Vincent Alexander
Member
Of course! But he has about as much range as the soldiers we follow, so no need to remove.Is this guy still in the film?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dunkirk and its PG 13 rating
- Thread starter ronaldthump
- Start date
UnemployedVillain
Member
Is this guy still in the film?
I believe they edited his expression in post production
I think it waa a weird choice since it stands in a middle ground where it's almost a good deal more violent in it's actual depiction of violent imagery than a typical PG13 movie will probably having a smaller body count of people we actually see die.
Not being rated R doesn't just mean they had to cut much of the blood and the gore, but it seems like it had to cut out lots of the "war". I thought it was weird how little fighting there was shown, and even when fighting was going on we wouldn't see who the shots or bombs were coming from. And bombs would be going off around people.
As much as Nolan tries to ramp up the tension with the sound and music, the war part of the film and even the escape feel far less "earned" than I though it would. Like there had to be the prolonged music triumph moment when
but you don't feel enough of a connection to the troops or what sense of danger they are actually in to feel relief, it's just that the music switches from tense to triumphant.
I don't think a war story needs blood and gore to work, and I get the argument that this is more about an evacuation than about actual war, but the film strips out so much context, especially in terms of the fighting that it weakened the film for me.
I will say that at first the idea that they don't really know where attacks are coming from as troops makes sense, but then it's like many attacks just sort of go away or there isn't any retaliation. The main conflict I even remember were between planes and not soldiers, and that seems deliberate due to the rating.
Not being rated R doesn't just mean they had to cut much of the blood and the gore, but it seems like it had to cut out lots of the "war". I thought it was weird how little fighting there was shown, and even when fighting was going on we wouldn't see who the shots or bombs were coming from. And bombs would be going off around people.
As much as Nolan tries to ramp up the tension with the sound and music, the war part of the film and even the escape feel far less "earned" than I though it would. Like there had to be the prolonged music triumph moment when
the civilian boats finally make it
I don't think a war story needs blood and gore to work, and I get the argument that this is more about an evacuation than about actual war, but the film strips out so much context, especially in terms of the fighting that it weakened the film for me.
I will say that at first the idea that they don't really know where attacks are coming from as troops makes sense, but then it's like many attacks just sort of go away or there isn't any retaliation. The main conflict I even remember were between planes and not soldiers, and that seems deliberate due to the rating.
UnemployedVillain
Member
That was the entire point, not because he was trying to stay within the confines of PG-13. It was suppose to emphasize that fear of the unknown, where a stray bullet or unseen enemy could come from anywhere and kill you. The movie was about the rescue/escape effort, not about engaging the enemy, so it wouldn't really serve to show them or to show firefights.
There seems to be this very narrow view of war and war movies that people seem to adhere to where you need to hit the same beats, or that you need to show the brutality and gruesomeness to convey the horrors. This movie chose to eschew that and focus more on the psychological effects. Everything from the sound design the emphasized how deafening and frightening it was when a plane or stray bullet flew by, to the "faceless" enemies. The tension was built up on fear of the unknown. Fear of whether the boat you were getting on would make it back to Britain without being sunk. Fear of whether the plane you were in had enough fuel for you to get by. Fear or whether the wreckage you came across had any survivors. Fear of whether you would make it out alive.
I totally agree.
ronaldthump
Member
let's not say body horror. How about blood
Beach gets bombed (as someone said in the OT, not even a crater) and not even a trace of blood. Water doesn't go red. Sand does not go red. People don't run around to try to save people who have been hurt. No one is in pain (until the plot needs it to be). The whole thing is a bit ridiculous and fake and takes a lot away from the movie.
the biggest threat in dunkirk is the bombs and the bombs don't seem to kill people; outside of ships sinking and people drowning. For me, that just took away a lot of the power of the film.
The centre of Schnidler's list is violence and death. The red girl is a symbol and while we didn't see her die - the poignancy of her death in a black and white film is made all the more significant because of her youth and the undercurrency of inevitablity. Schnidler's List was a violent movie with consequence and villains. The suffering is clearly shown on screen. It's not an isolated matter of her death - its all somewhat constructed with her being the sole coloured element onscreen.
all these examples does not mean that death where blood is shown diminishes its impact. I think with most audience, where used in conjuction, its greatly heightens the terror. Violence has impact. You bleed, you get hurt.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Didn't know this was pg13, bummer
ronaldthump
Member
didnt even register. It was such a throwaway moment in the film, the camera didn't focus on him and you never see what happens. The film was more focused on the 2 guys climbing away.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
There's a scene early on where a bombing run creeps toward a character and when he gets up it zooms out and there's no blood and nearly everyone gets up.
It's really really weird. It's a goddamned bombing run.
It's definitely more violent then most with the graphic drownings
It's really really weird. It's a goddamned bombing run.
It's definitely more violent then most with the graphic drownings
I have no issues with violence or gore, but screams and the sound of people suffering really get to me. Maybe I read more out of it than what was intended, but that scene stood out to me because of the sounds.
ronaldthump
Member
I didn't think the drownings were any worse than any movie I've ever seen with people drowning. The only clear drowning victim was the guy
in the sub
thoseAREmySHOES
Member
While I agree some of the bombing scenes seemed a little strange without blood, it is easily overlooked. The themes the movie portrayed in no way suffered from a lack of gore or profanity IMO. I do recall two "fucks" being said, though, for some reason I thought PG-13 was limited to one. Unless that's an internet rumor.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
They totally ruined this scene in the final movie by cutting to an aerial shot of the ridge right before they all start ducking.
it looked marvelous in the IMAX prologue footage.
They totally ruined this scene in the final movie by cutting to an aerial shot of the ridge right before they all start ducking.
it looked marvelous in the IMAX prologue footage.
Eh? I remember them showing the same shot where everyone starts ducking from the front to the back. Unless I'm crazy..
I never had an issue with it to be honest. I think its only failing was not showing that there were more boat trips, etc. It didn't fully represent the scale of 330k or whatever people being transported.. even some text about how the ships worked overnight for 6 days or whatever it was exactly would have been helpful.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
I didn't miss it.
Dunkirk wasn't that movie. It was an immersive survival thriller (bleh, there has to be a better way to describe it) using war as a backdrop.
Dunkirk wasn't that movie. It was an immersive survival thriller (bleh, there has to be a better way to describe it) using war as a backdrop.
I completely disagree.
Sure, his "point" was to have a faceless enemy" but my point is the execution didn't stick the landing. If the film existed only from the perspective of an lowly infantry soldier, like many war films are, of course it makes sense to just focus on the chaos and danger rather than the strategy, but Nolan is trying to tell a story of an entire operation in the middle of a warzone, but cutting around most of the war parts.
Let's be honest, while a PG13 rating was a intentional artistic choice (lol) and not a studio mandate, there are relatively strict guidelines he'd have to follow to fit that definition, and it may be arbitrary shit like "you can only show one person being blown up by a bomb but the can't be dismembered or show the aftermath or show others get hurt in the same scene etc." because that's the type of subjective, highly specific rating stuff studios deal with when they are pushing a PG13 rating. It's not just "you are allowed 2 cuss words and no blood or nudity and you get a PG13", it's like "let us watch your film and we'll tell you what is going too far that you must edit out or youu get an R". Nolan wouldn't be employing so many tricks for how to depict violence and tension if he was just making a film that aimed to be more accessible and just happened to be PG13, and he wouldn't have focused on parts of the event that were violent without showing the violence if he just wanted to tell a story about the evacuation. Also why bother making the story about the military and civilian strategy of the whole operation if you refuse to show the enemy component. Jumping around to different perspectives undermine the tension and the confusion just ends up making the narrative feel messy.
I think there have been more successful films set in a war that were rated PG13 because they didn't try to make a PG13 movie feel as visceral as an rated R or didn't try to shave down an R rated look at war with some slight of hand to pass the censors.
It's funny that there was recently a film about excessively violent Hacksaw Ridge was because I feel that film was like the opposite of this one. The main character of Hacksaw Ridge is a pacifist who never shoots one person the whole film and while they are in a bloody battle, there is little narrative reason they had to show much of the violence. That was a film that could have done the way Nolan did and just showed the injured without getting graphic about how they showed getting that injury. Instead, Gibson shows in graphic detail the fighting the main character was around for but not a part of. It's an odd choice. On the other hand, Nolan is avoiding lots of the fighting while trying to show something that looks like combat, but isn't narratively shown like combat. It would feel visceral in the moment but then pull back the camera and it was like they are fighting ghosts and after watching a while, it's like they aren't even under a threat or time limit because you don't even see what is coming after them or what is the antagonist. It's just that suddenly
one plane takes out one enemy plane and some boats arrive and the threat of attacks are gone.
funkystudent
Member
It works.
The feeling of war in the film comes from the constantly building tension and surprise attacks (as well as lots of dead bodies). Not blood and guts.
The feeling of war in the film comes from the constantly building tension and surprise attacks (as well as lots of dead bodies). Not blood and guts.
No one seems to mention the guy who was screaming when he got squished between the boat and pier.
Messofanego
Banned
This is best exemplified by the scene where the young soldiers are in the little ship and hoping that the first few shots are just target practice, to then find out it was quite calculated. Having to wait and then eventually plug the holes with the threat of getting shot up while never seeing the enemy is terrifying. The film excels at making you empathise with these young soldiers who don't really get agency on how they engage with this war. It just happens to them and they have to deal with it.
The whole point of Harry Styles' character is he believes like he needs to fight and kill Nazis. Not doing that and just surviving to him doesn't feel like something worth celebrating.
This film definitely makes water out to be a villain.
UnemployedVillain
Member
But he wasn't.
You went in seeing "war movie" and expecting combat, but the movie wasn't about that at all. It was about various soldiers being extremely close to home, but not quite knowing if they'll make it there or not, and the effect that had on them. It was a post-combat war movie primarily dealing with the journey home. Even Tom Hardy's story line wasn't mainly focused on the combat itself so much as
whether he'd take out all the enemy planes before his fuel ran out.
i desperately want to agree in theory that this movie didnt need gore to be harrowing, but the fact is that i was completely yanked out of the experience when they were bombing the beach and there were just giant explosions of sand with people falling intact and people getting shot without little clouds of blood or squibs or anything
i fully admit im probably conditioned by SPR and not reality, but it was a disappointment to feel taken out of the experience by the seeming lack of consequences to artillery and bullets. my gut told me the movie had been sanitized or was incomplete, even if that wasnt really the case.
i fully admit im probably conditioned by SPR and not reality, but it was a disappointment to feel taken out of the experience by the seeming lack of consequences to artillery and bullets. my gut told me the movie had been sanitized or was incomplete, even if that wasnt really the case.
Gory war films really only became a thing after Vietnam. Plenty of outstanding and effective war films preceded.
Sometimes the violence serves the picture and sometimes it overshadows it.
BTW, kind of funny getting this thread so soon after the thread about Hacksaw Ridge being too gory.
Sometimes the violence serves the picture and sometimes it overshadows it.
BTW, kind of funny getting this thread so soon after the thread about Hacksaw Ridge being too gory.
It wasn't a major problem for me, but Dunkirk was that movie.
It's strange seeing people say it wasn't what Dunkirk was going for, because it so clearly was. The "survival thriller" "war as backdrop" excuse doesn't hold true, because people are still dying in front of our eyes. I mean, if this was a film about some miraculous event where a hundred troops managed to all survive an escape without firing a gun and then people complained that "oh there wasn't enough blood, it's a war film" then I'd understand the excuse.
But this is a movie that's filled with death. It's an event highlighted by cruel, relentless physical pain and death. And the tone of the film is blatantly to be as realistic and immersive as possible. This is a film that Nolan has painstakingly used real props, real locations, thousands of extras, no CG, historical accuracy, minimalist characters, the highest resolution camera possible and a massive aspect ratio. If Nolan had only one concern for this film, you'd describe it as "authentic immersion." Hell, he's blowing ear drums according to the other thread here all for the sake of immersion.
It's also, tonally, on the verge of being a fucking horror film. It's supposed to be nerve wracking. You're supposed to be watching this and think "Thank fuck I'm not there. That looks horrific."
So with all that in mind, Dunkirk seems to be the perfect film to present the war in its violent accuracy. You don't need torsos being carried as human shields; you don't even need to linger on the violence at all ala guts and legs in SPR Omaha scene. It can simply be incidental. Incidental blood would have been perfectly in line with what Nolan was going for here in all other circumstances. Some red on the sand. Some blood in the water. Some blood on the characters. It doesn't need to be there all the time - a lot of the film is (equally horrific) drownings. It's fine to forgo blood there.
It just seems strange that for a film so concerned with authenticity, there's one major element that's completely forgone.
EDIT: Also, when the hell did PG-13 start to mean "No blood whatsoever"? I thought that for TDK, Nolan made the compromise of having next to no blood in the entire film as a way to counteract the more full on imagery of Harvey Dent face and the Joker's scars to skate by on a PG-13.
Similar threads
- Locked