I've been starved for a good WWII movie, but some things about Dunkirk feel off to me. One is the PG-13 rating.
This is Christopher Nolan's reasoning for it:
Quote:Quote:
All of my big blockbuster films have been PG-13. It’s a rating I feel comfortable working with totally. Dunkirk is not a war film. It’s a survival story and first and foremost a suspense film. So while there is a high level of intensity to it, it does not necessarily concern itself with the bloody aspects of combat, which have been so well done in so many films. We were really trying to take a different approach and achieve intensity in a different way. I would really like lots of different types of people to get something out of the experience.
That last sentence seems like another way of saying "I think I can make more money off PG-13." I don't know, I think Dunkirk is very much a
war story no matter how you slice it, and couching it in pseudo-Hitchcock genre does a disservice to the event itself, IMO. So I hate to say it, but I'm expecting kiddie gloves. Nolan is a sincere and talented director, but I disagree with his assignment of the movie to his PG-13 comfort zone. The story of Dunkirk simply deserves better focus than that.
The other thing niggling at me is that nowhere in Dunkirk's casting do I see Charles Lightoller's name:
That's Lightoller aboard the
Sundowner, on his way to Dunkirk. Lightoller had a little bit of a life, to say the least. He was Second Officer aboard the RMS Titanic.
Yeah, that Titanic. He survived (at the time) the world's most famous maritime disaster, went on to sink a German U-Boat during World War I, and then participated personally - at age 66 - in the evacuation of Dunkirk as one of those "little ships" the film is about. The
Sundowner is even a museum ship today. Yet the way he followed his orders aboard Titanic and the murky accounts of the U-Boat sinking (he was accused by the Germans of having ordered a massacre of the surviving crew, but this was never confirmed) paint a picture of a very hard and mission-focused Englishman. His experiences pose difficult, meaty questions about duty, emergencies, and wartime that I can't imagine would do anything
but enrich a story like "Dunkirk." Any screenwriter worth his keyboard would be salivating at a chance to use a character like this in a script for a Nolan blockbuster.
So where the fuck is he? Why relegate such a fascinating and storied character to mere supporting cast at best, or (apparently) omit or revise him entirely? It makes no sense to me. I understand there are legal and financial considerations when you portray real people in these things, as opposed to making up your own cast, but that's a price worth paying in this case. It'll be a shame if he's nowhere to be found at all in this film.
I'm sure it'll be a suspenseful and well-made film, but between Nolan's comments and my own hangups over what I see is (heh) missing the boat, my expectations run middling for this one.