Something a bit out of the ordinary today. I had the opportunity to go see “Dunkirk” with my family this weekend, so I decided to do a quick review. I will try to keep it spoiler free for the most part, so if you haven’t seen the film and are considering doing so, hopefully you will find this post helpful.
Right off the bat, I want to address a reaction that I have seen from several people to this film. If you go in expecting a history movie, be prepared to be disappointed. While this is a film about a historical event, it is an experience film not a historical film. Let me elaborate. There are a number of different traits of “historical” films. Firstly, these films tend to narrativize events by focusing on specific individuals over a specified length of time. The narrative is further built using opening text that gives the viewer a time and place (i.e. “1776, New York City” or something similar), and closing text to detail the specific events of the story or what happened to specific characters after the end of the film. These text segments are also used to “info dump” historical facts (i.e. “1000 soldiers died in this battle, while another 4000 were wounded” or “This character was married to his loving wife for 50 years, until his death in 2004”), info dumps which are often intercut with photos of the individuals portrayed in the film or video clips of interviews. Each of these aspects is designed to give the film a feeling of historicity, facts and relics of the past lending credence to the story being told. “Dunkirk” is not a historical film. It makes no claims to the historicity of the events portrayed, it does not name drop well known historical figures, the only textual addendums are the names of the locations and brief statements on the chronology of each story. Instead, “Dunkirk” is a film about experiencing war, seeing the events as they happen, not as a narrative or part of a larger story.
Just like the characters of the film, we are flung into the battle without pretext; we don’t know any of the soldiers before the opening of the film, nor are we treated to information about what happens to them after the events of the film conclude. We are forced to get to know these characters in the worst of circumstances, on the basis only of their actions during the film. We do not even have much dialog; there are no quiet moments where characters discuss the families they left at home or the quiet job they wish to go back to. Their only focus is survival, on getting through the hell around them and getting to safety. Instead, we come to know the characters by the powerful looks they exchange, the fear in their faces as dive bombers circle overhead, the determination as they struggle through impossible circumstances, the quiet resolve as characters make choices to sacrifice themselves. Most of these characters are just a nameless part of the collective, yet never is the audience in any doubt as to their humanity and the tragedy of their situation. The story becomes, not about the important history of the battle; the names of the important players, the number of boats, the facts and figures, but is instead about living through these days and nights with the unknown soldiers, experiencing their fear, sympathizing with their struggle.
To this end, the film takes steps to integrate the audience with the characters. As mentioned earlier, the audience and characters know very little about each other, resulting in a sense of displacement and uncertainty. This is compounded by the sparse dialog and incredible use of ambient noise. Most war films try to immerse the audience in the horror of battle through the use of grotesque imagery; body parts flying, large explosions, etc. “Dunkirk” instead uses sound to discombobulate the audience and deepen the experience. The sound of gunshots is cripplingly loud and dive bombers is cripplingly loud and disorienting; the first volley is enough to make some audience members cringe and cover their ears. While visual graphic violence is kept to a minimum, the ears of the audience are instead assaulted with the sounds of war; screams, explosions, shots, waves crashing, heavy breathing, motors, sound after sand in an overwhelming barrage. It is not just in the battle that the use of sound is so effective. The lack of dialog allows for the wide use of ambient noise to create a sense of verisimilitude; tea cups clinking, wind blowing past, footsteps on a dock that reaches deeper than any conversation could. Noise makes the world of “Dunkirk” feel real without relying on the crutch of facts and figures to prove that “reality.”
I want to keep this short, so I will skip ahead to my recommendation. “Dunkirk” is an amazing film, a work of art that is about experiencing the horror of this specific historical event. It does not rely on the trapping of a historical film to verify its historicity, but instead focuses on the experience of the characters to provide verisimilitude. In some ways, the artistry of the film is also its biggest flaw. A number of viewers are put off by the immersive structure of the film; they expect the motifs of a classic historical film, and are alienated by the lack of story structure and the absence of additional historical information to frame the events of the narrative. Thus, if you are a viewer who wants a historical film, “Dunkirk” may not be the best film for you. However, the movie is brilliantly structured, acted, and directed, and is well worth viewing if you can approach it as an experiential work of art not as a depository of historical information. When treated in this manner, “Dunkirk” becomes a deeply moving film about human nature, and the choice to transcend even the most horrible of circumstances in order to accomplish something incredible. It is a film about nobodies, who often remain nobodies, making small choices that individually don’t mean much, but add up collectively into an event that defined a nation.
Well, back to reality
