Some interesting things I've gathered:
- Tommy and Alex had very differing reactions after being saved on the Moonstone, and this I think highlights the theme of conscience.
- Tommy was not a spectacular soldier by any means. Nor was he motivated by higher calling or sense of duty. But the crucial thing was that he managed to keep his humanity intact throughout the evacuation. Survival was his number one priority, but he did not place it beyond his basic decency as a human being.
- Alex in contrast faltered at the most critical juncture. He reared the ugly side of human nature, and proved that he was willing to do anything to survive, even if it meant pushing an innocent out to a slaughter, and even though he was clearly aware that his actions were grotesque.
- When the Moonstone docked and the soldiers disembarked, the blind man giving out food and water seemed really random and out of place. Alex bemoaned that they (the British Armed Forces) had let their people down, and he simply could not comprehend why the old man had said "well done".
- Essentially, what we saw was Alex echoing his own guilt. The cruel irony was that he achieved what he most desired -- survival at all costs, but was left devoid of any shred of feeling except overwhelming shame and guilt. He lamented that the old man "could not even bear to look at us", which was a false conclusion as he had walked away without once squarely facing the old man, and hence simply missed that the old man was blind. In fact, his interpretation of the old man's words and actions was merely a projection of his own conscience. The old man had continued with the remark that survival was "enough", but Alex could not acknowledge this, because he knew deep down that that it wasn't, not for him anyway.
- Tommy on the other hand could bear to pause and look squarely at the old man. There was no stewing in his own shame, because he had escaped with none. Once on the train, he slept in an instant, because he could be at peace with himself.
- Nolan's films always end with a final, grandiose flourish. In Dunkirk, we almost get that as well, but for the last 2 seconds where the camera switches back on Tommy. A face full of tension and uncertainty.
- This was coming back to the 'roots' of the film. Bring the viewer back to reality of the moment. A firm reminder that for all the massive success that the evacuation of Dunkirk would prove to be (even if in retrospect), the presiding sentiment amongst the people at the time was one that was bleak and uncertain. Britain was still in the midst of its darkest hour, and was heading into an arduous future of homeland defense.
- Tom Glynn-Carney, who plays Peter Dawson, put in a wonderful performance. All the talk was how Mark Rylance did a real good job (he definitely did), but Glynn-Carney had some scenes where he showed great subtlety and polish in his acting, and I think him more than holding his own inadvertently also allowed Rylance to shine.
- The Sea timeline had some of the very best moments in the film, but I thought that the role of George was somewhat awkward and cliched, even if it did bring forth a very important theme that Nolan was trying to infuse a very important theme into the film (the essence of the Dunkirk spirit), but did not manage to do so in a way that felt organic and authentic.
- Similar to Interstellar and TDKR, Nolan tried to achieve A LOT within one film, but left for some sloppy moments (the whole scene where they were hunkered inside the trawler saw some slightly dodgy scriptwriting). Which was understandable for Interstellar and TDKR seeing that they were both running close to three hours; but at a relatively brief 1 hour and 40 minutes, Dunkirk could really could have done with a tad longer running time, which would have allowed better overall pacing.
- Nolan actually throws a lot of crumbs within the film to aid the audience in sewing together the three timelines. Hard to explain just through text, but there are subtle cues in the background at some point in many scenes which is basically a replay of a previous scene in the film -- just from a different angle
- One of the things that I initially couldn't fully grasp was the intricacy of interwoven timelines. But I can see that there are two very big overall merits
- In a small number of scenes, the ominous and gradual build up, followed by the sudden release of tension at the moment of timeline convergence is what creates maximum visceral impact. The scene that most exemplifies this was Farrier's last ditch downing of the German bomber. The climax occurs when the camera pans to the aerial view of Farrier's Spitfire coming into frame, lining up for the one chance at a killing blow. The preceding scenes show the perspective from in the water, on the Moonstone, and on the destroyer Vanquisher. The urgency and desperation of the moment is heightened through escalation, and thus the tremendous burden of Farrier's mission is thrust right to the fore.
- By rearranging timelines, and with the aid of multiple viewings of the film, the viewer is clearly able to identify seemingly innocuous moments from earlier scenes that only make sense later on when seen from another timeline. For example, there is this particular scene where Farrier is advancing towards Dunkirk, and we see a half-sunken trailer boat with its crew in the process of abandoning ship. The boat is seemingly no different from the tons of others in Dunkirk -- experiencing a miserable demise. The audience things nothing much of it and simply glances over it.
- Of course, we later find out that the boat is actually not just any boat, but one in which a major part of the film takes place in. And that the minuscule figures in the water are not just anybody, but actually Tommy and Alex. This exemplifies the complete randomness of chaotic war, and draws attention to how insignificant each soldier can be if seen from a very broad perspective, or simply in the eyes of a different character. Consequently, this relates back to the bleakness of the film, and justifies why Nolan chose not to inject backstories (and hence individuality) into each of his characters.
- When I watched for the third time today, it was quite an unusual feeling to realize that, during that one brief flyby shot of the sinking trailer, an extremely poignant event (pseudo-Gibson's death by drowning) was actually taking place just out of our sight.
- Lastly, I really liked the way in which pseudo-Gibson died. The fact that he perished in the most likely way (drowning), completely alone with nobody around to help him (in contrast to every instance where he saved Tommy and Alex), and in large part due to his commitment to help others where possible (intently focused on plugging the gaps), was just the most concrete possible testament to how war is indeed unfair, unforgiving, and... unbiased.
- In a film full of flawed characters, pseudo-Gibson was the one who most fit the bill of the sacrificial hero. But nobody would ever know of his fate, The impact of his actions would endure (at least two men survived due to his actions), but he would never receive recognition for it. Almost as if he ceased to exist.