1 Dunkirk (2017) came up in conversation on my boys' trip to Arnhem, and I found out I was the only one of the 6 battlefield tour guides who loved the film. I know it's been discussed to death, but here are my reasons
2 To me, Dunkirk is a film that transcends being a War Film, in the vein of A Matter of Life and Death, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Kanal, Lawrence of Arabia and Apocalypse Now. Now that's not to say it is as important or philosophical as those films, but..
3 First, let me say that as a means of explaining the battle leading to the evacuation, Dunkirk fails and the original 1958 movie tops it completely. I also take on board the criticism of the gliding Spitfire and other details
4 The point is though, Christopher Nolan was not aiming at the military historian but a general public. Just like his Batman trilogy was aimed at a much wider audience than comic-book fans
5 The very fact my youngest step-daughter who actually studies cinema at Uni loved Dunkirk is proof of Nolan's film being a success. She would never be inspired by one of the old stuffy movies, but was inspired by Dunkirk
6 Dunkirk was a masterpiece in terms of sound design and cinematography and the three converging time-lines concept was a brave choice that clearly annoyed/confused some viewers. I loved it, because it urged on the plot and cranked up the tension
7 So, in conclusion, I agree that Dunkirk may not be a great War Film, but it is a great film. I understand the difference and if you read about Nolan's process and art, he achieved what he set out to. It also prompted huge interest in the real history....
8 Tour groups are visiting Dunkirk in greater numbers (this is direct from the Tourist Office there) and that trend seems to be continuing. Books on the subject sold well after the premiere and the film prompted debate. All of this is great news for the history fan
