Movie review: ‘Dunkirk’

In telling the story in “Dunkirk,” director Christopher Nolan has crafted “an extraordinarily intense and, at times, unnerving film about a military catastrophe, which against all odds was snatched out of the fires of total defeat,” writes reviewer Ted Giese.

(Rated: PG [Canada] and PG-13 [MPAA] for intense war experience and some language; directed by Christopher Nolan; stars Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard, Barry Keoghan, Mark Rylance, Tom Glynn-Carney, Tom Hardy, Jack Lowden, Kenneth Branagh, James D’Arcy, Cillian Murphy and Michael Fox; run time: 106 min.)

A neatly told story, woven in sacrifice

By Ted Giese

Writer/director Christopher Nolan has done for the WWII evacuation of Dunkerque, France (code-named Operation Dynamo), what Steven Spielberg did for the Allied D-Day amphibious landing in Normandy, France (code-named Operation Neptune).

However, where Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) left the French beach and the English Channel to tell a more conventional war-genre narrative, Nolan’s film stays on the beach and in the beleaguered English Channel, making “Dunkirk” a more neatly told story and, by order of magnitude, a more claustrophobic and relentlessly intense film.

Interestingly, Nolan does this without an “R” rating, making “Dunkirk” a much more accessible film for a wider audience.

“Dunkirk” details the English evacuation of its expeditionary force from continental Europe after an unexpected, aggressive and successful push of the Nazi German army and its nimble Panzer division’s repeated blitzkrieg pinned British and French ground troops against the English Channel on the sandy beaches of Dunkirk.

While Britain, France and New Zealand had declared war against Germany following the Nazi invasion of Poland on Sept. 3, 1939, not a lot happened in the first months of the war.

Then on May 10, 1940, the English and Allies deployed an expeditionary force, and by May 20 everything was falling apart as the force was routed and bottled up at Dunkirk.

In telling the story in “Dunkirk,” Nolan has crafted an extraordinarily intense and, at times, unnerving film about a military catastrophe, which against all odds was snatched out of the fires of total defeat.

Part of his strategy to keep viewers on the edge of their seats is the disorienting way in which the narrative develops.

While chronological, the film is not precisely linear — at least not in a conventional way.

Three separate, narrative threads weave together into a single, epic tapestry, but as they converge, each thread covers events that would have taken different lengths of time to chronologically unfold.

Essentially, it’s like this: Imagine three men arriving at an intersection — one walking, one on a bike and the other driving a car.

They each arrive at the same point, at the same moment, but it took longer for the man to walk there, less time for the man on the bike, and even less time for the man in the car.

Now intercut these three stories, and at first the impression is they are each happening simultaneously, particularly if their respective story is told in equal parts.

This is what viewers get with “Dunkirk”: a temporal disruption to the natural unfolding of time that heightens the tension and drama.

The three narrative threads Nolan takes up to tell the evacuation story are land, sea and air.

The story that begins on land, with 400,000-plus stranded ground troops, unfolds over a one-week time frame.

The sea-based story largely focuses on the conscripted small to midsized British personal and commercial boats deployed across the English Channel to ferry soldiers to larger ships or back to Britain directly.

This narrative thread unfolds over a one-day time frame. Meanwhile, the story that takes place in the air over the English Channel and the beaches of Dunkirk unfolds over a one-hour time frame.

Each narrative thread receives about the same screen time, yet they are intercut in such a way that it takes some time for the audience to understand just how everything is unfolding.

Like Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan,” Nolan’s central characters are fictional additions to the historic account.

The land narrative revolves around a clever and resourceful young British private named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), who works determinedly to get off the beach and back to England while most soldiers await rescue patiently.

His efforts could best be summed up with the phrase “two steps forward, one step back.”

The drama from the land point of view comes from the tested patience of the ground forces as they have to wait while exposed to enemy air attacks.

Christian viewers may be reminded of the words of St. Peter about how “the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

The British expeditionary force is essentially being asked to trust that their rescue is coming, no matter how bleak the situation might look.

The narrative of their rescue by sea is centered on a small pleasure vessel captained by Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), his teenage son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and Peter’s friend George (Barry Keoghan).

While some vessels were commandeered by the Royal Navy and manned by sailors, many others, like this fictional boat, were piloted by their owner/operators.

By sticking to the historical details, primarily the young age of most of the British expeditionary force soldiers, Nolan ends up highlighting a striking feature of this rescue.

The men who came to the aid of the soldiers by sea are mostly older, although there are some younger teenage boys.

The image of the fathers and grandfathers of Britain rescuing their sons is a moving element of the film and the kind of thing rarely witnessed in films today.

Told with little dialogue, Nolan’s “Dunkirk” still manages to emphasize the interactions, both positive and sometimes negative, between men under stress on the battlefield.

For the Christian viewer, what emerges is a meditation on the Fifth Commandment: You shall not murder. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.

Apart from the Nazi Luftwaffe aircraft pilots, no German soldiers are visible — only the sporadic and opportunistic gunfire of an enemy army consistently situated outside the cinematographer’s frame is present.

This adds to the mounting suspense and makes “Dunkirk” less about the German attackers and more about the evacuation and rescue.

Although the film depicts intermittent acts of selfishness and/or the temptation to act selfishly out of self-preservation by some soldiers, overall the film is about rising to fulfill the Fifth Commandment — men, both military and civilian, risking their lives to save the lives of others.

For example, when Mr. Dawson, Peter and George rescue their first stranded solider (Cillian Murphy), he selfishly wants them to take him, and him alone, back to Britain.

Instead, they carefully distract and contain the belligerent soldier to rescue additional soldiers.

The rescue narrative from the air perspective also shows this high degree of willingness toward self-sacrifice.

Nolan eventually homes in on a single Royal Air Force Spitfire pilot, Farrier (Tom Hardy), who even when he could have turned back to England for mechanical reasons endeavors to “help and support [his neighbor] in every physical need” by continuing to engage the enemy.

In a spring and summer awash with big-budget superheroes and sci-fi, “Dunkirk” provides a unique and intense film-going experience.

Its commitment to detail and near-flawless execution make it one of the best war films made to date and puts it into contention for the upcoming awards season.

The freshness of Nolan’s narrative approach will keep viewers on the edge of their seats.

After leaving the theater, the three threads of the narrative start reorganizing in the mind and act like a memory — a memory that honors the hour in the air, the day at sea, and the week on land for all those involved at Dunkirk.

Even though the story is told primarily with fictional characters, Nolan manages to honor the real men (and some women nurses) caught up in the events of the WWII evacuation in a candid and cathartic way befitting of their sacrifices.

A word of warning: While the film is rated “PG” (Canada) and “PG-13” (MPAA), it can’t be stressed enough that this film is an intense experience, especially if viewed in IMAX.

People suffering with anxiety, claustrophobia, fears of water or drowning, and those who generally have a hard time with war films will want to think long and hard before attending Dunkirk.

The film will likely be far too challenging for small children and sensitive children entering their teenage years.

The Rev. Ted Giese (pastorted@sasktel.net) is lead pastor of Mount Olive Lutheran Church, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; a contributor to the Canadian LutheranReporter Online and KFUO.org; and movie reviewer for the “Issues, Etc.” radio program. Follow Pastor Giese on Twitter @RevTedGiese.

Posted August 2, 2017

Reporter Online is the Web version of Reporter, the official newspaper of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Content is prepared by LCMS Communications.

5 Responses to Movie review: ‘Dunkirk’

  1. carla James August 3, 2017 at 12:57 am #

    There’s this star studded cast but no characters! My husband, a major WWII enthusiast, agreed that an additional 45 minutes or so to develop a relationship with the characters would have made it more enjoyable. The other issue we had with the film was our inability to understand much of the dialogue from these great British actors. While realizing this is likely our shortcoming, we plan to watch it when it hits tv so we can find out what was being said with the aid of closed captioning.

    • Adam C Feliciano August 3, 2017 at 4:32 pm #

      My thoughts exactly! I really thought it was rather too short to flesh out the characters. I had trouble understanding the dialogue as well.

  2. S. Davis August 3, 2017 at 11:15 am #

    While I see your point on characterization, I feel that each actor was not one individual soldier, but any soldier. Every soldier. This way, I was able to feel the magnitude of what happened to all the “real” people at Dunkirk, and not for a well formed fictional character. I do agree that I will have to see it again to grasp all of the dialogue but I had no problem grasping the emotion!

  3. Bill H August 3, 2017 at 11:15 am #

    If you know anything about the British “Tommies” it was they were talkative and had a wicked sense of humor. I was amazed at how quiet these soldiers were on the evacuating ships. In real life you can bet there was cockney dialog from the soldier like “Thanz fo’ the tea and bread but eye was ho’pin’ for a good pint.” Of which one of the women would have replied, “Eye wil’ remem’er to bring the beer fo’ your next evacuation, luv.”

    BTW, over three hundred British and German aircraft fought in the evacuation. You got to see six. The evacuation during a very calm period and the seas were like glass and definitely not with six foot breakers. BTW, that German rifle squad would not have used that trawler for target practice. It gives your position away and somebody can sneak up and toss a grenade in it. No ships were torpedoed next to the shore. Two ships were lost to torpedoes and that was because they left the covered evacuation area. Facts, facts, facts…

    BTW, the last “decent” war movie made was “Blackhawk” down.

  4. R Brockmeier August 3, 2017 at 12:04 pm #

    I saw an interview with one of the last of the actual survivors of the battle (98 years old!). He said the movie was amazingly accurate and even had the effect of his reliving the experience, not always a good thing.

Leave a Reply to Bill H Click here to cancel reply.

LCMS News & Information