Review - Dunkirk (2017)

A masterful third-act

Dunkirk lacks any drama, which is probably the biggest flaw of the film which is otherwise flawless.

Of all the war movies I have seen, Saving Private Ryan is probably the best - albeit not without minor quibbles. That film was released way back in 1998 and yet watching it today, it remains an emotional and visceral experience. 19 years later, our modern cinematic virtuoso, Christopher Nolan has brought Dunkirk, which has been hailed as the best war movie ever made by multiple critics. Agreed, when you know it is Nolan, you don't need anything else to validate. Standing at a spectacular 94 on Metacritic, it is probably the Nolan's most unanimously loved film. But is this film as good as it is being proclaimed?

Evacuation of Dunkirk took place early on during World War II. The allied troops were completely surrounded by German army on the French land and they were pushed deep into the shores of English Channel. Around 300,000 soldiers were stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, waiting to be torn apart by enemy air raids or for a miracle that might rescue them. What Churchill called 'a colossal military disaster', Dunkirk was certainly an important chapter for World War II. We all know the outcome, most of the soldiers were indeed saved and it certainly was an early blow to the Axis. Nolan obviously assumes that you know your history and hence he wastes no time to explain any background. There are some title cards which do impart some information, but if you are going to watch Dunkirk, it is better that you read a paragraph or two about it on Wikipedia. 

The opening of Dunkirk is sheer cinematic excellence - we follow a British private Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) as he escapes the titular deserted town from the Germans. As he reaches the shore, the camera sweeps through the vast stretch of sandy beach and the blue ocean, and along with thousands of soldiers scattered like ants. Just then, a roaring sound of subsonic German planes renders all of the men crawling down on the land, covering their ears with their hands. Among many of the film's iconic shots, we see bombs dropping off, one by one, approaching Tommy in a serial order. The shot ends with Tommy surviving the "bomb-line", but not without a flurry of sand deluging him.

Nolan, having written the script as well, divides the film into three temporal perspectives - the land, one week; the sea, one day; the air, one hour. The land covers the journey of Tommy and how he survives the constant bombardment and shooting by the enemy while waiting to be rescued; the sea covers a mariner named Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), how he sails to Dunkirk to rescue the stranded, along with his son, Peter and a teenage acquaintance, George; and the air covers Farrier (Tom Hardy), a British Royal Air-force pilot, assigned with the task of taking down the German planes. We follow each of these perspectives in a cross-cut fashion and the finale leads to intersection of all these strands in a neat, effective result.

Nolan's forte has always been brilliant use real-life props and sets. Obviously, he has employed digital visual effects, but you do appreciate the fact that they have been avoided as much as possible. In fact, real aircraft have been used for the film. The outcome is a set of multiple dazzling action sequences, which are not just breathtaking to behold, but also fully immersive in their approach. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema conjures one stunning imagery after another - the entire air perspective consists of the best aerial photography ever shot for a film. The sound design also deserves to be mentioned here, and for the first time, Nolan's use of bombastic and deafening sound seems completely justified. 

After so much of praise, is it the case that the film is indeed one of the best war film ever made? The answer is sadly, a no. With all the technical aspects and innovative structure of its storytelling, Dunkirk's major flaw is the lack of an emotional core. Worse, it is actually intentional - Nolan wanted it to function as a third act of any war movie. But this approach backfired. There is no back story for any of these characters and they have been written as a generic placeholders for the military roles. Even with veteran actors like Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance, the film fails to deliver any empathic connection. It all plays out like one action sequence after another - even though thrilling and perfect as they are, they cannot act as a substitute for dramatic heft. 

Just like Interstellar, Nolan's over-indulgence has restrained him to achieve what his vision clearly does. Thrilling, soaring and absolutely worth watching on the biggest screen you can get, the film is unfortunately mechanical and emotionally aloof. Only if Dunkirk had its first two acts, it could have been a masterpiece.

3.5/5