Dunkirk Analysis | The Best and Worst of Christopher Nolan 

As you can probably guess, this is quite an old video I made around the time Tenet was first released (been awaiting copyright disputes to release it). Here is my uncessary FAQ: Have I seen Tenet now? No, but I'll edit this comment once I have saying whether or not I think the criticisms are fair. Do I repeat the same point twice in this video? Yeah, but for different reasons, that counts for something, right? Right?? What is my favourite Nolan film? Probably Batman Begins, because that's the one I have the most memories of, even if it's not objectively his best movie. As someone who's not always THAT keen on marvel films, though, I don't think you can underestimate what he did for the superhero genre. Does Tom Hardy have a thing for playing characters who's voices are muffled by masks? Probably. Do I think Dunkirk is underrated? In terms of its spectacle and innovation, yes, though I'm not surprised people do forget it when compared to Inception, Interstellar etc. Patreon link - www.patreon.com/mylittlethoughttree

This movie was a really great showing on the part of Hoyte van Hoytema, the cinematographer.

The sound of silence of the plane gliding over the beach is one of the most impactful moments in any movie I've ever seen.

I think the bit ab the overwhelming & somewhat manufactured feeling of patriotism at the end was intentional from the director. Instead of giving the audience the solace and relief of finally being able to reflect on what happened through the film, or to get some feeling of safety/respite away from the horrors of war we are instead given the horror having experienced war in the first place. The characters come home to a patriotism which seems completely out of place and almost insensitive, when in reality all our characters probably want is just stop being bombarded with unending emotional stimuli that drains them into a sort of primal state as you said. But i think this allows the audience to sit in the uncomfortable ending, & realise that the soldiers actually DONT have any real respite after coming home because of all the unprocessed emotion & hellscape they just traversed. As in, we expect respite but come to realise that in reality war has no respite once you go through it. In a sense, Nolan teases the audience into believing that there will be some sort of thematic close or satisfying lesson to be reflected upon by the main characters, but the actual theme seems to be that the audience irl must reflect on why the movie appears so meaningless / directionless (just an "experience" as you put it). Which i think is what we're left to conclude war is like: an unending feeling of primal emotional dissonance. Having gone through a movie "experience" of war, the ending is fitting just as the ending of war in real life is dissatisfying and dissonant (jubilant patriotism vs. impending doom/death). And perhaps just as the characters are designed to be forgettable in dunkirk, in real life too the sacrifices made by those experiencing war are forgotten because of the grandness of war and the apparant insignificance of but a single nameless soldier's perspective/survival.

I feel like "crescendo" is really the best way to describe the film in a word. It's an incredible film, with an incredible score.

I saw this movie on a date to the cinema. Can't remember the name of the guy I went on a date with, but I'll always remember the feeling, and the expeince I felt seeing this film

Every war movie approaches the subject from a different angle. "Saving Private Ryan" was story and character based with a very recognisable structure. We get to know the characters and we get attached to them. "Flags of our fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" humanise both sides of the war in an honest way, and make us realise how devastating war is for everyone. A celebrated win for us is a heartbreaking loss for someone else. "1917" is an ode to all unsung heroes, to all heroic acts that remained unnoticed. And so on. But I think "Dunkirk"'s approach to the topic, is something completely different though. We don't focus on characters, we don't focus on history, we don't focus on morality. We focus on emotion. A haunting emotion, a mixture of fear, agony, mental and physical exhaustion, indecisiveness, a nerve-racking uncertainty, the selfishness of survival instincts and the guilt that comes along, the fight between the desire to be saved and the temptation to give up. The way I see it, "Dunkirk"is showing us war as the foggy experience of a soldier. How he lived the whole event. A soldier who does not get to see the Germans (as we do), but he fears them. Their existence alone means death for him. He doesn't care if they are people like him, all he wants is to stay away from them. He doesn't stop the man from killing himself because he is on the verge himself. He doesn't care for the other soldiers' names, families, backstories, because he is deprived form the luxury to care. He is experiencing a nightmare. Where nothing makes sense, nothing is under his control. He is driven by the significance of his live in a world that constantly reminds him of the insignificance of his existence. Overall the movie show us what's left of a traumatising event. Like a memory, what remains is a patchwork of scarring images and an overall paralysing emotion. In films like "Saving Private Ryan" all we want by the end of the movie is to see the characters safe. In "Flags of our fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" we want for wars to end. In "1917" we want to acknowledge heroes and to find out who we would be in their shoes. But in "Dunkirk" all we want is to make it stop. No matter how it ends (the pilot gets captured in the end) we just want it over. So for me the applause is not for the soldier's heroism but the soldier's survival. It's a "congratulations, you made to the other side". It's like a reminder that not only heroes but all fighters deserve applause. It's not always about the win. Sometimes is about making it back home. Anyway , soooo sorry for the super long comment 😅 I am huge Nolan fan and I really enjoyed (once more) your analysis! I haven't seen Tenet yet either (due to the lockdown) but I am really looking forward to both the movie and your video.

I think it's actually great to not have a war film end with a feeling of big visceral relief and safety for the audience. Doing so lets you wave away how fucked up, haunting, and unacceptable it is for a war like this to be allowed to happen in the first place. And the sudden patriotic bit at the end feels a little like how it might have felt to the real soldiers coming back from the war: uncanny and artificial-feeling.

The most upsetting war film Ive seen is Hotaru no Haka " Grave of the Fireflies" by Studio Ghibli which is based on a true story.

I feel like the lack of relief at the end might have also been deliberate. The soldiers are still carrying that weight of shame and trauma as they go back, even if the news and the cultural narrative paints them as heroes, patriots of the nation. I do agree that it might have done better ending on the bleaker scene with the pilot, but I do think it's telling that we (as the audience) don't get the catharsis and neither do the characters - because the war isn't over yet.

I also really liked this movie, but I have to say I dislike the choice to not show the germans at all... you say they are like the monster in a horrormovie, I thought at the time of a disastermovie where the germans are the natural disaster... but I think what is way more terrifying is that the germans are also just normal people... that normal people do this to each other. I dont think one has to make every war movie about that or anything, but to actively deny/hide it, like this movie seems to do, seems really weird to me somehow.

Nice Video, but i disagree with you partly about the ending. I liked that there was no relief. Because there was no relief in the war at this point. The feeling I got was the closest to the one I get when I think about WWII

I think you missed a big point in the ending. The whole idea of evading a battle is demorilizing, but in that situation it was actually a tremendous victory to be able to escape. Even thoe it came at a great cost of lives and even dignity, I think that the point there was to show in many ways how losing a batle is not the end, that's why I think the ending is so unfullfilling because the war isen't over for those guys. It has only began.

Now I want to know your psychoanalysis on the Heath Ledger joker. His motivations and whether he is crazy or not and whether he had validity to his actions

THANKS FOR THE VIDEO, that was very great, I like your honest take on this subject, how your voice glows when talking about things you like. I want to comment the ending: I think I understood the patriotic ending, and its ONLY by 1 shot 1 frame that change all that meaning. I can agree how perhaps it is too long and too civilized for what we have seen. The triumph. The beers, the train, the boys playing. However: this one shot sets all apart. They read the newspaper, telling us how breave this soldiers are and how a milestone this is for England. But at the very end of the film, the editing shows us the main character folding the newspaper, with the sound, and his face. Like: NO SPEACH, no patriotism, no "wtf" "victory" will ever get this fear and anxiety out of my body. And that is reflected in the QUICK cut, the QUICK sound, the brief face of hate, hating yaving lived this. The nerve it suddenly creates, after the Society (and the film) remarks how triumphal this is, is WONDERFUL. I think that shot saves the ending of the film (so, the film itself). What do you think about that?

It's honestly rather interesting seeing someone get such a visceral reaction from someone not praising the movie about its (mostly) historical accuracy or flipping out about the dog fight scenes. As someone who likes the movie as a history nerd it's really REALLY nice to see that nolan got the feeling and emotion of the men at the time through properly.

It was a good movie, but I believe the movie suffered from 2 main directorial decisions: First, and most importantly, the presentation of the story by cross-cutting the various elements of warfare (air, sea, infantry) into a really jumbled mess was very off-putting. You have to go back at the end of the movie to figure out where and when each piece happens. That works in a mystery film such as Momento, but this is a historical drama and should be (and can be) told in chronological order to great dramatic effect. Second, the emptiness was an odd choice. There are supposed to be 400,000 troops on the beach, where in the movie there were maybe a couple thousand. The sea should have been filled with boats (over 700 private ships were used, not to mention the military ships) but you see only one or two or three. The air should have been filled with airplanes on both sides (almost 250 airplanes were LOST over Dunkirk much less than the number actually used) yet you see only 4 in the entire movie. These were odd choices that could have easily been fixed with some CGI, but weren't and I find that strange. While this is usually done to focus on one or two character, in Dunkirk, as you point out, this was not what Nolan did. He just chose to ignore the historicity for seemingly no reason.

Little bit late on my comment here, but what I think you're saying is that Dunkirk is an experience, but it's not a story. I agree with pretty much everything you said here, including feeling let down by the ending, although I never really did figure out why. I do know that I wasn't a big fan of the music at the end, when the small boats appeared. It just didn't seem to fit the situation--perhaps because it was more about heroism than safety. Also, one thing that did stick with me (I saw it when it came out and haven't seen it since) was that scene in the beached boat when the Germans are taking pot shots at it (and by extension the soldiers hiding inside). For all of the big, terrifying scenes on the beach, that one claustrophobic scene was when I felt the most fear and horror in the entire film.

I'd love to see a review of Oppenheimer, if you're so inclined.

It was a good movie, I very rarely like war films there are only a handful I like this goes up to the top of the list with "Enemy At The Gate" which has a similar level of tension and suspense and interesting visuals, Nolan is very good at visuals and angles, especially "Virtual shots" though some of the end CGI looked a bit underdeveloped. the interesting twist was that it wasnt just the boots that were taken but the whole uniform. There was a lot more realism in this sort of film, talking would be minimal as it can give away your position, combined with PTSD onset having witnessed so much. also the dulling of sound perhaps as a result of the deafening of guns and bombs. the end could have been improved by cutting the final scenes differently depends whos choice that was in the end, however from what my grandparents and great grand parents told me when i studied this a t school, very few of the soldiers coming back from Dunkirk felt any relief at returning as they knew Britain was the next target. Its very difficult to end a film like this as its a bit like finishing at the end of the first act in a bigger story being a history based story there are very particular limits to keep it true to life but also to keep the tone respectful to those who went through it (a happy ending for example would be considered bad taste). Generally I found that Nolan is weak when it comes to Dialogue and to an extent character development and have felt he would benefit from hiring a script writer. As you said he is good at what he does with a few exceptions as you have said good at visuals and running action with plot twists choice of score writer. I understand Tenet suffered heavily from being rushed then released in the pandemic there are indications there were a number of last minute problems but we will see it maybe ok for a sit at home film.

Very interesting take. Can't disagree with anything you said.

The series on Good Will Hunting is done :P ?

A sense of relief and safety and home isn't appropriate because it wasn't the end of the war, it was the beginning.

I agree with you about the ending of Dunkirk. But i dont agree with people that Tenet has no emotional stakes. I found parts of Tenet very emotional. Nolan just doesn't do emotion in the steven spielberg way we've come to expect from Hollywood. Its much more subtle, but for me, just as impact full. If tenet had been released in 2010 just after the dark knight, its reception would be very different. But these days, Nolan is under a microscope. I put Tenet as my second favourite Nolan film, after inception.

I feel like you would review “50/50” with seth rogen and joseph gordon-levitt very well

wonderful video, as always. i agree with the ending, that there should've been at least one moment of breath. however, the very last (? been a while since i saw it lol) scene, with the boys in the train reading the paper and churchill giving his famous speech -- i don't think it was patriotic. it's cynical. you have these boys who went through the most traumatic few weeks of their life, it was literally hell, they probably regret having signed up for war -- and there's winston blabbling about great everything was. it gives this entire film this dark, sober (?) note of like, "and despite all that ... we still think wars are great". so yeah. i think, once we'd had our moment of relief and the pilot/scenery shots you described, this very last scene would've been great. but with all the other endings topped on top of each other so that it made no real difference to the rest of the film, it was, hm, underwhelming.

I remember when I saw this movie my dad and friend were both like "wow that movie was incredible" and I just didn't feel the same way... This analysis put into words what I couldnt express back then, and shows how different people can react to film. Some are moved by spectacle, some by character. I guess I found that any emotional takeaway didn't stick for me because I couldn't attach it to a character, it was just an abstract feeling of patriotism or fear or whatever. That's my problem with horror movies too, you don't care about the characters, so why should you care about the danger they're in? Definitely not a forgettable movie for all the amazing things you mentioned, but definitely my least favorite nolan movie (except for dark knight rises... How disappointing was that finale?)

But we want to forget this.

I didn't see this movie in the theater so my experience of it is quite different than what you are describing. I was very excited for the movie due to historical interest and was left very underwhelmed and bored. The cinematography is amazing, but the directional decisions; Lack of character, I didn't care about who these people are or what they are really going through. Nolans dislike of VFX; The beach seems so empty considering there is suppose to be over 300.000 soldiers who have been bombed for quite some time. They are lining up on the beach with no boats in sight. They are lacking morale but isn't breaking rank. The scene in Atonement (2007) portrayed this quite differently. When you have 300k people just waiting around in cramped space it feels very different than what Dunkirk showed and it took me and my friends out of the movie. I was unfortunately bored and uninterested in this movie while seeing it. Glad other people see the things he did right outshine the things I see he did "wrong". I personally think the movie is overrated if anything but that is just my take. Have a nice day :)

I found the soundtrack insufferable, shame because the story seemed decent. But whatever they did with the sound really did not work for me to put it mildly.

But mate, did you like the movie?

Do True Detective!!

7:10 So like, your comment section rambles?

Wondering if My Little Thought Tree is an INFJ

Fair opinion, but I disagree with the criticism about patriotism. Firstly, because I don't think it's bad to be patriotic (Dunkirk is not jingoistic). Secondly, because I didn't feel the ending was patriotic. It showed the resilience of the "common man", not the heroics. The common man was the common English man, that's ok, Nolan is depicting a historic event, that took place at a time and at a place. It could have easily been a Russian citizen or a Pole or an Italian, or even a German. I feel you read too much into the "Blitz spirit" because of how tarnished that's in present politics, but at the historical time, this is a fair depiction. Also, I like the ending doesn't give an emotional release, no sense of "we are going to be ok". Dunkirk happened in June 1940... very early days in the war. It's good we get a sense it's just the beginning of a very long and arduous struggle. Nothing dishonest about it. There's no happy ending in life. It's my favourite Nolan film. One of my favourite war films. My favourite horror/survival. Probably the best film of the decade. I loved that's tight and structurally concise, no exposition, no sentimentality (well, a little, at the end), you sense the hand of the director at crafting every minute of the tale, without him getting carried away with it like a schoolboy trying to write a clever school essay. In a word: it's Nolan's most mature and austere work. And I love that Harry Styles can act. Actually, all the acting is commendable, and again, I easily give credit to the director for it. Also, it stayed with me. I watched it twice at the cinema. The first time I wept. I wouldn't call the film forgettable.

"Christopher Nolan is known for fast paced driving stories (...) where no time is wasted" still cuts to the white van falling in inception that everyone in the audience felt like it was dragged on forever, gnawing at their freetime while they were desperately wishing for it to end while they sat on the couch. If Nolan can do worse than that or Batman3, dear god, I'd better take precautions to make sure I never see Dunkirk.

I wanted the whole thing to be more of a spectacle honestly. There were meant to be millions of soldiers trapped on the beach, we saw a couple thousand it looked like. There should have been way more planes in the sky too I feel, it was so barren, 1 or 2 here and there that's all. Same with the boats, there were meant to be thousands of civilian boats that arrived, we saw not even a hundred. I loved the film for how it filmed war, but it just felt a bit empty.

Dunkirk and 1917 both really annoyed me as both characters threw their weapons away and ran in cowardice which is not representative of the tens of thousands of soldiers that served without basically deserting the army. These generations deserve more than these films are portraying them as. They are essentially anti war films by making it seem as there's no reason these men should have been fighting

I thought this movie was super boring

This movie is a very american movie, telling a british story. Which is kind of a shame.