Dunkirk – What The Movie Is & Is Not
War movies possess a unique ability to captivate viewers, making them unable to look away from the screen. But war movies are about more than the battles themselves. They tell stories about people, their sacrifices, and the decisions that shape the outcome.
I have seen many war movies, including my favourites, The Guns of Navarone (1961), Sink the Bismarck (1960), Saving Private Ryan (1998), and recently, Dunkirk.
Dunkirk is a war movie that does not depict the horrors of war like Saving Private Ryan, nor does it showcase the bravery of the commando unit infiltrating the island of Navarone or the amazing sea battles in Sink the Bismarck.
Not setting any expectations:
Hollywood war movies usually come with clear expectations. Many of these films are made with large budgets to highlight the significant battles. Dunkirk, built on a budget of approximately $100 million, refrains from venturing into that domain – there are skirmishes, not battles.
The film does not explicitly reveal what it is all about. The story unfolds slowly, revealing each character and the environment they’re in.
What the movie actually is?:
The entire movie heavily relies on the technique of “show don’t tell”. The viewer must focus on the events unfolding in three different locations, involving three distinct individuals and their unique circumstances. The only things highlighted in the text are the chapter headings to help identify the location and, in turn, the turn of events.
The Mole: the soldiers awaiting evacuation.
The Sea: Mr. Dawson and his boat.
The Air: the RAF pilots.
Dunkirk shifts between the past and present, focusing on different individuals closely connected to these events.
I consider Dunkirk to be a film that doesn’t reveal its true meaning. You have to sit through the entire movie and pay attention to the unfolding events. The cuts may appear random at first, but as the movie progresses, the story takes shape. The cuts between different events are subtle enough that the audience can comprehend the scene.
The movie’s cuts prompt you to connect the dots and understand the events unfolding gradually.
What the movie is actually about [Spoiler Alert]:
The film may leave you disoriented in its opening minutes. You’ll struggle to understand what the movie is trying to show you. Then come the cut scenes where the movie takes you to a different event, and then it heads back to the same storyline.
Initially, the cut scenes will make you think they are a different story in the movie. But as the events unfold, you will start connecting the dots. Connecting these storylines takes time to process. As the movie progresses, you will quickly grasp the main theme: the rescue mission for the men stranded at Dunkirk.
Dunkirk shifts between the past and present, focusing on different individuals closely connected to these events. These three main cut scenes come together into one coherent storyline.
What works extremely well is the directing format. The “show don’t tell” way of directing works very well. Viewers need to grasp the events, and the story isn’t overly simplified.
An excellent example of how the background score plays out is shown in the movie The Return of the King, directed by Peter Jackson. The Ride of the Rohirrim, where King Theoden leads the Rohan army to storm the Orks besieging Minas Tirith.
The background score by Howard Shore plays very well when the Cavalry marches head-on against the Orks. The score stops the moment the cavalry and the Orks collide.
Directors have a distinctive style when filming a movie. Christopher Nolan directing format changes with the film. No two films are similar. The way he directed The Dark Knight Trilogy, Interstellar, and now Dunkirk are all different. Hans Zimmer delivers subtlety the scene needs and this is evident in the background score as well.
The music does not need to speak much but complement the accompanying scene. The music plays exactly where it needs to.
Could the background score do a better job? I feel that in some places it could have worked; the score sounds very ambient and atmospheric at times, and less subtlety in some places would have pumped up the anticipation. But that’s my opinion. Overall, critiquing the background score may sound like nitpicking over an excellent movie.
I think Christopher Nolan has done a fine job by not letting too much of the background score have much impact on the story. The movie is more visually focused, and adding more score could have had an effect that the audience could have felt otherwise.
This movie is only complete when watched right till the end. Unlike some movies where the story is completed when the movie reaches 75 per cent runtime, the director has to build a strong closure for the characters. This movie isn’t like that. It builds the anticipation, mystery and the unexpected thrill that arrives when least expected.
Dunkirk is one of those rare movies that relies on the audience to think, not too much, but to understand the events that unfold gradually. In my opinion, that is a remarkable example of good directing. Good job, Christopher!
