Dunkirk

I knew this would be a must see for Rob Jones but wasn't sure what to hope for for myself. I was encouraged to hear Mark Rylance was to star. As it turned out nobody did much acting in this movie. Mark played a phlegmatic type, understated to an absurd degree where he appeared pretty much autistic. Rob Jones' comment 'but he's always like that'.

No one showed any emotion except for shock.  I found this completely unreal and it may help to explain why this film did not engage me. I know from reading other reviews that many found it deeply moving and engaging, including some women who did not expect to get much from it.

Reading that Nolan has wanted to make this film since at least 1999, it seems very much a personal quest for him and I wanted to know more about that. I am guessing he has a family connection to this piece of history. I also wonder whether it was in part a homage to the postwar movies it in certain ways resembles - for example not showing anything much in the way of injuries and the lack of both female roles more than walk ons and racial diversity. Might we have another Mary Beard style controversy about who was or was not white and male at Dunkirk? I would like to see that.

I felt there was great artistry in the shots of the massive skies and seas and that modern techniques allowed a much more realistic feel to the flying and sea sequences. If I could have identified with any of the characters it might have been quite an experience to go on that ride with them.

I like the way we see only the soldiers' viewpoint of the sinking of a rescue ship. It just happens, with no warning - suddenly everyone is underwater floundering. It's horrible. It's also horrible when an officer walks into the sea, unable to live with the deaths of his men (well that is what I think I saw happen).

Nolan has been able to convey some of the horror of war without body horror accoutrements by showing how psychologically distressing it all is, how disorientating, the lack of meaning (for example the senseless death of the boy which is eventually the subject of an understandable, comforting lie). Was it a desire to keep everything as low key emotionally as possible that led to the lack of acting and characterisation in the movie, or was it a tribute to the stiff upper lips of 1950s war films?

I don't want to see a lot of crying, shouting, laughing etc in a movie like this, and I can believe that a great deal of emotion would be suppressed through shock,  but at least some relieved or despairing emotings would have happened with humans in these situations!

One thing I really noticed was the complete absence of any Germans, except as unseen pilots or arresting soldiers dimly appearing at the end. It's disturbing, because they then become non people. However from the viewpoint of the allied soldiers in this place and time there must have been very little contact apart from bullets and leaflets so perhaps this was another way of keeping things realistic; or perhaps he just wished not to dilute the focus on the allied men.

Actors in this movie playing the lead roles were largely unknown to the point I can't say who played whom without looking it up (except the most famous such as Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy and Mark Rylance). I had forgotten Harry Styles was in it. He didn't stick out to me in any way, so job done I guess. There was not really that much asked of the cast so he hadn't got a lot to live up to. Tom Hardy's face acting has been raved about. I would have to watch again as I didn't even know it was him. It's hard to read anything much on near covered faces, at least for me. Here he is. I've only seen him before with a mask or a huge beard and his much vaunted greatness as an actor hasn't penetrated with me as yet. Since I love good acting I should watch him more.



I was pleased, or shall I  rather say relieved, to have a soldier reading Churchill's speech from a newspaper as things wrapped up, rather than an actor doing a voiceover or a recording of Churchill himself. On the other hand the constant near emergence of Elgar was maddening. Just play the damn thing! Instead someone had written an inferior version of the Elgar specially for the soundtrack. On the subject of the soundtrack, I didn't notice the much mentioned Shephard tone and had never heard of this, which is apparently a technique Nolan is fond of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_tone

If Dunkirk were conventionally narrated I could see it as a portmanteau of several stories. Nolan does not give us proper stories as such but scenes from the experiences of various individuals. Occasionally this is downright confusing, as in the scene where we suddenly see Cillian Murphy's 'Shivering Soldier' in charge of a lifeboat. When and where did this take place? We aren't told but only know it must have preceded his rescue.  Did it directly precede his rescue? As he was found alone I had started by thinking he was a pilot and the floating wreck his plane. Might the confusion be intended to add to the audience's fear, uncertainty and doubt, which helps make what is happening less 'consumable'? I think that, chewing it over now, we were meant to understand that the reason he was so traumatised was that he had failed to save all the people on the boat and was the only survivor. It was not clear enough.

I don't think Nolan was really ready to make this movie.  Perhaps he thought 'now or never'. I don't believe it quite reached what he was aiming for. My present feeling is that it is overrated, partly because of the grand reputation of Nolan, and will not be so highly thought of in a few years' time whilst likely to carry off many prizes.

Small irritations:

The first character I saw had dyed black hair with hairspray in it. Why go to so much trouble with authentic uniforms etc if you are going to give people unlikely barnets that are so not of the period? Oddly the foreign soldier he meets on the beach seems to have been to the same hairdresser for the same dye job. And Cillian Murphy has dyed dark locks also. The pilots had sandy hair, indeed one was Scots. If these hair colours were supposed to be significant it was lost on me except as a distraction. If you're doing historical, do historical including haircuts.


Next, and my OH disagrees on this, the shouting of 'English only' at French people trying to board an escape ship. What about all the Scots and Welsh, I thought. 'British only' surely. But Rob J thinks we all used English for British back then. I think not. There was a British empire still.

The movie announces that it was all shot on film which I suppose means no CGI possible. Yet it still looked very dingy, like a 3D movie. Who sucked all the colour out of our movies? Baby Driver was the first one I've seen for ages that had actual proper colour. Might Nolan have been going for the faded look of early colour? If so I say bad call.

Where CGI might have been a help would be with the numbers of evacuees seen. Dialogue stated there were 400,000 of them and we never saw more than 200 people I would estimate.  Even if no fx could be used, I think they could have paid for a few hundred more extras.

I did sort of notice the 1980s train seat cover as looking out of place, but didn't recognise it for what it was. Tut tut. Other anachronisms are minor and to my mind for the anoraks really.