Review of Dunkirk (2017) by Noel M — 28 Dec 2017

This movie is not the Dunkirk story that I would have expected - an uplifting tale of heroism by small boat owners who successfully evacuated 300,000 trapped British soldiers. But that story has already been told in other movies, and this one is by Christopher Nolan - who wouldn't have undertaken this project if he didn't have an original take on it. This, however, has its pluses and minuses.

First the pluses: 1) Suspense. The ending of the operation is well known, so Nolan has chosen to focus on three groups of individuals whose outcomes are uncertain. Consequently, we can be emotionally invested in their journeys, never knowing what their fates will be. 2) Intensity. Jeopardy is the operative word here, as one catastrophe after another befalls the characters, pounded home by Hans Zimmer's insistent score. 3) Scope. On land, sea, and air, we are drawn into the war, not as mere observers, but almost as participants. This, I believe, is the major achievement of the film: how closely we can identify with the individuals (even if we don't always know their names). 4) Cinematography and Editing. It is shot beautifully, while looking unlike any other war film in memory. Individual takes are allowed to go on until they naturally conclude, without the frenzied cutting which has been in vogue for far too long. 5) Payoff. In its final scenes, as if to reward the viewer for his travails, Dunkirk provides the emotional uplift one would expect from the whole story. One comes away feeling pride for the wondrous accomplishment, and moved by the words of Winston Churchill. (There is no better way to end a movie than with the words of Winston Churchill.).

Now for the minuses: 1) Clarity. While it is fascinating to see three stories, each in its own timeline, and ultimately satisfying to see how they eventually mesh - because this a Christopher Nolan film, its chronology was unnecessarily confusing. Clarity should never be sacrificed for the sake of mere style. 2) Torture. There are some films that appear to be designed to torture the audience, by having its members suffer along with the protagonists. (Papillon comes to mind.) Nolan should have curbed his fondness for depicting drownings, unless his purpose was to leave viewers gasping for air. 3) Characterizations. We never really get to know the individual characters, except for the boatman, impeccably played by Mark Rylance - but even with him, it comes much too late in the story.

Overall, I would say that this is a very good, but not great, film, even though Christopher Nolan is a great filmmaker. I'm glad I saw it but, unlike Darkest Hour, I would not want to see it again - although I'm eager to see his next film.