Dunkirk

Let’s be honest. It doesn’t matter what a Christopher Nolan movie is about; if he directed it, we’re going to watch it. Dunkirk focuses on an actual historic event, a first for Nolan. He executes it beautifully. Also, this is spoiler-free.

Dunkirk, like many (or maybe all?) of Nolan’s films, places emphasis on time. In Dunkirk, three story threads are followed, each occurring over a different duration of time, but all converging in the end. This can make for a slightly confusing or even frustrating (in parts) narrative, but most of the time it’s all relatively easy to follow. I’ve thought about it for quite some time, and I’m quite certain that is done both for the sake of heightened realism and tonal consistency.

The three interweaving plot threads help greatly in keeping the story interesting, and all three’s contributions to growing intensity make for one of the most claustrophobic and uneasy films I’ve ever seen. Because of the main plot thread occurring over the span of a week, there are times when it begins to feel a bit stale, as we simply watch failed escape after failed escape with little emotional payoff until the climax. But Dunkirk’s chief objective is not to evoke emotional responses; it is to recreate an event. Where films like Saving Private Ryan soared, Dunkirk dares not even to take flight. This has been the focus of much criticism from general audiences. But perhaps we were all expecting the wrong thing when we sat down to watch Dunkirk.

Dunkirk is all about throwing you into the midst of the action; it doesn’t take time to build an emotional bond with the characters for its audience. Instead, it simply expects them from us, and this is why I can’t take much issue with the people who despise this movie. Its approach to emotion will either work for the viewer, or it won’t. There’s not much middle ground here. I personally was genuinely moved in the final moments. Despite the minimal dialogue and under-development of the characters, I felt a connection to them and longed to see them succeed. Nolan takes a decidedly non-Titanic-ish approach to the event; rather than focus on one or two characters and show the event from their perspective, he seeks to show the event from a complete, truly historic perspective. Dunkirk is about an event and people who were in it, and not about people who were in an event. Its focus is entirely on the tone of the film, and that is one of sheer terror; we just merely spend some time with the people experiencing it.

In the end, I completely understand the criticisms of Dunkirk, and at times I felt less than satisfied with the movie, but when thinking back on it, I find fewer and fewer genuine faults. It is an incredibly ambitious, non-traditional war film, and one packed with subtle emotion. It has a beating heart at its core, sometimes hidden behind the lack of character development. Its unwavering optimism is fundamentally human.

Is it a deeply problematic movie that I may look back on and hate with every fiber of my being in years to come? Possibly. But as it stands now, Dunkirk is a film unlike any other I have ever seen. I can’t conclude without mentioning Hans Zimmer’s score, if it can even be called that. As a standalone musical effort, it is absolutely horrendous and without any value, but works absolute wonders in the film. Never have I seen a score used so effectively to create an intense atmosphere. Zimmer continues to impress.

I’m going to recommend Dunkirk; even if you don’t like it, it’s important to have at least seen it. There may never be another movie like this one. As a sheer experience, it is almost without comparison. Nolan has made another straight-up masterpiece. 4.65/5