Dunkirk

DUNKIRK

Director : Christopher Nolan
Year : 2017
Genre : Drama
Rating : ***

Having reinvented the superhero genre with his disparate 'Dark Knight' Trilogy (2005-2012) and having transformed the traditional sci-fi picture into a thing of almost brain-scrambling complexity with both 'Inception' (2010) and 'Interstellar' (2014), director Christopher Nolan now attempts to rewrite the well-worn conventions of the classic war movie with 'Dunkirk', a star-studded, visually incredible, tension-filled exercise in craft, technique and execution which has already been named by many reviewers as the best release of the year as well as the finest in Nolan's already impressive filmography.

Featuring a wealth of British acting heavyweights including Academy Award winners Mark Rylance and Kenneth Branagh, Nolan regulars Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy and even One Direction heartthrob Harry Styles to name just a few, 'Dunkirk' displays all of the efficiency and skill we have now come to expect from this most accomplished of filmmakers and, as has always been the case with Nolan, it is written with a degree of intelligence that far exceeds the levels of the standard Summer blockbuster. It's a shame then that he didn't give us one single character to give a damn about.

Set on the blood-stained beaches of the eponymous French coastal town, the film tells the true story of the worst military disaster in our country's history. Told from the perspective of three different servicemen, a young Private (Fionn Whitehead), an RAF pilot (Hardy) and a civilian mariner (Rylance), 'Dunkirk' chronicles the horrifying period in World War II when 400,000 soldiers were perilously stranded on the shore after the enemy forced them back from the mainland. In typical Nolan fashion, the movie liberally plays with the physics of time, with each separate plot thread telling it's own saga over the course of an hour, a day and a week respectively. At first, this stylistic technique is rather hard to follow, with characters becoming confused with each other and storylines overlapping. But as the film reaches it's incendiary climax and the three storylines converge, 'Dunkirk' suddenly becomes something much more than a standard war picture. It becomes an enveloping, visceral cinematic experience that fully immerses it's audience in the true unrelenting and unforgiving terror of conflict.

From it's heart racing opening to it's uplifting finale, 'Dunkirk' certainly looks the part - with Nolan utilising genuine World War II-era aircraft, clothing and warships to create a very authentic reconstruction of the horrors that took place on the Northern tip of France during the Autumn of 1940. Expertly shot on glorious 70mm by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoyteme, the film looks absolutely extraordinary, with many of the white-knuckle battle scenes on land, sea and air sure to go down in the annals of motion picture history as some the most technically impressive ever put to camera. Underpinning the 12A rated carnage is Hans Zimmer's typically thunderous score which, like an unrelenting metronome, adds a cruel rhythmic punch to every bullet that is fired, every bomb that is dropped and every life that is so tragically lost. As a director of pure visual splendour, Christopher Nolan has truly excelled himself with 'Dunkirk' - delivering some of the most awe-inspiring action to be seen on the silver screen in this or any other year.  However, he falls surprisingly short at what I consider to be the most important hurdle in all of cinema.

Playing at a relatively speedy 106 minutes, 'Dunkirk' has very little time to establish a true sense of urgency or dread and while the performances from the cast, most notably those of Rylance, Hardy and cinematic-newcomer Styles try to convey to sense of panic and desperation, a distinct lack of development makes it difficult to become emotionally involved in the story being told. Yes, the action scenes are superbly thrilling and there are many moments which are, as you would expect, deeply moving. But without anyone to root for or anything to care about, the whole experience becomes monotonous and, dare I say it, rather dull. I'm sure you could argue that Nolan is purposefully negating the conventional art of character to accentuate the true scale of the event, demonstrating the fact that Dunkirk was about the 400,000 men stranded on the beach rather than the select few and to a certain degree, I can sympathise that opinion  (although, with only 3 planes and less than 500 men seen throughout, I don't think Nolan manages to satisfyingly depict the full scale of the disaster in his frame). However for me, the cinematic medium has always been about emotional connection and if there's no screen presence to be invested in, then all we are left with is spectacle with no soul. If there was one cinematic genre that demanded distinct characterisations and development, it's the war movie.

I'm fully aware that I am in the smallest of minorities when it comes to my opinion of this film. Currently rated at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes* and already tipped as a major awards contender by several industry pundits, 'Dunkirk' has already proved to be one of the most popular and beloved movies of 2017. Perhaps, as is case with many of Christopher Nolan's films, it will require more than one watch before I fully come to appreciate it's themes and techniques. However, in my humble and truly honest opinion, 'Dunkirk' is a good movie. Not a great one.  

* correct at time of writing