Dunkirk

🔥 IMMERSIVE | EMOTIONAL 🔥 5th Watch | Top 100 | Christopher Nolan Ranked Taking war in a direction never seen before, Chrisotpher Nolan made one of his best films yet with Dunkirk. Due to Dunkirk's unique characteristics, many people have found things to criticize about Dunkirk. Many have criticized the story structure for being too confusing and unnecessary, many have criticized the characters for being uninteresting and dry, many have criticized the lack of historical accuracy, many have criticized the sound mixing of the plane sequences, and many have criticized the screenplay for the lack of dialogue. However, each of these "criticisms" were present due to Christopher Nolan's intentions, and they actually helped tell the story of Dunkirk. Despite what many have said, the converging timelines are not a motif. Dunkirk tells three different stories of people who were involved in Dunkirk. "The Mole" is one of these stories that follows a group of soldiers on the beach, and it lasts a week. "The Sea" is another story following a group of Britons who sailed out to Dunkirk to help evacuate some soldiers, and it lasts a day. Finally, "the Air" is another story following a group of British pilots who flew spitfires to help the evacuation from the skies. These three stories are seamlessly woven together, telling a more complete story of Dunkirk. At the end of these stories, we see all of these stories converge into one satisfying and emotional climax. Some may see this as motif, but it's a lot more than that. By providing multiple stories, it gives a more universal experience of Dunkirk, but more importantly, combining the stories together shows how each of these individual experiences were part of a collective whole, which was the Dunkirk experience, something that this movie captured flawlessly. Watching each story overlap with one another also helped build the fluidity and the universality of the evacuation. Also, at least from my experience of the film, the general premise of the film and its narrative structure was pretty straightforward, especially since you are given the lengths of each separate personal experience. I've seen some complaints about the lack of historical accuracy in some areas. However, firstly, the film is very historically accurate in a lot of places to how a few similarities to how some soldiers swam out into the sea to die, how the French and others were denied, the boats, and so much more. However, I've heard some people say that the film didn't seem like there were around 400,000 people waiting. While I do agree, there still felt like a lot of people, and Christopher Nolan not resorting to CGI and just adding more people shows how committed Nolan was to making Dunkirk feel as authentic as possible. I have a lot more respect for Dunkirk that there were real planes, real boats, and real people. The "fakest" aspect about Dunkirk was that some things were made out of cardboard cutouts. In addition, I've seen some people say that Indians were a huge part of Dunkirk and should've definitely been included. While I acknowledge Indians were important in Dunkirk, many people inflate their numbers. Indians didn't make a massive chunk out of Dunkirk from what I've researched. In addition, Christopher Nolan's movie was about the collective experience of Dunkirk and less about every face in Dunkirk. Dunkirk is not a documentary, and including every face just wouldn't have fit with everything else Nolan did. At the end of the day, in just ninety minutes, Nolan created a film that captured the essence of Dunkirk, and that is one of the reasons why it's very immersive. It was like I was fused into the story itself, like I was another pilot next to Farrier, or another soldier next to Tommy, or another crew member on the boat. Dunkirk lacks a clear protagonist. Usually, this would be a bad thing, but Dunkirk is one of the few places where it actually benefits the story. Many war films revolve around one person, following a heroic figure in a bleak setting or a person who loses his humanity due to the horrors of war. In practically every war, whether it's as brilliant as Apocalypse Now or on the opposite side of the spectrum, the film will follow one group's individual story. Even if you can gain a sense of how heroic/dreadful the event was, I never get the sense that I could apply the experiences of what the characters felt to every person in the war. That is different with Dunkirk. Instead of following a special protagonist, Dunkirk follows many groups of ordinary people and how standard people impacted the course of the evacuation at Dunkirk. Like I said earlier, it develops a profound sense of universality to the situation. That is why the lack of protagonist in Dunkirk helps tell the narrative. However, in addition to the lack of a clear protagonist in Dunkirk, the characters also aren't given a lot of depth. They are blend and significantly underdeveloped. They don't go through any character arcs, and they aren't fleshed out like they are in films like Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now. However, once again, the lack of proper characterization actually serves in Dunkirk's favor. Dunkirk doesn't really have true characters, because focusing on certain characters would detract from the overall experience of the evacuation of Dunkirk as a whole. This also applies to the dialogue, as we were more focused on the setting of Dunkirk itself rather than what the characters had to say about themselves. There was a sense of mutual understanding with each character because they all were apart of the same experience. Dunkirk thrives on telling the bigger picture rather than focusing on a select group of characters. The movie felt like it was greater and more significant than just a few people. The significance in Dunkirk lies with the collective group effort of everyone involved. Dunkirk wasn't a one-man show, and having traditional character building would've made that the case. Despite the traditional character building, the film is very emotional, and I cared deeply about the fates of every character. When characters died, I felt sorrow. When characters succeeded, I cried of happiness. Even in the oil scene, which I've seen an endless number of times, I still became overly emotional, got goosebumps, and had tears of joy because of how amazing that moment was in the film. Christopher Nolan is very good at creating emotion in his stories, and surprisingly, Dunkirk is no exception. This war film is surprisingly one of the best war films in my opinion and making me emotional. From a technical standpoint, Dunkirk is one of the most impressive film's I've ever seen. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is unparalleled and was a huge reason why the essence of Dunkirk was captured so well. The cinematography showed scope and made the audience feel like another soldier, pilot, or sailor. Much like Interstellar, the cinematography was not only strikingly beautiful, but also helped immerse the audience in the film. In addition, Hans Zimmer created one of his best scores yet with Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan was very vocal with Hans Zimmer on making the score as marvelous as it could be. Therefore, the brilliance of the score not only lies with Zimmer but also with Nolan. They both decided to use a Shepard's tone in Dunkirk, which essentially gives the illusion that a set of notes could infinitely get higher in pitch. As a result, tension is built. This tension is strong and is perfectly utilized in the film. In addition to Hans Zimmer's score being filled with tension, it is also very emotional, fitting extraordinarily well in Dunkirk. In addition to being mesmeric and beautiful, Dunkirk is easily one of the best scores Hans Zimmer has ever produced. The sound design as a whole works very well too, giving a very immersive experience. I also didn't mind the sound mixing in the plane. I admit it was hard to hear, but it still somewhat distinguishable and hearing the engines of the plane further inserted me into the film. Finally, the editing was extraordinary, seamlessly intertwining each story together. Dunkirk is a tremendous film. With eight Oscar nominations in Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Production Design, Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Director, and even Best Picture, there is a reason why Dunkirk is so good. Even though Dunkirk won three of those Oscars (Editing, Sound Mixing, and Sound Editing), I would actually argue that Dunkirk should've won way more. Dunkirk is a masterpiece and is truly a one-of-a-kind type of film. It is why Dunkirk has always been one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films. ⬅️ Previous Review: Interstellar