Posted on 07/26/2017 12:10:06 PM PDT by Thistooshallpass9
Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk opened last Friday to massive crowds and rave reviews. By the end of the weekend, the movie had grossed more than $100 million worldwide; $24 of which came from my wife and me. Dunkirk, in my opinion, is an entertaining film and a fine diversion, but entirely underwhelming and a missed opportunity.
Dunkirk is everything you’d expect from 21st-century Hollywood. There’s plenty of action, some epic panoramas, and more than one plotline crafted to tug the heartstrings. Add in (another) superb score from Hans Zimmer, and Dunkirk is everything Hollywood tells us we want. But although it is viscerally stimulating, Dunkirk lacks depth, meaning and substance. There’s no historical context, nothing to stimulate or challenge the intellect, nothing meaningful to take away. For a film so obviously connected to an explicit historical event, there is a surprising dearth of history. May 1940 was arguably the most important month of World War ii, one that included other momentous developments. Yet Dunkirk somehow fails to explore the broader significance of the rescue of more than 330,000 Allied soldiers, and it fails to convey, even faintly, the colossal stakes of Operation Dynamo for Britain, France, Germany and, indeed, humanity.
The biggest disappointment, and the least surprising, was the failure to highlight the miracles that surrounded Operation Dynamo. For me, Dunkirk ranks in the top five on the list of Britain’s all-time greatest miracles. The most incredible facet of Dunkirk doesn’t relate to one event. Rather, it’s the fact that three highly unlikely events converged at exactly the right time.
First, there was the bizarre decision by Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt to halt the advance of German panzer tanks when they were less than 10 miles from the defenseless British and French forces. Seventy-five years have passed and historians are still debating the rationale behind this decision. Whatever the field marshal was thinking, the two-day recess allowed French and British forces to make crucial improvements to their perimeter defenses. And when the tanks fired back up, these hasty improvements were enough to hold back the Germans. But it wasn’t just the engines on Rundstedt’s tanks that unexpectedly went quiet.
So did the English Channel. For nine days, this capricious and often-dangerous sea passage went, to borrow a phrase from Britain’s English Heritage website, “unusually calm.” The Daily Telegraph wrote on July 8, 1940, “Those who are accustomed to the Channel testify to the strangeness of this calm; they are deeply impressed by the phenomenon of nature by which it became possible for tiny craft to go back and forth in safety” (emphasis added).
If that isn’t fodder for an epic scene, what is?
Finally, as the English Channel turned “millpond flat,” the skies above Flanders erupted. For more than a day, torrential rain and low-hanging clouds grounded the German Air Force.
“I have talked to officers and men who have gotten safely back to England, and all of them tell of these two phenomena,” continued the Daily Telegraph article. “The first was the great storm which broke over Flanders on Tuesday, May 28, and the other was the great calm which settled on the English Channel during the days following.”
Imagine it: Between May 24 and June 4, not one, but three extremely unlikely events converged to allow the successful evacuation of 338,000 soldiers and the survival of Britain. Let’s say you’re from Oklahoma. This would be like learning you’d inherited $1 million, receiving an invitation to dine with President Donald Trump at the White House, and watching the Oklahoma City Thunder win an NBA Championship—all in the same week. That’s what happened in Dunkirk in May 1940.
Imagine the intellectual and emotional experience that the creativity and resources of Christopher Nolan could have created, if he only valued the history enough to communicate it honestly. Imagine if Nolan studied the history of Dunkirk for the lessons it actually furnishes, and not the lessons he wants it to furnish. It’s true; Dunkirk is a dramatic story about bravery and sacrifice and having hope even when circumstances seem hopeless. But far more than that, Dunkirk is about the miraculous convergence of three extremely unlikely events, and the Being who orchestrated that convergence. Forget Harry Styles, God is the protagonist of Dunkirk.
But why would God intervene like this? There are a few answers, one of which can again be found in the historical record. England’s king responded to the dire situation by calling for a day of national prayer on May 26. Across the nation, British citizens, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, Jews and other religions appealed to God for help. The King and Queen attended a service at Westminster Abby, along with Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and the prime minister and other British leaders.
“In the cities and towns, leaders of civic life attended church on this Day of National Prayer at the head of their people,” the Times wrote. “From peaceful village churches in the remote countryside the same prayers were offered, just as in these fateful hours the same thoughts are in people’s minds.” Afterward, the archbishop of Canterbury called on everyone to pause at noon every day and pray for deliverance.
Imagine an entire nation, millions of people, simultaneously beseeching God for deliverance. What a scene that would be! Now imagine if Christopher Nolan not only depicted this national day of prayer, but also connected it with the miracles that began to unfold on the Channel and in the port of Dunkirk. Think about it: What if Christopher Nolan had reflected historical reality and actually made God the protagonist of Dunkirk?
Now that’s the Dunkirk movie I really want to watch.
I’m sure once the civilian boats started getting there it was a massive rush, but Nolan doesn’t really show the beach at that point. Only time we get a good look of the beach in the movie is in the beginning when the goal was only 10% and most everybody was probably hiding in the buildings. I get the feeling that was “the people we might evacuate today” because you’re just not lining up everybody for a week, especially if you think you’re leaving 90% behind.
Maybe Nolan didn’t want the movie to preach a heavy-handed sermon. If he shorted the Divine interventions, that’s probably unfortunate. It would have added a deliciously supernatural element to the story. But I can see not wanting to focus on that.
Hitler was not interested in invading Britain. But, what is true is that it helped the Brits easily handle the Italians in North Africa, which then made it necessary for the Germans to get involved in North Africa, which diverted crucial resources from Barbarossa.
The extended scenes of the out of fuel Spitfire gliding along in the air for miles and miles - even shooting down a Junkers J88 while gliding!!!! was the final straw for me.
What a ridiculous waste of time and money this crapfest was
Maybe he hates CGI as much as I do. They could have CGI’d in more minorities and Frogs that way. Maybe even a rainbow flag.
The Germans had next to no surface navy and could not fight through the Royal Navy to land an army. Their only chance was to establish air supremacy over the Channel to keep the RN out. To do that, they had to defeat the RAF. Hence, the Battle of Britain.
Never have so many owed so much to so few . . .
Throw in a huge mix of PTSD, that has to be in every war movie now.
Nolan used cardboard cut ours in the wide shots
I attribute everything to God
...Nolan also forgot.....’And if not’
You all have valid points, but I have to disagree.
GIVEN the validity of your points, it is still very likely that Germany had enough air power during the period right after Dunkirk to provide sufficient cover for a limited invasion.
All Germany needed at that time was enough force to gain control of a single port and air field, plus the ability to hold it against a British counter attack.
If they could get that their position in the air would have been greatly improved. A better position in the air would translate to improved ability to move ground troops into Britain. More ground troops, more territory/air fields/ports, etc. It would not have taken much of this at that time and Great Britain would have fallen.
BUT a weak expeditionary force was all Germany could have sent in the face of Britain’s navy and air force at that time. A small/weak force would not have been enough against even the lightly armed forces Great Britain was able to save at Dunkirk.
The Germans believed Britain had enough remaining land strength to defeat a weak expeditionary force, hence they had to gain control of the English Channel. (It is possible that Germany was wrong about how much land opposition the British could actually mount. Equipment counts. The weakness of Britain’s land forces was a tightly guarded secret.)
To gain control of the English Channel Germany had to gain air superiority first.
Their strategy to gain air superiority was fatally flawed, but nevertheless still had a chance to succeed. Hence Churchill’s famous, “Never have so many owed so much to so few.”
But the headaches involved with occupying Britain, much less dealing with all of the British colonies, would have made it highly unfeasible for the Germans, even if somehow they managed to occupy Britain. They simply wanted the Brits to be neutralized until the time when they figured Britain would sue for peace, once Germany defeated Russia.
Not really. They’d also need enough naval power (and air power to keep the naval power from getting bombed out of existence) to keep that foothold supplied. Troops without bullets and food, and planes without bullets and gas, aren’t terribly useful.
The Germans believed Britain had enough air and sea power that they probably couldn’t get a valid land force on the island and they definitely couldn’t keep it supported. And again remember, this was only 10% of the British forces, if none of them had made it across they still had a sizable land force easily capable foiling a German invasion. It was the loss of material that really hurt, and caused the Lend Lease program.
After the RAF won the Battle of Britain in the fall of 1940, the plan was abandoned and shipping released. Hitler turned his attention to preparing for the Russian invasion.
von Ribbentrop was all for an invasion, but eventually he fell out of favor with Hitler.
I still think all along Hitler was trying to bluff the Brits into signing a Peace Treaty without really having any plans to invade.
Y’know that’s another odd characterization now that you mention it...
He was suffering from PTSD from Dunkirk right? Yet none of the thousands of other soldiers were showing the same problem. Although they were all watching ships get bombed and sink right there on the beach and being dive bombed in line...
It promotes the narrative - but it doesn’t fit the story.
In his history of the War, Churchill says the War Cabinet never considered negotiations with Hitler and never even discussed the subject. Remarkable. For a year they were alone with no allies other than the Commonwealth and they never gave a thought to negotiations. Would that we had such leaders today.
I think FDR made it clear to Churchill even then, that if Britain were really threatened, the US was going to get into the fight.
There were soldiers who had what they called shell shock in WW2. But choosing to highlight one soldier suffering from it, and make him a murderer, was telling us more about modern political views, not about the kinds of stories that deserve to be told about great events like Dunkirk.
Fortunately, the effort to rebuild our armed forces was underway when Pearl Harbor happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.