This is a very interesting article that expounds on the longevity or legacy of WWII films in American cinema. After participating in the conversation here, I think it is a worthwhile read.
https://melmagazine.com/how-the-world-war-ii-movie-has-evolved-over-the-last-75-years-13b4b49b2764
I do disagree with a couple things the author says about Dunkirk though. First, “On screen, Dunkirk depicts war against the Nazis.” I suppose that could technically be true, but as IL pointed out, we hardly ever see any Germans beyond some faceless aircraft and blurred out figures whose most distinguishingly German feature are their helmets. In reality, this film was about a flight from the Nazis, not a heroic fight against them. Other than the RAF scenes and the one soldier who tries to shoot a Stuka with his rifle, the Brits really don’t fight back much at all. They just take it. It definitely isn’t a typical bad guys vs good guys war film.
Secondly, I disagree that Dunkirk is a push back against Trump-esque fascism. No where in this film is fascism evident. The German enemy, whom all contemporary media generalize and demonize as fascist Nazis, is not even shown. The British in the film are fighting against the elements and time more than they are against Nazis. For one thing, Nolan strikes me as culturally far more British than American, even if he holds dual citizenship. To think that he would make a historical film in England/France, for English people with even subconscious commentary on contemporary foreign leader is preposterous.
Dunkirk has no American actors or characters in it. To ascribe American politics to this movie is a mistake. Dunkirk can hardly connect with modern American audiences politically when (a) the story follows only accented Europeans and (b) doesn’t involve any direct American history. Likewise a British audience, for whom this film is most poignant, American politics are in no way going to resonate. Implying as such would be a bewildering and stupid move on the part of the director. Dunkirk may be a product of Hollywood money, but it can hardly be pigeonholed into American-Hollywood groupthink. Nolan has demonstrated over years of filmmaking his careful, precise crafting of scripts and screenplays. His success has allowed studios to give him a long leash and not meddle with his creations.
These points go beyond the fact that Trump wasn’t even elected President yet by the time the movie had been made. Or that linking a WWII film to a fight against fascism is something of a cop-out; the entire war was predicated on that theme. So any film, from any era, could be interpreted as such.
The comparison that the author didn’t make, but I think far more appropriate, was to parallel the themes in Dunkirk to Britain and the entire West’s continuing fight against radical Islam. Islamofascism if you will. Post 9/11 and the transition from Al-Qaeda into ISIS, the great western powers are seemingly today under siege at home from violence and terrorism unlike any other time since the 1940s. Dunkirk is a definite analog for today’s sentiment: it doesn’t feel like we are winning. England itself is like a last bastion in a Europe overrun with failed multiculturalism and the dangers it has bred. Dunkirk is not a joyful film, but it is an unashamedly patriotic reminder of what British “Dunkirk spirit” did back then and how it will manifest itself again today. In that, it becomes a rallying cry for the West as a whole. There have been defeats, but in surviving there is yet hope.
I don’t think Nolan made the film with the above explicitly in mind. He is filmmaking is far too genuine and he strikes me as detached from the fickleness of contemporary politics. However, if a subconscious cultural impetus and resultant effect can be drawn from Dunkirk, I think my theory above is far more plausible than whatever schlocky politics the author of the article wishes to attribute to this film.
Is there any doubt that he uses the crutch of CGI to royally f-up Midway?
In his case he might make a non CGI, but others are going to be less willing to do a real war movie fearing millennial’s nonchalant attitudes toward war movies because they never lived thru any war and cant appreciate those old movies. Also, this movie has ZERO to do with Trump and again only a millennial could make such a comment.
Maybe they should have named it “our Dunkirk” then.
From what you all telling, i am going to wait until it is out on DVD and save my money.
@Imperious:
They needed Cuda Gooding on the beach peeling potatoes , then forced to man his 50 caliber to destroy the entire Luftwaffe.
I about lost it there…
Kinda reminded me how much Pearl Harbor sucked and Ben Affleck needed acting school, he was terrible in that film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsPrQgTO0HU
Anyways, opinions seem all over… I haven’t seen the movie yet myself, but I have a strange feeling I’m going to be closer to the negative opinions… how could they spend 175 million in 2017 making a movie and have one He-111 and one Me-109 make repeated fly overs like it’s a cheap 1970s war movie? Nothing wrong with using real planes, but if you can only dig up two, and it’s 2017, just use them for closeups and CGI the rest. At least BoP had a ton of vintage planes to put into the air, but if you only have two, they really needed to CGI-it-up.
Also, we’ve come a long way from the 1960s and 70s movies where “hooray for Allies, boo-hiss Germans”… at least show both sides here and there… if there’s no Germans but the one Heinkel and one Messerschmidt, I’m probably going to have issues with this movie.
I’m beginning to think the Koreans made better use of their 25 million in “My Way” than these guys did with their 175 million.
… how could they spend 175 million in 2017 making a movie and have one He-111 and one Me-109 make repeated fly overs like it’s a cheap 1970s war movie? Nothing wrong with using real planes, but if you can only dig up two, and it’s 2017, just use them for closeups and CGI the rest. At least BoP had a ton of vintage planes to put into the air, but if you only have two, they really needed to CGI-it-up.
They didn’t even have a full He 111 (or CASA 2.111). None exist in flying condition. The one in the film is a flying model. Same for the Ju 87s.
And the Bf 109 was a HA-1112.
That probably is the icing on the cake for you.
That probably is the icing on the cake for you.
Ya, I’m kinda a stickler for proper equipment in movies… I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time I see Germans driving around in American tanks in Battle of the Bulge… and mock-ups that clearly aren’t the real thing I can spot a mile away.
So while I haven’t seen the movie, I’ll accept your spotting of equipment as something I would do the same on… it might be the best movie in the world, but if I spot wrong equipment it tends to sour me on a film. I still want to see this film, if for nothing else to confirm what I have heard about it. I mean, I even saw Pearl Harbor, so if I can fathom why Michael Bey is still making movies, I should at least see Dunkirk.
Ya, I’m kinda a stickler for proper equipment in movies… I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time I see Germans driving around in American tanks in Battle of the Bulge… and mock-ups that clearly aren’t the real thing I can spot a mile away.
So while I haven’t seen the movie, I’ll accept your spotting of equipment as something I would do the same on… it might be the best movie in the world, but if I spot wrong equipment it tends to sour me on a film. I still want to see this film, if for nothing else to confirm what I have heard about it. I mean, I even saw Pearl Harbor, so if I can fathom why Michael Bey is still making movies, I should at least see Dunkirk.
Understood. I feel the same way. BotB and Patton are particular eyesores. At least the tried in Kelley’s Heroes and Saving Private Ryan.
As for Dunkirk, I couldn’t tell that the He 111 was actually a large RC plane. They did a great job with it, like Nolan has done with models in his other films. The HA-1112 is a Spanish license built version of the Bf 109, I believe. So there is no visual difference. Looks perfect.
Haven’t seen it yet, but do they make the point that Hitler effectively allowed the army to escape because he though it would help to end the war? He never really wanted war with Britain and this was a gesture that he didn’t want the British army destroying.
They could have added some comic relief by having King Arthur leading the men towards the beach shouting “Run away! Run away!”.
The performance of the British army in 1940 was as poor as that of the French, but because they were allowed to run away to fight again while the French had to surrender to stop the fighting they don’t have the same lousy reputation as the French.
Not spoiling anything but I liked Kenneth Branagh telling James D’Arcy “it’s a good thing for the Army the Navy is here.”
Not spoiling anything but I liked Kenneth Branagh telling James D’Arcy “it’s a good thing for the Army the Navy is here.”
That was the best chuckle of the movie! Branagh is great with those subtle little cracks.
I believe the quote was closer to the effect of “Well its a good thing you are in the army then”… But yeah, great stuff.
Not spoiling anything but I liked Kenneth Branagh telling James D’Arcy “it’s a good thing for the Army the Navy is here.”
An actual WWII quote of a similiar nature is the one from February 1940 when Philip Vian (at the time a Captain, later in his career an Admiral of the Fleet) either led or sent a boarding party onto the German tanker Altmark (one the Graf Spee’s supply ships), which had taken refuge in a Norwegian fjord. The German crew denied that there were any POWs aboard. Vian (or one of his officers) opened a cargo hold hatch and called down, “Any British down there?” Upon hearing an affirmative answer, Vian (or his officer) responded, “Well, come on up – the Navy’s here!”
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12954/rogoways-reviews-christopher-nolans-war-epic-dunkirk
Fair review from a more historical and military-technical perspective. A couple of these details were more noticeable, particularly after my second viewing.
And yes, Tom Hardy definitely gets a diving Stuka well after he is in a glide as I thought.
One last thing I’ll add to the Dunkirk discussion is yet another fantastic score from Hans Zimmer. What’s great about the Nolan-Zimmer partnership is Nolan will give Zimmer a few concepts (abstract or specific) as a springboard and Zimmer will run from there using his mastery of synth and sounds. In this case, Nolan’s directive of using Lord Elgar’s “Nimrod” was executed perfectly building up to the climax , and the amplification of a pocket watch was the perfect source of tension throughout. Definitely deserving of a Best Score nomination among others. Cinematography should be a slam dunk,
Yea Zimmer did the score, nothing like Gladiator however. The Battle of Britain had better music.
OK
@Imperious:
Yea Zimmer did the score, nothing like Gladiator however. The Battle of Britain had better music.
Again with the BoB !! IL you are too much man.
It is the only thing to compare.
Haven’t seen it yet, but do they make the point that Hitler effectively allowed the army to escape because he though it would help to end the war? He never really wanted war with Britain and this was a gesture that he didn’t want the British army destroying.
…but because they were allowed to run away to fight again…
This is a very common misconception a lot of people make, but isn’t really true at all.
If Hitler wanted to allow the British BEF to escape, the movie “Dunkirk” would never have been made because Dunkirk would have been a slow, orderly withdrawal from France without any diving Stukas or artillery fire raining down on the British while the withdrew from the continent.
If I told you that you were free to go, because I like you and don’t want any hard feelings, then as you turned around and began to leave, I started throwing rocks and garbage at you as hard as I could, would you then think “well, he’s letting me go because he likes me, otherwise he would have used a machine gun to stop me”. No, I bet you’d think I was a big jerk and a meanie and would not like me anymore for *****pelting you with rocks and garbage.
Simply put, Hitler didn’t “let them go because he liked them and didn’t want to be at war with them”… despite what has often been quoted in books, this just simply isn’t true… certainly not of Dunkirk… Hitler was fully prepared to let the Army finish off the British until Goering’s jealousy got in the way and he convinced Hitler to put the Panzers on hold and let the “Glory of crushing the English” be at the hands of the Luftwaffe while he pummeled them from the sky with waves of bombers… this really doesn’t sound like Hitler “just let them go because he’s a nice guy”… it wouldn’t be the first or the last time Goering caused an enemy to get away with something because the glory of the Luftwaffe was at stake…
Hitler didn’t let them go, he tried to stop them… he just followed really bad advice at how to stop them, so it allowed wiggle room for historical rewriting of motivations and intent. Maybe Hitler let the Russians off the hook at Stalingrad too cuz instead of sending the panzers in and ordering the 6th army out, he just let the Luftwaffe handle things… never know…
***** Big catch phrase in the 80s, everyone was saying it… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7BD7O1n7w
Very amusing movie, went and saw it on Sunday. Brother and Uncle had their own comments; I thought the most nerd-unworthy part of the movie was the same as you guys;
MILD SPOILER ALERT
Dear Spitfire Pilot;
Now hear this; running out of fuel and feathering your propeller? You have a good 40-45 minutes of flight time left; make a few more attack passes with your remaining momentum and another beach pass. Or two. Not an emergency, per se–-just look for a good place to land. On firm sand. Very Firm. In fact, why don’t we build airstrips out of wave packed-sand…England’s shores covered in free, indestructible airbases. Its much safer to land on sand than water, for that matter.
just look for a good place to land. On firm sand.  Very Firm.  In fact, why don’t we build airstrips out of wave packed-sand…England’s shores covered in free, indestructible airbases.  Its much safer to land on sand than water, for that matter.
Or how about a giant floating iceberg as an unsinkable carrier? Britain came “this close” to making fully operational aircraft carriers made from special non-melting ice…
