WEBVTT - Ep61 - Christopher Nolan / "Dunkirk" 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.920 You're listening to playback a Variety podcast. I'm your host, 0:00:04.000 --> 0:00:30.120 Variety Awards editor Chris Tappy. They had a screening last night. 0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:32.320 I was gonna try to make it, but I wasn't 0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:35.480 able to Imax screening. I do want to never do cure. 0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:38.239 I want to see it again in Imax before at 0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:41.040 some point hopefully maybe it'll maybe do a couple of 0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:44.279 more think of whatever, like re release or anything like that, 0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.040 or well they are we act sure already did an 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:50.839 Imax re release. Um, but every now and again we 0:00:50.880 --> 0:00:54.240 can gonna play the Imax Prince on their old films. Yeah, 0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:56.560 it seems like they could do a film film like 0:00:56.600 --> 0:00:59.480 an Imax Film Festival if they wanted to. Just like, well, 0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:05.640 if I keep films about yeah, all right, if I 0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:08.200 should be good there for you, you just get a 0:01:08.280 --> 0:01:11.000 level real fast. Yeah, so I'll be talking about like this. 0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:18.800 That's perfect, perfect though. And also I've got all my 0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:22.040 contraptions around. These are my questions. That's in the sit 0:01:22.040 --> 0:01:24.160 in front of me and a backup recorder, so we're 0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:31.400 covered on everything, hopeful on what well. I'm here today 0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:34.520 with the writer and director and producer of Dunn Kirk 0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:39.040 Christopher Nolan, the Oscar nominated director of Dunkirk. I should 0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:41.720 say thank you for doing my show, sir. I'm really apreciure. 0:01:42.680 --> 0:01:46.160 Let me start there. Actually, I'll go ahead and speak 0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:47.920 for myself, and I think a number of people that 0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:52.320 think that that particular recognition Best Director from the Academy 0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:55.040 has been a long time coming for you. So I 0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:56.600 just want to know what what did it feel like 0:01:56.760 --> 0:02:00.640 to finally get that particular slice of recognition from your peers. Well, 0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:05.120 I mean it's terrific. I mean, the recognition of your 0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:07.720 peers is the thing. And I've been fortunate in the 0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:10.840 past to have had you know, d g A nominations, 0:02:10.840 --> 0:02:13.000 which obviously always means a lot to me. But to 0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:15.480 get an Oscar nomination, I mean, you know, I grew 0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:18.440 up watching the Oscars on TV and grew up with 0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:20.600 the idea of that as being, you know, the sort 0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:24.160 of ultimate ultimate award in the in the filmmaking world. 0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:27.440 So it's it's really thrilling to be nominated. That actually 0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:30.120 brings a weird question. What was the first asker ceremony 0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:35.800 you remember? Watching? Wow? Gosh? I mean, I certainly remember 0:02:36.600 --> 0:02:42.280 once from the late seventies, there were different then the 0:02:42.280 --> 0:02:44.760 way they put on the show and whatnot. It's much 0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:48.120 different product now somewhat, but I mean there's still a 0:02:48.160 --> 0:02:51.160 great sense of occasion, and I think there's there's more 0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:54.040 than most things on TV or most things and studdy, 0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:57.160 there's there's quite a continuity actually with the history of movies, 0:02:57.919 --> 0:03:00.320 and I think that's it was fun when the you know, 0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:02.680 when they take that into account and they deal with 0:03:02.680 --> 0:03:05.280 the history of movies as they often do, and I 0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:08.639 think that's one of the reasons why it maintains a state. 0:03:08.720 --> 0:03:12.240 It's just such an honor for anybody involved with films 0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:14.079 because there is this sense of the people who have 0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:18.040 come before you. Yeah. Absolutely, well, congratulations on the success. 0:03:18.120 --> 0:03:23.600 There eight nominations. I believe this is your best film personally. 0:03:23.919 --> 0:03:26.160 I think it's a great culmination of everything that you've 0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:30.160 shown yourself capable of. I would love to start by 0:03:30.240 --> 0:03:34.040 talking about structure, because that's certainly the forefront when when 0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:38.040 you think about this film. Uh. One of William Goldman books, 0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:41.680 he was talking about like a remake of Grand Hotel 0:03:41.720 --> 0:03:44.920 he was going to work on, and before he sat 0:03:44.960 --> 0:03:47.080 down to write it, he kind of just sketched out 0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:51.320 just with lines representing each character, like this character will 0:03:51.360 --> 0:03:53.120 come in here and we'll be done with the character. There. 0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:56.080 There's a bunch of characters and narrative threads. So he 0:03:56.120 --> 0:03:58.160 just wanted to kind of visually see what would the 0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:00.480 structure be like. And I was just curious if you 0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:02.560 did anything like that, any kind of a visual aid 0:04:03.400 --> 0:04:07.600 to to kind of help you visualize the structure of Dunker. 0:04:07.680 --> 0:04:09.160 I mean, you don't have a ton of threads, but 0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:12.280 you've got three that are on different temporal planes, so 0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:15.120 certainly there's complexity there. Now. I do a lot of 0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:19.400 a lot of diagrams this film, in particular, with with 0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:24.520 the different time scales that the three timelines are running at. UM, 0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:26.919 I needed to know how they would interact, how they 0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:31.640 would intersect. And I think with every project, and this 0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:37.560 one in particular, I'm always struggling to find tools for visualization. Um. 0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:40.440 You know, it's sort of elusive that the screenplay format 0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:44.719 itself is pretty inadequate in a lot of ways for 0:04:44.960 --> 0:04:46.560 showing you what a finished film is going to be, 0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:48.800 or allowing you to step outside the story as a 0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:52.360 creator and sort of see how the pieces fit together. Um, 0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:54.960 but it's the best best with God in terms of 0:04:55.000 --> 0:04:57.279 how you move forward. Now you you step onto the 0:04:57.279 --> 0:05:00.719 floor to make a film, and I enjoy that format 0:05:00.839 --> 0:05:05.560 very much, But before I actually write screenplay, I do 0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:10.360 tend to look at other methods, various forms of notation, 0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:15.680 diagrams that explore the geometry of the story. I'm very 0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:19.200 interested in the geometry of stories and shape of them 0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:22.920 in different ways, um as you say, how characters come 0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:24.320 in and out, you know, and all the rest, and 0:05:24.720 --> 0:05:29.040 how the various elements of the structure will guide the 0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:31.920 audience through a set of events. And with dun Kirk, 0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:35.080 it was the first time I was dealing with real 0:05:35.120 --> 0:05:40.320 life event, set of events, and so all the research 0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:43.960 I was able to do before writing screenplay, before figuring 0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:45.960 out how to tell the story, it gives you the world, 0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:48.800 It gives you all the big geographical movements that you're 0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:52.279 going to want to deal with, and and so plotting 0:05:52.320 --> 0:05:56.240 the course through that became very much questioned point of view, 0:05:56.360 --> 0:05:58.760 very much question of structure, And so those kind of 0:05:59.200 --> 0:06:01.640 diagrams and the kind of explorations of how would a 0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:06.560 screenplay fit together actually assumed even more importance than they 0:06:06.600 --> 0:06:10.039 normally do. With why my work well, which you know, 0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:12.840 as you said, it's a very wilful structure. It's not 0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:15.120 the kind of thing you just stumble on and editing. 0:06:15.520 --> 0:06:18.920 So due to that, I feel like personally, your work 0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:20.960 as a writer on this particular project has kind of 0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:25.640 gotten some short short shrift because this was meticulously calculated 0:06:25.680 --> 0:06:29.160 on the page. Ultimately well it was. I mean, I 0:06:29.320 --> 0:06:31.719 think the screenplay hasn't had short shrift in the sense 0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:34.280 that a lot of people have responded very well to 0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:35.600 the film and come to see the film, and it's 0:06:35.600 --> 0:06:38.160 the screenplay that allows that to happen. So in the 0:06:38.279 --> 0:06:41.360 in the larger scheme of things, I think it's been 0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:44.640 recognized and it has paid off in ways that are 0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:47.960 very important. Um. The reality of how people tend to 0:06:48.720 --> 0:06:52.880 think of screenplays is something I've rubbed up against different 0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:58.120 projects over the years, because everybody tends to read screenplays 0:06:58.120 --> 0:06:59.880 the same way they tend to just read the dialogue. 0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:02.719 And I was a script reader for my first year 0:07:02.760 --> 0:07:05.400 when I when I moved to Hollywood, and I, like 0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:07.600 everybody else, tended to just read the dialogue, and you 0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:09.720 you get, you get sort of lazy in that regard. 0:07:10.760 --> 0:07:15.040 The screenplays I've written have always depended as much on 0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:17.880 the stage of directions as the dialogue, and that's always 0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:19.800 been something of a source of frustration for me, and 0:07:19.880 --> 0:07:24.120 it sort of showing people screenplayers and trying to get 0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:26.760 them to sort of visualize what the film could be. 0:07:27.360 --> 0:07:32.360 I remember seeing reading about something that Stanley Cuba could 0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:36.920 experiment with over the years, of shifting the layout of 0:07:36.960 --> 0:07:39.400 the screenplay format so that the dialogue would go wider 0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:41.600 in the stage directions would be narrower, you know, different 0:07:41.600 --> 0:07:44.119 ways of getting people look at differently on the page. 0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:45.840 But I don't think he ever came up with anything 0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:49.840 that was better than the conventional screenplay format, and I 0:07:49.880 --> 0:07:51.720 think it is the best. It's the best tool we have, 0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:56.360 but you are reliant on people really taking a bit 0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:59.840 of extra care and attention to really pause the stage 0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.920 directions as well as a dialogue. Dunkirk, that was that 0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:05.520 was very much the case because I was interested in 0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:09.640 telling a primarily visual story. Everything had to be scripted 0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:13.040 and written up very carefully, but I didn't want to 0:08:13.040 --> 0:08:16.920 carry the ideas through through dialogue primarily. It reminds me 0:08:16.960 --> 0:08:19.000 of film school. I think that that in film school, 0:08:19.000 --> 0:08:20.720 they're kind of just teaching you how to write scripts 0:08:20.720 --> 0:08:23.680 that can sell essentially, so they're telling you, you know, 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:26.240 make sure there's a lot of white space, you know, 0:08:26.480 --> 0:08:30.560 a lot of dialogue, keep your your your action to 0:08:30.720 --> 0:08:34.040 like three lines, and then move to another graph just well. 0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:37.840 And you write different screenplays for the same film, almost 0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:40.920 depending on what stage you're at. And screenplays are written 0:08:40.960 --> 0:08:43.240 to sell sometimes or they are written to attract actors 0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:45.600 or you know, find a place in the marketplace. I'm 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:47.680 very fortunate with the success I've had that I'm able 0:08:47.720 --> 0:08:50.800 to write the screenplays for me as a director. So 0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:54.000 I'm as a writer who communicating myself as a director, 0:08:54.160 --> 0:08:57.120 and so I can try and hone a very pure 0:08:57.160 --> 0:08:59.720 approach where you don't write anything in the screenplay that 0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:04.600 you don't know how to communicate to an audience visually 0:09:06.080 --> 0:09:09.760 or cinematically, i should say. And so I'm quite you know, 0:09:10.040 --> 0:09:12.559 it could be quite disciplined about about those kind of things. 0:09:12.640 --> 0:09:14.719 And I remember when I was starting out, I got 0:09:14.720 --> 0:09:18.240 really obsessive about, you know, not naming a character until 0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:22.319 somebody actually said the name of the dialogue, which you know, 0:09:22.360 --> 0:09:25.360 it's probably taking things a bit far, but it was 0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:27.679 a useful discipline in terms of always just trying to 0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:32.400 know only what the audience is going to uh, you know, 0:09:32.440 --> 0:09:35.720 I mentioned that there's there's meticulous calculation in the script. 0:09:36.000 --> 0:09:39.920 Uh when action from the various thrands, are threads are 0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:42.280 gonna intersect and whatnot. I'm just curious if that's part 0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:44.280 of the fun of being a filmmaker for you, Is 0:09:44.360 --> 0:09:47.840 just this kind of precision tinkering. Yeah, I mean there's 0:09:47.840 --> 0:09:49.959 a there's a sense of engineering about it. There's a 0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:53.240 lot of fun um. You're able to take advantage of 0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:56.520 the years that you have to plan and execute something 0:09:56.559 --> 0:09:59.000 that the audience will sit there for an hour and 0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:02.719 a half two hours and will flow over them in 0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:07.920 a linear way. So you have a very superior position 0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.520 to the audience members. You have a huge advantage, several 0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:15.560 huge advantages, and you know, utilizing those to give the 0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:20.280 audience an unexpected or slight challenging or surprising experience. It's 0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:22.200 part of the fun of it, It really is. I 0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:25.240 think like putting on a magic show. In a way, 0:10:25.280 --> 0:10:26.920 you get to be the magician. You get to plan 0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:29.080 your illusions ahead of time and then and then you 0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:32.440 get to lay them on and see the audience experienced 0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:35.600 them in real time. And that I think it has 0:10:35.600 --> 0:10:38.240 always been. It's something I've been asked about a lot, 0:10:38.240 --> 0:10:41.520 in terms of the number of layers that I try 0:10:41.559 --> 0:10:45.120 to put into the film, or certain aspects of things 0:10:45.120 --> 0:10:48.280 that are trying to get in there, where when you 0:10:48.360 --> 0:10:50.560 step back from it, you say, well, you should be 0:10:50.600 --> 0:10:52.200 doing those things, and you should be able to do 0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:56.120 those things, because I have years in which to put 0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:58.520 a film together that you're going to have two hours 0:10:58.559 --> 0:11:02.920 to watch, and so really ought to be giving you 0:11:02.960 --> 0:11:05.600 more than you can take in immediately or that you 0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:09.920 can analyze in the immediate linear moment. Uh, this is 0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:13.720 your Lanist movie, since following it kind of demanded that 0:11:13.760 --> 0:11:15.920 for what it is, this ticking clock kind of thriller. 0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:17.960 You know, as I said to you at the Governor's 0:11:17.960 --> 0:11:19.840 Awards a few months ago, I was going to lose 0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:23.079 my mind if your editor, Lee Smith was not recognized 0:11:23.080 --> 0:11:28.920 this time around. I still can't understand looking at Exception 0:11:28.960 --> 0:11:33.400 and saying no editing nomination there. But happily you're both 0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:37.360 in the mix this time around. But yeah, as I said, 0:11:37.360 --> 0:11:39.280 it's your Leanist movie. So I guess that kind of 0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:42.080 was dictated from the start, right, Like this wasn't going 0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:45.760 to be something that got big. Yeah, I mean, certainly 0:11:45.920 --> 0:11:49.720 for the screenplay. From the screenplay point of view, I 0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:51.680 wanted to it was determined to make it as short 0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:54.920 as possible and as stripped down as possible, because I 0:11:55.040 --> 0:11:59.000 knew that the imagery, the resources we were marshaling intends 0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:00.319 of what we would put in front of the camera. 0:12:00.679 --> 0:12:03.000 It would need a certain rhythm, it would need time 0:12:03.000 --> 0:12:05.760 to breathe to tell the story visually, and so I 0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:10.800 didn't want to um overburdened the running time of the script. 0:12:11.440 --> 0:12:16.080 But also everything we were doing, everything I was doing 0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:18.440 as a screenwriter and everything Lea was doing as an editor, 0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:22.520 was about suspense in the language of suspense. And I 0:12:22.559 --> 0:12:26.280 had written the screenplay and we edited the film according 0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:29.120 to this musical principle of the Shepherd term, which is 0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:34.360 a an audio illusion in music, whereby you create a 0:12:34.400 --> 0:12:36.400 piece of music that sounds like it's rising and pitched 0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:38.679 the whole time, but it never actually goes out of range, 0:12:38.760 --> 0:12:42.400 and so it's it's a sort of corkscrew effectively. And 0:12:42.600 --> 0:12:45.560 I'd use that in music and in sound effects before 0:12:45.880 --> 0:12:47.240 and when I was writing the script with it, what 0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:51.040 would be very interesting to try and apply those mathematical principles, 0:12:51.640 --> 0:12:54.040 those geometric principles to the way and which actually wrote 0:12:54.080 --> 0:12:57.360 the script. So by the time we filmed it, by 0:12:57.400 --> 0:12:59.480 the time we're in the edit suite, we have three 0:12:59.480 --> 0:13:04.079 storyline that are always continually peaking in terms of intensity 0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:07.760 or anxiety, one after the other. And that was aimed 0:13:07.800 --> 0:13:10.880 at creating a sort of tumbling forward quality to the narrative, 0:13:10.960 --> 0:13:13.520 kind of snowballing effect. And it's the kind of thing 0:13:13.559 --> 0:13:16.600 that I've been doing in primarily in the third acts 0:13:16.640 --> 0:13:20.720 of my longer films, and it's a form of cinematic storytelling. 0:13:20.720 --> 0:13:23.520 They're very much enjoy but it's also one that can 0:13:23.559 --> 0:13:27.880 be exhausted for an audience. And so I think Lee 0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:31.800 understood why had written the shortest script. He understood why, 0:13:31.880 --> 0:13:36.560 even though we had an amazing amount of really remarkable 0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:39.720 material and the aerial unit and stuff on the beach 0:13:39.760 --> 0:13:45.360 and on the sea, but we didn't want to exhaust 0:13:45.400 --> 0:13:47.600 the audience unnecessarily. We didn't want to push it too 0:13:47.640 --> 0:13:50.439 far in a sense, we wanted to pitch it just right. 0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:55.480 And I think Lee showed an amazing amount of well restraint, really, 0:13:55.520 --> 0:13:57.440 I suppose, in a sense of not not pushing things 0:13:57.440 --> 0:14:01.800 too far and really trying to to find exactly the 0:14:01.880 --> 0:14:06.440 right balance between you know, productive tension and exhaustion on 0:14:06.480 --> 0:14:09.640 the part of the audience. Let's talk about hoyt Van 0:14:09.679 --> 0:14:12.400 Hoytima spoken to him a number of times over the years. 0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:15.120 I have a top ten Shots of the Year column 0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:18.200 that he's like a mainstay on at this point. Uh, 0:14:18.280 --> 0:14:20.320 your previous DP was while he fister, he moved on 0:14:20.520 --> 0:14:23.440 to be a director himself. Um. But you're obviously someone 0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:27.320 who sticks with your cinematographer. So whenever you went out 0:14:27.360 --> 0:14:29.760 looking for someone on Interstellar, what was it about Hoyta 0:14:29.880 --> 0:14:32.840 that collect Why is it? Why is this the guy? Well, 0:14:33.760 --> 0:14:37.840 a lot of a lot of your choices about who 0:14:37.880 --> 0:14:40.240 to work with a very instinctive. They're about getting in 0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:42.280 the room with somebody and seeing if there's a creative 0:14:42.440 --> 0:14:47.400 spark between you. Um. You know, I'd seen the work 0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:50.400 he'd done on other films. Let the right one in 0:14:50.400 --> 0:14:53.720 in particular, made quit an impression on me. Um. But 0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:56.840 really it was about a meeting the minds creatively, just 0:14:56.920 --> 0:15:02.200 in in talking about cinematography, me and his approach to 0:15:02.240 --> 0:15:04.880 it and what I what I wanted in in terms 0:15:04.920 --> 0:15:09.520 of the photography and Interstellar, because it's more than that 0:15:09.560 --> 0:15:12.680 relationship is about more than just lighting or camera work. 0:15:12.720 --> 0:15:15.400 It's about storytelling, and you have to find somebody who 0:15:16.680 --> 0:15:19.520 will really be pulling in the same direction as you 0:15:19.560 --> 0:15:21.440 in terms of how to tell that story and what 0:15:21.600 --> 0:15:24.720 the role of the photography will be in it. And 0:15:24.800 --> 0:15:29.200 so one of the more interesting things I think about 0:15:29.240 --> 0:15:33.480 what Hoiter did in Dunkirk, which is deceptively simple, is 0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:37.360 he didn't ever want to discuss the look of the film. 0:15:37.400 --> 0:15:38.960 He didn't ever want to talk about it as any 0:15:39.040 --> 0:15:42.000 kind of stylization. He had the confidence to let it 0:15:42.040 --> 0:15:46.000 emerge from the material and what we were actually going 0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:49.040 to stage and let that define the look, which I 0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:52.800 think for for myself as a director, I have a 0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:57.640 lot of experience with large scale films, you know. I 0:15:58.600 --> 0:16:00.920 for me that wasn't maybe such a leap, but for 0:16:00.960 --> 0:16:04.040 the for a cinematographer to sort of say, we're going 0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:05.800 to put thousands of people on the beach, We're going 0:16:05.880 --> 0:16:07.760 to get these airplanes, we're gonna get these boots, and 0:16:07.800 --> 0:16:11.400 then we're going to see how that informs the creative 0:16:11.400 --> 0:16:17.200 process of the photography. Um So all of our conversations 0:16:17.200 --> 0:16:21.120 in pre production, rather than being aesthetic, they were technical. 0:16:21.240 --> 0:16:23.040 It was Okay, this is the format was shooting, this 0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:25.360 is the type of lens we need, this is how 0:16:25.360 --> 0:16:28.240 we're going to move the camera around. Um And I 0:16:28.320 --> 0:16:30.840 think that one of the things that I'm happiest about 0:16:30.920 --> 0:16:35.840 with Hoy's work on the film is the sincerity and 0:16:35.880 --> 0:16:39.120 the naturalness of the way in which he achieved these 0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:42.080 remarkable images there from the heart. I mean, they're just 0:16:43.120 --> 0:16:47.080 somebody with a brilliant eye watching what's going on in 0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:50.360 front of us and finding a way to capture that. 0:16:50.760 --> 0:16:54.440 There's no imposed style on the photography in the film, 0:16:55.080 --> 0:16:57.560 and in the case of Imax photography is what how 0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:00.000 it has done in the Imax format in this film 0:17:00.080 --> 0:17:05.120 was really unique and groundbreaking in my opinion. Um yeah, 0:17:05.119 --> 0:17:06.880 I think it's the best use of the format you've 0:17:06.880 --> 0:17:08.840 had so far. I mean, certainly, I saw one of 0:17:08.880 --> 0:17:11.439 the early screenings at the Universal City was felt like 0:17:11.440 --> 0:17:14.560 I was just falling into the screen from the opening frame. Well, 0:17:14.560 --> 0:17:17.160 we had had a bit of practice by this time, 0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:19.560 We've been doing it for ten years, and Hoyt on 0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:23.120 Interstellar finally broke that barrier that we hadn't been able 0:17:23.160 --> 0:17:26.480 to of how to hand hold the camera basically about 0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:30.720 just picking it up and toughing it. But he was 0:17:30.800 --> 0:17:34.520 able then suddenly to give me access to the Imax 0:17:34.600 --> 0:17:37.720 format as a spontaneous format, as an intimate format, and 0:17:37.880 --> 0:17:41.440 so coming to Dunkirk, where my aspiration for the film 0:17:41.480 --> 0:17:44.360 was an intimate epic, he is then able to put 0:17:44.359 --> 0:17:47.560 that lens right where the thirty five mill or go 0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:49.639 pro would be, you know, and and really give you 0:17:49.680 --> 0:17:53.520 that that intimacy with the characters, but on this incredible 0:17:53.520 --> 0:17:58.520 format that is so it's transparent in a sense, it's 0:17:58.560 --> 0:18:00.800 not stylized. It doesn't have to tell him to look. 0:18:01.080 --> 0:18:05.360 It just lets the screen disappear and immerses the audience 0:18:05.359 --> 0:18:08.840 in the action. And so I think always really trusted 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:12.960 the format and trusted his eye to just be there, 0:18:13.040 --> 0:18:17.199 follow the characters through and find the the look of 0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:19.879 the thing that way, rather than imposing a style on it. 0:18:19.920 --> 0:18:23.440 And I think I think it's it's remarkable work that 0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:25.679 that answers my next question, which was I was curious 0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:27.639 if you guys pulled any references, if you looked at 0:18:27.640 --> 0:18:31.840 photography or any artwork, but obviously not, but in general, 0:18:32.359 --> 0:18:34.439 was that just for this movie or is that something 0:18:34.440 --> 0:18:37.399 that you're typically interested in coming into pre production? I 0:18:37.440 --> 0:18:41.040 think it depends on the on the project. I've often 0:18:41.080 --> 0:18:44.320 done films where in the case of Inception, you know, 0:18:44.359 --> 0:18:49.920 working with Whalley, with different storylines that intersect or interact, 0:18:50.840 --> 0:18:52.760 you know, there is perhaps a temptation to say, well, 0:18:52.800 --> 0:18:54.960 we could do you know, this one in this particular 0:18:55.000 --> 0:18:57.680 color or this process, or put this look to it. 0:18:58.800 --> 0:19:01.840 I've always come down on the side of naturalism, and 0:19:01.920 --> 0:19:03.880 that's why it works so well with Molly Fister, It's 0:19:03.880 --> 0:19:06.240 why I think it works so well with Hot They're 0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:10.720 naturalistic photographers. They sort of trust the material in front 0:19:10.760 --> 0:19:12.399 of them in a way, and so you trust that 0:19:13.720 --> 0:19:18.160 the reality of the physical differences of the different timelines 0:19:18.280 --> 0:19:21.680 will start to naturally achieve some kind of a look. 0:19:22.119 --> 0:19:26.600 And I've always tried to shoot on the highest quality format, 0:19:26.600 --> 0:19:31.479 the most transparent medium possible, so that you are really 0:19:31.520 --> 0:19:36.199 just giving the audience access to the look and feel 0:19:36.400 --> 0:19:38.879 of the world that you want them to respond to. 0:19:39.119 --> 0:19:43.800 The tactile quality that you want people to watch Dunkirk 0:19:43.880 --> 0:19:47.040 in such a way that they know what everything would 0:19:47.119 --> 0:19:49.800 smell like. You know that that kind of tacticality that 0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:53.479 that's very important. Did you leave any cameras, any imax 0:19:53.560 --> 0:19:57.720 cameras at the bottom of the English channel. Temporarily we 0:19:58.240 --> 0:20:00.240 fished them out again and now we did we There 0:20:00.280 --> 0:20:03.159 is a shot in the film where we when we 0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:07.960 crash landed a spitfire with an Imax camera mounted and 0:20:08.040 --> 0:20:11.360 a barrel on the side, and the things sunk much 0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:16.199 more quickly than we expected, and the housing for the camera, 0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:20.879 which we put together a bit ad hoc, it fractured 0:20:21.080 --> 0:20:24.480 and the entire camera submergen seawater for hours before we 0:20:24.520 --> 0:20:29.239 can actually get it back up. But we sent the 0:20:29.240 --> 0:20:33.240 film to the lab in Los Angeles, kept it moist 0:20:33.320 --> 0:20:35.119 in the cans, you know. We called them uposite what 0:20:35.119 --> 0:20:37.439 do we do and they told us to, you know, 0:20:37.440 --> 0:20:39.320 put some damp rags in there with it in the 0:20:39.359 --> 0:20:43.000 in the cans we sent the film, They processed it, 0:20:43.160 --> 0:20:45.480 cleaned it and processed it, and the shots in the 0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:48.680 film it came out absolute perfectly, which you can't do it. 0:20:48.920 --> 0:20:51.680 You can't do that with a digital camera. Probably couldn't 0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:53.800 have planned that either. If you, if that's what you wanted, 0:20:53.960 --> 0:20:57.720 set out to do. Um and I just saw this 0:20:57.800 --> 0:21:00.760 feature it actually it's half hour they put together that 0:21:01.400 --> 0:21:05.520 shows all of these like Imax cameras bolted onto spitfires 0:21:05.560 --> 0:21:07.199 and they just liked a lot of fun. It was 0:21:07.240 --> 0:21:09.560 a lot of fun. Yeah, it was like a lot 0:21:09.600 --> 0:21:11.760 of things in filmmaking. It was a lot of work, 0:21:12.960 --> 0:21:16.800 a lot of planning. But then you have that moment 0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:20.080 where you know, you get your first dailies of you know, 0:21:20.160 --> 0:21:23.520 Jack loud and in a plane for real flying information 0:21:23.520 --> 0:21:27.679 with spitfires, and you just think, wow, we actually managed 0:21:27.720 --> 0:21:29.320 to do that. We actually managed to get that done. 0:21:29.600 --> 0:21:31.840 And there were a lot of moments, a lot of 0:21:31.960 --> 0:21:35.840 things like that on this film. The biggest one, I 0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:39.680 think for me being standing on the beach at Dunkirk 0:21:39.800 --> 0:21:43.159 on the anniversary of the real evacuation and seeing the 0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:46.520 real little ships who'd actually been there in seeing them 0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:50.480 come back to recreate their journey for us on that anniversary. 0:21:51.359 --> 0:21:54.600 That was a really, really remarkable thing to be a 0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:57.639 part of professional connection to Dunkirk. And I wanted to 0:21:57.680 --> 0:21:59.919 ask you that, like, is there something in your family 0:22:00.840 --> 0:22:03.520 had anything to do with the evacuation. No, I mean 0:22:03.560 --> 0:22:07.960 I had a great uncle who was evacuated a couple 0:22:07.960 --> 0:22:12.800 of weeks after that, and I had known of his experiences. 0:22:12.840 --> 0:22:14.960 But my connection with what WHTI is my grandfather was 0:22:14.960 --> 0:22:18.600 in the Royal Air Force and died a couple of 0:22:18.640 --> 0:22:22.920 years after that. But like most well like all British people, 0:22:23.840 --> 0:22:26.080 it's a huge part of our culture. It's a it's 0:22:26.080 --> 0:22:28.760 a history that everybody there knows. And we talked about 0:22:29.080 --> 0:22:33.159 the Dunka Expirit for example. You know, it's just a 0:22:33.359 --> 0:22:37.080 very very well known part of British culture. Having said which, 0:22:37.640 --> 0:22:40.439