CGB Review of Dunkirk (2017)

You’re gonna need a nap after this movie because MY GOODNESS, this is quite an intense experience!

This is my review of Dunkirk!

untitled (52)

The year is 1940.  Nazi Germany has invaded France and, as a result, thousands of Allied soldiers are now held hostage on the seaside town of Dunkirk.  On the surface, the situation might not seem so urgent (just stay put in that town and wait for help to come along)…until we realize that the Allied perimeter is shrinking and–ergo–German forces are closing in on the vulnerable men.   In addition, these are 400,000 men who are needed back in England to protect the homefront.  Told from three perspective angles–land, air, and sea–we the audience watch with bated breath the horrors these men endure as they desperately await deliverance from the evil closing in on them.

The Hits
In reviewing movies, something I have learned is that with certain film pieces–primarily ones with unconventional narrative styles–is to look at what the filmmaker’s intention was in the creation of the project.  When I kept hearing from friends who had seen the film that there was little dialogue and essentially no main protagonist, I knew that finding out Christopher Nolan’s intent would be key in giving the movie a fair review.  Sure enough, I came across a quote from Nolan himself where he explains the main goal of Dunkirk:

“The empathy for the characters has nothing to do with their story.  I did not want to go through the dialogue, tell the story of my characters… The problem is not who they are, who they pretend to be or where they come from.  The only question I was interested in was: Will they get out of it?  Will they be killed by the next bomb while trying to join the mole?  Or will they be crushed by a boat while crossing?”
–Christopher Nolan on “Dunkirk”

With that in mind, did Christopher Nolan achieve his goal in employing visual storytelling to chronicle the battle on Dunkirk?
Ladies and gentlemen…YES!  He did and he did it masterfully.   This isn’t like with Michael Bay’s “Pearl Harbor,” where the historical narrative gets bogged down by a clichéd romance between Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale.  No, this is a straightforward visual saga of 400,000 men trying to keep their heads above water (quite literally at some points in the film) as they fight to stay alive each day and night.  To quote YouTube movie reviewer Ralph Sepe Jr., “A really great film is one you can watch with the sound off and still know what’s going on.”  Dunkirk is most certainly an experience and one that should be viewed in IMAX.  Granted, it would still be effective without IMAX, but for an even more dramatic effect, I would recommend seeing it in IMAX.  The bang and clamor is palpable as the men go from one brush with death to another.  The visual experience of Dunkirk is so visceral that you WILL hear the bullets whizzing by your ear.  Your heart WILL pound rapidly at each and every bomb that falls from the sky and blasts the sand beneath their boots.  This movie provides very little breathing room, i.e. no scenes of the men joking with bottles of beer in hand, so expect to be holding your breath many times throughout the film.
Yes, there is very little dialogue in this film, and in a strange way it actually works to the film’s advantage.  Let’s be honest: In a high-stress situation, would there really be any small chit-chat going on?  No, I don’t think so.  Okay, maybe there’d be that one guy who tries to lighten the mood, but even he would have one thing on his mind in the midst of danger: “Survive.”  Because there’s no cheesy sentences about a girlfriend back home or clichéd speeches about freedom and the American way, the story is what take center-stage–as it should be.  While there is no main protagonist to relate to, this enables the audience to care for all the men, which from a Catholic perspective brings to mind the Church’s stance on the dignity of every person; how whether you know somebody’s name or not, they have an inherent dignity simply because they are.
A friend of mine pointed out, “Notice how there is very little blood.  Nobody gets decapitated or anything.  Saving Private Ryan focused on the physical aspects of war; Dunkirk is more interested in the psychological.”  You are definitely right, M.P.!  This movie will definitely leave you in a state of dread and anticipation.  The first five minutes puts us through sudden gunfire that will leave you shaken, and you’ll be even more anxious when the men narrowly survive the first round of bombs dropped.  The film is unrelenting in not letting a single moment pass without the men coming face-to-face with some form of catastrophe.   The end result is that we, the audience, are right there with them.  Our hearts are pounding as loudly as theirs, we tremble every time the characters look up at aircrafts hovering over them in the ashen skies, we do not feel safe on land or sea.  Even the skies bring the promise of hellfire upon these stranded soldiers.  Yes, there are physical deaths and wounded fighters, but the psychological hell of waiting for a bullet to come for you burns itself into your brain all the way to the end credits.

The Misses
This movie does not transition between Acts very well.  The majority of mainstream films follow a three-act structure.   I’ll give just one example:
The First Act of Pan’s Labyrinth begins with the faun’s narration of the fairytale and ends when–in present day–the faun tells Ofelia that she has to find three items before the full moon.  The Second Act starts when Ofelia crawls into the large tree to confront the Toad and ends when [SPOILER] her mother dying in childbirth.  The Third Act begins at Carmen’s funeral and leads us to the climax and resolution.
Case in point: With Pan’s Labyrinth, you knew exactly when and how the story was progressing.  Meanwhile with Dunkirk, it was a bit hard to tell where we were in terms of story progression.  I actually had to look at my phone at one point, and I saw that it was only 9:00 and I was at the 8:00 screening.  I wouldn’t have pointed this out if it weren’t for the fact that SO MUCH happens in the first act that I thought we were somewhere in the second act.  You know those movies that have a scene or two that is all shot in one take?  This whole movie felt like it was done in one take, which would be revolutionary if there were indicators in the plot that, “The first act is drawing to a close, now we’re heading into Act Two.”  The weaving and connecting of the storylines on air, land and sea was a tad clumsy.
I kind of wish it had an ending that was a little more hopeful.  Basically if you’ve watched The Theory of Everything all way through (which you absolutely should do because it is amazing), the vibe you got with the way that movie ended is the same one you’ll feel at the end of Dunkirk.  I’ll just put it this way: For a movie that markets the triumphant rescue of 400,000 men, the actual triumph is really downplayed.  Going back to Christopher Nolan’s intent, maybe that was the point, but still a small spark of hope after being rescued would have been welcomed.

Dunkirk is, above all things, an experience.  A bone-chilling, white-knuckled, gut-wrenching depiction of war.  Crisp camerawork, subtle acting and to-the-point storytelling elevates Dunkirk so that it stands firmly among the great war movies all while standing alone as a unique art piece in modern cinema.

Blessed Fr. Jacques Hamel, pray for us.

The Societal Cycle of Alertness and Slumber

good20dream20bad20dream1

It’s funny how a simple conversation on Facebook can lead to an article with an admittedly strange title.
One of my friends in the Pro-Life movement is Albany Rose.  You may know her, but in case you don’t, Albany is one of the leading faces of the growing pro-life atheist crowd in the movement.  You can check out her Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/AlbanyRosePostAbortiveProLifeSpeaker/
It was on the day of the horrific shooting in Orlando that Albany and I were having a conversation on Facebook about the plethora of problems in the world.  At one point, Albany made a point about how people are all up in arms about a crisis, but take no action for social change and instead go back to their daily routines within a week.
What she said (or typed in this case) really got me thinking.  As I lay in bed that night, I began to ask myself, “Why is it that people’s focus on a major tragedy only lasts for a few days?”
It is as if our society has settled into a strange, almost dreamlike cycle.
beware-of-the-sleepwalking-robbers07
We go about our typical routines, bloated schedules and scattered priorities, only taking a brief glance at the current events unfolding around us as we float down the rushing river of daily demands.  We may be physically awake, but we exist in a state of mental sleepwalking, our lives moving forward in a quiet, comfortable march to somewhere.
It is only when disaster strikes that we are jolted awake.
natural-disasters-list
Only then are we catapulted into action.  In one immediate burst, we launch into solidarity mode where everyone bands together to express shock and concern.  Vigils are set, signs are made and hashtags fill cyberspace.  For a time, we are all united.
Nothing bad lasts forever, but neither does something good.
arguing-people-dreamstime-Darrenw (2)

Unity turns to tension as private opinions about the tragedy and its victims are made known.  Prayers dissolve to bickering and heated arguments drown out heartfelt speeches.  Comforting words are sucked into the bleak vortex of shouting matches.

Then once the dust has settled, we return to slumber.dreams

I truly wonder what it would take.  What would the next disaster have to be to break the cycle?  What would need to happen in order to shake up the culture to its core and force heroic men and women to rise above complacency and bring about lasting change?

What would force us to stay awake for just a while longer?
insomnia-450x3001

 

Presidential Candidates Won’t Save You

US-presidential-candidates-2016 (2)

Don’t worry, I’m not going to go on a megalomaniacal rant about how I can’t stomach any of the candidates.  This post would be longer than Tolstoy’s War and Peace if I did that.
As I watch the debates (yes, both the GOP and the Dem debates), read articles online and listen in on conversations about the candidates among my family and friends, there is a theme that strikes me.  Mr. Trump continuously promises to “Make America great again,” while Mr. Sanders swears to hold big corporations responsible.  Miss Clinton vows to uphold the rights of women and other minority groups, while Mr. Cruz pledges to protect religious liberty.
What do these four people have in common?  They promise to be a savior in some capacity.

Even in our secular society, the concept of a savior still appeals and rings true for many people.  While the savior complex has always been prevalent in past presidential elections, the idea of electing a man (or woman) who can “save our country” from the path we are currently on is especially strong during this presidential season.  If you talk to a supporter of Mr. Trump, Miss Clinton, Mr. Cruz or Mr. Sanders, there is definitely a sense that they truly believe in their candidate’s ability to save our land.

During this past Lenten season, I found myself really pondering Jesus’ sacrificial offering and its meaning.  By His death and resurrection, He redeemed humanity and paved a way for us to obtain Heaven.  Our Risen King stripped the prince of darkness of his hold over mankind and gave us a lifeboat.
The idea that a single presidential candidate can bring about salvation of any kind does in fact benefit someone; a particular entity whose goal it is to keep our attention off of the True Savior.
I truly believe that Satan uses political rhetoric to his advantage, to take people’s eyes off the state of their own souls and keep them distracted with the state of the political climate.

I am in no way telling you to not vote.  I am not trying to discourage you from participating in the political process.  What I am saying is that a politician can only impose legislation, not salvation.  A president can improve the economy, but not shield us from Hellfire.  Presidents come and go, but Jesus is the One who stands between us and the deception of the evil one.

Stand by a candidate if you wish, but keep your eyes to Jesus always.

Saint John Vianney, pray for us.

Equals, Not Enemies: How Men and Women Complement One Another

original

It has occurred to me that there is a hostility between men and women these days.  In one corner, you have self-proclaimed feminists who reject their body’s ability to carry life and view men as either cheating oppressors or dimwitted and lazy.
In another corner, an underground generation of disgruntled men who loathe the advancements of women in modern society and believe that women should be submissive sex objects (I’m looking at you, Return of Kings) has formed.
Both of these mindsets show that our seemingly “progressive” society has not advanced in teaching boys and girls how to relate to one another.

As a millennial woman, I feel the need to say that men should not dominate over women and women should not dominate over men. Neither of the sexes should compete for superiority over one another.  Both men and women are human beings deserving of dignity and equality. Masculinity and femininity are beautiful and are unique in their own way.  Both genders have different roles to play.  No, I’m not talking about stock gender roles imposed by society.  Actually, by “different roles,” I’m talking about something much deeper and beyond the surface.
In the words of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, “A man may stand for the justice of God, but a woman stands for His Mercy.” Now this quote does not mean that “men are strong and women are weak.” Quite the contrary, my friends.  Let’s take a look.

Interpreting the first part of the quote, “A man may stand for the justice of God,” we see that men do have a natural inclination to protect. It’s just something that lies within the heart of men. Ask any man who is a husband, boyfriend, father, brother or uncle. Their first instinct is to protect the important women of their lives (wives, girlfriends, daughters, sisters, nieces, etc.)  Saint Pope John Paul II once said, “It is the duty of every man to uphold the dignity of every woman.” Now there are men in our world who commit horrendous acts against women, there’s no denying that. However acting against your true nature does not make the natural inclination disappear. The exception does not change or invalidate the rule. Men are called to uphold and protect the human dignity of women and when a man objectifies a woman, he is acting against justice and violating his true nature.

Interpreting the second part of the quote, “but a woman stands for His mercy,” we must first address that mercy does not mean weakness or subservience. Mercy is compassion and tenderness. Ever wonder why many women (not all women, but a good number of women) are more likely to show leniency towards someone who makes a dumb mistake than men are?  It’s because there’s something within the feminine heart that leans towards mercy. With mercy comes nurturing and we should note that it is not sexist to say that within the heart of every woman is the inclination to nurture. Again, nurturing is not a suggestion of weakness. In fact, one of the definitions of nurture is “to feed and protect” (You can check it out here if you are so inclined http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nurture). Within the nurturing inclination is to protect, so women are also called to protect the people of their lives, which includes the men.  Just as men are tasked with defending the dignity of women, women are also tasked to uphold the dignity of men.

The men and women of today need to rise above this “us vs. them” mentality. Both of the sexes must build one another up instead of tearing each other down.  Men and women are called to affirm and uphold one another.  When men and women work together for the sake of human dignity, this is how peace will be achieved.

Saint Benedict and Saint Scholastica, pray for us.

Putting A Hashtag On Human Life

arguing-people-dreamstime-Darrenw (2)

Florissant, Missouri, June 24th, 2015

While speaking at a historic black church, presidential candidate Hilary Clinton spoke to the congregation about her mother, who became a maid as a teenager after being abandoned by her own parents.  All was fine and good…until this happened:

“What kept you going?” Mrs. Clinton had asked her mother.  She then explained that, “Kindness along the way from someone who believed she mattered.  All lives matter.

In another era, the last three words would have been well-received, wholeheartedly embraced by most people regardless of their political leanings. However, that is not the case in 2015.  It is all thanks to two simple hashtags: #AllLivesMatter and #BlackLivesMatter.

Southern California, June 24th, 2015

It was during my lunch break that I logged onto Facebook and found my newsfeed riddled with statuses and articles all concerning Mrs. Clinton’s use of “All Lives Matter.”  Blindsided by Internet activism, I took a breath and followed my natural instinct to investigate.  Once I had gotten the whole story of Mrs. Clinton’s debacle, I decided to look deeper into the two hashtags #AllLivesMatter and #BlackLivesMatter.

#BlackLivesMatter was a hashtag created after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the 2013 trial centered on the killing of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin.  It was later revived after the death in 2014 of another African-American man named Michael Brown.  The purpose of #BlackLivesMatter was to tackle racial issues that continue to plague this country years after the Civil Rights Movement.  However, there is an opposing camp:  #AllLivesMatter, a hashtag created as a counter to #BlackLivesMatter.  Unlike the first hashtag, which emerged in 2013, the second hashtag entered the picture after the shooting of Michael Brown.

What I want to know is what is it about these two hashtags that fuels the flames of impassioned emotions in people?  Alongside this, a more disturbing question emerges in my mind: How did we get to this place where we as a society have to hashtag whose life is more important than the other?  If the value of a person’s life can be ranked from greatest to least, then we are all drowning.

Into The Minds of Two Movements

I’ve always felt that once you know the psychology of both sides of a conflict you can often get to the root of the problem, so let’s dive into the mindsets of these two opposing forces.

From what I have observed, the #BlackLivesMatter camp sees itself as champions for the African-American community.  They feel that the justice system treats this community unfairly, and the acquittals of George Zimmerman and Officer Darren Wilson have struck a serious blow to the black community morale.  I completely understand how the mother of a black son would be fearful for her child’s life in light of Trayvon Martin (age 17), Eric Garner (age 43), Michael Brown (age 18) and Tamir Rice (age 12).  Their issue with #AllLivesMatter is that it comes off as too broad and dismissive of the deaths of these three men and a young boy.

The #AllLivesMatter camp, which exists to counter #BlackLivesMatter, feels that the opposing camp is preaching that only one specific group of people is more important than others.  They see it as exclusory of other sets of people, and dismissive of situations where a white person is shot and killed by a black person, or an African-American is murdered by a Hispanic-American.  Anyone could be the victim and anyone could be the perpetrator.  They fear that by giving all the attention to one specific ethnicity, this raises the possibility of other racial groups being ignored.

When The Greater Good Is Forgotten

Any time I write about a controversial issue, I always ask God to point me to a Saint who is related to said issue.  Because this op-ed is about race and social justice, God guided me to Saint Martin de Porres, an interracial Peruvian monk who was the illegitimate son of a Spanish knight and a freed black woman.  During his time on earth Martin had experienced racism firsthand due to his mixed blood.   In spite of this, he was known for his compassion and humility, which was the driving force of his charitable deeds throughout Lima, Peru.  Because of his humble character, he never forgot the One he served and never let pride in his good works cloud his judgment.

I began to wonder, “What if Martin didn’t have the gift of humility?   It’s easy for a virtuous person to become aware of their accomplishments…” This thought led me to think about the modern heroes of literature and cinema (Harry Potter, Katniss Everdeen, Peter Parker/Spiderman, etc.) and how they never thought to themselves, “Oh, I’m such a hero!”  They were simply fighting for a greater cause.  What happens when social justice activists see themselves as heroes?  If someone thinks they are ahead of everyone else, it is easy to get comfortable and neglect self-improvement.

That was when I realized that comfort in the message can lead to corruption.  Most people would agree that discrimination is wrong and that every life matters, but too often the actions of activists betray the message.  As a result, in this case both parties (#BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter) have a public image problem.

#BlackLivesMatter is tainted by the images of looters during the Ferguson protests.  Because the loudest voices get the most attention, the media focused more on the looters than on the peaceful demonstrators.  While most of the looters just wanted to cause trouble, it is also possible that some of the looters were good people who started out as peaceful, but got caught up in the outrage and were blinded by their desire to fight a system that they felt had wronged their community.  Fueled by frustration, they chose a destructive path that was caught on camera.

#AllLivesMatter is tainted by its own inception: It was created for the sole purpose of opposing #BlackLivesMatter and had no further vision.  With the mindset of “Everybody agrees that all lives matter, so winning the public will be no problem,” this led to their camp neglecting to work toward a greater good.  Their lack of vision caused the hashtag #AllLivesMatter to be used by ill-informed people as a way to dismiss the concerns of the black community.  In turn, the #BlackLivesMatter camp went further on the offense and gave their opponents the ammunition they needed to portray the looters as the face of #BlackLivesMatter.

When two forces go to war with one another and lose sight of the greater good, social justice is reduced to fashionable controversies that are here today and gone tomorrow, resurrected in the public square only after the death of another unarmed black father/husband/brother/son/friend makes the headlines.  Does it take another tragedy to keep the productive conversation going?

#SomeLivesAreConvenient

Earlier I asked how we as a society came to this place where the value of human life can be ranked from greatest to least.  If the skirmish between #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter has shown us anything, it is that the pyramid of who is convenient and who can be ignored has permeated American politics for a long time.  Every civilization goes through a period of establishing a human pecking order.  In our time this mindset couldn’t be more evident than by the two hashtags #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter.  Both sides accuse the other of being dismissive of certain lives, but it is their fighting between themselves that keeps effective change from coming to fruition.

In a perfect world, these two camps could perhaps come together and say, “We both have a sound message, so why don’t we stop bickering with each other and go after the real enemy?” the real enemy being social injustice, even the human pecking order.   Unfortunately, after the Garden of Eden peace rarely lasts before conflict steps in.

Saint Martin de Porres did not fight poverty by creating hashtags and inflaming passions.  The will of God was his General, humility was his armor, and his faith by example was what brought hope to the desperate poor.   He did not champion certain types of people who advanced his agenda.  He served all.

Until we remove the price tag on human life, social justice will always be like a faucet that only pours out water when it suits an agenda.

Saint Martin de Porres, pray for us.

1 Corinthians 4:6, “I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brother, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.”