[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Dunkirk

For a short while, Christopher Nolan's depiction of the Dunkirk evacuations feels a little 'off'. He's opted to split things into three stories each with different timescales. Land, which is the men on the beach getting ever more desperate for rescue, this is one week. Sea, a small pleasure craft crewed by civilians heading to assist in the evacuation, this is one day and then Air, with a team of spitfire pilots tasked with keeping enemy aircraft off the ships and soldiers, this is one hour. The stories are not running concurrently. However as the film progresses its clear that this isn't Nolan trying to show off as such, as a narrative device it pays off dividends where as an audience we know something is going to happen because we just saw it, however as we see it from a separate perspective it plays off like hitchcock's bomb under the table and the tension is palpable. The film is well paced at 105 minutes and Nolan cleverly has the spitfire pilot (Tom hardy) represent the efforts of the air force, Mark Rylance as the captain of the civilian vessel represents the sea rescue and so forth. By doing that, the film becomes somewhat intimate in spite of its scope and keeps the plot running smoothly. Definitely a must see.

I don't know if you saw the original Dunkirk with John Mills, but that was also split with the story told from three different perspectives.