James Bowman gives an extraordinary review of “Dunkirk”

Summary: James Bowman has written an extraordinary review of the new film Dunkirk, seen not just as entertainment but as history. It is a history of the event in June 1940, and a history of how the 1958 and 2017 films about Dunkirk show that we have changed.

“The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.”
— Churchill addressing Parliament on 4 June 1940. France surrendered on June 21.

"Dunkirk" poster (2017)


Review of Dunkirk

Written and directed by Christopher Nolan.

By James Bowman. From The American, July/August 2008.

Reposted with his generous permission.


Rather as they are by President Trump, conservatives are divided by Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. To Kyle Smith of National Review the film is “brilliantly realized” and “magnificently well crafted” if a little short on Spielbergian sentiment. Churchill’s great “We shall defend our Island…” speech, he thinks, is actually “more effective” when delivered not by the great man himself but one of the evacuated soldiers, reading from a newspaper. To Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, Churchill’s absence is a deplorable demonstration of the director’s determination to lift a battle of world importance out of its historical and political context and render it “universal” — a word Mr Nolan himself actually used to describe his film in an interview.

“When an event in history has become, in the mind of a writer, ‘universal’,” writes Ms Rabinowitz, “it’s a tip-off — the warning bell that we’re about to lose most of the important facts of that history, and that the story-telling will be a special kind — a sort that obscures all specifics that run counter to the noble vision of the universalist.”

“No wonder those German Stukas and Heinkels bombarding the British can barely be identified as such,” she continues. “Then there is Mr. Nolan’s avoidance of Churchill lest audiences get bogged down in ‘politics’ — a strange term for Churchill’s concerns during those dark days of May 1940. One so much less attractive, in its hint of the ignoble and the corrupt, than ‘communal’ and ‘universal’ — words throbbing with goodness. Nothing old-fashioned about them either, especially ‘universal’ — a model of socio-babble for all occasions.”

She has a point, I think, though it would be a mistake to think that a movie can’t be factual and specific and at the same time of universal significance.

Boat at sea in "Dunkirk" (2017)

Writing in The New York Times, Manohla Dargis (who is no conservative) gives the film a rave while noting three times that the men on the beach at Dunkirk knew what they were fighting for. But does she? In the movie they don’t say much, if anything, about it. In fact they don’t say much of anything. To all intents and purposes it is a silent film with a much-praised musical score — though I find it rather intrusive — in place of all-but absent dialogue. Their reason for fighting is therefore, to her, “a given,” and a mute, final image of a pilot standing beside his burning Spitfire means, to her, that one is meant to be “reminded that the fight against fascism continues.”

I wonder how many of the men on that beach in 1940 were feeling pride in their own heroism at continuing the fight against “fascism”? Not many, I fancy. But one of the consequences of turning the battle into a primarily visual experience is that anyone can project his own feelings and assumptions onto men who seldom or never — in this, the film is historically accurate, I think — talk about theirs.

"Dunkirk" poster (1958)
Available at Amazon.

That must be why Mr Nolan, who is mainly known for comic book movies, felt he had to do something completely different from the black-and-white British film, also called Dunkirk (1958), directed by Leslie Norman, and not only by adding color.

Churchill is even less of a presence in that film than he is in the more recent one — though Vice Admiral Ramsay, to whom most of the credit for the successful evacuation is due, is slightly more of one. But in the 1958 film the characters, mainly those played by John Mills, Richard Attenborough and Bernard Lee, talk all the time — not about why they are fighting but about the practical moral problems facing men at war. When do you have to leave a wounded man behind? When does an NCO have to be tough about making his men do what he wants them to do and when does he have to listen to their views? When do you obey orders from on high that you don’t like and when are you permitted to disobey them? When do you retreat and when do you stay at your post even though you know it means certain death? When, above all, are you obligated to undertake a dangerous mission even though you may refuse it?

I understand as well as Mr Nolan does that that kind of thing looks artificial and contrived to 21st century audiences, who have been schooled by thirty or forty years of comic book movies to care only about spectacle. It’s not the audience’s fault, for what choice to they have? For all of us it’s spectacle or nothing — or almost nothing — and that’s the fault of greedy movie-makers who, their eyes on foreign markets, have for years put most of their resources into comic book movies. It hardly makes sense for audiences who know nothing else to choose nothing instead, and one wouldn’t choose nothing over Mr Nolan’s movie in any case. For, as spectacle, it does a bang-up job.

All war movies may be said to be distributed along a continuum with, at one end, their political and strategic aspects to the fore — that is, the fighting as seen from the point of view of the generals and civilian commanders who see, as much as it is possible for anyone to see, the big picture and who make the decisions that ultimately determine what happens on the ground. At the other end, we have the grunt’s-eye view, or the way things look to the point of the spear, where the actual fighting takes place and where all that can be seen is often no more than a jumble of confused and horrific images having little to do with one another and incomprehensible as a whole.

Since Vietnam, and especially since Apocalypse Now (1979) movies have tended to cluster at the latter end of the spectrum, though this has been to some extent a return to the anti-war films of the 1930s like All Quiet on the Western Front which got away with being unpatriotic by telling its story from the German point of view. Generally speaking, the nearer we are to the grunt’s eye view, the more anti-war the movie is likely to be. Such movies tend to be made in the name of realism, since the actual experience of combat is assumed to be more real than anything that could possibly take place at the strategic level. But, as someone in the 1958 Dunkirk says, “Sometimes there’s a lot to be said for not being too much of a realist.”

Men escaping by sea in "Dunkirk" (2017)

For the paradox of the “realistic” assumption in practice is that it is at the sharp edge where you find the fog of war — which, like literal fog, tends to make things look unreal. Surely some budget of realism needs to be granted to the strategic level as well? Isn’t there also a sense in which the “reality” of war can only be understood from the generals’ point of view? More importantly, as the 1958 film showed, aren’t the moral and honorable choices men are faced with in war just as real as what can be seen?

Mr Nolan’s innovation in Dunkirk is, in my opinion, that he has attempted to preserve and, indeed, enhance with technological wizardry, the realistic, grunt’s-eye view of the battle while keeping the emotional side of things low-key. He does this in order to prevent the film from drifting, as so many inferior ones do, into mere anti-war polemics. That means toning down both the horror and the patriotic sentiment while still allowing both their place in the story.

I myself applaud him for the attempt, though I do not believe he has quite brought it off. For there is more to realism than just the visuals of striving and fighting, of death or injury or hair’s-breadth ‘scapes in the imminent deadly breach. There is also what keeps armies together as armies and not as a panicked rabble. That the British Expeditionary Force in 1940 kept together as an army to the extent that it did was the real miracle of Dunkirk. One might begin to be able to understand it from the 1958 film, but no one will ever understand it — or even understand that he doesn’t understand it — from Mr Nolan’s.


James Bowman

About James Bowman

Bowman is a Resident Scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

He has worked as a freelance journalist, serving as American editor of the Times Literary Supplement of London from 1991 to 2002, as movie critic of The American Spectator since 1990 and as media critic of The New Criterion since 1993. He has also been a weekly movie reviewer for The New York Sun since the newspaper’s re-foundation in 2002. He has also contributed to a wide range of other major papers.

Mr. Bowman is perhaps best known for his book, Honor: A History, and “The Lost Sense of Honor” in The Public Interest.

See his collected articles at his website, including his film reviews going back to 1994.

Trailer for Dunkirk

For More Information

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about film and TV reviewsabout heroes, and especially these…

  1. Learning from “Fort Apache”, recovering our past.
  2. Watch “High Noon” to see why we don’t reform America’s politics.
  3. Our biggest films reveal dark truths about us.
  4. Hollywood’s Hero Deficit – both a cause and symptom of our weakness.
  5. For something different: Nine of the best American romantic films.
Honor: A History
Avilable at Amazon.

About James Bowman’s great book.

About Honor: A History. From the publisher…

“The importance of honor is present in the earliest records of civilization. Today, while it may still be an essential concept in Islamic cultures, in the West, honor has been disparaged and dismissed as obsolete.

“In this lively and authoritative book, James Bowman traces the curious and fascinating history of this ideal, from the Middle Ages through the Enlightenment and to the killing fields of World War I and the despair of Vietnam. Bowman reminds us that the fate of honor and the fate of morality and even manners are deeply interrelated.”

7 thoughts on “James Bowman gives an extraordinary review of “Dunkirk””

  1. Thank you for posting this review – I found it interesting, having seen the movie, and blogged about my own take-away feelings. I’ve come to the conclusion that “Dunkirk” (2017) has to be regarded as an arthouse film – inasmuch as war can possibly provide a fruitful ground for arthouse.

    Most reviews of the film I’ve read complain about the omission of something or other : French soldiers, Indian soldiers, black soldiers, women; and your reviewer regrets there’s not more focus on ” what keeps armies together as armies and not as a panicked rabble.” My own regret was that the movie, for me, seemed unbalanced in the length of time spent on the plights of the soldiers, and so little on the scale of the small boat rescue. I wanted more time and depiction of more of those ordinary people involved in the evacuation. But, as arthouse, and as in some art styles, the artist hones in on what inspires them, and how it might best be rendered to convey that inspiration – that’s my view anyway.

    A movie encapsulating the entire story of Dunkirk would likely have seemed too long, too dense and complex for today’s audiences – and it has been done before anyway. Even so, I do believe an extra 15 minutes, added to this slim version of the story, would have meant that more audience members who had known nothing at all about Dunkirk (and there must be many of those in the USA and elsewhere) would have left theatres with a better and more rounded view of the legendary event.

    I was just over a year old, in England, in 1940 by the way, in a much-bombed east coast city. I grew up reading and hearing about Dunkirk. My generation is disappearing fast!

  2. I wrote a comment about 20 mins ago, but WordPress appears to have eaten it. I’m pretty sure I crossed no lines.
    However I did fill in my name differently from the name I’ve used at WordPress in the past, but I used my real name, e-mail and my blog address.

    1. Annie,

      WordPress uses the Akismet spam blocker. It works very well, and a comment section would be impossible without it (it clocks 100+ spams per day). But it is not perfect! I try to check the spam trap several times per day, an rescue comments wrongly filtered out. Sometimes there is a valid reason (e.g, too many links, bad language). Sometimes is the just the mystery of software.

      Your comment is now up. Thank you for posting it!

  3. The “universalist” airbrushing of history in media, academia, and culture in general is meant as part of a larger social engineering scheme. Google’s recent firing of their “dissident engineer” is another example of the larger drive to purify all non-universalists from the ranks.

    The problem for the engineers is that what they are doing is making future cohorts weaker and less competent to deal with serious challenges. The fantasy ideology of universalism has no teeth and no fists with which to defend hearth and home.

    Human nature has not changed. Ideological fantasies float on the surface of that nature, and they will change.

  4. Trying again… a second version of my original, lost, comment :
    I’ve come to the conclusion that the 2017 “Dunkirk” has to be viewed as an arthouse film.

    Most reviewers complain about omissions (of French, Indian, black soldiers and women) or as your reviewer mentions, lack of detail of ” what keeps armies together as armies and not as a panicked rabble.” My own criticism is that there was not enough time or detail about the many hundreds of small vessels and hundreds ordinary people sailing them. An extra 5 or 10 minutes of screen time devoted to that would have helped a lot to give viewers new to the story (and there must be many in the USA) a clearer idea of what went on.

    Christopher Nolan, in artsy mode, concentrated on what inspired him, as painters do when painting in a style outside of simple representation.

    I, by the way, was just over a year old in 1940 during the events of Dunkirk, and in England, in a regularly bombed east coast city. I grew up reading and hearing about Dunkirk.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: