Christopher Nolan’s new movies are always expected as THE cinematic events of the year, and Dunkirk is not an exception to the rule. Yet, if the wait it caused and the advertisement it benefited from do not really distinguish it form its predecessors, the film has a very different screenplay and structure. Indeed, Nolan has decided to give up the enigmatic syntax and the plot-twits that generally characterize his screenplay. With Dunkirk, he takes a more realistic approach that is really oriented toward the sensations. Nonetheless, the layout of his movie remains something original.
The film looks into the conduct of the Dynamo Operation, whose goal was to evacuate the troupes of the British Expeditionary Forces (BEF) stuck at Dunkirk and circled by the Germans. This plot may seem classical, yet Dunkirk explores more in depth three parallel stories that end up converging at the end of the movie. The first story plays out in one week, and follows a small group of young privates of the BEF (Fionn Whitehead, Harry Styles et Aneurin Bernard). The boys attempt at any cost, and by resorting to ingenious schemes, to flee from the living hell that the Dunkirk’s beach has become. The second story occurs over the course of one day. It follows Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), a recreational boat owner who prepares the requisition of his vessel by the Royal Navy with the help of his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carnet) and of a young man called Georges (Barry Keoghan). Finally, the last characters Nolan follows are two pilots, Collins (Jack Lowden) and Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose missions is to cover the evacuation while contending the German bombers in the space of an hour.
A Quasi-Documentary Approach
What differentiates Dunkirk from other Nolan’s movies is the realistic approach the director took to tell his story. Even if it is an entertaining fictional film, the movie seems to borrow from the documentary genre. Here, Nolan presents facts without distorting them through the characters’ point of view. The camera is really close to the men it is filming and functions as a witness that came to glean some samples of the war it is contemplating. It is not a simple an artistic apparatus or a machine of entertainment. Nolan’s approach is really focused on the senses: the camera captures and transmits to the spectators some clues regarding the sensations and emotions that the characters feel. Thus, the almost unbearable noise of the planes’ motor sounds like a bad omen announcing bombardments; the sweaty faces of the pilots testifies the difficult physical conditions that reign inside the cockpit as well as the pressure they have to face when accomplishing their mission; the shivering bodies of the privates stuck on the beach are a manifests of the icy cold they are victims of when the sea inundates them, but also of their mental exhaustion. The exploration of these sensations allows the spectators to identify with the characters, so much so that it is sometimes physically painful to watch some scenes of the film.
A Rare Psychological Violence
The movie does not only show the wild violence of the Second World War; it also reflects the psychological effect this violence has on the characters. This psychological effect contaminates the spectators thanks to the mise-en-scene previously mentioned. Therefore, even if most the characters do not seem to be animated by another goal than survival and can thus appear shallow, we understand that Nolan’s goal is not to offer a classical war movie retelling the heroic acts of a brave main character. On the opposite, Nolan shows some living-dead soldiers whose gaze is empty and whose body is slimmed. He points out some men who are scared and do not understand why they are fighting anymore. They are not engaged patriots, nor moral heroes, nor violent warriors; they are only boys who just want to exit this living hell. By following different groups of characters and by not giving them any particular characteristics, Nolan shows a different face of the war than the one generally shown in movies: these kids with guns could be anyone. By revealing the banality of the ones who are going to war, and by depriving them from their status of heroes, the director makes the conflict he depicts look way more real. Therefore, the events appear closer to us. Nolan seems to invite his audience to reflect about war and its issues, but also about its proximity to us.
An Anticipation that Creates Tension
The fact that the movie does not use the classical Nolan’s structure and does not own a intricate screenplay reinforces the audience’s impression to be directly confronted to war. The film surprises and consequently can displease some spectators because of its small quantity of dialogues and because of the boredom that some “waiting-scenes” create. Yet, it establishes a permanent tension that implicates the spectators regarding the issues of the film. In reality, war does not resemble what most of the Hollywoodian films show us: it is not a sequence of violent actions served by heroic and talkative characters. No, war is the constant incertitude regarding where is the enemy and what he is planning. It is waiting forever while asking oneself when will the next bombardment happen and how lethal it will be. It is facing the absurdity of the situation and not being able to talk about it anymore. Thanks to this silent and “spread out” mise-en-scene, Nolan forces his spectators to feel the tension suffered by the soldiers.
A Movie that Remains "Nolanesque"
Nonetheless, even if Dunkirk differs really from his previous movies, Nolan still marks this story with his personal touch thanks to the structure of the film that composes a time-labyrinth. The film indeed plays with three different temporalities, which reinforces the tension already established by the dangerous situation of the characters and creates suspense. Thus, Nolan annihilates the boredom that some long waiting periods can cause and succeeds in exploiting only the stressing and scary aspect of the anticipation. Here, the English director does what he does the best: intertwining an entertaining blockbuster form with an indie film substance. Therefore, Dunkirk offers both spectacular action scenes and a reflection about war.
A Plea Against War
If the film does not really present any thesis, the feeling we have when we watch Dunkirk is incomprehension regarding the absurdity of war. How did we end up here? Why do we send some kids killing other kids? How can we force them to decide if they prefer risking to drawn or being exploded by the bombs that the enemy blindly sends? How can we face them losing their entire joie de vivre to become filled with an animal instinct of survival? Moreover, when we see the path our current international politic takes, it feels like we did not learn anything from this cruel experience. That is what makes the true strength of Dunkirk: without a word, just by showing war, Nolan signs one of the best call to pacifism ever made.
