by War films have a long history in cinema. Even only a few years after WWII ended, big cinema productions showed battles in great detail to curious audiences that, luckily, didn’t have to see it in person. Mixed with some larger-than-life characters and optional flamboyant action, they’re a history lesson with added entertainment. But the Battle of Dunkirk hadn’t been depicted with the same attention than other battles such as, famously, Operation Overlord in Saving Private Ryan (1998) by Steven Spielberg. Christopher Nolan wrote and directed Dunkirk based on the Dunkirk evacuation (or Battle of Dunkirk) at the French town of Dunkerque in 1940, so expectations were of course high. Known for his courage and creative filmmaking methods, Nolan wouldn’t settle for an ordinary WWII flick but instead try something new. Unfortunately, great ideas and creativity can also lead to a disappointing film.
Ezra Pound, key figure in the modernist movement of particularly the American Expatriates in 1920s Paris, would’ve been impressed with Nolan. The core of modernist writing or filmmaking or anything else breaking with traditions, was to create something fresh. Absolute originality and creativity were admired and valued more than technique, a fact that led to some questionable “masterpieces” especially in the arts department. Nolan’s approach to Dunkirk is fresh and, arguably, modernist. Events around the battle are depicted on land, water and in the air, with the action lasting a week, a day, and an hour, respectively. This would’ve been original and interesting, had Nolan managed to convey a sense of time. Watching Dunkirk feels like watching about two hours of the battle. Consequently, Nolan’s approach already falls flat. This could’ve been forgiven, if the film was compensated with good characters or good acting or entertaining action, anything that is ordinarily expected of a war film. Sadly, there’s nothing.
Dunkirk has no real characters. This is fresh too, as it comes very close to watching a documentary. And yet, it is difficult to care for all these people if we don’t know who they are or what they’re fighting for, what they fear and dream. Cillian Murphy is a man crazy with fear after being rescued by a civilian boat joining the improvised British fleet bound for Dunkirk in order to save the trapped army. Tom Hardy is a sub-zero pilot doing his job without any kind of emotion. Harry Styles, to put it bluntly, is nothing more than a jerk with no qualities, least manners. Mark Rylance is a civilian who’s lost his son in the war and captain of a small vessel crossing the channel to pick up soldiers. He’s one of the few people in Dunkirk that express something, if not much.
The entire film is just as slick and overly-professional as it’s so called characters. Some of the visuals are good, while others are filmed with shaky camera, strange cuts and limited visual language. This is not an accurate documentary, of course. But to assume the British soldiers lined up at the beach single file, the first in line hip-deep in water, to wait for ships that haven’t even left port is nothing but odd. This is probably supposed to signify something but not even worth thinking about. If the action was good, Dunkirk might’ve been enjoyable in some way, but even the dogfights are standard and uninspired. Strangely, Nolan fails to be fresh when it comes to that. An explosion here or there, a German Stuka dropping a bomb – that’s about the extent of action.
Wars are not won by evacuation.
Tommy
While it’s legitimate to tell this story from the point of view of the British, and no attempts are made at glorifying the battle, Dunkirk has a strange smack to it. The allied French forces are as dispensable as tin soldiers, evacuated only after all British soldiers are back home. A French soldier is thought for a German and nearly killed by British soldiers blowing their tops. And the Germans aren’t depicted at all , other than their airplanes, or rather their mechanical professionalism. There is two sides at least to everything, including British soldiers not caring for their French allies or German soldiers doing what they’re ordered to. Dunkirk makes no attempt at digging deeper for meaning or purpose. Both the French and Germans, especially the latter by not having any screen time at all, are dehumanized. Whether or not this happened on purpose is beside the point. But it’s critical for sure.
What remains after watching Dunkirk is equal to a history lesson better slept through. We hardly learn anything new, experience nothing we haven’t experienced before in better war films, and we realize that Hans Zimmer’s score is the perfect antithesis to any notion of freshness. So why is Dunkirk praised by critics? While that is debatable, the claim that this is the best war film ever is untenable. That honor might go to Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory (1957), The Bridge at Remagen (1969) by John Guillermin or even Saving Private Ryan, or any other war film other than this. Christopher Nolan’s ideas and his courage to try his hand at something new should be praised, not the film that resulted from the attempt. The often neglected Dunkirk evacuation and those who fought in or rescued people from it definitely deserved better than this.
