“Dunkirk,” directed by Christopher Nolan, recounts the summer 1940 evacuation of more than 300,000 British, French, and Polish soldiers from France.
It is a very good war movie. As much as the finest books on war, it offers a sense of combat’s fear, confusion, anger, and heroism.
Nolan’s actors help bring to life these concerns. Both Kenneth Brannagh, as the Royal Navy officer commanding the evacuation, and Harry Styles, as a young soldier, deliver especially good performances.
In addition, the many aerial combat scenes offer some of the best such cinematography produced on film. Following three Royal Air Force pilots as they desperately attempt to protect evacuating ships from German bombers, Nolan illuminates the human skill and intelligence required in combat flying. These traits remain the defining quality of combat air crews today.
The scale of “Dunkirk” is another of its strengths. In the thousands of desperate, weary soldiers crowding the barren and overcast beaches, the navy’s task seems insurmountable. Soldiers line up patiently, board the few ships that arrive, and head for home. But for most soldiers, the wait seems infinite. And even for those on the ships, lurking German submarines mean the risk of sinking is very real. Illustrating the impact of a torpedo strike on a ship, Nolan gives memory to the many British and American sailors who died while carrying crucial supplies across the Atlantic during the war.
The chaos of “Dunkirk” is accentuated by a simple but powerful soundtrack. A constant tick-tocking overlay reminds us that time is running out. The audience is left beckoning every soldier to find his place home as soon as possible.
Yet “Dunkirk” is not perfect. For a start, as a friend and amateur historian explained to me, most American viewers will not recognize the historic importance of what happened at Dunkirk. While the movie establishes that the German Army was at the gates to the beaches, it does not explain why the evacuation had become necessary in the first place.
And that matters, because as Winston Churchill explained, what occurred at Dunkirk was a “colossal military disaster.”
The British Army had deployed in force, 300,000 soldiers, to France to help repel German forces. But in a matter of weeks, it had crumbled as highly mobile German tank divisions had smashed through French lines and encircled British forces. The speed and scale of this maneuver warfare was unprecedented. It would eventually speak to why generals such as George Patton would be instrumental in victory. Regardless, for a British leadership accustomed to great victories and comfortable with imperial pride, the evacuation at Dunkirk was a soul-wrecking defeat. Nolan should have probably added an entry paragraph to explain this situation.
Another weakness of “Dunkirk” is its neglect of the scale of the civilian rescue effort, because it was that effort that saved the stranded soldiers. While we see a few civilian ships, and while the movie focuses on the particular courage of one father-son-friend civilian boat, it does not show the armada of civilian ships that crossed the English Channel to save their fellow citizens. This is a neglect of history.
Nevertheless, all in all, the movie is strong. It shows heroism amidst chaos and the corresponding triumph of military professionalism. Employing Edward Elgar’s patriotic overture, “Nimrod,” and Churchill’s “fight on the beaches” speech, it also makes unusually strong patriotic references. Contemporary British filmmakers do not tend to show patriotic feeling.
And if nothing else, the movie reminds us that even in the direst of circumstances, the ashes of defeat can be salvaged to ensure the triumph of good over absolute evil.
