Unpacking the Criticisms and Praises of Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk

The enigma of Christopher Nolan's 2017 World War II epic, Dunkirk, remains a subject of much debate. While the film enjoys a strong reception with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 92%, and noteworthy reviews from respected critics and audiences, some viewers remain unimpressed. This article delves into the rationale behind the film's varying receptions, exploring both the praises and criticisms it has garnered.

Assessing the Movie's Core Elements

Dunkirk tells the harrowing story of the evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk during World War II. It is split into three distinct timeframes: land, sea, and air, each focusing on different characters and experiences. Despite its technical and artistic merits, one viewer's criticism and analysis of the film's plot points reveals a fundamental issue: the lack of historical coherence.

Historical Context and Plot Holes (Spoilers)

One particular instance, highlighted by a viewer, concerns Tom Hardy's character shooting the flare gun in his exhausted plane to prevent it from being captured by the Nazis. The criticism revolves around the illogical decision: given the plane's fuel exhaustion, the character should have glided to a safer location, like the vicinity where soldiers were being evacuated, rather than being shot down in enemy territory. The viewer points out that there was a precedent for successful ditching. "In the movie, he watched his wingman ditch the plane and get picked up. Had Hardy's character done the same, it would have been a more plausible and logical plot point."

Why the Controversy?

Despite its high rating, some critics and viewers feel that Dunkirk is overrated or not as impactful as it could have been. The author suggests that questions like these are irrelevant and self-defeating. The author argues, "If it was overrated, every site would give it a 95, like every shabby Marvel movie scores. Why are you asking this pointless question? What knowledge would knowing an answer offer you?"

Criticism and Praise

The film has been praised for its visual and technical aspects. However, the narrative structure, while unique, has been criticized for its lack of emotional depth and breadth. As one commenter pointed out, 'The movie is bad because the movie should have focused on different people from different aspects of the operation and shown how they were all interconnected.' Instead, the film predominantly features an old fisherman, a glory-seeking civilian, and a frightened British soldier. The story could have been a richer tapestry woven with different characters from various walks of life, adding more layers to the narrative.

Historical Fiction vs. Realism

Another significant issue raised is the limited scope of the story. According to the same commenter, 'Nothing much happened in it. The characters were almost schmaltzy. I did not see a woman in it maybe one. I did not see a German in it except two in shadow for half a second. Bullet holes through boats, patriotic dads and kids killed from falling over. Nothing too esoteric here.' This suggests a possible disconnect between the historical event and the film's portrayal. While the movie is successful in its execution, it does not fully capture the complexity and diversity of the operation.

Conclusion

In the end, the reception of Dunkirk is a testament to the subjective nature of film criticism. While it is undeniably a technically impressive and well-executed film, its handling of the story and characters has led to divergent opinions. Future projects, whether it be Nolan's Dunkirk or others, might benefit from a broader narrative scope that includes a more diverse array of characters and a deeper exploration of the historical context.