I thought part of the issue with Dunkirk is it wasn’t anyone’s story so it was the story about Dunkirk… except it wasn’t. I knew nothing really about Dunkirk before the movie, and I knew very little about it afterwards. I already knew about the submarines and the fate of France before the movie so it was the only thing that really told me was going to happen and it just… .wasn’t quite there.
It wasn’t a bad movie though, and the visuals were interesting. It followed this one guy for the most part and do you know, I couldn’t remember his name not during or after the movie… so I had no real connection with any of the characters, like none of them.
I don’t know. These are valid critiques, but they’re also mainly critiques of the narrative decisions made with the movie. Like, Nolan made different decisions that you would have. His film wasn’t about historicity; he assumed his audience already knew the history, as–I assume–anyone from the UK would. He was focused on a few characters because it’s easier to show tension and the desolation of defeat (this was a retreat and evacuation) on the faces of characters. That’s not to say your critiques aren’t valid, but they’re not about the movie he made. I think his film succeeds pretty well at what he was trying to do.
I loved Dunkirk and enjoyed pretty much everything Nolan threw into the mix. I loved that you basically never saw the enemy… or even heard them referred to as anything by “the enemy”. I loved that it was only the civilians that got names (or even faces). I loved the horror-movie sense of dread and the universal sense of peril. I loved that what passed for main characters just couldn’t get off the beach on their own and kept getting tossed back again and again.
Except he didn’t really focus on them. I mentioned that in the second part of my critique. You had this main character, and you knew pretty much nothing about them. They might has well as been called Peter, Bob and Joe. They had no depth just actions and actions that only made sense if you had any awareness of what was happening leading up to, during and after the events at Dunkirk, outside the movie.
Again, I don’t think it’s a bad movie. There are a lot of okay movies about war. I just think the top ones do more.
Exactly, the only story that worked was the guys on the boat, which frankly was the unique story of Dunkirk. The miracle Spitfire that saved the day with no gas was silly beyond belief. When you have a story which is practically a miracle, you don’t need to emblish things.
As a piece of art it maybe pretty good, but as far as telling the story of an important battle in the most important war, it failed miserably.
Why the obsession with airplane fuel?
Here, Nolan is dramatizing something central to the entire event. The Royal Air Force was not able to provide a lot of help to the men trapped on the beach because of its fighters’ range. As the film depicts early on, pilots had to carefully conserve fuel on the Channel crossing and, even then, could only operate for less than an hour over Dunkirk itself. What happened far more often was that, while en route, fighters came upon German planes attacking the Royal Navy and had to battle them over the sea.
This wasn’t comforting to the men trapped on the beach, but if the Royal Navy’s Destroyers were sunk (six of around 40 were), there would be no cover for the retreat.
The RAF did battle German fighters and bombers over the three beaches of Calais, Dunkirk, and Ostend themselves, but a recurring theme in survivors’ accounts is that they never saw the RAF in the skies above them.
OK, but isn’t it absurd how long that Spitfire glides?
Not really. Veterans reported gliding their Spitfires 15 miles or more.
It’s valid to critique any historical film based on how it handles history. It’s also valid to critique the screenplay. This whole "it’s his vision* thing notwithstanding. I critique his horror movie vision of Dunkirk and that conflict. As I said earlier, it’s single biggest flaw in how it dealt with the events was its decision basically treat the Germans like the Martians in War of the Worlds. The “horror movie dread” someone else referred to. is exactly how war shouldn’t be portrayed in film. If there is evil, or inhumanity, the truth is that evil or inhumanity is perpetrated by humans. Not faceless robots. That is the ultimate horror. Any film that doesn’t face up to that by making one antagonist in a conflict either bad guy cardboard cut-outs or faceless villeins, is copping out and giving humanity a pass, IMO.
That is also the ultimate in ahistorocity (a conflict with only one human side, as portrayed in the film), not minutia like Spitfire range debates.
Having said all that, I am not going to tell anyone what they should like or not vis a vis a Film. But I sure didn’t like it. And I thought, as a historically informed viewer, that it was poor history.
Another beef I had with Dunkirk was the score. It was so relentlessly downbeat I found myself asking, “Why don’t they just give up?” Yeah, I know the whole Dunkirk as defeat argument, but that’s not really correct. The Battle of France was a defeat.Dunkirk was the miraculous escape from the defeat. But the score doesn’t give you any sense of that. It doesn’t build tension and then release. It just drives you down, even after the escape from the beaches is secured.
I liked Dunkirk a lot. I think if you disqualify it as a ‘good’ war movie because it isn’t an historical exposition of the entire operation or because it didn’t try to portray the ‘other side’ as human beings then lots of ‘good’ war movies get disqualified for the same reason (I’m looking at you, The Deerhunter) and you’re left with a smaller universe of war movies many of which aren’t very good at all.
I think that’s valid, but I’d counter that in your example, The Deer Hunter is purely a fictional work focusing only on the POV of specific characters. Dunkirk is ostensibly attempting to relate specific historical events. Deer Hunter is an excellent film, but it is in no way making any attempt to relate specific historical events. Even the Fall of South Vietnam is a stage event, essentially, background.
I agree. In large part because Vietnam was such a confusing mess, almost all of the Vietnam films have focused on small group of soldiers trying to cope with chaos of war, Platoon, Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, even We were soldiers once which was about a real (but ultimately pointless battle), made a POV films. Plenty of great war movies from earlier wars did the same, Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, Glory Road, Thin Red Line.
But when you name your film after a battle then have an obligation, IMO to at least try and tell that tale. Gettysburg, D-Day, Midway, Tora-Tora, Stalingrad, Battle of the Bulge. Some of the best do both Enemy at the Gate, Savng Private Ryan. Gallopili.
We Were Soldiers is a Vietnam War example of trying to do both. It is still way too US-centric IMO, but it does offer a view on “both sides of the hill”.
Cornelius Ryan’s Vignette technique (Author of The Longest Day,A Bridge Too Far) was clever in that it gives you historocity and POV, from both sides of a specific historical event. Heck, and from the POV of non-combatants.
Ha! I can empathize. I once brought a first date to City of God, because I heard that Ebert loved it and the nation of Brazil was very proud of it. Same result, though the movie became one of my favorite (drug) war movies.
I don’t think I can pull one film out of this entire thread that was (or would be, hypothetically) a hit with anyone I dated. Ever. Obviously I was dating the wrong people.
Edit: Which reminds me. How about Tony Curtis? What an amazing actor. He had the same issue as Edward G Robinson. That obvious accent. But he got around it with charisma. Same as Edward G.
Completely off “War Film” topic here but Edward G. in Soylent Green, is possibly one of the most touching performances I have ever seen. Period. I cry every time. No fooling.
Navaronegun cries: Edward G. in Soylent Green. End of Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence. Bet on it.
What does it to me isn’t just the death, its that his character knows what life is supposed to be like. How humans should live. And he knows this isn’t the way. And he is happy to leave.
Merry Christmas, well, if you see it, ask me and I’ll tell you why I cry at the end every time.
