Christopher Nolan has become one of cinema's most dependable storytellers. My belief is that he is this generation's James Cameron -- a director who can't be pigeon-holed into a particular genre ... a filmmaker who creates ambitious pieces of cinema (sometimes a tad too much, as was the case with "Interstellar") that serve as gripping big-screen experiences.
Nolan is "appointment movie going" at its best.
"Dunkirk" arrives with a significant amount of early buzz. The film is an ambitious tale focusing on the disastrous and heroic events at the Battle of Dunkirk in World War II (this story zeroes in on the evacuation).
Nolan chooses to craft the narrative using three different threads -- he tells the story of the participants on land, in the sea, and in the air. It is told subjectively and focus is very, very narrow. This isn't the sort of World War II film that shows generals and admirals in large rooms moving game pieces across table-sized maps. Nor is this a film that features much in the way of exposition.
Nolan describes his structure for "Dunkirk" in this interview here:
Each storyline runs at a different pace, which removes the linear timeline for events. "Dunkirk" is meant to be taken in for its atmospherics, visuals, mood, and vibe.
The land part of the story focuses on allied soldiers on the beaches at Dunkirk, waiting to be evacuated (the beach was a breakwater wall referred to as "the mole"). Most of this thread's narrative focuses on the lowest ranks as they try to survive being "sitting ducks" for German forces to pick off. There were some 400,000 troops waiting to flee the military conflict.
The "sea" part of the story is centered around the civilian boat owners who were pulled into the efforts. The focus is on a single boat owned by a man named Dawson (Mark Rylance).
The "air" part of the story focuses on a pair of Supermarine Spitfire pilots (one of them played by the enigmatic Tom Hardy) as they try to thwart Messerschmitt Me-109 fighters and Heinkel bombers.
Nolan mixes the three threads up into a compelling cocktail.
I alluded earlier to the fact that this movie is essentially about mood and vibe. There is little in the way of exposition or dialogue. The film uses action to build suspense and drive the story home.
"Dunkirk" runs just under two hours -- short by today's blockbuster movie standards. As a result, the film never feels blogged down or bloated. In many respects, it leaves you wanting more.
I built many model airplane kits as a kid, and the Spitfire was one of my favorites. The last time I saw the plane so prominently featured was in a British TV series I watched with my parents on PBS's "Masterpiece Theatre" back in the late 1980s -- called "Piece of Cake" -- that told the story of a group of Spitfire pilots in World War II.
I don't know if CG was used for any of the aerial sequences in "Dunkirk" or not, but the dogfighting scenes feel authentic, and it is a treat to see the old birds in action on the big screen.
There are also a couple of solid performances worth noting in "Dunkirk."
Mark Rylance won an Oscar for his supporting performance in "Bridge of Spies." His calm demeanor serves these sorts of historic dramas well, and his subdued -- yet commanding -- performance as the owner of a small, private boat called into rescue service is solid (and might yield him more accolades during awards season). Likely the best performance in the movie.
Kenneth Branagh is also on hand as Commander Bolton. The character's scenes in the movie are confined to a dock along the shores at Dunkirk. There isn't a lot of material for Branagh to work with, but his performance gives context to the story.
Also of note is Tom Hardy as Spitfire pilot Farrier. It's very possible that Hardy has less dialogue here than he had in 2015's "Mad Max: Fury Road." But his performance as stone-steady fighter pilot (whose Spitfire has a broken fuel gauge) is actually pretty compelling.
Oh...and that kid from the band "One Direction" (Harry Styles) is decent as a British soldier trying to escape the beach.
Also of note is Hans Zimmer's score for this movie. While he doesn't provide a memorable anthem for the film, his musical stylings serve to help drive the narrative forward and ratchet up the tension.
His "Supermarine" is an example of this:
Overall, "Dunkirk" is movie worth experiencing. It is a beautifully crafted World War II epic -- something that feels fresh, original, and its own unique thing.
Nolan also deserves credit for creating an intense, driving film, but was able to do it without being exploitative with the on-screen carnage (something that can be overdone in this sort of genre film).
Rated: PG-13, Runtime: 1 hr, 46 min
Take a look at my other recent movie review: It's "Spider-Guy!"
Having seen it in IMAX, which Nolan does so well, was spectacular. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the movie. The reason I say "feel" is because it didn't evoke the emotional response I expected. I viewed the events and saw the helplessness of those stranded, but because I wasn't given a connection at a personal level I'm still ruminating.
ReplyDeleteMy takeaway is probably the sadness of knowing how many soldiers, medical staff and civilians lost their lives. They had no control over their circumstances which is the case in all wars. Maybe my feeling is the bleakness the actors portrayed and Nolan so deftly put on film.
Most films of this genre move at 30,000 feet to 10,000 feet. This one is more at 1,000 feet - so close that portraying real people would have gotten in the way of Nolan's intent, I think.
War is awful - not glorious, not admirable. Acts of heroism occur in the smallest moments, and I believe that is what makes this movie.
I would like to see it again.