MOVIE REVIEW -- DUNKIRK
July 25, 2017
Leave a Comment
By: Kathy Rupert-Mathews
We saw "Dunkirk".
Very intense! Well filmed and acted. However, I had a difficult time following the story. At the beginning of the movie, the following was shown, ?. Mole 1 week 2. Sea 1 day 3. Air 1 hour". We had no clue what that meant.
When I read a part of an interview Chris Nolan, director, and writer, gave to "Premiere" it became clear. He said, "For the soldiers who embarked in the conflict, the events took place on different temporalities, (timing). On land, some stayed one week stuck on the beach. On the water, the events, lasted a maximum day; and if you were flying to Dunkirk, the British Spitfires would carry an hour of fuel.
To mingle these different versions of history, one had to mix the temporal strata. Hence the complicated structure; even if the story is very simple." I also looked up the definition of the mole. Besides the two things we know it as, it is also the meaning of a large structure, like a pier or breakwater sticking out in the ocean.
So, the men on the beach and mole were there a week. The men on the ships went through a day, hence some of the night scenes. The pilots went through an hour. It was all combined and mixed. I may see it again now that I know the setup.
Over 300,000 men were saved by private citizens and their boats that came to the rescue, even a man came in a canoe. The soldiers, British and French were trapped along the shore by the Germans. Almost all of Great Britain's army was over there. Had they been massacred the result of WWII would have been entirely different.
There were only a couple major stars in it which was ok. Kevin Branagh was fine. Mark Rylance was excellent.
Now that you know the set up of the movie please go. I think I will see it again, now that I understand.
So go. Have fun. Eat popcorn.
Send This Story to a Friend!
Letter to the editor
Link to this Story
Printer-Friendly Story View
--- Advertisments ---