Rebranding and Review of Dunkirk

Okay so you may have noticed a slight change in title and layout (I couldn't quite get rid of the spooky theme for the blog so that'll stay) but now my blog is open to pretty much anything I watch, read or play. Horror is still a big focus for me but truth be told I can go on and on and on about pretty much anything I watch so it felt needlessly restricting to keep it locked down on horror.

I had been thinking about kicking open the doors to all of the above for a while but only when I hit upon the "brilliant" (quote by me) title for the new blog of "Joe Blogs" did I go for it. Unfortunately, that name was taken. As was "Average Joe Blogs." So you lucky fellows have now got "Above Average Joe Blogs." And that's all I promise, above average blogging by me, Joe.

And first up for some above average blogging is Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan's latest film.

Okay, three big disclaimers up front. First, I'm no historian. Yes, I studied it for A-level in high school, and did rather well might I add, but that does not make me a historian. This means you'll get no  historical accuracy critiques in this review. I'm purely looking at it from an entertainment perspective.

Second, I'm no war movie fan. I've seen bits and pieces of them, like the visceral opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, to the Ride of the Valkyries attack in Apocalypse Now. It isn't so much that I dislike war movies but more that it isn't a subject that interests me in relation to what I want out of a cinematic experience. I want to be thrilled, shocked, and most often taken out of the real world to something strange and otherwordly.

Third, I could be classified by some as a Christopher Nolan "fanboy" simply because for me he's hasn't made a bad film or even a just above average film in his career. In fact, several of his films can easily be placed in the best films I've ever seen. I think the term fanboy gets bandied about to much, and for Nolan fans it has come into more common use with a sudden backlash against his films. The backlash has taken the form of a weird sort of snobishness claiming that they aren't half as clever as they think they are, or that they are overrated yadda yadda. I don't agree with these claims at all and furthermore I think his films are subject to such criticism because Nolan dares reach further than most other mainstream blockbuster directors. So in short, I've pretty much found all of his films fantastic. What I want you to takeaway from this disclaimer is that I've been fully on board with Nolan's style, lack of condescension towards the audience, and vision for a long time. It goes without saying that Nolan maintains this in Dunkirk so if you aren't a fan of it before, this film won't sway you nor will my opinions (but seriously, in the same way that I think something is fundamentally wrong with you morally, spiritually, mentally, and physically, if you dislike Breaking Bad, I don't get you if you don't like The Dark Knight).

Okay, so onto the main event. Dunkirk is a World War 2 epic set during 1940 as Allied troops retreat from the advancing German army. The Allies become cornered on the beaches of Dunkirk, across the channel from England, awaiting evacuation. The film follows three interlocking narratives, one set at the "Mole," the name used to describe the beach, another the journey of one family endeavouring to help the evacuation by taking a small boat across the channel, and finally the third shows us the battle for the skies, following an ace Spitfire pilot.


What is unique about these narratives is that they don't quite run parallel to each other, as each is set within a different time constraint, with one set during a week, another a day, and finally one hour. This obsession with playing with timelines is nothing new to Nolan, with this feature present in Inception and The Prestige, but most obviously Memento, where the whole story revolves around a reverse-narrative. In this film the structure is not wholly successful, as towards the beginning it isn't often prevalent that this narrative trick is in effect. This means that when it does kick in it is momentarily distracting and may even, as it did for me, give you reason to think there is some sort of continuity error. For example one narrative is in daylight, the other part partially at night. Furthermore, unlike The Prestige, Inception, and Memento, the reason behind the timeline twist is not readily apparent.

So why does a war movie need such a spin? The most obvious dramatic reasoning is that when you understand how they will intersect it builds tension as to building towards that climax. Furthermore, by splitting the narrative into three distinct timelines, Nolan emphasises that this war involved multiple elements, mimicking the classic Churchill speech, of "We will fight them on the beaches...we will fight them in the air" in that this battle is one fought by many people of different backgrounds, even outside of the military, and on many fronts. In addition to this, the clashing timelines create unifying moments of drama and action that would not have occurred at the same time if each timeline had been played adjacent to the other.

Phew. That was somewhat heady stuff. I wanted to get that minor gripe and grapple with time out of the way because apart from that the film is an unqualified success on every front. Instrumental (pun incoming) to this is the score by Hans Zimmer, which I imagine will do pretty well come Oscar time next year. Integral to the score is a constant ticking sound that only gets more urgent as the film goes on. Having this on top of the eventually colliding narratives and you have the recipe for a surefire pressure cooker of a viewing experience from the opening minute. Zimmer brings his usual bombastic score to proceedings but isn't afraid to slow down when the scene calls for grim reflection on the toll of the war. In addition to the score is a dread inducing soundscape, in particular the screech of incoming German fighters alerting the terrified Allied troops is a terrifying noise as any horror movie monster.

The visuals maintain Nolan's high standard of the past, melding the haunting with the hair-raising chaos. I can't remember a film in recent memory that has evoked the autonomous sensory meridian response. Oh what's that? I totally didn't just wiki the concept myself. It's that wonderful feeling when a piece of music, movies, or TV, cause the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end and you feel a cold child ripple through you. The end of the Breaking Bad episode Crawl Space can do this every time to me, without fail. Dunkirk manages this within the first 5 minutes and must do it another 10 times before the film is through with you. Be it the look of fear from an officer looking out to sea at an oncoming threat, or the panic and screams of horror at soldiers attempting to escape a sinking ship, the film is an onslaught.

Nolan also continues his focus on practical effects over digital and this film is a treatise to grounded, hard hitting effect, with vast landscapes of beautiful desolation. The film is saturated in a purgatory blue hue, adding to the feeling of hopelessness of the beaches, as soldiers can only duck and roll with grim inevitability when the planes comes screaming overhead, dropping bombs. Any time the camera takes to the skies to follow the various dogfights my brief time as a RAF cadet in highschool, doing loops and dives in a rickety Grobb Tutor plane came to mind, the thrill and nausea of it all right there, brought on by a film. Quite how Nolan filmed these scenes is a mystery to me.

In any other review, it may be odd to focus so much on the visuals and soundscape first without mentioning any of the actors. This isn't because they are weak but, much like a Mad Max, this film is a visual treat, buoyed by a minimalist but effective story and cast of characters. The story here is simple: get rescued. The characters are few in numbers, with most getting a total sum of lines to speak even lower than that. The young cast of actors get very few lines, with the lion's share going to the father (Mark Rylance) of the family captaining the boat to Dunkirk, and the commander (Kenneth Branagh) at the Mole. Taking to the skies, is Nolan regular Tom Hardy, following form by having his mouth covered by what can only be seen now as a Bane like mouth piece as he dogfights with enemy fighters. Fionn Whitehead (who looks the spitting image of a young Christian Bale, as if Nolan couldn't bear to make a film without his buddy) is ostensibly the protagonist of the film, playing Tommy a British army private, on the beaches, but he probably has the least amount of dialogue out of the principle cast. Instead he is a cipher for your average soldier in the war. His acting comes through how he actions and how he reacts to what he sees and it gets the job done admirably. Most surprising in the film is Harry Styles. Yes, Harry One Direction Styles. Styles gets a lot more to say than Whitehead, playing totally against your preconceptions and he is great in the role. Not once are you taken out of the film thinking "Oh that's Harry Styles!" like another recent singer's foray into acting *cough* Ed Sheeran *cough*. In researching the film for this review I was also shocked to learn this wasn't even close to stunt-casting, instead Styles had to audition against a hundred other candidates, with Nolan unaware of his musical career. Bravo.

Come the climax of the film you will come to understand all these characters through stellar minimalist acting and strong visuals dragging you through a gauntlet of a movie. This film is as relentless as the ticking clock that scores it culminating in an explosive climax and meditative epilogue touching on classic concepts such as all the smallest sacrifices adding up to something mighty, whilst also raising questions regarding war veterans of the time that I had never thought to ask. This is a fantastic film that needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible, be you a war movie fan or just a fan of film, this will blow you out of the water.