Reviewers have been so effusive in their praise for Christopher Nolan's
Dunkirk that one suspects that something is very wrong here. Their words are over the top and cliche.
The
New York Times, for example, called it a "
tour de force", "a brilliant new film", and "a characteristically complex and condensed vision of a war in a movie that is insistently humanizing, despite its monumentality."
The Guardian called the film "structurally immaculate" and "a jaw-dropping spectacle in which the picture for the most
part stretched beyond [the reviewer's] field of vision, both vertically and horizontally."
Vanity Fair, among others, calls the film Nolan's "most artistic,
impressionistic film yet."
But the
Vanity Fair reviewer gives us a clue that something is amiss with his very first sentence. He describes the challenge of trying to find words to describe this film. "It was a dance piece, then a music video, then a poem, then
a prayer." His words clearly failed him.
After all, these are bizarre ways to describe a movie about the defeat of Britain and France in early 1940 at the hands of an invading German army. In the actual events, Britain only avoided a catastrophe by a combination of muddling, luck, and improvisation. The story of Dunkirk is a spectacle in its own right. It is spectacular in the wider context of defeat and conquest at the opening phase of the largest war in human history.
Thematically, Dunkirk is the antithesis to Normandy: retreat in defeat versus attack leading to victory. Dunkirk: improvised. Normandy: meticulously planned. The one is the prelude to the other. This is such a potentially rich mine of a story that it is amazing that no one has done more with it before. And it is such a well-documented story - read
Julian Thompson's history, if nothing else - that it is astounding that Nolan has buggered the whole thing rather badly.
There are lots of ways to describe an event such as Dunkirk and indeed lots of ways to present the story. But dance piece? Music video? A poem you might buy into but it would be a great insult to Sassoon or Owen to liken their work to
Dunkirk's pristine, one-dimensional soldiers, sailors, and pilots.
What becomes plain fairly quickly in these effusively positive reviews is that the reviewers clearly know very little of the actual events or indeed or war movies as a genre. Go read the
New York Times review of the one movie made about Dunkirk before now, the one made in 1958. Now look at the reviews of the 2017 movie. The recent ones seem thin. Insubstantial. Lacking in depth either of knowledge or indeed even of morality. They inadvertently describe the 2017 movie precisely, then.