A Miracle In The Midst Of A War

It might well be a surprise that the story of what happened at Dunkirk early in the Second World War has never been brought to the big screen. Some of that might have to do with the fact that Americans weren't involved- this was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor, after all. And yet that didn't stop the film Battle Of Britain from coming out back in 1969 to great acclaim. Now that's been rectified by director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, The Prestige) in a new feature film that has just been released to theatres, telling a harrowing war tale of the survival and evacuation of thousands of men in the face of oncoming danger.

The film sticks with the facts of what happened. With the collapse of the French army in 1940 and the fall of other European countries to the Nazi blitzkrieg, Allied soldiers from Britain, Canada, France, Belgium, and hold outs from other occupied countries find themselves running out of space for retreat. They are trapped along the French coast at Dunkirk, and between May 26^th and June 4^th, with German forces pressing in, the coastal beaches and town become a possible last stand for an army of hundreds of thousands of men, and a miracle because of what transpires.

Aside from directing the film, Nolan wrote the screenplay, with roots that date back a quarter century during a crossing of the English Channel with his wife Emma Thomas, who produced the film with him. He set the idea aside until he had experience directing big action films, but envisioned telling a war story from three points of view- land, sea, and air. The story is not conventional fodder for Hollywood- no involvement of Americans, and what happened was a retreat, not a victory- though it can be said that the saving of an entire army from the shores of France proved to come back to haunt the Germans when many of those men returned during the D-Day operations four years later.

The story is told from the point of view of those involved- we don’t see politicians or generals in a war room back across the Channel; in fact, we get perspective views from the commanders down to the privates all stuck together on the beach. It’s interesting that Nolan’s story keeps the Germans at a distance- we don’t really see German soldiers up close, but feel their presence as a looming threat. Instead we get the personal point of view of mostly young men, inexperienced boys, really, facing the dread of possible annihilation. Some are shaken by it, others come into their own. We see the bravery and resolve of civilian sailors crossing the Channel straight into danger. The characters are largely composites as to historical personalities, representing in a general sense those men who were at Dunkirk. The film’s narrative does come across as authentic- those of us familiar with the story of the evacuation can see that Nolan’s very careful about keeping to the timeline.

And it turns out that Nolan was wise to decide to leave this film until he was well established. As a director, he’s taken on the intimate and personal in films like Memento, Insomnia, and The Prestige, while establishing himself in larger epic films with his work on the three Batman films he did with Christian Bale, or the meta-scale of films like Inception or Interstellar. Nolan has established himself as a compelling storyteller, capable of character studies and powerful action, and the result is a war film that rates as one of the greats of the genre, telling a story that deserves to be told on the big screen.

Nolan and his crew worked extensively on location, not only on the beach at Dunkirk where it happened, but other spots in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, with some work done in the United States for the interiors of a sinking ship. A French destroyer was even used, kitted out like other warships to look more like a throwback to the time. Period planes were brought into the production, along with model work- Nolan chose not to rely on computer generated effects.

From the director’s point of view, Nolan and his camera team have great instincts in telling a war film. Some of that comes from previous experience- take for example, The Dark Knight Rises, which has the tone of a war film in many ways. But it shows itself in the ferocity of combat that comes across on the screen, or the harrowing, claustrophobic feel of sequences throughout the film. It shows itself in the characters, some of whom are shaken or broken by what they’re going through, others who push on through. War is hell, and Nolan gives the audience the chaos, horror, and tension of it throughout the film.

In preparing for the film, Nolan spent time with some of the surviving veterans of Dunkirk, hearing their stories, and some of the things that were impressed upon him was how young they all were at the time. The director chose to go with young actors, most of them unknown, for the rank and file members of the cast, and it was a wise decision. With the exception of one of them (Harry Styles, the singer, who at least doesn’t humiliate himself as a first time actor), who’s famous in a completely different entertainment genre, most of the younger cast members are not known to the public at large. Going for the unknown turns out to be the right call- these young actors like Tom Glynn-Carney or Jack Lowden allow the audience to get to know their characters on their own terms.

That’s not to say there aren’t well known actors involved. Cillian Murphy, who has worked with Nolan on several films- including his memorable take as the Scarecrow in the Batman films- is particularly poignant in his performance as a soldier suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. James D’Arcy, who appeared in Agent Carter as Edwin Jarvis, and in the British series Broadchurch, appears as a British colonel, preoccupied with the fate of those men under his command. Mark Rylance, who recently won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role in Bridge Of Spies, appears as Mr. Dawson, an experienced civilian sailor who takes his boat into peril and faces it with steadiness and quiet courage.

Tom Hardy gets a good deal to do as Farrier, a pilot with the Royal Air Force whose point of view we get into from action in the air as the RAF duels with Luftwaffe pilots. The actor worked with Nolan in The Dark Knight Rises for his memorable take as Bane, and here his character is calm, sympathetic, and methodical.

Kenneth Branagh, the great Shakespearean actor of stage and screen, gets a terrific part as Bolton, the senior commander on the beach. Like his men and those of the other Allied forces finding themselves in peril, Bolton shares the danger. He worries about what’s to come, hopes for rescue, and keeps calm and measured in how he handles his men. Branagh gives the character stoicism and resolve.

Nolan’s main point of view character is, until now, an unknown actor. Fionn Whitehead plays Tommy, a British private, one of thousands of his kind. The young actor has some previous experience in Britain, but not a lot, and here gets a role that makes a serious impression. He embodies the young man who went off to war against the greatest evil human beings have ever come up with. Men like him might not have known what they were quite getting into, but rose to the occasion, despite what fear they might have felt. Whitehead becomes our eyes and ears, and the actor conveys the experiences and perspective of a soldier facing great peril in just the right way.

Dunkirk does not rely on manipulating drama to tug at the heart strings. Yes, it can be moving at times, but never in a way that feels forced. Instead it conveys the tension and suspense of war, the steady sense of unshakable fortitude, the danger of the situation, and the immediacy of the soldier’s point of view. In telling the story of an evacuation and retreat, Nolan gives us a film that sticks with the events as they happened, a harrowing war film that might well stand as one of the best of its genre... and it's the best film of the year.

Revenge Of The Ghost Of Christopher Reeve

Before getting into today's mischief, some links for you. My partner in crime Norma wrote yesterday about Father's Day at her blog. She can also be found getting interviewed at Leanna Harrow's blog. As well, have a peek at our joint blog for a musical interlude involving the symphony...

Now then, to today, a film review, and I'd better keep my eyes out for any cranky ghosts who once wore a red and blue leotard and cape ensemble...

"What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater?"

Man Of Steel brings Superman (aka The Boy Scout) back to the theatres in a new and different way, in a film directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), and fortunately influenced by producer Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer (both from the Dark Knight trilogy). It's the latest comic book adaptation to hit the big screen, and a return to form for the big blue and red Boy Scout and his place in the DC universe.

Things start out on the dying sci-fi world of Krypton, where we meet Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer), who have secretly conceived a son, Kal-El. Jor-El is a scientist, and he and the soldier Zod (Michael Shannon) have been struggling in vain to protect the population of their world from the doom yet to come. When Jor-El and Lara send their infant son off the planet (along with a codex preserving the record and heritage of Krypton and their best wishes), Zod intervenes, murdering Jor-El and getting banished to the Phantom Zone, along with his followers.

We meet Kal-El on Earth, now going by by the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), as well as the rest of the cast. Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), his adoptive parents, trying to shield him from a world that can't understand him. Lois Lane (Amy Adams), the ambitious reporter seeking out fragments of stories of a man who can do the impossible. Her editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne), as gruff as we could expect out of the character. And in time comes the threat from the past, as Zod and his followers reach Earth, determined to recreate Krypton... despite the presence of the locals.

Snyder wouldn't have been my first choice for a director; the portions of Watchmen that I've seen left me rolling my eyes, and I despised 300. Still, he manages reasonably well with this film; I chalk that up to the influence of Christopher Nolan, who transcended the comic book genre when he directed his Batman trilogy. This film has a sombre, introspective feel to its lead character; if you're expecting a big dimpled smile out of the Boy Scout, you might have to go seeking out an earlier film. Nolan and Goyer's story works around with the mythology of the character, taking us in some different directions (and wisely-and finally- does away with the red underwear on the outside look once and for all). Rather than give us another Boy Scout story (how many times can one save a cat from a tree, after all?), this is a sci-fi kind of story, one that leans towards the majestic qualities of the character. All while giving us someone who's rooted in his humanity; the cornerstone relationship in his life is that he has with his adoptive parents, who shape him into the kind of man he becomes.

The costume looks right; instead of spandex, it has a look that lends itself well to the screen, and maintains just enough of the comic book version while looking respectable. This extends to Zod and his followers; their look has a military and martial quality to it, a uniform instead of a costume. And that extends to Krypton itself, in the production values brought through by special effects and set design: the planet looks familiar... and yet not, a contradictory world of both splendour and dark, sinister undertones. The special effects take hold again when we come to Earth, where Clark's abilities can lead him to accomplish feats of strength and speed, to fly; this gets conveyed rather well, actually. The abilities of Kryptonians that take up much of the second half of the movie (along with the accompanying destruction) are on display across the screen, in a way that worked at least for my eyes- though I do find the camera tricks, occasional shaky cams, and editing somewhat bothersome at times, but that's a larger problem in action films these days. And the epic score by Hans Zimmer fits the movie well, heading off in a different direction from the familiar John Williams themes.

Casting is key for the film. Michael Shannon is one of those actors who keeps getting good parts in film and television, and excelling at what he does. I first noticed him in World Trade Center, and recently he's been getting acclaim for his role as a hitman in a film called The Iceman. His take on Zod is interesting; this is the same character Terrence Stamp once played, but the two actors approach the character in different ways. Shannon plays Zod as a villain by circumstances; his zeal to protect his people drives him over the line. Shannon is one of those actors who reminds me of Gene Hackman, utterly compelling to watch no matter what the role. We get what drives him, even if it drives him to do the unthinkable.

Laurence Fishburne has a good take as the grouchy boss at the Daily Planet. The character must by nature be something of a curmudgeon, but a fiercely principled one. Fishburne, who's perhaps best known for leading a slightly dazed Keanu Reeves down a proverbial rabbit hole in three Matrix films, conveys both of these qualities in the character. The character and the Planet itself are somewhat sidelined this time out though; I might have liked to see Fishburne cast instead in Christopher Meloni's place, as that actor gets a lot to do.

Then there's the matter of the two sets of parents for the hero. Russell Crowe and Ayelet Zurer are sympathetic as the first set, trying to save their child from the destruction of a world that should have known better. Crowe conveys the nobility of the character, while Zurer (Angels and Demons) draws on the empathy of the audience as a mother knowing what is to come.

It's the Kents who spoke more to me as characters. In the comics, Jonathan and Martha do more than anyone to shape the kind of man their son becomes; it's because of them that he's an inherently decent man. Costner is a good father who worries about his son, cautioning him to conceal what he's capable of doing, warning him that people will fear him if they know what he is. Diane Lane is a bit less of a presence, but both characters have that central decency to them, the essential elements of integrity that shape their son. And they actually come across feeling like farmers... not like a Hollywoodized form of farmers.

Amy Adams gives us something of an extrovert as Lois Lane. The film slowly builds a connection between she and Clark, enough to give us a sense of where they might go, but not quite what we'd expect. She's tough, ambitious, and driven, but in an odd way, not as developed as she could be. We shall see in the inevitable sequel where that goes.

It's the lead that is a core to the film. Henry Cavill has come a long way from his first film appearance, playing Albert in The Count of Monte Cristo. He's done a good deal of film and television work since, most recently in Immortals (which I avoided due to an aversion to the brain damaged mumbling Mickey Rourke). He certainly looks the part of Superman (abs and all), and he plays the character as alienated, brooding, and with depth. This is a man who feels out of place in the world, who has spent years as a nomad, hiding in the shadows, doing a quick save here and there and then fading back into the woodwork. He is most certainly not the smiling Golly Miss Lane version we would have expected from the late Christopher Reeve, but he doesn't have to be. Instead of the Boy Scout, we get someone who's more interesting, and who carries himself with confidence.  

This is a very different take on Superman, a story that shifts around some of the core mythology, moves back and forth in time- this does have a way of arresting momentum, though, when a flashback shows itself. There are times in the second half- particularly in terms of hand held camera shots, something that I've never liked- that the audience might feel a sense of dizziness. That's what you get for essentially a long-running battle in a film. Man of Steel is bleak at times, lacking the lightness or fun of earlier adaptations, but centering itself in the majestic qualities of the character, and the basic humanity of a man who's not quite human. It succeeds, because it makes us want to see more.

The Dark Knight Triumphant

The Dark Knight returns one more time in the finale to director Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, and like the first two films in the set, the movie does not disappoint. It transcends the comic book adaptation, as more than an action thriller. It’s a cerebral film, taking on big themes and psychological issues, and it succeeds in every way.

It’s been eight years since the events of the previous film, since Batman (Christian Bale) took the blame for the actions of the fallen District Attorney Harvey Dent (not to mention his death). Bruce Wayne has given up the mantle of the Bat and withdrawn into himself, worn down physically and emotionally. He spends much of his time holed up in his manor, while the city he once protected has rejected him. His company has seen better days, and is now steeply on a decline. All he has left for company is his butler and father figure Alfred (Michael Caine), who worries about how deeply Bruce has been battered by the events of the last few years.

Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) knows the truth of his innocence, but is obliged to maintain the facade of Batman as an outlaw, and he has his own issues to deal with, from political concerns and senior officers jockeying for his post to an arrogant belief in the city that major crime is a problem of the past.

Into the mix come two wild cards. Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) is a cat burglar with an agenda all her own. And Bane (Tom Hardy) is a ruthless anarchist who unleashes hell on the city, in a series of attacks meant to draw out and destroy the Dark Knight, which is only the beginning of what he has in mind.

The finale of the series is a harrowing journey into darkness. The film, scripted by Nolan, his brother Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer, takes on themes that are very prevalent today: the conflict between rampant capitalism and rights of the people, the fear of terrorism, the role of justice in the world. It follows a hero who’s just a man, at his lowest point, and asks the question of what can bring him back. There are influences from some of the biggest Batman stories of the comics: The Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, and No Man’s Land are obvious ones. There are also shades of the storming of the Bastille and the French Revolution underlying the story.

The production values of the film are, as before, well worth it. The cinematography is spectacular; there are camera shots throughout the film that will leave you breathless. The special effects serve the story, and not the other way around; explosions for instance, in this film, are done properly, unlike the wildly over-exaggerated garbage we’d see out of a hack like Michael Bay (yes, Michael Bay, you are a hack of the first order. You are a hack in a hack class all of your own). And the score by Hans Zimmer (this time on his own, without his collaborator for the first two films, James Newton Howard) brings back some of the previous themes but goes off in other strong directions. Nolan has chosen his crew well, once again.

The cast itself is splendid in their roles. Marion Cotillard is a newcomer as Miranda Tate, a tycoon with an energy device that may be the salvation of Wayne Enterprises. Cotillard is a gifted French actress who you might recall from Inception, another Nolan film. She plays the role with sublety and nuance, and fits very well into the tapestry of the film. Another Inception veteran is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, playing John Blake, an inherently decent Gotham Police officer. There is a curious quality to his nature, and a basic integrity to him. He becomes the audience point of view character, the everyman we can relate to, who steps up to do right just because it’s the right thing.

The returning veteran players inhabit their roles once more perfectly. Gary Oldman as Gordon is as good as ever; Oldman is one of the great character actors of our time, and as Batman’s one time ally, we see a man who’s deeply unhappy at having to publicly be against the Batman early on, and then finds himself confronting the worst possible crisis of his life. Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, the Wayne executive and father figure to Bruce who’s provided much of the Bat tech in the past. There continues to be a wise strength in his portrayal of the character. And Michael Caine is very much the heart of the film, a foster father to Bruce Wayne, the guiding conscience, the Horatio to Bruce’s Hamlet.

Tom Hardy is another Inception veteran, and in that film, he completely stole the movie from the star, Leonardo DiCaprio (admittedly not that hard to do). He plays the monstrous Bane just as I’d expect him to be: a clever and brutal man, hidden behind a strange mask, a ferocious force of nature, and utterly nihilistic. Bane first appeared in the comics in the aforementioned Knightfall story, and has appeared in film, in the cinematic abomination that was Batman & Robin, where the character was a brainless idiot who happened to be nothing more than muscle for the two primary villains. For that and many other Bat-reasons, Joel Schumacher has more than earned his place in the seventh circle of Hell. This Bane is a decisive, bold leader, intelligent and sadistic, willing to do anything to achieve his objectives.

Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman, though she’s never once called that through the film. It’s probably impossible to outdo Michelle Pfeiffer’s take on the character, so Hathaway doesn’t even try, instead playing the character closer to the comic book version, a woman who's straddling the line between hero and villain. She brings a strong energy to the role, and her character draws Bruce out of the darkness he has descended into. She's got the look of the character just right, and gives the character just the right dramatic touches in terms of personality.

Christian Bale gives arguably his best performance of the trilogy in this film. His Batman has become brooding and withdrawn, consumed by losses in his life and the rejection of the people he once vowed to protect. The character is at the lowest ebb, and has to find his way out of despair and back to himself; he has to reinvest himself in his mission, to once again be the hero to a city that doesn't deserve him. Bale has an intensity and a drive as an actor that makes him fascinating to watch, and he inhabits the dual role of Bruce Wayne the tycoon and Batman the driven vigilante perfectly. In each of these films he’s understood the basic truth: the real man is the one driven by his own tragedy to wage war on crime, to seek justice, and the facade or mask is the carefree socialite.

Nolan has given us three outstanding, spectacular adaptations in this trilogy. The Dark Knight Rises is exhilarating, demanding, and rewarding, and not only is it a great comic adaptation and thrilling action film, it's also one of the best films of the year. It makes us care about the characters, surprises us in unexpected ways, and makes us ask ourselves questions. It makes us think, because it’s a film with depth.

Something that can never be suggested of Joel Schumacher, who, rumour has it, still wants to make his (self described) masterpiece Batman & Robin & Batgirl: More Bat Nipple Costumes, All The Time.