
compromises can be made before it stops being real? If a film sets out to be
entirely fiction, does its possible real-world influences even matter? Do any of these questions ultimately
matter? Nolan’s Dunkirk could have been as real to life as humanly possible or
it could have been completely fabricated; either way, the impact the film
leaves is still the same.
With this film, as we see the increasingly troubled and
even tragic production history of the film-within-the-film, we also see
creative license being employed for numerous reasons. But do any of those
compromises make the impact it gets from the audience, the crying, the repeated
viewings, the sense of pride in a national product… why should any of those be
invalid? Because we are shown so much of what went into this product, and a lot
of what didn’t, its ending makes one
feel that all of it was worth what they got at the end. It’s a nice feeling
when you know that you have done good work.
All in all, this is a very engaging look at the filmmaking
process, made better by how it never really skimps on the details involved. The
acting is solid, the production values employ the usual washed-out look for
WWII-era London without it seeming stale at any point, and the writing
highlights just how galvanizing a good film can be. Part of why this blog
exists at all is because film has given me some of the most profound
experiences of my relatively short life; I wanted to give something back to the
culture that made me who I am today. As such, it’s pretty much impossible for
me to dislike a film that portrays the power of good cinematic storytelling,
especially when it’s presented through what is most definitely good cinematic
storytelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment