The MVP of the Cast

The 2017 World War II thriller about the evacuation of British and Allied troops from Dunkirk beach.
User avatar
Posts: 2197
Joined: January 2016
Well Hardy's gotta be mentioned first since
he's the literal MVP
But Rylance is the one carrying the most weight.

Edit: sorry for 10th posting @Geoffrey

User avatar
Posts: 361
Joined: August 2016
Location: You'll find me in the region of the summer stars✶*¨*✫
Geoffrey wrote:To rank them from best to worst in descending order:
Mark Rylance
Harry Styles
Cillian Murphy
Tom Hardy
Tom Glynn Carney
Fionn Whitehead
Jack Lowden
Kenneth Branagh
Aneurin Barnard
Barry Keoghan
James D'Arcy

The bottom four in my list are pretty bad. Fionn was unimpressive.
Branagh fourth from last?? Well I guess you're entitled to your wrong opinion....

Seriously though, he was amazing! :wtf:

User avatar
Posts: 510
Joined: July 2017
Nik82 wrote:Branagh fourth from last?? Well I guess you're entitled to your wrong opinion....

Seriously though, he was amazing! :wtf:
The problem I have with Branagh's performance is how he says his lines about "home". Both times it feels really hamfisted, part of it is due to the silly dialogue but part of it is also due to Branagh's acting. It feels like he's reading from the script and not coming from his character when he says "You can practically see it from here... ...home". Also the fake tears in his eyes didn't help near the end.

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3759
Joined: May 2012
Kiwinights wrote:I loved Fionn Whitehead and Barry Keoghan in the younger cast.

Fionn probably has the least lines of any of the "leads" in the movie save Tom Hardy's character, and he doesn't get to do any heroic or cool stuff. Yet he's not what you would expect for a near-silent lead. Despite being the audience surrogate, he's not there to be an empathetic open box, your wide-eyed male ingenue; there's something haunted and evasive about him instead. His later defense of the French soldier reveals a decent core that's been hardened by deep-seated trauma, not the same kind we see in the shivering soldier, but a deeper kind of resigned malaise. You see it again after he finishes reading Churchill's speech and looks up with an ambivalent expression, seemingly unmoved by a landmark speech. I read somewhere that Nolan decided to make him the last shot instead of the burning plane after watching the dailies, and I adore it—it's the exact right tone to remind us that what comes next is not victory, but five long years of bloody slaughter. None of their fates are secure.

Barry made probably the exact opposite impact, in that he is very much a wide-eyed innocent, full of hopes for adventure and heroism, and it's because we so instantly take to his character and his hopes (or I did, at least) that his crushing, futile fate strikes such a blow. I can''t remember the last time I felt legitimately shocked by any death in a war movie. But he's the exact type that tends to survive or die in a heroic way. He was excellent, and I'm looking forward to checking him out in Killing of a Sacred Deer.
Fantastic write-up!! :twothumbsup: :clap:

User avatar
Posts: 19209
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
I don't think he's seemingly unmoved, he lets the words sink in contemplates what has just happened and what this means, it's just the beginning

Posts: 25
Joined: July 2017
Nomis wrote:I don't think he's seemingly unmoved, he lets the words sink in contemplates what has just happened and what this means, it's just the beginning
I mean unmoved in the sense that he's not having a visibly sentimental reaction to it. Alex is clearly jubilant about the shift in public narrative, and we the audience are probably feelin' a lot over Churchill's famous words, but the character reading them is obviously taking it in differently, and probably not in the way we expected.

Posts: 8437
Joined: August 2012
Kiwinights wrote:
Nomis wrote:I don't think he's seemingly unmoved, he lets the words sink in contemplates what has just happened and what this means, it's just the beginning
I mean unmoved in the sense that he's not having a visibly sentimental reaction to it. Alex is clearly jubilant about the shift in public narrative, and we the audience are probably feelin' a lot over Churchill's famous words, but the character reading them is obviously taking it in differently, and probably not in the way we expected.
That's what I absolutely love about the end. It's the most sentimental part of the movie (and still its sentiment doesn't even reach nor exceed the overmanipulated or forced emotions of different films), and, despite what had just happened, we're supposed to be cheering for those young guys and we all honestly do - I know I did, because the movie felt like such a tense and draining experience and you're truthfully being glad most of them make it out. But there's more sinister, almost apocalyptic feel to it at the same time. Pretty much much all of the second half of the movie gave me these thoughts, but by the end of it and especially that speech and last shot - I couldn't shake those thoughts out of my head - how bitter and tragic it is that not only they would have had to live with those experiences, but that most likely none of that was the actual end for them - and Tommy realized that.

User avatar
Posts: 19209
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
Kiwinights wrote:
Nomis wrote:I don't think he's seemingly unmoved, he lets the words sink in contemplates what has just happened and what this means, it's just the beginning
I mean unmoved in the sense that he's not having a visibly sentimental reaction to it. Alex is clearly jubilant about the shift in public narrative, and we the audience are probably feelin' a lot over Churchill's famous words, but the character reading them is obviously taking it in differently, and probably not in the way we expected.
Ah yes I understand what you mean. I agree, also with you Ruthie

Posts: 25
Joined: July 2017
Ruth wrote:
Kiwinights wrote:
Nomis wrote:I don't think he's seemingly unmoved, he lets the words sink in contemplates what has just happened and what this means, it's just the beginning
I mean unmoved in the sense that he's not having a visibly sentimental reaction to it. Alex is clearly jubilant about the shift in public narrative, and we the audience are probably feelin' a lot over Churchill's famous words, but the character reading them is obviously taking it in differently, and probably not in the way we expected.
That's what I absolutely love about the end. It's the most sentimental part of the movie (and still its sentiment doesn't even reach nor exceed the overmanipulated or forced emotions of different films), and, despite what had just happened, we're supposed to be cheering for those young guys and we all honestly do - I know I did, because the movie felt like such a tense and draining experience and you're truthfully being glad most of them make it out. But there's more sinister, almost apocalyptic feel to it at the same time. Pretty much much all of the second half of the movie gave me these thoughts, but by the end of it and especially that speech and last shot - I couldn't shake those thoughts out of my head - how bitter and tragic it is that not only they would have had to live with those experiences, but that most likely none of that was the actual end for them - and Tommy realized that.
ABSOLUTELY. Am kind of disappointed that the ending hasn't attracted much attention besides some remarks about how beautiful the shot of the burning plane is. I think it's one of Nolan's most interesting and subversive ones. So many war movies emphasize the horror of the slaughter and then undo all of that by glorifying the result with a feel-good ending. For Dunkirk, I felt leery and not quite recovered at the end. Your body and mind's still reeling a bit in the same way the characters' probably are.

Posts: 8437
Joined: August 2012
^I agree. The ending is like a slap across your face, disguised within a more cheerful "sentimental" surface. I'm not even that sure if I picked upon the meaning of the very last shot and its relation to everything that had happened earlier during my first watch lol, or if something else caused me to think and feel the way I did, but yeah. This movie kinda broke my heart lmao. And it doesn't even try to do it in the "obvious" way, which is why I was sort of baffled whilst reading a review (local, not written in English, so no point of posting it here). The girl PRAISED the film for its un Hollywood-like storytelling and unique structure, and then blasted the film for doubling on heroism and sentiment after "successfully" shying away from it earlier. I kind of get her point, the end was more sentimental, but then again, I didn't notice this film trying to glorify war or the military (which is a massive positive imo), so I'm not sure why a film shouldn't be able to celebrate one man's good deed or collective uniting spirit of a group of people - but I think she completely may have missed the point lol. Which could probably be the case for some other people too.

Post Reply