Dunkirk – 2017
Director Christopher Nolan tried, in the making of this film, to create a work of art based on the historic evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk, France in 1940. In this, I believe he succeeded more than other films, but in order to achieve that goal, drama, depth, and well-established characters were sacrificed to a certain extent. The film was indeed artsy in its story structure, its cinematography, and its grand scale, but for me, it seemed to be cold and impersonal. And I believe I know why.
You see, there wasn’t any time devoted to character development. The movie starts out following that guy who makes it to the beach without getting shot. He really is the main character in the movie and we never even learn his name, let alone who he is, what he has been through, or what his motivations are. He is just that guy, and because the actor playing him was a virtual unknown in Hollywood, I couldn’t even connect with him in that superficial kind of way.
Now, I understand that Nolan did this on purpose because he wanted the character to be anybody who could represent everybody. But the problem is I didn’t start caring about what happened to him until about half the way through the movie, and even then, only because I saw what had happened to him in the first half of the movie. Even after the movie ended, I only learned that the character’s name was Tommy because I looked for the cast list during the credits. In that same respect, when an actor who I recognized finally appeared on the screen, I found myself hoping he would survive, based only on the fact of my recognition. But even then, I had no back story, no character development, no reason to become emotionally involved with the character.
The film tells the story of the evacuation of Dunkirk from three different perspectives: land, air, and sea. Each point of view has its own time table, so jumping back and forth between the different narratives meant jumping backwards and forwards in time. I don’t really have a problem with that, seeing as how all three stories culminated in a single climax at the end. But I’m thinking the film might have benefited from story-telling that was a little more linear.
In the first story, Tommy, played by Fionn Whitehead, teams up with Gibson, played by Aneurin Barnard, and then Alex, played by Harry Styles. The three of them spend the film desperately trying to get onto any boat that might take them away from the beach, where German airplanes were killing British and French soldiers left and right. They board three different vessels which are subsequently sunk. Gibson does not survive the sinking of the last one. Meanwhile, Commander Bolton and Colonel Winnant, played by Kenneth Branagh and James D’Arcy, respectively, wait on the beach for some kind of rescue.
The second story is about the band of three British airplanes who try to defend the troops on the beach against the air strikes. Their leader is shot down, and after that, we are at least given the names of the other two pilots, Collins and Farrier, played by Jack Lowden and Tom Hardy. After more intense dog-fighting in the air, Collins is shot down, and lands his plane in the water without crashing. Farrier stays in the air to defend the soldiers on the ground even though he is running out of fuel. In the end, he is forced to land his plane on the beach and is taken prisoner by German troops.
The third story is that of an English man named Mr. Dawson, played by Mark Rylance, his son Peter, played by Tom Glynn-Carney, and his son’s friend George, played by Barry Keoghan. They are part of the fleet of small, personally owned evacuation boats sent to Dunkirk to pick up as many soldiers as the are able, to ferry them to safety. As they cross the English Channel, they pick up a few passengers. One is a shell-shocked survivor from a downed vessel. The other is Collins, the fighter pilot.
So by the end of the movie, there is a cohesiveness to the movie that ties the three stories together, but the lack of depth in the characters made it difficult to care what happened to them. Even when Gibson drowned, I was only mildly affected. But what the film lacked in character development, it made up for in the great use of practical effects versus CGI, and the good historical accuracy. Critics of the film also praise the score by Hans Zimmer, but I’m on the fence about that one. Zimmer did a fine job at building the tension over the course of the one hour and forty-six minute movie. But at times his score seemed repetitive, with long drawn-out chords just getting louder and louder. It seems to be his style, as I have seen the same thing in other films he has scored.
I liked the movie enough to enjoy it once, but I didn’t think it was anything to stop the presses for. From what I have read, many critics are calling this one of the best war movies ever made. I think it was good enough, but I wouldn’t go that far.