Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
ACF #7 Dunkirk
Here’s the first in a series of podcasts on the movies of Christopher Nolan, starting with his newest, Dunkirk. Today, I am joined by my friend Eric and we’re talking about everything from Winston Churchill and Christopher Nolan to Edward Elgar and Charles Lightoller (yes, the second officer on the Titanic!). The crisis of confidence of the West is part of the discussion, too, as are America’s teenagers. And all that in about half an hour. Listen to our podcast — you’ll get details about the movie mentioned almost nowhere else, and assembled in a novel way. Pain and patriotism rate a mention, too!
Published in Podcasts
Then don’t call the movie Dunkirk. Call it “evacuation”, or “rescue”, or something else.
It does take place in Dunkirk, doesn’t it? (I sort of see a new post in these 3-4 comments. . . )
Dunkirk is an event, not a location.
I understand – I’ve been there.
But you know what I meant.
It’s a really smart way of teaching people about Dunkirk–even if it didn’t work for you. You might still get something out of it say, if you followed along a brief, but thoughtful discussion from a perspective fairly close to your own… & wouldn’t you know it, I did record a podcast on that! Give it a listen. People’round here say it’s a really good podcast!
Just about half-an-hour of your time & there’s lots about Churchill & Elgar in it, as well as other things to show how the themes of British patriotism & statesmanship are broached. There are also telling details brought up & arranged & discussed which you may have not noticed–so there’s some mystery in it, too!
Okay — a movie that needs a podcast might be considered lacking, don’t you think? But, I’ll try to give it a listen.
Did you address the chief complaint of mine and many others (notably a reviewer on Klavan’s podcast) that I was unable to connect to any of the characters — especially the main survival character, Tommy? I had no attachment to him whatsoever. Didn’t know his name, his back story, whether he was married, dating, or single. Who his family was, if he had any. There was something terribly dehumanizing about it, when I think of it. Nolan could have dragged a side of beef through the rescue and I would have had about as much attachment.
The Best. Believe me.
This is a great discussion. What Eric has to say about the sound design & music, I think, will speak to your heart.
What I have to say about the displays of heroism & cowardice might get you thinking, oh, now I see why I felt the way I did! At the level of the teaching about heroism & necessity, it’s actually much closer to what the critics complained about than what the fans thought they saw.–Not entirely shocking, being that critics can sometimes be sharper observers, when they have cause to be so, whereas fans have cause to ignore some things they might not like…
Okay, I listened. I enjoyed your podcast more than the movie. And, since that’s the case, I won’t comment further and ruin your outstanding experience, except to say, you did not address my criticism, ya’ Cheeky Romanian! ;-)
Maybe I misunderstood you then! The plot of the movie has to be understood within a very simple structure: You begin with running desperately away from the enemy to save only oneself, but end with a resolve to run toward the enemy & submit to capture in order to save as many as possible. You begin following around characters who strive desperately & who are cowards. You end following the pilot Farrier & the yachtsman Davidson, who are comparatively moral giants, fully understanding what sacrifice & devotion mean, & therefore the agents of the deliverance of which the opening titles & Churchill spake. This is an ascent. These heroes work in an understated mode, but their acts & gallantry are remarkable.
(& the yachtsman is based on a true story. Lightoller managed to save 55 men at Dunkirk.)
You do not identify with the characters you first follow around maybe because you don’t like cowards. I think their situation excuses some of what they do. I also think some of them–the Frenchmen–do heroic things. You see their ignoble striving to run away from danger lead them to catastrophe. I would have thought that’s a lesson you’d appreciate! Skip rightly called them Jonah’s.
Maybe that opening soured you on the great heroism of the pilot by the time that becomes obvious? When in movie history has the revealing of a face been delayed more with better effect? You only see Tom Hardy/ Farrier’s face for a few seconds at the end. He is a faceless hero–he dedicates himself to save other people. But at the end, Nolan gives you this heroic shot–he looks statuesque–he’s silhouetted against the twilight skies! I thought it was an amazing moment.
I grant you all that. Unfortunately (for me, and maybe now for you), Chauvinist the Elder pointed out that all the heroic characters are peripheral — their role in the “plot” is to get Tommy’s sorry ass (although he does try to protect the Frenchman) — the central thread from beginning to end — back home.
I agree with you the visuals were stunning, especially the sinking ships and the last flight over the beach. Sadly, I didn’t know Lightoller’s story until you and Eric mentioned it on the podcast. That type of background information would have been helpful to developing more sympathy for the characters.
Self sacrifice is a common feature of heroic stories. It is my emotional experience that it’s been done better in other movies because the characters were developed in a way which connected me to them. Mr. Trink felt similarly.
I do think you and Eric are onto the “art” of the film and, perhaps, that made you more acutely sensitive to the characters. I did not have the same experience.
Sure, & of course, I can’t change your experience. But I figure you can get a bit more for money you’ve already spent…
It strikes me that Nolan is trying to tell people, when you want to save your people, that includes cowards. They, too, will be needed.
Think about the famous Oxford Union debate where a two-thirds majority of students decided they would not fight for king & country. People are still outraged. But Churchill said–they were students–& they would fight when the time came, as their fathers had. He was right.
I don’t think it was Tommy’s cowardice that put me off. I could be made to feel quite sympathetic to that under the circumstances. It’s, as I said before, that he’s an unknown. A stand-in for someone real. You cannot love what you do not know. I think much the same can be said of the heroic figures, too.
I guess I’ll have to wait longer still for a movie about Dunkirk…
Yeah. There’s another Churchill movie coming this fall. If this one’s very successful & that one, too, then you might get your wish.
I wonder whether there’s any way to get conservatives on a large-enough scale to invest in these things. Love it or hate it, they never think to somehow help a proven movie-maker out. I don’t quite get it. & it makes me very suspicious about what conservatives use free market arguments to excuse. Hollywood isn’t going to give them what they want. But a few movie-makers have been remarkably astute–if not quite conservative, then certainly enemies of liberalism in a vein conservatives can understand & appreciate. Those guys never get help. Nobody wants to invest in them. Not organizations of regular people; not big time money guys. Nobody. But people love to complain about Hollywood. Well, what are conservatives doing to improve things?
With Gary Oldman of all actors. Who wudda thunk it!
Yeah! It looks great for now!
We sponsor Cheeky Romanian critics. ;-)
Honestly, I think conservatives are people too, and we have to prioritize our efforts according to where we might have the most success. Hollywood seems a lost cause at the moment.
WC, conservatives have deemed it a lost cause for generations! It’s not like they’ve been getting some kind of great successes somewhere & put their resources there!
Remember the man Breitbart, who taught conservatives to say: Politics is downstream of culture?–Now, behold Breitbart the website, which does not lack for resources. It’s almost unholy!
Of course, like you suggest, I do think of conservatism as an opportunity. Much of it, on culture, is a wasteland, but I do believe people want something more & something better. I may be able to make a decent living that way. Who knows? Americans are willing to pay me on an ongoing basis for thoughts on movies. I’ll try to suggest to people that they might want to pay for movies they’d like better, too!
What I’ve seen of newly and more extensively translated German primary sources made available over the last ten years puts this into the myths we believed about WWII column. The Germans had no concern over Patton, some in the Allied command thought the German High Command cared about Patton and his wear-abouts before D-Day, turns out they didn’t. Both Patton and Rommel have shrunk in importance as a more complete picture of the war has emerged. Compelling stories and interesting and noble commanders, but not the axis mundi so many of us thought, or perhaps still do.
This a thousand times…this…Conservatives need to put their money where their mouth is if they want to shift the culture toward something better.
Yo, Titus! You got a shout out from Ken Masugi at AmGreatness.
That’s not a shout, that’s a sloppy wet kiss.
And what was it that Masugi gave JPod?
“Sublime” — woot!
Heh, I didn’t know about that! Prof. Masugi kindly took an interest in my podcasting & scholarly ambitions both. I know of him because he’s mentioned, by the way, in Justice Thomas’s autobiography, along with another conservative scholar I’ve met, Prof. John Marini. They were the beginning of the justice’s studies in natural rights theory. They are affiliated with the Claremont Institute where I was a Publius Fellow-
Thanks, M!