Dunkirk: Movie Review (No Spoilers)

By Michael Momper

Christopher Nolan and Tom Hardy- one of the most sure-thing partnerships I’ve seen since Scorsese and Deniro.  They are both such safe bets when it comes to spectacular filmmaking that their movies almost sell themselves on their star power alone- Nolan’s name reminds filmgoers of their absolute adoration for The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. and Hardy’s has become a rock-solid standard of great film choice (Mad Max, The Revenant, The Drop, and Locke all within the past 3 years). Luckily for us fans, these two manage to never skate by on their name alone, and instead have given us what I think is by far their most fruitful pairing yet in Dunkirk.

                Dunkirk already has a sort of timeless feeling in my mind, because it is a timeless story.  The non-fiction narrative of an enormous group of simple countrymen embarking on a perilous journey to rescue their country’s soldiers is one that feels like it will always be relevant (as long as we still have human soldiers, I guess).  It is a mission that I’m sure has occurred in many wars and throughout many generations, but the setting of World War II always seems to deliver even more gravity to what may be straightforward situations.  As usual, Nolan wonderfully pulls off the trick of making viewers ponder their own hypothetical decisions, and he does this multiple times throughout the movie in moments of heart-pounding tension and sudden disaster. I largely disagree with the main complaint that critics have had with the movie- the few who didn’t like it mostly claimed that the movie lacked a human and emotional element. I think these critics are missing an important piece to the movie- they are neglecting the stoicism that comes with disaster and especially with urgency, which these men faced throughout almost the entire movie.  Nolan almost never writes overly emotional lines, and he often seems more concerned with putting the audience in the place of his protagonists, which usually seems to be quite effective.  There is no overacting, the performances are very grounded, feel realistic, and are drawn in a way that portrays the soldiers as dutiful and, though often stoic, containing a powerful sense of patriotism and care for their common man.  This, I think, is a perfectly human quality to portray and one that felt much more important to me than seeing an overarching emotional response.

                Dunkirk’s cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking, so much so that at times I forgot I was watching a movie about intense disaster.  The aerial views of dogfights and sailing yachts are some of the most serene I’ve seen in a movie.  There is a lot of poetry in the soaring and grandiose shots of the sky that Nolan pulls off, and through these shots the beachhead (which is at times a place of safety for the soldiers, and at others a place of sheer terror) really becomes a force of its own.

                My main complaint about the movie may seem shallow, and I suppose it is.  However, when I discussed this movie with Graham, he had the same complaint, so I suppose I am not totally alone here. To preface, I have had this same complaint with a couple of Nolan’s other movies (namely in The Dark Knight Rises) so I am not entirely sure why it continues to occur.  Hans Zimmer, his frequent soundtrack partner, is certainly a very talented conductor, and some of his music is absolutely riveting (The Dark Knight is an excellent example).  However, I believe that at times he is far too indulgent.  In Inception, we had our eardrums “obliterated with deafening horn noises”, as Honest Trailers puts it.  In Dunkirk, as in The Dark Knight Rises, some of the low and ominous organ sounds go on for what seems like forever.  We get the point, the moment is tense and dramatic, but the music doesn’t need to drag us into the murkiness for a sustained 20 minutes long! It’s frustrating partly because it is usually the same note sustained for literal minutes, with very little variation.  It can make some of the scenes feel sloggy at times, which is a shame because the scenes themselves are great in their own right. Perhaps Nolan should pull back the reins on Hans a little bet next go-round, and not let him indulge as a delicate genius in the shadows of the organ like he seems to do.

                Indulgence or not, it is certainly a spectacle worth seeing. You will at times be annoyed by the droning organ, and if you are like me perhaps you will be a little peeved at the confusion over who’s plane is on who’s side (is it really that deplorable to show a swastika on a plane in a historical non-fiction movie?). But far greater is the pleasure of seeing some extremely solid acting, top-notch camerawork, and a satisfying story that is sound-mixed and shot so well that you will feel as if you are right in the middle of an intense and grueling fight for survival.