
“Dunkirk” Is A Technical Marvel And One Of Christopher Nolan’s Most Ambitious Films
After seeing “Dunkirk”, I am convinced that Christopher Nolan is obsessed with the idea of time in his films. Time is integral to “Dunkirk” in every way. It influences the structure of the film, as well as the harrowing, daunting nature of the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. Nolan’s film is one of the best you’ll see this year. Indeed, this decade. The story is simple: after France and the Low Countries fell in 1940 to the armies of the German Reich, hundreds of thousands of soldiers from both the British and French armies were trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk in Northern France. The United Kingdom moved heaven and earth just to try and save 30,000, because the whole country didn’t believe they could even get that many men out of France.
In Nolan’s unique version of war, we don’t have time to get to know the characters at all. The story is limp on plot, but heavy on details — a very interesting contrast. The film doesn’t have much exposition, dialogue, or story, but the immersion comes from the smallest of details and the restless, anxious performers. Very little is said about each character, but there’s no time. The Nazis are coming, and they’re coming fast. We never even see any of the enemy characters (I read that Nolan consciously made this choice because the soldiers at Dunkirk had very little action or interaction with the enemy), a unique choice for a Second World War film, or any war film. All of the soldiers are terrified — the British Army has suffered a “colossal military disaster”, to quote Winston Churchill (and it is quoted in the film and in the trailer), and at this point survival is victory in itself. The characters, though we know little about them, are all compelling. We root for each and every one of them because of the intensity everyone brings. Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, and even Harry Styles bring welcome, grounded, realistic performances to their terrified, tired, and homesick warriors. Tom Hardy plays an RAF pilot, and he gets to show off a pressured but courageous performance. The film’s best performances come from Mark Rylance, a civilian boatsman who is one of the many small vessels attempting to rescue the many soldiers stranded on the beach at Dunkirk, and Fionn Whitehead plays an excellent young soldier. He gets many scenes where he has no words. Indeed, there are long scenes where very little, if any dialogue is spoken. The cast pulls it all off more than handsomely. No one has an “Oscar scene” — they’re soldiers, they don’t have time for speeches when they’re trying to survive, and it’s more than welcome to see the realism portrayed, than to have a traditional war film.

I wanted to complain initially because I hate it when war movies are reduced to PG-13 nonsense. It’s unrealistic to see enemy soldiers die en masse at the hands of a small squad of heroic protagonists. Many action films fall victim to this trope. “Dunkirk” does not. Oh no, “Dunkirk” is one of the most tense films I’ve seen all year. It’s even kind of terrifying. Whenever you hear the German planes coming, like the cast, your hairs stick up on the back of your neck. It sounds utterly realistic and makes you want to shut your ears. The sound work is simply incredible — one of “Dunkirk’s” greatest assets. Explosions? Check. Gunfire? Check. But the screaming of a plane from the Third Reich as it heads straight towards you on the beach? That’s a sound that’s hard to forget. Richard King should net himself another Oscar for sound editing. Hans Zimmer’s music blends perfectly with the horrors of war and it mixed perfectly into the action. Lee Smith is one of the finest editors working today — he cuts three different perspectives smoothly into one story that is just utterly difficult to watch because of just how harrowing the story is. It’s brilliant work. He deserves a nod from Oscar after losing out on “Inception.”
Hoyte van Hoytema’s camerawork is top notch. If you get motion sickness easily, you might be better off not watching this movie, or at least closing your eyes for the dogfights. But everything he captures is awe-striking or beautiful. There is horrific imagery on display, but that doesn’t stop you from admiring the cinematography. Simply put, his photography is brilliant. Also very deserving of awards attention. But of course, the maestro himself, writer-director Christopher Nolan, deserves the most attention for crafting an ambitious, under 2 hour film that feels like you’re there for even longer because he packs it with a heavy-hitting emotional punch that makes it hard to not be thinking about after the film. What if the Allies hadn’t gotten all of those men off of Dunkirk? We know that the war isn’t over, win or lose, and “Dunkirk” leaves you thinking about the costs of war, the price of victory, the heaviness of defeat, and just how strong you have to be to survive. Christopher Nolan is a brilliant director, and he may have put forth his finest directorial effort to date.
Why, then, do I get the feeling that Nolan is obsessed with time? In “Dunkirk”, for example, we blend timelines together in a non-linear narrative. All of the soldiers are simply waiting for that moment when ships arrive to hopefully take them back to Britain, but aren’t sure of how much longer that will be. Time is not on the side of the Allies at this point. Tom Hardy’s character is constantly checking the time so he can keep track of his fuel in his airplane after his fuel gauge was damaged. Time has played important parts in Memento (the narrative is played in reverse), Batman Begins (the time has come for the league of shadows to destroy Gotham), The Dark Knight (the Joker uses time as a plot device constantly), Inception (time slows the farther you go down in dream levels), The Dark Knight Rises (there’s only so much time until Gotham is destroyed by a nuclear weapon), and Interstellar (relativity). It’s a constant thematic element throughout Nolan’s filmography. Time often gives characters a sense of despair yet one of hope. Time increases the tension and the anxiety in a narrative, especially one such as this. Here, not only does “Dunkirk” show that Christopher Nolan loves the idea of time in his movies, but it is where Nolan may have mastered the element. Nolan seamlessly immerses you in the narrative based entirely on the structure and timing of the film. With a lack of true characters or dialogue, since the film is untraditionally constructed in that regard, Nolan keeps you alert and in-tune with the picture thanks to his playing with time. It is a remarkable feat for any film to pull off a non-linear narrative, but “Dunkirk” shines above all others in the department of playing with timelines. Brilliant work from a brilliant director and editor.
I’ve seen a lot of claims that “Dunkirk” could be Nolan’s best film. I’m not sure I agree or disagree. His body of work is diverse and excellent. I’ve never hated a single film I’ve seen of his. However, I can tell you that “Dunkirk” is the best war film to come out since “The Hurt Locker”. It’s one of the best films this year, this decade, and this early 21st century. It’s a harrowing watch, but worth it. I need to see it again.
Final Grade:
A+/4 of 4 Stars
