WARNING: The following review was written by a war
movie lover for war movie lovers.
General public, proceed at your own risk.
War
movies come along rarely these days.
Good war movies are even rarer.
Ever since hearing about the upcoming “Dunkirk”, directed by none other
than Christopher Nolan, I had circled the date on my calendar and eagerly
awaited it. I became more eager as the
trailers came out and the buzz ginned up.
I had every reason to expect it to be an amazing movie. I waited to see it in an IMAX, as it was
meant to be seen. I do not remember when
I was more disappointed by a war movie.
Perhaps “Gods and Generals”.
The
historical event simply known as Dunkirk seems ripe for screen treatment. The bad guys win, but the good guys survive
daunting odds in a miraculous evacuation aided by plucky civilians. Sacrifices
abound. Throw in historical controversy. And it had something for every military nut –
air battles, ground combat, and naval activities. In 1958, the movie “Dunkirk” tried to tell
the story by concentrating on a squad and two civilian boaters and including the
bigger picture. Chris Nolan decided it
was high time to revisit the event. But
he decided to throw out the big picture ("Operation Dynamo" is not mentioned in the movie) and add the air leg of the tripod. His movie would be more personal and immerse
you in the experience. It should have
been a great companion to the original.
Somehow he misfired, as far as I am concerned.
Being
a modern director, Nolan could not just use a traditional narrative
approach. The movie is like a triptych
consisting of a land, sea, and air component.
The three story arcs are interweaved in a nonlinear structure. The movie drops us straight outside the
Dunkirk perimeter with a vague title card that reminds historically literate
viewers what the situation was in 1940 – Germany was kicking British and French
butt. Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) is in a
group of “odds and sods” (a term for soldiers cut off from their units) that
are making their way to the Dunkirk perimeter.
For those of you, like me, who think that Nolan has adopted the “lost
patrol, who will survive?” structure from the 1958 movie, think again. Tommy’s
crew are not going to be whittled down slowly. Tommy, who is one of the “heroes” of the
movie, pals up with a supposed Brit named Gibson (Aneurin Barnard) and they try
to cut the line to get on a ship leaving the mole. The mole is a pier supervised by Commander
Bolton (Kenneth Branagh) where ships pull up alongside and load up with soldiers. Keep in mind, Tommy has just arrived and
these other guys have been waiting hours (days?) in orderly fashion to be
saved. I have to admit my view of Tommy
was colored by my view of every line cutter I have encountered. From this point on, I did not really care if
Tommy lived. I did feel sorry to any
shipmates of his, however. Because every
ship Tommy got on was doomed to be sunk.
This is not a “who will survive?” movie, it is a “what will survive?”
movie. Answer: one little boat.
The
second panel of the triptych is Mr. Gibson (Mark Rylance) in his yacht coming
across the Channel to help pick up soldiers. On the way, he rescues a shipwrecked soldier
(Gillian Murphy) who is less than thrilled with the prospect of returning to
Dunkirk. He is on board to provide dramatic tension. Have you ever been on an hours long yacht ride? Have you watched one? The voyage will be intertwined
with the third story line - that of an RAF pilot named Farrier (Tom
Hardy). Farrier will provide the
dogfight portion of the film. The air
combat is shown out of sequence so Nolan can earn his auteur merit badge.
The
effort put into “Dunkirk” is commendable. Nolan, who made his fame in action films like “The
Dark Knight”, decided to avoid directorial stereotyping. He eschewed CGI in favor of “practical
effects”. Sixty authentic ships and
boats were used, including twelve of the original “Little Ships”. Three Spitfires were available and a Yak-25TW
was rigged to look like a Spitfire. The
Yak is a two-seater that allowed for shots over Hardy’s shoulder and for an
actual pilot to fly the plane. The one
Me-109 was portrayed by a Spanish HA-1112 Buchon. The
thousands of extras were supplemented by cardboard cut-outs of soldiers and
vehicles. Unfortunately, it is sometimes
hard to tell the real actors from the cardboards. The cast is eclectic. It has some heavyweights like Branagh, Hardy,
and Rylance, but the rest are future star wannabes. The biggest buzz brewed up around pop
heartthrob Harry Styles as one of Tommy’s sink-baits. Nolan was not familiar with his fame when he
was cast, that makes two of us. Hardy
spends the whole movie with his face covered.
In other words, it’s a Tom Hardy movie.
He doesn’t get to say much, which is better than mouthing platitudes
like Branagh. “I’d rather fight waves
than dive bombers.” That’s pretty much a
speech for this movie. The dialogue is
sparse. Nolan lets the scenarios do the
talking. The interweaving of the stories
is intriguing and you definitely are encouraged to pay attention. (Someone should do a study on the average amount of time it takes a viewer to realize the movie is nonlinear.) I can imagine there are some baby boomers who
will be a little confused by the plot.
Which plane is Farrier shooting down now? The movie can be mesmerizing in its
cinematography. Nolan shot it in 70 mm
and on an IMAX screen the details are amazing.
The air action is especially noteworthy (although the dogfights are not
the best ever), but the movie also has some visceral sinking scenes. Those of you who want to see Harry Styles
drown will enjoy this film.
So,
what’s not to like? Not much, if you are
a regular movie fan. Lots, if you are a
war movie buff. I am aware that Nolan
was making a fictional tale. He
purposely did not have any real characters in the film. But he also stated that he would take a
documentary approach to the story. He
interviewed numerous veterans of Dunkirk.
(Most complimented the film, but commented that it was too noisy. And kids should stay off their lawns.) Their personal stories are reflected in the
experiences of the characters in the movie.
For instance, at one point a soldier wades into the surf to
fatalistically swim back to England. I
have no problem with a movie about a famous historical event that downplays
tutoring in favor of entertainment. But
I do take umbrage when the movie
confuses the facts and blows the opportunity to use an historical setting to
tell a rousing tale. The best way to describe
“Dunkirk” is to say that Nolan has set
his tale in Dunkirk and seasoned it with some references to the actual event,
but he cared little about bringing the
battle to life. His decision to
leave the bigger picture out forfeited a lot of the suspense inherent in the
event. You wonder what will happen to
Tommy and the others, but you do not feel for the army and the nation. The movie is only 107 minutes long so it’s
not like Nolan decided to leave Churchill and the brass on the cutting room
floor because of time constraints. A
historical epic that is less than two hours?
Hell, “Dunkirk” (1958) is 134 minutes!
Speaking of which, you may be shocked to learn that the old movie is
better than the new. It was able to show
the micro and the macro. Binn (John
Mills) made a much more interesting central character than Tommy. And it has a much more interesting take on
the civilian rescuers. It has no RAF,
but it does cover the other two branches better. As far as a history lesson,
there is no comparison. If you want to
learn what happened at Dunkirk and you don’t care who Harry Styles is, the 1958
movie is the better bet.
“Dunkirk”
is a classic example of how low a bar historical movies have these days. It is being commended for its accuracy and it
is above average. However, there are
still moments that should make history buffs cringe. (Especially if you have read two books about
the event recently.) The decision to
forego special effects deprives the movie of the chaos and destruction that it
needs to reflect the desperate nature of the trap the British were in. Shots of Dunkirk (where the location shooting
occurred) do not show the results of the relentless Luftwaffe bombing. The use of the mole is sanitized and
simplified. Events there are supposed to
take place over a seven day period, but they appear to be close to the end of
the evacuation. This causes some
problems. Barton mentions the seemingly
unattainable goal of rescuing 30,000 men when in reality they would have been
well past that figure. He also laments
the withdrawal of destroyers from the effort when at this point that decision
had been reversed. The French soldiers
are evacuated after all the British were gone, when in actuality they were
being jointly evacuated midway through.
At this stage, the evacuation during the daytime would have been
suspended in favor of night only. As far
as the beach scenes, there should have been more men waiting on the beach. And a lot more debris. And there should have been more action by the
little boats to pick them up and deliver them to off shore ships. Through the Gibson character, the movie
implies the little boats brought the men back to England with them. Some did - on their last trip of the
day. The movie makes it seem that the
little boats were sent in only at the end to finish the job. The cavalry riding to the rescue. They were actually involved much
earlier. Gibson would not have made only
one trip. And he would not have snuck
away to avoid having his boat commandeered by the Royal Navy. If a boat owner wanted to sail the boat
himself, he could. But the biggest
flaws are in the showy dog fights. The
three-plane formation that Farrier is in is tactically sound, but they would
not have approached the port at a low altitude.
If they were bounced by a German fighter, he would have had to have
brass balls to tangle with the three of them.
Normally, I would not lament the lack of CGI, but in this case it could
have been used effectively. As far as
Farrier shooting down a Stuka while gliding…
By the way, that was his fourth kill of the sortie!
Some
critics have gone as far as calling “Dunkirk” a great war movie. One even called it the greatest. Having seen a fair amount of war movies, I
can tell you it is very overrated. I do not even think it is in the top 100. I’m
not saying it is a bad movie, I’m saying it does not live up to the hype and is
not even as good as the 1958 version. It
was a missed opportunity.
GRADE = C
