When Home Couldn’t Come for Me — The Curious Case of Cinema and Dunkirk

I don’t write movie reviews often but I do discuss films, cinema and arts in general. In almost every one of these discussions in one way or another this question comes up, “What makes a piece of art good or special”?

It’s a tough question but an important one. And in case of films both the ask and debate becomes a little tricky.

Movies are complicated stuff because both money and the quest for artistic grandeur are deeply rooted in them. It does make complete sense when they say No Business is Like Show Business. So whenever I stumble upon this query “Is the movie good?” I honestly don’t know what to say. Over my close to 7 years as a cinephile I perfectly know the answer to this question always and always depends on the type of person asking it. To be on a safer side I quote some ratings from our beloved IMDB and one or two newspapers. Although I feel after the likes of Pauline Kael and Sir Roger Ebert there are hardly any critics today who even understand what a movie review is all about.

Coming back to the subject of this article, the last month saw the release of perhaps the most awaited film of the year — Dunkirk. I will say it had the charm. Sometime back working on a war book with one of my friend I had to research quite a lot on the Second World War and also about the Battle of Dunkirk. Needless to say I was damn excited but also a little afraid.

The fear was a genuine one, at least that’s what I feel. The Battle of Dunkirk to me was one of those events which didn’t share the aura with the likes of The Battle of Stalingrad, The Holocaust, The Trinity Test or The Battle of London. It was no doubt a crucial event but it was not like the others. A great film on something like that will require a certain skill and perspective, it was no surprise that our Sir Nolan took the challenge.

I never loved Nolan or his work except The Dark Knight. Before any of you Nolan fans swear abuses on me let me be clear by this I don’t mean his works are not great, they are a masterpiece indeed. And I am no one to stamp his films as of mediocre quality but as I said, moves are a complicated stuff. I have never seen good actors and a great plot in his work but rather great characters entwined in brain-wrecking puzzles. He is good with that, no doubt. On the other hand I love war films and war books. To an extent I feel competent enough to talk about World War 2 having seen a variety of films and read dozens of books on the subject.

I had my fear with Dunkirk but nevertheless I went to those curved screens and ear filling sounds.

A close friend of mine told me book-lovers don’t like the movies based on the books because what they see on screen doesn’t quite match with what they imagined in those pages. I completely agree on that and there will be a separate post on Adaptations of Books into Films exploring the concept. But the core issue lies here, you feel disappointed by a film when your expectations are not matched. I am not saying that is the only reason you don’t like a movie but that does contribute to a greater extent.

For me and Dunkirk it all started with the mighty poster, “When 400 Men Couldn’t Get Home, Home Came For Them”.

Goosebumps!!! Right?

To me there were. I reached the theater a little early and I could listen the heavy muffled thumps and thuds from the IMAX walls. Its Nolan, Its IMAX and Its The Second World War. I was on the verge of a cinematic orgasm.

And I came out, booked my Uber and came back home.

I couldn’t feel it. I couldn’t get it.

Movies are indeed complicated stuff and Dunkirk was the most complex of all. I sat down and kind of pictured the full film in my head. It hadn’t ever happened with me that I hated a war film this badly. I read what others had to say about the film, especially the ones who liked it and loved it. I asked Nolan’s fans, they had their reasoning that it wasn’t a conventional war film and it had to hit you on another level of cinematic senses so that you can feel it. That kind of helped to an extent but; here is what in nutshell I think happened.

The movie in its entirety felt a little repetitive to me. 2–3 war planes flying and shooting each other, couple of soldiers drowning and swimming from boat to boat, some high generals standing and watching the whole scene and few hundreds from those proclaimed 400,00 standing clueless like fools on the beach.

Let us start with the plot itself, what is the movie all about, what did Sir Nolan wanted to show.

The movie failed miserably to tell what and why Dunkirk as a place and as an event in World’s History was important. There was no plot to begin with. The movie carefully takes us to the last day of Battle of Dunkirk and there it is. The viewers don’t know why the fuck Germans were not attacking in full force or why the hell in the first place 400,000 men were strangled there. And by the way there were not in any way 400,000 men on that beach, some thousand at best. That was a big let down like one of those cheap marketing tactics by Fair & Lovely. You say something, You do something. No worries though, it’s a Nolan Work, there might be something in store for sure.

Many outstanding and great films lacked plot or even a linear storytelling but they have something else that binds the viewer. Sir David Lynch hardly cares about the story but he always have some of the most in-depth characters in his films. Sir Nolan apart from the Dark Knight Trilogy relies highly on puzzles and Sir Hans Zimmer; hardly any need of strong characters, right? Dunkirk was at its worst when it came to characters or even actors. Tom Hardy’s talent was brutally wasted behind the air mask and others never saw broad daylight to show their acting skills, either they were drowned in water or struggling with darkness. But the actors weren’t wasted solely because of the setting of the film alone but because of a very strong reason — there were no characters, only chaos.

As a viewer I wanted to feel the struggle of Tom Hardy (Alas! I couldn’t even remember what his name was in the film) but I couldn’t because Nolan has anyways proved German airplanes such novice that our beloved British RAF wouldn’t be harmed in anyway. That was on purpose, we understand. Everybody knows the skills of German pilots and their air-force was at prime during the Second World War but it was hardly a match in Dunkirk. When German planes crashed in water the pilot is dead but when our guy lands he is magically saved due to some nonsensical sequence of events.

As a viewer again I wanted to feel sad when the boy on the boat died or when the shell-shocked soldier was hesitant about returning to the shore. But I couldn’t because Nolan would not even give me more than 10 minutes to spend at a stretch with a single character. The boy was hit with something or somehow and then fell down. There was no blood and then he went blind and he died. That’s a very complicated sequence of events for a death to occur. What did he even die of? Was the blow very hard? If it was there was the blood and if not why did he even die? Okay there were some internal injury, he got blind, understandable but please Sir already people don’t know much of Dunkirk don’t expect them to be a medical expert there. Anyways he died and I didn’t even give a fuck.

Finally there was the music, outstanding it was indeed, breathtaking and piercing, enough to raise my hairs on the nape. But I couldn’t get how it fit in the films. Let me say plainly if it wouldn’t have been Hans Zimmer’s music then I might have liked the movie a little more because the music never ever in the entire duration helped me set my expectations right.

There was a ticking clock in the background, there was a sense of urgency but where were the events of urgency. 2–3 German Luftwaffe planes at the most with our RAF fighting them off. Do you seriously need such clock ticking music for that and for that stupid gaze of the military general in sky. Every single time there was an excitement both in the score and the actors eyes seeing the sky I sat upright hoping something grand is about to happen. But poof, off you go. It’s a different kind of war film with just the same kind of Nolan music.

I don’t even where and when should I stop. Dunkirk for me had been one of the biggest disappointments and I think it might take some time for me to fully understand and comprehend the film.

Oh Yes, and lastly when one actor asks, “What do you see?” The other says, “Home”, even though I knew but the music and everything in that IMAX made it look like Hell Yeah something’s coming now.

There was Home with wooden civilian boats, colorful tires hanging on them with ladies buttering the toast.

Neither I could see 400,000 men nor I could see any Home Coming!!!