Dunkirk (2017) ****/5: Good historical film but there's just too much spectacle and too much British

(photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

Dunkirk is a good historical based film by Christopher Nolan. One gets the sense that Nolan is more interested in the spectacle of Dunkirk as opposed to its deeper ramifications for World War 2. I say this because a significant portion of the film is about the struggles of the soldiers on the beach in a particular moment in time. It’s clearly an episode, along with the succeeding battle of Britain, which is very close to the British. The soldiers on the ground aren’t the ones who give the orders. They are the ones on the ground awaiting some form of deliverance from the war by being evacuated from the Dunkirk beach in France  as the Germans are now in the ascendancy.  Nolan is simply trying to capture the trials of these soldiers. Yes we know its World War 2 but for the moment it’s all about these soldiers crossing that small stretch of water to land on British shores. I would very much like Nolan to follow up this film with one about the battle of Britain. His take on it should be quite interesting but it would also be a bigger picture with more ramifications about World War 2. Nolan would also do well consider that it’s a battle fought primarily in the sky.

This film captures from various perspectives the event of the evacuation of British soldiers from the shores of Dunkirk in France during the early years of World War 2. There is not one true star in this picture although there are the usual Nolan collaborators such as Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Important roles are given to Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance and Fionn Whitehead who offers the grim perspective of a soldier on the ground level.

Positives

This film is technically top notch and you would expect that coming from Nolan. This time around it’s not just about some interesting concept involving human agents but an actual historical event involving real people. Nolan tells the story in his own way of course and it’s  not really straight forward and can make it difficult for some to follow. For instance, there are scenes at night followed by scenes during the day and then for a time it goes back and forth from night to day. Either Nolan is trying to make the story telling economical or he’s simply telling it from different perspectives. After while you come to terms with the different perspectives: the land, air and sea. The mole, which is the point of evacuation on the beach of Dunkirk, is the perspective from the land. The sea involves the trek from the beach of Dunkirk to the shores of Britain which is fraught with danger because of the aerial bombardment from the Luftwaffe, German fighter planes. From the air the Royal Air Force (RAF) try to defend the ships evacuating the soldiers on the seas from the Luftwaffe. It all adds up and towards the end the presentation of the story becomes more coherent. At the beginning however it is mostly chaotic with sinking ships, soldiers scrambling for some support while stranded in the sea and other soldiers trying to find a quick getaway. There is even a French soldier who tries to escape under the guise of being a British soldier. The early stages of the evacuation involved,  primarily, British soldiers apparently. The French had to wait their turn. My brief reading about the episode reveals that a significant amount of French soldiers were evacuated but Nolan is historically correct by making clear the preference for British soldiers to be evacuated ahead of the French. There is also the perspective of the civilians who came to the aid of the soldiers seeking some return home.  There is an emotional moment, which will certain affect some British people, where the civilians show their support for the soldiers with their boats used in transporting some of the soldiers from the beach to the larger warships or to take some home.  This emotional scene does demonstrate that Dunkirk was an episode that affected the nation. It was not an isolated event. Nolan tries to make this clear by referring to the battle of Britain that was expected to follow.

This film does do justice to the overall big picture of World War 2 in its own small way. There are not many films which show the perspective of war where the Germans are in the ascendancy. Normally films show when the tide turns against the Germans.  The film takes place during the early years of World War 2 with Germany  about to conquer France. The German presence is only visible in the air because the German command called off the armoured approach on the ground and left it to the aerial fighters to halt the evacuation by targeting the British  ships and soldiers on the beach. Apparently we are witnessing a German victory regardless of how many German planes are shot down.  It will be good if Nolan can follow this film up with one about the Battle of Britain then we will be able to see the evacuation of Dunkirk as more than just a defeat. Based on Nolan’s take the evacuation of Dunkirk must have represented a turning point because with the evacuation Britain could still continue with the fight against the Germans especially with its man power still intact for the most part. So when someone sits down to watch some films about World War 2 then Dunkirk should be one of the first on their list. This applies if you’re looking at just the war effort involving soldiers. This film captures a moment when the Germans were in the ascendancy and were about to be in total control of continental Europe with Britain being the only European country in the fight before the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the Americans.  There is another film about Dunkirk made in the 1950s but I haven’t watched it. Nolan’s version will probably be more up to date.

The musical score was very good. A return to form for Hans Zimmer. The cinematography was alsoe exceptional and the scenes from the air were very well  put together despite the chaos on the ground level. This is why I think Nolan would do well making a film about the Battle of Britain.

Nolan has shown that he can make a film with real dramatic heft.

Negatives

Why should people outside of Britain be so interested in what happened with the evacuation from Dunkirk? Is this film really that important? The big picture is always important because the film does not seem very connected to the big picture which is World War 2. The Germans are mostly anonymous figures and there is not much battling taking place apart from in the air. What about the perspective from those up top. Yes Nolan wanted to just capture the experience on the ground which is probably more interesting because of the spectacle but for the overall ramifications about the War it is not very effective. Nolan could have done more with the actual battle that led to the retreat.  The German presence should have been made evident on the ground apart from just bullets and aerial bombers. This is one perspective that was lacking. Even a shot just to show that the Germans are in the ascendancy and that France is about to fall. When I say ‘show’ I mean that I wanted to see the presence of the German army. Someone who doesn’t understand the history of World War 2 will be at a loss as to where those bullets are coming from and why there is this major retreat. All you get are shots fired.

The primary perspective of the Dunkirk evacuation is a British one obviously. There is a minor French perspective but the soldier is literally swallowed up. The French perspective could have been given some more dialogue with subtitles of course. In this film the French are literally mute.  The Dunkirk evacuation of British soldiers was not the whole story and so the film has a very British feel about it as if made to inspire Britons. The reference to the Battle of Britain in this film comes before Churchill made his famous speech.  The British weren’t the only soldiers on the beach but the film is concerned primarily with the effort to evacuate British soldiers which is very limiting in scope. Towards the end it is claimed that the evacuation of the French will begin. What? I thought this was the story about Dunkirk not the British version of Dunkirk. This primary focus on the British perspective will eventually affect how this film is viewed by more impartial filmgoers, such as myself of course. The focus on the British perspective makes the film even smaller and less connected to the big picture of World War 2 because a significant amount of French soldiers were also evacuated. Nolan might be planning to make the Dunkirk trilogy. He could have instead told a bigger film instead of one which is just about British heroism.

This film has some real shallow moments because of the limiting perspective, especially the effort of British civilians to save primarily British soldiers. The emotional scenes ring very hollow because of the dominant British perspective.

So all in all a very good film from the point of view of spectacle but the story is very limited to a British point of view. It’s primarily a tale of British heroism as opposed to one about the overall bigger picture of World War 2.