Dunkirk (2017)
Dunkirk (2017)
Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan
Rated PG-13
Christopher Nolan is without question among the most recognized and acclaimed directors working in cinema today and I feel he has earned his fame. From his early works such as Following (1998) or Memento (2001) to his fantastic Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012) and even The Prestige (2006), Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014), he has proved himself to be a filmmaker with his own style, a clear sense of how narrative should flow, and manages to combine an art house sensibility with demands for modern blockbusters to create experiences that are uniquely cinematic. With the success of his films (The Dark Knight Trilogy in particular), he seems to have been given the keys to the kingdom as it were and appears to be able to make whatever project he wants. Dunkirk is clearly the product of that freedom as it is not only an effective thriller and a good war film but it is a kind of blockbuster that we do not see very often.
The film tells of an event that took place in May 1940 where 400,000 Allied soldiers were left trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk, France as German troops continued their advance into the country. With most of the military personnel and recourses being withheld to prepare to defend against Germany’s attack on Britain, civilian boats were hired out (so to speak) to assist in the evacuation. The story is unfolded in a nonlinear fashion and told at three different places with different people that all converge by the film’s end. We have Royal Air Force pilots (Tom Hardy and Jack Lowden) rendering assistance from the air, the crew of a small leisure boat (Mark Rylance, Barry Keoghan and Tom Glynn-Carney with Cillian Murphy in tow) headed toward Dunkirk, and we have the various experiences of several characters on the beach (such as Kenneth Branagh, James D’Arcy, Fionn Whitehead, Harry Styles and others).
You may have noticed that I didn’t include character names when I listed who was involved with each part of the story. That is because this is a film that is to serve as a means to immerse the audience in the evacuation of Dunkirk. It is crafted to give the audience an experience as opposed to a traditional narrative. The characters we follow at the three different times help to give us an opening to experience what it was like to either be trapped on the beach, flying in the air or be part of the group of civilian boats sent to rescue the troops. We are so immersed into their experiences that we don’t get any scenes with generals or government officials and we don’t see the advancing Germans. Since the film takes place from the perspective of those who are at the locations, all we see are advancing bombers, gunfire ricocheting off of walls combined with the deafening echo that follows, torpedoes flowing underwater before it strikes a military vessel among other things. While the characters probably do have names and backgrounds, in the case of this story it is not important to learn them. What is important is seeing how they would get out of the predicament they are in. “Survival is Victory” as the tagline of the movie says. This is what separates Dunkirk from other war films. We don’t have scenes with troops in foxholes or by firesides discussing home or the loved ones they wish to go back to, big dramatic scenes where friends die or even moments that signal a rousing victory but rather we have a kind of history lesson in the form of an involving thriller. In the place of individuals, we have a nation coming together to pull off a miracle. I found the way this story unfolded refreshing but I can understand if there may be some who are put off by this.
As with every Nolan film, Dunkirk is incredibly well constructed. Nolan and his cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema worked hard to make sure that the audience is with the characters from the start. When we follow characters in which ever place they are, the camera is on them and we are right in the heat of whatever moments they are in. The visual effects are of course stunning with most of the effects being practical and with CGI very likely being used only when it is impossible to do certain scenes practically. Although it does feel like an old fashioned war movie (the ones that you would occasionally see on Turner Classic Movies that don’t have a ton of vulgarity or graphic violence) at times, it is distinctly a Nolan film with all of his signature trademarks from the kind of natural and not overly stylized visual look reminiscent of Michael Mann films like Heat (1995) to non-conventional narrative structure. The precision and length of the shots captured in the picture really do help tell the narrative more visually than most war pictures I have seen.
It is also interesting to note that there isn’t a lot of dialogue in the film from the characters and so there are many times where the actors had to sell what they were feeling through gestures and facial expressions and I can safely say that every actor got the job done in that department. Be they silent or spoken, the performances from everyone involved were convincing and earnest. This is also an ensemble picture and despite the fact that there are big names in this film (like Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance and a few others) there is no “star” of the film. This is a film where the actors surrender their egos and want for recognition in order to sell an overall experience which isn’t all that dissimilar to what Stanley Kubrick did on 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).
If I do have one complaint, it is a personal one. While this is a very good film and one that I very highly recommend (especially if you want a movie this summer that is far from the traditional blockbuster fair) I wouldn’t really go so far as to say that this is Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece. It just wasn’t a film that I found quite as engaging as his other films like Memento or Interstellar (my favorite Nolan film by the way) and it wasn’t quite the transcendent cinematic experience as I have heard this described. But this is not a mark against the film or Nolan as this just something that happens when you closely follow someone’s work for many years. For instance, I would argue that Akira Kurosawa never made a bad movie but I can safely say that there are plenty of films from his prolific career that I enjoy far more than others. Leaving that aside, Dunkirk really is a unique film and one I really do recommend you see. You can see it in IMAX, standard projection or, if you happen to live in the few places around the country that offers it, see it projected in 70mm (the film stock used to film epics like Lawrence of Arabia (1962)). I wish I could have seen it in 70mm but I live in a small town in Missouri and don’t have that luxury. Oh well, we can’t have everything…
