I saw Dunkirk last night. Nolan is a first rate director, the production values are as high as it gets, the visual effects are about as well interwoven and seamless as one could want. There is much to admire in this film, from the breathtaking views of the Channel, the graceful and deadly choreography of dogfights, the faithful recreation of events at Dunkirk, the naturalism of all of the actors, and more.
Nolan seems to be trying very hard to present an objective portrayal of events, eschewing glamorizing, casting actors who look, and act, like average people. The heroism is never presented with a frame of marquee lights blinking around it. Hans Zimmer's score is more a pulsing cadence than a rousing fanfare, except for one moment when the flotilla of small boats reaches Dunkirk, and even there it is a subdued fanfare, just enough to signal an important change in the sequence of events.
The story is told through the experiences of several different characters, and the film intercuts between their stories to tell the larger story. The central character is the British private who has made it to the beach against all odds, only to find himself trapped on it, there is the story of one civilian who, with his son, sets out on his boat to join in the rescue effort, there are two RAF pilots who sacrifice their ability to return home to continue to harass the Heinkel bombers and Messerschmidt fighters even though their fuel is running out.
But for all my admiration of the film's technical prowess, objective point of view, and celebration of quiet heroism, I felt unmoved by it. It is a chilly film, an onslaught of impersonal and often faceless violence that ceaselessly continues for most of the film's length. Perhaps this is what the soldiers at Dunkirk experienced. There is something matter-of-fact in the way events are portrayed. Perhaps in his decision to avoid being too "Hollywood" about this story, Nolan veered too far the other way. Despite this, I still recommend this film to anyone curious about Dunkirk. It may be a little bloodless as a storytelling, but in many other ways it is a fine and compelling film. 4 out of 5 stars.
Nolan seems to be trying very hard to present an objective portrayal of events, eschewing glamorizing, casting actors who look, and act, like average people. The heroism is never presented with a frame of marquee lights blinking around it. Hans Zimmer's score is more a pulsing cadence than a rousing fanfare, except for one moment when the flotilla of small boats reaches Dunkirk, and even there it is a subdued fanfare, just enough to signal an important change in the sequence of events.
The story is told through the experiences of several different characters, and the film intercuts between their stories to tell the larger story. The central character is the British private who has made it to the beach against all odds, only to find himself trapped on it, there is the story of one civilian who, with his son, sets out on his boat to join in the rescue effort, there are two RAF pilots who sacrifice their ability to return home to continue to harass the Heinkel bombers and Messerschmidt fighters even though their fuel is running out.
But for all my admiration of the film's technical prowess, objective point of view, and celebration of quiet heroism, I felt unmoved by it. It is a chilly film, an onslaught of impersonal and often faceless violence that ceaselessly continues for most of the film's length. Perhaps this is what the soldiers at Dunkirk experienced. There is something matter-of-fact in the way events are portrayed. Perhaps in his decision to avoid being too "Hollywood" about this story, Nolan veered too far the other way. Despite this, I still recommend this film to anyone curious about Dunkirk. It may be a little bloodless as a storytelling, but in many other ways it is a fine and compelling film. 4 out of 5 stars.
