Stress.
It’s the word I’d use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest war film, Dunkirk – based on the Dunkirk evacuation, where thousands of British and French soldiers escape from the shores of Dunkirk, north of France, during World War II. By then, the Nazis have pushed the Allied forces to the edge of the European continent. It is considered to be one of the most successful military retreats in history. Trapped with no help in sight, the helpless soldiers neatly lined up on the shore get continuously bombarded by German planes, while the ocean is surrounded by enemy U-boats.
The opening shot sees a group of soldiers as they move warily in an empty street, while leaflets fall from the sky telling them to surrender or die. It’s an eloquent shot – one of many brilliant shots in this film thanks to cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema – and certainly one of the best openings I’ve seen. They are exhausted, hungry and battered from the war. A moment later, they get shot at one by one as they run for their lives. All but one of them is dead. And this is just the beginning.
In the skies, Royal Air Force pilots Farrier (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) are tasked of keeping the skies free, with only an hour’s worth of fuel, from Luftwaffe planes. And finally in the sea, the Royal Navy has ordered the use of private civilian boats and other small vessels in the evacuation, after already losing several destroyers to the enemy. However, Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), along with his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and his friend George (Barry Keoghan), takes matters to his own hands as he sails for Dunkirk to help bring home as much of the trapped soldiers as he can.
In typical Nolan fashion, Dunkirk interweaves three different narrative timelines in a non-linear fashion, because of course he would do something like that. The changing threads can be jarring for the first half, leaving you wondering why it’s nighttime at the beach and it’s suddenly broad daylight across the sea. In turn, the movie has no clear single protagonist to connect with, but that’s not point the director is trying to make. On the contrary, this narrative decision leads to some interesting turns as you go along, especially when everything finally syncs. It very much feels like the culmination of the several directorial techniques Nolan had honed over several movies, and put it all together to achieve his vision.
For a war movie, Dunkirk surprisingly contains no gore or graphic violence. There was some blood shown in some scenes, but even I’m not a hundred percent sure about that. Instead, Nolan uses the unforgiving nature of war to successfully convey the desperation of its characters, all escalated by the brilliant score of Hans Zimmer. It’s a testament to Nolan’s directorial capabilities that he’s able to bring out as much intensity using only a combination of the environment and sound (the movie is really loud).
Admittedly, I haven’t seen too many war movies to properly know what makes up a good one. So forgive me for the boldness of my next statement – Dunkirk is a true war movie, and as real as it gets. You are there watching the horrific reality of war with little to no exposition. Not in the background as a viewer, but you are dropped right in the middle of the Dunkirk beach. There’s little room to breathe, and it’s frustrating. But in the end, the characters and their backstories don’t really matter as individuals in the grand scheme of things. I don’t even remember the names of most characters that appeared – I had to look them up – and come to think of it, they were probably never even mentioned in the first place. That can either be a good or bad thing, depending on whether you want to feel a connection to the characters you’re watching. For Nolan, however, it’s mainly about the experience of what’s in the moment, about survival and getting home.
Rating: ★★★★★
The Talking Screen 