Dunkirk

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Fionn Whitehead, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance, Harry Styles

Year: 2017

Genre: War

In Nolan's newest film, he explores the impact the evacuation of Dunkirk in World War II had on people- those on the beaches, those on the sea and those in the air.


Nolan opts for a clever technique in 'Dunkirk' to help him tell all three story lines simultaneously. Each plot is put into distinct timelines- 'The Moles' (soldiers on the beach) for '1 Week', 'The Sea' (those coming from Britain to help bring people back from Dunkirk) for '1 Day', and 'The Air' (the airforce) for '1 Hour'. Despite the fact that this is a non-linear structure, it works very well. It is edited well enough to keep it from being confusing and the audience can keep up with the story.

The acting is exceptional in 'Dunkirk'. It has a star-studded cast with great British actors such as Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy, who all perform great in their individual roles. The only poor casting choice arguably is Harry Styles, the pop star previously part of 'One Direction'. His acting ability is not necessarily the thing that is bad, it is more the fact that he is such a recognisable pop culture icon that seeing him removes the audience partially from the film. Other than this, the film absorbs the audience with its visually stunning set pieces and its poignant and realistic sound design. The latter is one of the reasons that makes the film demand to be seen on the big screen- to get the best experience for 'Dunkirk', it is almost made essential to be in a cinema. The sounds of gun fire make it feel so realistic that it can be somewhat frightening. Similarly, there are many other uses of sound which adds a strong sense of realism to the film.

Another thing that is something that might be seen as possibly removing the audience from the film is the lack of violence. The film might by many people be compared to Steven Spielberg's 1998 film 'Saving Private Ryan' where it too explores soldier's experiences in World War II. The biggest contrast between the two films is the graphic violence present in 'Private Ryan', most infamously in the first scene. 'Dunkirk' lacks the brutal goriness of 'Saving Private Ryan' which might be something audience members might be expecting. It does, however, make up for it through its constant tension and fear.

The film is brilliant because of how it is synecdoche for all the lives at 'Dunkirk'. This means that each story in the film could be the same for any person on 'Dunkirk'. Therefore, there is no knowing whether a character might survive because all of them are expendable. Scenes are given more tension because the film is not guaranteeing a safe ending for any character. This makes everything more terrifying and realistic because it would have been what life was like for people in the Dunkirk evacuations. Every small achievement is treated as a huge victory- this creates a sense of unity among the soldiers and how they are all in the same boat (no pun intended).
However, on the other side of this, the film can be absolutely devastating. Everything feels as if the entire thing is going to fail- there are arguments which explode out of nowhere through men's desperation, the Germans are constantly advancing, there are too many men to take out of Dunkirk, especially with the French. The film easily drifts between glorious triumphs to heart-breaking disasters which makes its all the more moving. The film also isn't packed with dialogue so a lot of scenes depend on the acting of the cast- having such a massive affect on the audience through pure acting shows Nolan's skillful directing and that he remains one of the greatest living directors of the present day.

'Dunkirk' is an amazing film, with a moving story, accurate adaptation of the actual events and stellar acting. It utilises sound brilliantly, making it essential to the film and it helps reconfirm Christopher Nolan as the master director that he is.

Verdict: 8/10