Dunkirk (2017)

Directed by: Christopher Nolan | 105 minutes | action, drama, history, war | Actors: Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard, Lee Armstrong, James Bloor, Barry Keoghan, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, James D’Arcy, Harry Styles, Jochum ten haaf

Director Christopher Nolan has built up a large fan base in roughly seventeen years with a series of imaginative, visually convincing and narratively layered films. However, the characters in his work are a bit worn out. In Nolan’s breakthrough film ‘Memento’ (2000), the memoryless protagonist serves the schematic reconstruction of his past. In his ‘Batman’ trilogy (2005-2012), the eponymous superhero is also mentally hidden behind a non-expressive mask. And in ‘Interstellar’ (2014) big philosophical questions take precedence over the individual. Each and every one of them are excellent films, but they lack that little bit extra.

It is hoped that ‘Dunkirk’ puts its main characters in the spotlight better. That has a lot to do with the genre of the film: the (truth-based) war story. Ignoring the characters in favor of the plot jeopardizes the meaning of these black periods by trivializing the war as a whole. It is the people who keep the memories of the war alive, not the dry facts and events. The closer emotions get to the core of the characters, the truer the representation of the horrors of war. Descriptions of true history can be interesting historically, but ignore what effectively makes war war. Struggle, pain and death. But also pride, interpretation and heroism.

Nolan introduces ‘Dunkirk’, partly shot in the Netherlands and with Hoyte van Hoytema as cinematographer, with a short text. Allied troops were ambushed near Dunkirk in France during World War II. The only way out is by sea, across the channel to England. But enemy fighters and submarines make the crossing almost impossible. Food and drink are scarce. The tens of thousands of soldiers hope for a miracle, the text concludes.

Hoping for a miracle isn’t exactly a promising message. Waiting for rescue is a rather passive activity that keeps characters at a great distance. What you want as a spectator is for a character to pursue his own will. It’s a false start to ‘Dunkirk’. However, the sequel immediately dives into the action. And don’t let go until death or freedom puts an end to the journey to hell.

‘Dunkirk’ splits into three storylines, each offering a different perspective of the mass escape attempt. The first, and most interesting, takes place on land. Here we follow Private Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), whose company comes under fire while scouting the city. He is the only survivor. The boy runs to the beach, where the many fellow sufferers, most of them still very young, hope to make the crossing to England. The sound of gunfire gradually burns into the beating of his heart. Images on Tommy are interspersed with meadow shots of the beach, with the queues waiting. His point-of-view leads us into the hopelessness of their objective. Dialogue is sparse. Emotions are conveyed with eye contact. The involvement is high.

This is reinforced by the choices Tommy has to make, often in a split second. Although the situation seems hopeless, he does everything he can to flee the country. While the threat and devastation continues in the background, he must make his own decisions about his own life. It is impossible to hide behind others. The courageous battle he fights is therefore mainly directed against himself (his own physical and mental limits) and his fellow soldiers, with whom he has to compete for the few places on a boat to England. The Germans, never mentioned by name, are nowhere to be seen in person. Because of those invisible opponents, the tension lies entirely with the Allies. It also prevents the film from getting bogged down in a black and white contrast.

At the same time, there are two other storylines: at sea and in the air. The need to survive is less, so that the characters stay more at a distance. Fortunately, Nolan is careful not to elaborate too much. The running time of ‘Dunkirk’ is, by the standards of today’s Hollywood, not overly long. The director is credited for not overloading the film with side plots, long drawn out action scenes, dead-end suspense and sentimentalities drenched in slow motion. What remains are real emotions that make the horrors of war, but also the human willpower beautifully tangible. Nolan has done an excellent job of keeping ‘Dunkirk’ human.