Dunkirk

Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors right now, and Dunkirk was a movie I was excited about since the very first frame of the teaser trailer. The cinematography looked spectacular, the music was one of the many greats from Hans Zimmer, and the fact that every ship and plane was practical and actually present on set gave the film a reality Mel Gibson missed in Hacksaw Ridge.

It was completely immersive… but what about the characters?

I am writing this a few hours after seeing the movie, and I only remember one character’s name. It was very clear that Nolan wanted to show the event in three different viewpoints: on the beach, in the air, and with the civilians. He did this quite well, but the people that were used as looking glasses for this event were very small. Tom Hardy’s character was the only one that had to make a split decision in the entire movie, and that was why I liked his story the most. The other characters also had moments, some were powerful and others touching, but no true arcs with beginnings and ends. I knew this was done on purpose; Nolan has made movies in the past with intricate layers of protagonists and antagonists with expert precision, but the event was too big to be weighed down by individual stories. One of the kids wanted to be a hero in the local paper, great; that gave him a reason to carry on with the overall story, and nothing else was added because in the importance of the event it wouldn’t be necessary. There were no Oscar-worthy performances nor were there any speeches shouted over a broken down tank because the people present in this film were not characters, they were people. There is always that one scene in war movies (Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge, the most recent episode of Game of Thrones) where the characters sit down in a circle, have a cigarette and talk about what they want or what’s back home. It works to develop character, but in reality, especially if the characters were stranded on a French beach with no food or water, those moments wouldn’t happen. With the threats clear and scenario just mentioned prevalent, the first half of the movie had little to no dialogue; if a moment had to be introduced it was done visually. Because of the absence of character, there was also a lack of theme or moral argument. It was there, but it was the common problems of “what would you do to survive?” that are shown, and even when they did appear, there was no resolution because the characters were thrown into a different obstacle.

Overall, it was a good movie, but for Nolan, I expected something deeper. I would recommend it to any fans of Christopher Nolan, practical effects, or war movies in general.

Story Rating: 7/10

Character Rating: 5/10