‘Dunkirk’ director Christopher Nolan on why, in this era of peak TV, he’s still all in on movies
When it comes to the big screen, Christopher Nolan is a true believer — and with blockbusters like “The Dark Knight” trilogy, “Inception” and “Interstellar,” he has translated that passion into more than $4 billion in grosses collectively at the global box office.
Nolan’s latest film, the World War II action thriller “Dunkirk,” stakes a particularly audacious claim for a different kind of moviegoing experience in this season of sequels, reboots and would-be franchise starters.
Critics have hailed the film — which recounts a pivotal moment in the war in which nearly 400,000 British soldiers found themselves pinned down by German forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, France, — as a riveting epic that should be seen on the biggest screen possible. And judging by the film’s stronger-than-expected $50 million opening weekend, with 23 percent of the overall grosses coming from IMAX theaters, it seems moviegoers were prepared to follow Nolan into battle.
Last month, Nolan sat down with The Los Angeles Times in the office of his production company, Syncopy Films, on the Warner Bros. lot and shared some thoughts about the state of cinema in this era of streaming and peak TV, how he wants to use his clout in Hollywood and what he might do next (spoiler: probably not a superhero film).
Q: Given the subject matter, some people would have expected “Dunkirk” to be released toward the end of the year. Did you always want to have a summer release date?
A: Always. Right out of the gate I said this material risks being misconstrued as a period drama, a self-serious war film, awards bait or whatever you might call it. You get into that end of the year and people can miss what the purpose of the film really is.
This is a popcorn movie. This is an entertainment. It’s a weird word to use in relation to a real-life event — and one with the seriousness and gravitas of this. But the reality is, we are using the vehicle of entertainment to tell this story. We are giving people a white-knuckle ride. And that was a very important message for the studio to convey early on with where they dated the film.
Q: At a time when more and more people seem perfectly happy to watch movies at home on their TVs, laptops and tablets, though, do you feel like you’re bucking the trend?
A: Well, they are, but ancillary markets — there’s nothing new about that. The first time was in the 1950s, where the industry really saw television as a threat. And then, of course, it finds its relationship. And the relationship with features has always been a sort of trickledown one. What’s vital for the excitement of movies is that initial experience on the big screen — that it be as exciting as possible and as well-presented as possible.
In one sense, it’s bucking the trend. But in another sense, the average multiplex screen now is a lot better than when I was a kid. You go out into the suburbs and you’re in a really beautiful theater a lot of times. I think the theatrical experience is just tremendously appealing. It’s about the movies, really.
Q: The conventional wisdom these days is that the safest big-budget movies for the studios to make are comicbook movies. But 12 years ago, when you made “Batman Begins,” a comic-book movie wasn’t necessarily a safe bet at all — particularly in the way you did it.
A: No. What’s interesting about that whole paradigm is, you can’t fault the studios for looking to likely hits, for looking for areas where people seem to want more of something. But Hollywood and the studios have also always understood that novelty, freshness, is one of the magical ingredients of movies. And I don’t think the studios ever want to risk losing that completely.
Q: Could you see yourself going back to that realm where you’re dealing with a branded property and where the studio is hoping to sell a bunch of toys? Or, having done that, do you feel like you’re now more interested in just doing your own original ideas?
A: What you’re describing is a very broad category. I mean, absolutely I could see myself going back and doing something where they would make toys. I think they should make some Spitfires — I think those would be great toys.
In the broader sense, I wouldn’t limit anything for myself. But no, I would not go and do another Batman film, for example. I spent 10 years doing that, and I loved it. But I need to do different things and that world needs new voices — and it’s getting them and that’s great.