A remarkable spectacle but lacks an emotional connection

Rating: 7/10 (27 July 2017)

There's a reason why Christopher Nolan is one of today's foremost directors - he manages to fuse genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle with an emotional core. Take Interstellar: a flawed masterpiece, probably too flawed to be a masterpiece - but Nolan leaves the viewer in a maelstrom of emotions. Dunkirk, while masterfully sewn together, surprisingly lacks an emotional punch.
Let's begin with the brilliant part: the spectacle. The film is relentlessly paced, immersing the viewer in the chaos of war for its entire duration. This is visual film-making at its best, combining the marshalling of vast crowds of people and real sets which characterised the great war films of old, with the close-up, fast-paced excitement at which Nolan has always excelled. Particularly notable is the use of sound - the music is very minimal, the soundscape instead filled with shrieking engines, groaning ships, and starling cracks of bullets which shock the audience every bit as much as the characters. The effect is to create an omnipresent sense of threat - though Nolan never shows the face of a German soldier, instead turning the situation into a pulse-pounding race against time. Sticklers for historical realism will, as usual, find plenty of little things to nitpick - as well as the occasional glaringly improbable detail, such as super-effective bombers and ships sinking unbelievably quickly. But in terms of the general feel, I appreciate that Nolan has not served up a bombastic myth: we see soldiers acting cynically to save their own lives, a sense of quiet duty rather than patriotic fanaticism on the part of the rescuers, and a general feeling on the beaches that ranges from gloom to utter despair, rather than perfect stoicism or unremitting hope.
To immerse oneself in this extraordinary historical episode, look no further than this film. But of course, every historical film needs to zoom in and follow particular narratives about individual characters. The problem is that the characters in Dunkirk are all entirely undeveloped - and of course, this is not a mistake by Nolan, rather than attempt to put the focus on the episode as a whole, showing the plight of the entire army. The individual narratives we follow are merely microcosms of the different aspects of the battle. A movie without stories, or without characters whose paths we are invested in following, will always struggle to resonate with an audience, and makes the whole event feel more like some brilliantly-produced virtual tour of Dunkirk than a piece of visual storytelling.
I suspect every individual viewer will differ in the extent to which they agree with my conclusion that the movie does not connect, and does not grip its audience beyond with anything other than its sheer spectacle. I would recommend this film to any interested viewer - I do not regret my viewing at all, and I am sure that many readers of this review will enjoy the film even more than I did. But - although I'm a history buff (PhD) who's always delighted to see a historical episode so brilliantly recreated - I do feel that Nolan has missed a chance to really weave a human drama into this grand spectacle, and create a classic.