Review of Dunkirk (2017) by Archie W — 15 Aug 2017

A visual spectacle easily capable of masterfully immersing the viewer in the events of the fact-based story, that rapidly builds tension throughout. However, it seems the very nature of the picture restricts aspects of film making that could have otherwise been present, leaving you somewhat underwhelmed. Nevertheless, you'll certainly enjoy the film for what it is, but due to a lack of competent character building and bizarre editing choices, you don't consider this film as particularly memorable in comparison to others within the same genre.

Dunkirk is a story based on the real events of what took place in May 1940. This is presented to us through three chapters and locations, the first being the beach and docks where a larger majority of the film takes place, with the soldiers that are waiting to be evacuated. The second chapter takes place on the sea, of which the focal point is a small civilian ship and their journey to Dunkirk. The final chapter takes place in the air, and focuses on the RAF pilots, and is what I would consider the more compelling of the three.

Nolan uses a non-chronological timeline in order to tell these 3 chapters, by overlapping them, due to the fact that each chapter begins at a different stage of the overall timeline. While some have referred to this as a 'meaningless gimmick', I think this was an incredibly appropriate choice to make. Given that I personally feel one of the film's larger weaknesses was the lack of character depth and development, by allowing the viewer to immediately engage with each chapter's characters, does offer some kind of connection and understanding that you would not otherwise have if the timeline was chronological, and therefore making this one of the film's strengths as opposed to one of its weaknesses.

Beginning with one of the main focuses of the film, which I'd see as the cinematography, given the fact that 70mm was chosen for the shooting of the film. This choice is certainly effective in visually communicating the scope of the event, and also contributes to the immersion I mentioned in the introduction of my review. The shots are amazing and only amplified by more of a reliance on practical effects than CGI. The colours in the film are capable of creating an interesting image, whilst emphasising the bleakness of the situation, and I felt it progressively got brighter as the protagonists progressed towards their safety. The reason I mention this is to further show how the imagery and visual style of the film are something worth watching for, and how there is an acute attention to detail which certainly indicates capable film making, which makes the issues within the film increasingly strange, something I'll cover in a moment.

Another strength of the film, is, of course, the tension. I had no reason to doubt that Hans Zimmer's score wouldn't be exceptional as usual, and I felt it had a crucial part to play in the intensity of the film. In this aspect, the slightly lacking depth of character works in the film's favour, since I had no expectation for the 'main' characters to make it to the end of the film, and that really raises the steaks. However, in this positive, also lies one of my gripes with the film. While the sound design in the film is also to a high standard and does an excellent job of engaging you in the film's setting, on occasion it is immensely loud, most notably in the more intense scenes. Now while you'd expect this to contribute to the build of tension because I understood, that much like the soldiers we're experiencing this with, we are meant to be surprised by the next shot or explosion, for me it did the opposite. There is one scene you'll notice this in particular, but keeping it vague, I will state that shots are being fired that potentially jeopardize the safety of a group of soldiers. As time passes, the danger, and intensity increases. However, this film really takes you out of the moment since instead of feeling this fear for the soldiers, I'm more concerned about when I'm going to be deafened by a shot ringing out. You end up with this disconnection from the film because I'm not worried about the soldiers, I'm worried about the 'jump-scare' method being used as a crutch for building tension. Later on in the film, particularly towards the very last scenes of the film, the intensity is there without a reliance on cheaply making gunfire or explosions loud, and it's immeasurably more effective, and for me it went to prove how much I loved the last act of the film in comparison to the rest, as I'm sure you will too. I understand how in the events of the film, yes explosions, bullets, it would be loud, and it's supposed to bring us further into this harsh reality, but I feel it could have been done in a more effective fashion.

Since I keep mentioning it, I'll stop beating around the bush, and talk about one of the biggest issues with the film, and that is simply the characters. They are unmemorable, lackluster and with so much potential for more, and I would say that is down to an undeniable lack of dialogue. You really only see proper interaction in the chapters for the sea, and the air, which is disappointing this the film really revolves around the soldiers on the beach. There are eerie silences that don't contribute anything to the film, it's simply meaningless and frankly strange. Characters will go extended periods of time completing actions without actually communicating as if they have some kind of supernatural bond. I would give the film credit if these soldiers had come to know and understand each other after fighting in the same war, resulting in an actual bond, but we receive confirmation that isn't the case. Even a modicum more of dialogue would have worked wonders on this film, and really allowed us to engage with the characters on screen. Now, I mentioned before that the "nature of the film" could prevent it from doing so, since Dunkirk is really a telling of a story for all the soldiers, but throughout the film, we stick with particular characters, therefore they are obviously focused in the film. Without any information, they are completely forgettable, and therefore makes this film similarly unmemorable. For me, it is the characters that need to be of a high standard, to make the film a standout, and Dunkirk doesn't have that. If we could just understand these characters motivations, I feel there would be so much more to be gained, and we could really root for the characters portrayed. That being said, the acting in the film is good enough. Nothing too revolutionary, nor disappointing, although, to my surprise, Harry Style's performance was surprisingly good, and wasn't noticably out of place whatsoever.

To conclude, Dunkirk is in many ways, a great feat of film making, and in others, underwhelming. I feel the focus of the film was too visually rooted, as opposed to spreading the focus and making a complete package. Once again I will say that Dunkirk is worth a watch, but a second? Probably not.