By: Jacob Dickert

Reporter

Everyone has seen the trailers, the posters and the promotional materials for the brand new movie, “Dunkirk.” People are expecting another award-winning WWII action film like “Saving Private Ryan” or the hit miniseries “Band of Brothers”. It has gotten a great Rotten Tomatoes score, and it is by Christopher Nolan, the same director as the “Dark Knight” movies, which were wonderful in their own right. In addition, it has Harry Styles, the frontman of the hit band One Direction. What could possibly go wrong?

The movie opens with an Allied force of soldiers walking quietly through an empty street.

The rough band of comrades who have been distracted by the German propaganda is mowed down, with only one British soldier surviving by scrambling up a wall. This is a common trend from the movie: silence, then action. The only audio in the movie is from guns, bombs and very rarely well-written exposition. The movie is a “show, not tell” affair which allows viewers to explore the scenes themselves. The last surviving soldier moves onto the beach, and thus begins another engaging aspect of “Dunkirk”: the music. It is barely noticeable, but the music engages the audience. Scenes that shouldn’t be intense, like carrying a wounded soldier, a race against time due to the powerful music. Along with the lack of audio, the incredible and believable acting is a strong point of this film, with many interactions between characters taking place without a single word. “Dunkirk” is not an “oo-ra” propaganda piece, or anywhere close to “Saving Private Ryan.” This movie, with a lack of dialogue and greater focus on acting and music, is more like a very well-made disaster flick rather than a war movie.  This is not a bad thing, but the movie immediately toys with expectations and may upset what some viewers were expecting.

Not every aspect of the movie can be defended. In fact, there are a couple of aspects of the film that really leave a pox on its image. For example, it presents the audience with George: a two-dimensional, flat character that doesn’t add anything to the movie. He is just a whiny civilian who goes to assists with the rescue. A lot of time is spent on George, and the movie seems like it is setting up for a character arc where he will overcome his insecurities. Then George dies. George dies, and it feels like a cheap emotional cop out akin to a dog dying at the end of the movie–a trick as old as “The Odyssey”. The largest barrier to the film’s enjoyment is a decision that may leave the audience scratching their heads even after having seen and adored it. It goes a little something like this: A group of heroes narrowly escapes a ship that has been bombed at night. As the soldiers are doomed to go back to the beach, there is a hard cut to daytime. You think time had moved forward, but it did not; it went backward, and then everyone is confused, trying to put things together in their head. Perhaps the intent of this was to make the movie as confusing as war or to keep the action going. Ultimately, this hindered a lot of people’s satisfaction with the film, and understandably so. This can be best exemplified by the Rotten Tomatoes review of “Dunkirk”, which despite a 93 percent of critics, has only an 82 percent for viewers, which can be attributed to this creative decision.

At the end of the day, I think “Dunkirk” is alright. I liked the film due to its emotional impact, acting and stellar visuals, which far outshine problems such as George and the movie’s unorthodox structure. “Dunkirk” was is by no means a classic; however, it stands out among summer movies for 2017. I would recommend seeing it in theaters while you still can because the cinematic experience is not one to pass up.