War movies. Let’s face it, they’ve been done to death. We’ve seen every type of war movie and in many respects, they all kind of blend into one with a lot of the same characters, same moments and same beats just repeated over and over again with just a different set of actors and interchanging between different eras of war in the 20th and 21st century. War movies have in many ways, gone the way of the Western, not really feeling as relevant as they used to. So I guess the big question is, why would Christopher Nolan delve into such a well-trodden genre? Well much like Film Noir, the Comic Book genre and Science Fiction, to reinvent them in his own Nolan-esque way.
So Dunkirk is based on the true story of 400,000 allied soldiers stranded in the town of Dunkirk in France. Surrounded by German soldiers, these worn down men are just trying to get home, but when they can’t get off the beach to get home, home comes to them. We have Tom Hardy in the sky, Cillian Murphy at sea and Harry Styles on land; Hardy is trying to keep the enemy at bay and himself out of the ocean, Murphy is in the ocean trying to get to any land other than Dunkirk and Styles, along with so many other soldiers, is just trying to get away. So in-between a story that takes place at land, on sea and in the air, Christopher Nolan adds an extra element to the storytelling: all three stories are told in three different timelines, over a period of one hour, one day, and one week.
Yet again, Christopher Nolan uses discontinuous editing to force us as an audience to pay attention. It’s not enough that the film already has rich visuals, a nerve-wracking soundtrack and intense challenges for all involved, Nolan demands your full-attention by effortlessly switching between each of the three timelines as we witness a war film that really harkens back to the kind of films that inspired many other great filmmakers.
But what else has Nolan done to reinvigorate a rather dormant or at the very least repetitive genre? One of the big things which is a staple of a Nolan blockbuster is his insistence on scope and scale. With Wally Pfister moving more into the director’s chair, Nolan returns with the cinematographer from Interstellar who just knows how to fill the frame. Each shot has incredible depth and when the action happens, intensity kicks in for the simple fact that you can always see the danger getting closer and closer as our characters try to figure out what to do. Whether it be bullets or bombs there’s something about the cinematography that really grips you as each character struggles for their own type of survival in this film.
Adding to the scope and scale of the cinematography, is just how much of the footage has been done in camera. Sinking real ships and flying real planes adds to the realism that Christopher Nolan is projecting towards the audience. Yes of course there is some CGI in the footage, but only to enhance what is already there as opposed to over-powering what is already there. However there is no doubting just how scary these sequences would be in reality when we see water engulf hundreds of soldiers trapped in a ship or the height in which soldiers travel in the air when an explosion hits. Nolan pushes the IMAX format in ways that just constantly reminds you of how many people were trapped on that beach and delivers some powerful vertigo in the dogfights which makes you realize why George Lucas watched World War II dogfight footage and felt inspired to make Star Wars. It only makes me wonder what kind of filmmakers will emerge after seeing this film.
Of course it wouldn’t be a Christopher Nolan film without a Hans Zimmer soundtrack and this time he hasn’t fallen asleep on the organ like he did on Interstellar but rather gives us an intense soundtrack with an incredible sense of urgency that is driven by the constant ticking of Nolan’s own stopwatch. The music is expertly placed and keeps you on the edge of your seat. In the quiet moments, the ticking reminds you that you are never safe, but when it’s loud, it has meaning, it has an effect and it has you squirming in your seat.
This is definitely one of Nolan’s strongest films to date, however, this film will not be for everyone, sometimes it will not be for every Nolan fan. Those accustomed to the traditional tropes and conventions of a war movie may feel a little disconcerted by some of Nolan’s choices. One of the biggest things you will notice in the film is that there is very lite on dialogue - as a matter of fact the films entire dialogue probably fits on maybe five to six pages of the completed script. You would struggle to be able to name any of the characters because most characters don’t talk to one another. There are no moments where characters are sitting around campfires sharing stories from home, there’s no ham-fisted expositional dialogue to let the audience know the name, rank and serial number of any of the characters - it’s just a very believable way in which these characters would interact in a situation like this. When the enemy may shoot at you from any possible vantage point, why would you talk, let alone whisper? When you are trying to survive amongst guns and explosions, do you really need casual discussions for the benefit of the audience? This may throw some people off, but it’s hard to argue that it’s not a more realistic take on the situation.
Another thing that may throw some fans of war movies is the complete lack of blood. Done countless times in films like Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket we were given insight into the horrors of war and this time, Nolan takes a different approach. Much like Spielberg threw us into the thick of it at the start of Saving Private Ryan, Nolan immerses us in the experience through the noise, the dirt and the uncertainty - he just doesn’t show the blood, we see the impact of these events on the characters through their actions and the creases in their faces and this is just as effective, but some war movie buffs may find the bloodless battle a detraction.
Ultimately, with Nolan doing what he does best thanks to scale, scope, realism, Zimmerism along with discontinuous editing, we get another film that will appease most Nolan fanatics and please many a war movie fan. With some elements that some may struggle to get past for enjoyment, there is no denying that the film is intense, engaging and lean thanks to Nolan’s shortest runtime since his first film The Following. Nolan fans will argue where this ranks amongst all his other work but when the bar is set so high with Nolan, it’s an argument worth having, although the benefit of time and hindsight may help to properly rank when all is said and done.
Dunkirk gets Four and a Quarter really solid Stars (yes, even the quarter star is solid)