Skip to main content

We Shall Defend Our Island, Whatever the Cost May Be


          In late May and early June of 1940, the Germans had surrounded British forces in France, cornering them at the beach on Dunkirk just across the English Channel from Dover. In a massive evacuation by the British military and private vessels alike while defensive Spitfires tried to keep the enemy at bay, over 300,000 were rescued despite the loss of the beach for the Allies. 
          Christopher Nolan’s been wanting to tell this story since the 1990s, and it’s a very unconventional story for him. Not only is it his only war film, but it doesn’t have the heavy ideas and plots that are typical of his movies. However this works to Dunkirk’s advantage, resulting in a movie that feels like a classic war film, but still presented in an interesting way.
          Completely covering the Dunkirk evacuation, the film tells three stories simultaneously that take place over different ranges of time. The first follows British privates (Fionn Whitehead, Aneurin Barnard, and Harry Styles) attempting to escape Dunkirk on their own over a week. The second, taking place over a day, covers a British privateer (Mark Rylance) sailing across the Channel to rescue the men on the beach. And the third sees an RAF pilot (Tom Hardy) spending an hour shooting down Luftwaffe planes to allow the ships to depart with the escapees.
          This movie is very focussed on the events concerning Dunkirk, throwing you right into the action from the get-go, and the way it divides its time among the different parties reminds me of war movies like A Bridge Too Far. This allows for multiple perspectives of the same event and a greater exploration of said event, the details on the battle and evacuation being very precise. But the most surprising constructive device of this movie is how it uses sparse dialogue, relying a lot on visual storytelling. This is incredibly unusual for Christopher Nolan, whose biggest weakness can often be his penchant for excessive dialogue and grandiose monologuing. And I’m very impressed by this departure. Nolan knows the action itself, the circumstances and emotions speak for themselves. That being said, while I like the non-linear storylines, they aren’t conveyed entirely well. It’s never made clear these threads take place over longer periods of time until characters from one storyline interact with another, such as the introduction of Cillian Murphy as a shell-shocked officer.
          There’s also problems with regards to characterization. Few characters are named in the film and many don’t have much of a personality. But keeping in the tradition of classic war movies, this is an ensemble piece. Of course Nolan regulars Murphy and Hardy are good (Hardy once again being under a mask for the majority of his screen-time), and there’s even a brief Michael Caine cameo to spot. But there are also exceptional performances from Kenneth Branagh and James D’Arcy as the commanders on the beach, and Jack Lowden as another RAF pilot. The younger actors do okay, Styles being most notable for his pop music background, but none really stand out or do anything new with their performances. In fact theirs is probably the least interesting storyline, until they end up on an abandoned boat. The best performance and most interesting character by far is Mark Rylance as an older man volunteering his boat, and embarking on a quest with his son and another local boy, to rescue as many as possible. The drive behind his eyes is palpable, and considering he’s not a part of the army, his heroism shines more through. His small crew also works well off of the always devoted Murphy. I’d have been completely satisfied if the movie just followed this troupe.
          Dunkirk is a very skilfully directed film. Not only are the effects quite good, but the action is great. This film accurately captures the fear inherent in the circumstances; often when bombers flew overhead, soldiers were trapped on the moles and could do nothing but hope the bombs wouldn’t land on them. There’s a perfect moment of hopelessness when the young leads witness one man just walking into the ocean to drown. The dread and sense of urgency is really present, you feel as trapped as the people on the beach. Hans Zimmer’s music is a bit overblown but the sound editing is amazing and the cinematography is great -particularly in how Nolan shoots the dogfights. The opening sequence too, which follows Whitehead’s character through the town of Dunkirk trying to dodge enemy fire, no matter how unconventional his route becomes, while propaganda flyers fall, is a great exercise in tension building. And of course this film ultimately has a heavy streak of British patriotism. But it’s at least a refreshing change from the overt American patriotism of war movies of the last number of years.
          I didn’t like Nolan’s last two movies, but Dunkirk has restored a degree of his reputation in my eyes. It’s easily his best movie since Inception, possibly The Dark Knight. And though it does have problems in its characterization and storytelling device, it’s a well-executed and loyal telling of what took place at Dunkirk during those critical ten days in 1940.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...