“Studying is hard and boring. Teaching is hard and boring. So, what you’re telling me is to be bored, and then bored, and finally bored again, but this time for the rest of my life? This whole stupid country is bored! There’s no life in it, or color, or fun! It’s probably just as well the Russians are going to drop a nuclear bomb on us any day now. So my choice is to do something hard and boring, or to marry my… Jew, and go to Paris and Rome and listen to jazz, and read, and eat good food in nice restaurants, and have fun! It’s not enough to educate us anymore Ms. Walters. You’ve got to tell us why you’re doing it.”
I fulfilled my cinephile duty and saw Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm tonight. It was fine. I liked the sequences in the sky with Tom Hardy. It really just felt like a WWII British propaganda film but considering that war is long over I’m not sure what the point of making this was.
But it did remind me of Their Finest which I loved. It’s stuck with me far more than I expected. After seeing it I felt the need to add qualifiers like “It was great for what it was.” That’s bullshit. Why is a movie less cinematic because it focuses on character, because it’s a love story, because it’s about a woman? I think Their Finest was just great. And Dunkirk was good… for what it was.