RT: Interesting
that Nolan's film seems to meld together two major sources of British WWII
self-image: the doughty sea rescue by British small boats of hundreds of
thousands of trapped soldiers on the Belgian beaches, and the contemporary 1940
air war against the Nazi invasion known as the 'Battle of Britain' ( (though
not a part of the film, The Blitz of London would be the third of these heroic
tropes.) While the film 'Dunkirk' certainly seems a memorial to the moral
clarity of the past, it is also inevitably a reflection on our present-day
incapacity to live beyond ironic self-reflection and bitter partisanship. Yet
more importantly, in making a war film without ever representing an enemy,
Nolan has allowed us the opportunity to examine our own hopes and fears as
being what they are and not as a sign of noble purpose. This is a brilliant
film for more than its technically proficient beauty, and a reason to compare
it to the great Kubrick moral investigations 'Paths of Glory,' '2001 a Space
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston: Interesting; like the idea of melding. We do see the Germans,
though. I felt that was part of what Tom Hardy's character accomplishes in the
end... he punctures into, not the Blitz, or Battle of Britain, but the
successful subsequent continent invasion -- Operation Overlord; Normandy. I
thought the film shows us a false existential crisis. The young troops have
taken a step outside their regular lives and are in a place of dread, and
aren't sure upon their return if their country -- their seniors, especially,
who are featured in the film -- is with them.
But it's false
precisely because as troops they exist beyond, as you call it, present-day
ironic self reflection and bitter partisanship, or as another way of saying it,
beyond a democratic impetus and only on a path to willing self-sacrifice and
war, so there was no real way their grim-mooded country would have abandoned
them.
- - - - -
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston: If this was who they were, those who when "faced with
decisions that could mean life or death for themselves and others, mastered
their emotions and acted thoughtfully, responsibly, honorably, potentially
self-sacrificingly for the good of a collective mission that they’re all aware
of: to get back to Great Britain in order to defend it against a likely attack
by Germany," then who wouldn't want to emulate them... have them as a
legitimate source of daddy issues? But they seem a little more silly when what
they're up to becomes, not emulating daddy, reaching up and out to something
greater, but those regressing from being already partly individuated adults
back into good sons doing whatever hell their mother country bids of them...
all so that they can bathe in the reception of acceptance, love and gratitude
of a nation, full of maternal projections.
It struck me as
falsely existential... young men out there on their own, unsure not only if
they'll get back but how they'll be received when they do. It's false, for, for
being willing sacrifices, and for deferring independent judgment for playing
the part their elders want for them... for being all that you ascribe to them,
we never sensed they were at risk of abandonment. If they all died there on the
beach, WE would have called out to them to let them know how we loved them...
how proud we were of them. It's not only or primarily victory we asked of them;
but that they risked death and died so that the virtue of a country could be
reborn again.
- - - - -
KB: I'm
really interested in this criticism of the film which has emerged from a number
of leading voices. I'm not a huge Nolan fan but this film really worked for me.
The only thing that matters is survival. That most animal of instincts. I found
humanity everywhere in the film, in the little moments. Contrast that against
the magnitude of the events taking place and you have a wonderful balance. I
don't think we need to know anything more of the characters than what we're
given. Their lives are ordinary, their feelings written on the faces and in
their body language. Surprised people think it's unemotional. It's restrained
certainly, again in contrast to the majesty of the score and cinematography,
but it's all there I think - in the undercurrent.
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston: If the only thing that matters is survival, why is there such a
concern in the film whether people approved of them... that people saw what
they had accomplished or had tried to accomplish? Tom Hardy's character doesn't
seem to allow much for the importance of survival, but quite a bit for... let's
be a bit ungenerous here, the applause of his mates as he becomes a legend out
of history? I'm being a bit crass with Hardy, though... I was actually moved by
his decision to help, even if I didn't think it portrayed as all that hard a
one... well, you know what, if I turn around a military ship full of people
will vanish into the sea... I'm sure I could dissuade myself from indulging in
such a feast of an encounter! It was also a thrill to see the 17-year-old act
with such intelligence and leadership. To be under assault, and yet keeping
your head and your reasoning ability intact -- how wonderful to experience
yourself like that!
KB: I think
there's grounds to argue that the concept of war, which I think defines the
action of the film, only cares about survival. The cinematic storytelling
reflects that. I don't think Hardy's character was thinking of the applause
down below - literally just trying to take his opposite number down. That was
his goal. Rylance's character's goal was merely to save as many soldiers as
possible. Again, saving lives is the key. That was the whole point of Dunkirk.
It wasn't in any way a militaristic offensive. It was an evacuation, a defeat -
but hundreds of thousands of lives were saved and that's why it was viewed
victoriously by Churchill and more generally by the civilian public. The film
reflects that quietly during the coda but I still think survival is it. Styles'
character even quips it: all we did was survive.
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston: They survived... AND were approved -- isn't the nature of their
reception what prompted Styles' remark... so also part of the film? Our
experience of it is as a survival film, but also as much a reception film --
what survival, and loss... what heroic actions, begat in terms of approval or
scorn. I actually agree that there is a sense that Rylance and Hardy's
characters are only thinking on assisting, on saving lives... but since they
also end up being both either granted the status of approval-granters (Rylance)
from doing something that was appreciated and approved, or simply under heavy
reception of approval (Tom Hardy--war god), it's difficult to situate ourselves
within them and not be lying to ourselves if we imagined we weren't doing so
also for the love and glory their actions gave to them, though the opportunity
is certainly afforded us.
- - - - -
AN:
Disagree. Anonymity was a crux of the movie. All those nameless, barely seen
humans. Many of whom lost their stories on that beach or subsequent beaches.
That is the horror.
I was very moved. To
the point where days later I was still questioning why and what did I see.
I was born in
Scotland. My father and grandfather, my uncles all served.
One lost a limb.
Others their lives.
Well done, as one of
the faceless I connected.
http://www.foxnews.com/.../97-year-old-dunkirk-veteran-it...
97-year-old Dunkirk
veteran: 'it was just like I was there again'
Among the moviegoers
at the premiere of Dunkirk on…
FOXNEWS.COM
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston: And if the Germans make a film equivalent to this, delineating
the service of all their anonymous throng in WW2, with their limbs and lives
lost, their stories, far too early terminated, this would be a good cause to...
wonder how much to exult when films make giving so much value to the faceless,
a sign of our moral improvement?
AN: Of
course not. That's what is accosted. Our moral center. All these people whose
lives were cut short. It's repugnant.
Those in power repeatedly
use the anonymous as cannon fodder. Is one side better than the other? I
believe it was much clearer then than now. But to those on the field the terror
was equally as real, one to the other.
Most of the film is
spent with hordes all facing home. The yearning was palpable.
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston: The article you link us to is about a heroic man who earned
tons of war medals and who still garners "proper" salutes, possessed
of wise tales on the horrors of war; about what kids these days need to understand
on how the affairs of the world aren't just entertainment. What's missing in
the loss is a genuine sense OF loss... they all seem to have acquired so much
sanctity, thereby. Doesn't a tearful mother lean near them, sad for their
loss?... in our imaginations, but perhaps in their own as well? Aren't they
more deserving of it, for their being used and neglected? If they actually
weren't at all, wouldn't a perfect image be frustrated and prove an annoyance
one's temporarily cornered into having to abide?
He may not have told
about how the war was about those in power using the anonymous as cannon
fodder, but this sort of narratizing is probably more popular with classes of
people who are always for war (Michael Bay does it a lot, which his audience
licks up) than it is even with liberal peaceniks, so if he did it'd be digested
as without confusion as a meal you were actually expecting.
I like your comment
about the yearning being palpable. I agree that it was.
Comments
Post a Comment