Dunkirk (The Film)

See the IMAX version if possible. I didn't notice the lack of dialogue. The musical score is overwhelming.

My father-in-law was at Dunkirk and was rescued. I thinks lots of people will have relatives who experienced this and they didn't all talk about it.

I'd looked forward to seeing Dunkirk, but was deterred a week or two ago when I read that it was on the level of a video-game (not my sort of thing) and emphasised a being-there experience at the expense of context and much in the way of dialogue. Mind you, the recent film Moonlight had sparse dialogue but was intense and gripping to view and deserved its prizes. But then in the last few days I've noticed these rows of stars given by critics to Dunkirk and have been thinking that perhaps I was wrong to rule out paying to see it on a cinema screen where I guess it's best viewed. I had looked forward to the recent film Churchill yet that was ponderous, baggy and needed something rather more than starry names. So I am among those people who'll hang back a while and listen out for comments from those who've seen this new film. 

Well I'm a woman and I absolutely loved it. I've seen 59 films released in 2017 so far and this ranks as number 3, only behind Get Out and a French film about a cannibal teenage girl called Raw.

On a technical level, it's a masterpiece. The cinematography is just stunning (that opening shot!), the Hans Zimmer score is thrilling and intense and the sound editing is very effective.

Although it's very much an ensemble piece without any standout acting performances, absolutely everyone is committed to their roles and were very convincing, including Harry Styles who plays a rather unlikable, dour character. It's a testament to his natural acting ability that his charismatic usual self was nowhere to be seen in his performance. I appreciated that everyone was given equal time or thereabouts and that the focus wasn't any more on the big names such as Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance as it was on the young, relative unknowns such as Fionn Whitehead and Jack Lowden.

I can definitely understand why people have been confused by the three timelines aspect and I admit that I didn't quite get it all myself on first viewing. However, I don't necessarily see this as a detriment as I think it ensures that it will hold up on repeat viewings as you'll get new stuff out of it. I also think it's a much more interesting way to tell a story about a real life event rather than just in chronological order. I particularly liked the moment when we go from Cillian Murphy's character being shellshocked on the boat to a flashback in the other timeline in which he is perfectly fine and directing other soldiers to get on another boat. It really emphasized the difference the horrors of war can have on a person's character and temperament. The moments when all the timelines joined together were thrilling to watch.

The main complaint I've seen from those that didn't think much of it is a lack of character development and therefore emotional payoff. I've seen quite a few people say they couldn't feel for these characters because they didn't know anything about them. Personally, I can't understand that. Even though we may not have known whether they had a wife at home or what sport they liked to play or in some cases even what their names were, at the end of the day they were innocent people that were forced to fight in a war. They had people they loved and people that loved them. I was invested in what happened to every single one of them from the first moment and despite the lack of dialogue, they all had distinctive characteristics and mannerisms that set them apart from each other.

I usually prefer films with lots of dialogue (although no film has ever moved me like the aforementioned Moonlight did) and certainly films with female characters, but I didn't find either of those things necessary here. This was a film about an event and not about a specific person and it was a spectacular retelling of that event. I was very choked up at the end and was sat next to an older man who audibly cried throughout the last 30 minutes or so. I found it much more moving than the overly sentimental and cheesy Hacksaw Ridge from last year.

Personally, I can see exactly where the critics are coming from rating it as the 2nd best film of the year so far and although it wont end up as my #1, I can certainly see why it will be others' and I expect to see it feature heavily at next years BAFTAs and Oscars. I admire Christopher Nolan for taking an unconventional approach to a war film and not relying on emotional manipulation or gore. As someone that isn't usually a fan of the genre, this will probably go down as my favourite war film to date.