"Dunkirk" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

“Dunkirk” is a 2017 war film directed by Christopher Nolan about the evacuation of Dunkirk during World War II, between May 26th and June 4th, 1940.  The evacuation involved hundreds of thousands of British and French soldiers who were cornered by the German army.  While the evacuation was the result of a horrendous military defeat, the Allies' survival is celebrated as a miracle rescue in the face of certain death.  A failed evacuation could have resulted in a German invasion of Britain, and an Axis victory in the war.

The film stars an ensemble cast including Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Fionn Whitehead, Jack Lowden, Cillian Murphy, and Harry Styles among others.  To describe each character would be tedious and unhelpful, as the general structure of the film has almost nothing to do with their personal identities.  With the characters as placeholders, “Dunkirk” is organized into three plot lines that occur in separate spans of time, each depicting a different backdrop of the evacuation.  At one point during the film all them overlap.  This is signature Nolan, who has played with time structures in several of his films including “Memento” and “Inception”.  The first plot line is titled “The Mole”, and lasts for one-week detailing activities on the beach at Dunkirk and the mad scramble of soldiers desperately trying to hitch a boat ride back to England.  The second plot line, “The Sea” takes place in one day, and portrays British locals who are tasked with taking a day-boat across the channel to help rescue soldiers.  The final, and most briefly framed segment is “The Air”, and stars Tom Hardy as a daring Spitfire pilot whose story takes place in one hour.  Despite the disparities of the time frames, each “chapter” is given roughly the same amount of screen time. 

As far as construction, “Dunkirk” reminds me a lot of Alfonso Cuarón’s 2013 film, “Gravity”.  Both are a series of thrilling near-death experiences from which characters must narrowly escape.  This, along with an extremely loud score by Hans Zimmer, provide consistent tension to the movie.  Furthermore, the constant noise and action lend precious little time for talking amongst characters.  As Nolan explained in an interview with Premiere, “I did not want to go through the dialogue, to tell the story of my characters…The only question I was interested in was: Will they get out of it? Will they be killed by the next bomb while trying to join the mole? Or will they be crushed by a boat while crossing?”

The Nolan effect works best with films that have muddled plots.  Take “The Dark Knight Rises” as the premiere example.  It is a stirring, visually spectacular film, but its plot has more holes than the Brooklyn Net’s roster and the narrative is absurd when you map it out scene by scene.  Such is the case with all super-hero films. Men and women in full costume fighting crime is comical when applied to the real world. Yet with his “Dark Knight” films Nolan was able to distract the audience enough to make his corner of the super-hero genre look and sound serious.  It is an incredible skill and it is also Nolan’s biggest weakness as a director. Unlike the “Dark Knight Trilogy”, “Dunkirk” is based on a true story.  The Nolan distraction is grand and inspiring, but lacks context and continuity.  I didn’t learn much of anything about Dunkirk while watching “Dunkirk”.

When all of the visual grandeur and ear-blasting sound is stripped away, there are precious few moments worth remembering from the film.  One of them occurs near the end, in which a boatload of soldiers arrive home in England.  The downtrodden men shuffle toward a train where volunteers hand out tea and biscuits.  An elderly man with his head down hands out blankets telling the men, “well done” as he distributes them.  Styles’ character receives his blanket and, out of shame, tells the old man “we just survived”. The old man responds, “that is enough” and continues passing out blankets and telling the defeated soldiers, “well done”.  In the end, this scene is the most poignant in all of “Dunkirk”.  It is a subtle message about patriotism, the value of survival, the wisdom of old men, and the importance of morale. 

The best war movies have moments with characters we feel we know as an audience.  Something changes in those characters, and that change reflects a greater truth about the nature of war.  “Dunkirk” is a finely crafted emotional squall, but it’s overall message is lost in the tumult.  Nolan is particularly skilled at sustaining a feeling of “epicness” throughout a scene.  No other director can really compare.  I walked out of the theater with tears in my eyes.  Yet, an hour later when thinking about the message of “Dunkirk”, I couldn’t point to a wire-to-wire narrative and say “Yes! This is what ‘Dunkirk’ is really about.”  Ultimately, I think it’s worth looking back at that quote from Nolan in his interview, because I think he succeeds in his mission.  In terms of a thrill-ride, “Dunkirk” is top of the line.  The sound, the visuals, the acting, the music…  it is all very high quality.  However, as a deeper exploration into the nature of war and a documentation of a major historical event, “Dunkirk” barely scratches the surface.

"Tommy's Honour" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

“Tommy’s Honour” is a 2016 Scottish film directed by Jason Connery.  The film is a historical drama about the father-son pair of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, portrayed by Peter Mullan and Jack Lowden, respectively.  Widely renowned as the grandfather of golf, Old Tom was the greenskeeper at St. Andrews golf links in Scotland for most of the 19th century and was instrumental in starting The Open Championship.  In fact, Old Tom Morris struck the first shot in the first ever Open in 1860.  Furthermore, Old Tom and his namesake were dominant golfers for their time.  A quick glance over the earliest winners of the Open Championship reveals the supremacy of the Morris clan.  Of the first eight Open Championships, Old Tom Morris won four with his final victory coming in 1867.  Subsequently Young Tom Morris took over, winning the next four consecutive Opens . “Tommy’s Honour” focuses on the period in which Young Tom took over as the preeminent golfer between the duo.

The game of golf played in “Tommy’s Honour” does not much resemble the modern variation.  The greens look more like the second cut of rough and the shoddily crafted balls are propped up on little piles of sand instead of wooden tees.  “Tommy’s Honour” depicts the game in its infancy.  A typical player in the film also doesn’t quite fit the modern mold.  With the exception of a few Scottish and English elites, the game is played by gruff, heavy-drinking, fighting men of the lower classes.  And the very best players, like Tom Morris the elder and younger, are plucked by the wealthy club members to compete in matches for the sake of big betting.  It is in this context of early golf that “Tommy’s Honour” works best as a film.  The stark backdrop of St. Andrews provides several scenes that are both beautiful, and serviceable to the golf action.  On a grander scale, “Tommy’s Honour” performs strongly as a period piece.  The film feels securely authentic with remarkable costumes and swaths of accent-heavy dialogue. For non-Scots, subtitles may be necessary.

However, despite the success of “Tommy’s Honour” in these distinct areas, the film flounders with a generic, often gimmicky plot and choppy momentum. Over the course of the film Young Tom “invents” backspin, grooved wedges, and the golf bag.  With each invention there is an eye-roll worthy presentation that bogs down the pace and smudges the historical accuracy of the film.  And while golf is certainly the focus of “Tommy’s Honour”, there are a few token subplots headlined by a romance between Young Tom and a woman named Margaret (Ophelia Lovibond) as well as a class-struggle theme involving the Captain of St. Andrews Golf Club, Alexander Boothby (Sam Neill).  Neither storyline proves too memorable, even though Margaret ends up having a key role in the ending of the film.

Perhaps the most identifiable flaw underpinning “Tommy’s Honour” is the slapdash cutting style from scene to scene.  The most blatant examples occur when the story transitions from a golf-action scene to a domestic one, and vice versa.  In one sequence we are thrown into the tail end of a random golf match in which Young Tom sinks a winning putt without any lead up or explanation. Near the end of the film one of the characters is portrayed as falling into alcoholism, which is depicted in scenes of him drinking in three different locations consecutively without any dialogue.  These transitions are disorientating and quite frankly bizarre.

Ultimately for those who love the history of golf, “Tommy’s Honour” could be an entertaining trip back in time.  However, for the average viewer the film falls short.  A film with so many solid pieces shouldn’t have the overall feel of a straight-to-DVD feature.

"Hitchcock/Truffaut" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“Hitchcock/Truffaut” is a 2015 documentary film, readily available on HBO, directed by Kent Jones that details the inception of film director François Truffaut’s 1966 book Hitchcock/Truffaut.  The book was essentially the documentation of a series of conversations between Truffaut and Hitchcock.  The documentary spends a little time explaining how Truffaut reached out to Hitchcock, seeking to interview him about each and every one of his fifty-plus films and thereby capture the decision making process of the director.  But even more, Truffaut wanted to show the world that Hitchcock was one of the great auteurs, thus liberating him from his widespread reputation as merely an entertainer for the masses.  Since being published, Hitchcock/Truffaut has become a mainstay on the bookshelf of every film director.  “Hitchcock/Truffaut” is the story of the book, and its incredible effect on the movie world.

Purely as a documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut” moves very fast.  It is accompanied by an intense, zingy violin score that keeps tensions high.  Furthermore, the film features dozens of written documents gliding across the screen: letters from Truffaut and Hitchcock, director’s notes, and excerpts from the Hitchcock/Truffaut book.  The style of the documentary is like Ken Burns on amphetamines.  However, instead of losing impact, the fast pace keeps the subject of the film fresh, and forces the viewer to focus.  Aside from the accompanying texts, “Hitchcock/Truffaut” primarily features scenes from Hitchcock films, with a bevy of talking heads commenting on his directorial characteristics.  Amongst the interviewees are Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, and Richard Linklater.

“Hitchcock/Truffaut” details many different aspects of Hitchcock as a director, one such being his unpopularity among the actors he employed.  He could be almost draconian in his direction, never allowing his actors to stray from his own specific vision.  While discussing Hitchcock’s often rocky relationships with his actors, David Fincher makes the point that while acting is important, it is merely a single aspect of filmmaking.  It is easy to forget that.  In a given scene, the actors demand much more attention than things like the angle of the camera, or the lighting of the backdrop.  However, in every film these seemingly minor details require just as much decision making as the casting of the characters.  “Hitchcock/Truffaut” sheds light on the Hitchcock style, and the layers of decisions that went into it. It also realigns the viewers intake of films in general.

For many of those who see the documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut’s” analysis of the famed fetishes that riddled “Vertigo” might be most enjoyable.  Others might marvel at the frame-by-frame dissection of the scarring shower scene from “Psycho”.  It is indeed remarkable to listen to Hitchcock’s voiceovers explaining his craft.  However, in a grander sense, “Hitchcock/Truffaut” struck me in the way it revealed the interconnectedness of film.  As Hitchcock says in the documentary, the “power of the cinema” is drawn from its role as “the greatest known mass-medium there is in the world.”  For Hitchcock’s films this certainly rings true.  “Psycho” is the kind of movie almost everyone sees, and almost everyone is shocked by.  However, watching the varying directors who lend their voices to the documentary, you can also see how Hitchcock’s work penetrated even the most disparate filmmakers.  In what other context do you bring together the charming, detail-obsessed Wes Anderson and the precise, disturbing David Fincher? 

As the film points out, Francois Truffaut’s Hitchcock/Truffaut debunked Hitchcock’s light entertainer reputation and revealed him as a master artist of cinema.  “Hitchcock/Truffaut” is a fitting tribute to that revelation, and in the same vein as its subject, makes the ride both entertaining for the masses and the cinephiles.  In a world dominated by ten second videos and shallow memes, it is refreshing to take a look back at Alfred Hitchcock as a director who could grab the attention of a vast public with a product that is also revered at the highest levels of cinematic education.