p.s. Wally Pfister pfisted himself and no longer does cinematography on Nolan's movies. Hoyte van Hoytema worked on Dunkirk (and Interstellar).
I still can't get over the USA Today review of the film that laments the lack of strong female leads or people of color in main roles. I mean, wow.
New rule: Millennials can't review films.
Well, it's true, isn't it?
I think that's just a byproduct of the fact that the script isn't really about anything.
Well, it's true, isn't it?
I think that's just a byproduct of the fact that the script isn't really about anything.
Saving Private Ryan didnt have any women or people of color. is it a bad movie?
Nothing that you wrote even makes sense.
I still can't get over the USA Today review of the film that laments the lack of strong female leads or people of color in main roles. I mean, wow.
New rule: Millennials can't review films.
What's the film about, then?
It literally says it on the title.I dunno (I'm not too high on it anyways). But it's certainly worthy of discussion.
It's not like people haven't taken a very close (often, unforgiving) look at the politics of Saving Private Ryan. Earnest patriotism or jingoistic whitewashing? Pornography or horror film? That kind of thing.
Why shouldn't we talk about these things? War films are inherently political. Seems natural to discuss the politics of them.
What's the film about, then?
It literally says it on the title.
You still haven't made a point on why Nolan should have added black soldiers or women (other than the ones helping in the ships). Do you have some stats during that particular evacuation where soldiers were women and black in large quantities? Or just want to bitch about diversity for the sake of it?
Personally, I don't know much about the history and if he got it wrong, then yeah it's worth a topic and would love to read more on it. Blanket whining for the sake of it like what you're doing on the other hand, is another story.
Unless there were people of color or women that had these roles during Dunkirk on the actual event, complaining about it is pretty comical. And yes stating a fact doesn't automatically make you have an actual (valid) point.The civilian boats + the abandoned Dunkirk could have had women. Like Anton says, that's just Nolan for you - the beach of Dunkirk exists in its own little vacuum (creating much of the tension that the film thrives on). It just happens that only white male British soldiers are on that beach, and that's the film Nolan made. Fine.
I have bigger issues with the fact that civilian boats play such a pivotal role, but civilians in Dunkirk are nowhere to be seen. There's a weird bloodlessness to showing civilians as heroes, but not as collateral damage in a war where there was unprecedented cruelty within the construct of total war against civilians. It's unbalanced and strange.
Stating a fact is not whining.
Opening a discussion about the film's politics (or, rather, Nolan's deliberate decision to eschew it entirely) is not whining.
Maybe I want to discuss the film in a thread about discussing the film.
I didn't know Nolan could make a movie like this. So lean, without a wasted frame. Whether or not you cared for it, it felt like exactly the movie he wanted to make, masterfully done.
He absolutely took a step forward as a filmmaker in my eyes.
Unless there were people of color or women that had these roles during Dunkirk on the actual event, complaining about it is pretty comical. And yes stating a fact doesn't automatically make you have an actual (valid) point.
There were no babies on the movie, Nolan hates children. Lets make a topic about it! Look, I just wrote a fact despite it being completely pointless and lacking any substance.
Stop blaming everything on Millennials are you a baby boomer or something?
How many women were leading their with own boats during the evacuation in real life? And in the movie? I'm not talking about his other movies. I'm specifically focusing that complaining about it in this one is completely nonsensical. I don't really give a shit if Rylence was a man or a woman, but this is all you have to grasp to make it an issue. Anyways, this is getting sidetracked by a cringey diversity cry-out that hasn't made a lick of sense to the point where you have to run to his other movies or select 'that one character' to try to make sense of it. I'm at fault for addressing a non-issue and taking it seriously in the first place.Just realized that both Edgar Wright and Nolan released movies this year that departed significantly from their usual efforts. Both movies could easily be read as being about "nothing" esp when compared to their prior work.
As mentioned, we see women on the civilian boats when they arrive in Dunkirk. They could have easily included a woman in the civilian storyline. After all, I don't think Mark Rylance's character was based on a real person, was it?
Also, we're not looking at one movie of Nolan's. This is representative of his body of work. He makes movies about Tortured Men. It's his thing.
I don't have to take irrational discussions seriously and I made a mistake of starting this debate in the first place, so it's my fault. And spare me your internet PhD in psychology whenever someone doesn't agree with you, lets not pretend you know anything personal about me or vice versa.Do you even read the posts you quote?
Stop being so threatened by even the discussion of anything that's not a white male.
Unless there were people of color or women that had these roles during Dunkirk on the actual event, complaining about it is pretty comical. And yes stating a fact doesn't automatically make you have an actual (valid) point.
There were no babies on the movie, Nolan hates children. Lets make a topic about it! Look, I just wrote a fact despite it being completely pointless and lacking any substance.
Just realized that both Edgar Wright and Nolan released movies this year that departed significantly from their usual efforts. Both movies could easily be read as being about "nothing" esp when compared to their prior work.
As mentioned, we see women on the civilian boats when they arrive in Dunkirk. They could have easily included a woman in the civilian storyline. After all, I don't think Mark Rylance's character was based on a real person, was it?
Also, we're not looking at one movie of Nolan's. This is representative of his body of work. He makes movies about Tortured Men. It's his thing.
Going back for $5 Tuesday.
Apparently the $5 applies to IMAX too. I have a hard time imagining when I won't decide that seeing this in IMAX isn't worth $5 every week. Wonder how many times I'll see it in theaters.
I don't have to take irrational discussions seriously and I made a mistake of starting this debate in the first place, so it's my fault. And spare me your internet PhD in psychology whenever someone doesn't agree with you, lets not pretend you know anything personal about me or vice versa.
Typical Nolan action then. It's just part of M&E for him most of the time.Simultaneously, I had no idea what anyone was saying for the most part.
Nope just straight $5. I live in SLC UT and it seems like just about every theater around here does the $5 Tuesday. Pretty cool that it applies to IMAX though.That's insane. Are you sure it's not $5 + IMAX surcharge? Because if not, I need to move to where you live ASAP.
Nope just straight $5. I live in SLC UT and it seems like just about every theater around here does the $5 Tuesday. Pretty cool that it applies to IMAX though.
Theaters don't make money off the tickets.That's insane. Are you sure it's not $5 + IMAX surcharge? Because if not, I need to move to where you live ASAP.
Typical Nolan action then. It's just part of M&E for him most of the time.
To clarify the "nothing", it's not even an issue I have with the film - it's more something I've been wrestling with since I've seen it. (Though the screenplay is not very good, so I stand by the script being pretty aimless and lacking ideas)
I do think that it's such a strange - almost baffling - decision to vacuum seal Dunkirk from politics or from civilian bloodshed when you can see Nolan flirting with some of those ideas! The civilian navy, always referring to the Germans as "the enemy". It's vacuum sealed until it's not. It's apolitical untilup until they "meet" a "German" soldier and suddenly must reckon with the humanity of an enemy soldier, bombing the medical ship to destroy the mole which is a war crime, etc.it's not.with Churchill's speech and the pivot to WW2 and Hardy being taken as a POW
I personally would prefer a much more explicitly political film (an absurd Beckett-ian slapstick horror of bouncing from sinking boat to sinking boat), but even as I judge it on its own terms, I'm still struggling to come to terms with Nolan's own inconsistencies within his constructed Dunkirk. I genuinely believe that an apolitical war film is no war film at all; so, if this is a largely apolitical film, then what does Nolan want it to be about?
How many women were leading their with own boats during the evacuation in real life? And in the movie? I'm not talking about his other movies. I'm specifically focusing that complaining about it in this one is completely nonsensical. I don't really give a shit if Rylence was a man or a woman, but this is all you have to grasp to make it an issue. Anyways, this is getting sidetracked by a cringey diversity cry-out that hasn't made a lick of sense to the point where you have to run to his other movies or select 'that one character' to try to make sense of it. I'm at fault for addressing a non-issue and taking it seriously in the first place.
First Nolan movie where I'm happy with the firearm sound effects/design. They're not always bad but often lack some oomph and sound cheap to me.
1) I think that gave quite a few scenes that Hitchcockian "bomb under the table" suspense and tension. You know what was going to happen, but not when, so when the situations begin to emerge, you're suddenly waiting for that other shoe to drop.Decided to do a full write up on why Dunkirk doesn't work.
The biggest issue was the lack of tension. This arises from two spots.
1. Multiple perspectives at different time points. This was Nolan's decision, since it is about the only way the film could have worked the way he wanted it too. The film would have to drastically alter into entirely something else, if it didn't flow this way.
This created a massive issue, once you figured out the order of events and where they are lining up. It in turns spoils the remaining amount of the film. The occasional surprise is in, but it's sort of like showing the outside of the final battle, followed by a closer view, then an even closer view in succession. You get a bit more detail each time, but it's already done. Specifically,This happens with some 30-40minutes left, and the rest of the story is basically how the old man and young dude arrive there.Once Hardy starts flying by the capsized boat, battleship, and rescue boat.
2. The other major issue created by this set up is that it never allows you to get to know any of the characters. It's very exact, almost like a TV style editing. They begin to show one persons view and right when it gets to one of those great moments.... switch over to a different view. Then come back afterwards for the action sequence, where all the build up just died down again.
This played along with the cast, they didn't really have anything to do. It doesn't need to be cliche tropes, but you never really get to know anyone or care, because again, as you start to get worried for someone... it switches away from them and on to someone else.
You're left just seeing a gloriously shot film, but a surprisingly empty film. Even on Nolan's standards, which I feel at times has a bit too much mechanical story telling. This takes it to the next level. There was no emotional core to resonate with. It needed to pick and follow one of the groups.
If I had to describe the film in one word. It's weightless. It's way too light for the material it wanted to present on screen. Not even time to characters, nor events, nor for anything to sink in.
This played along with the cast, they didn't really have anything to do. It doesn't need to be cliche tropes, but you never really get to know anyone or care, because again, as you start to get worried for someone... it switches away from them and on to someone else.
1) I think that gave quite a few scenes that Hitchcockian "bomb under the table" suspense and tension. You know what was going to happen, but not when, so when the situations begin to emerge, you're suddenly waiting for that other shoe to drop.
2) I think the notion that not delving into the characters is a flaw, is a bit flawed. It's been said in reviews but this is more akin to a movie like United 93 than Saving Private Ryan. A macro view, the how and when; aside from Hardy (and that's mainly due to how narrow and focused his side was), the character we follow are essentially surrogates for the soldiers and civilians as a whole. It's not those characters' stories, it's the group's stories and we're just folllowing a microcosm of each
Typical Nolan action then. It's just part of M&E for him most of the time.
What exactly do you mean by "apolitical"?I do think that it's such a strange - almost baffling - decision to vacuum seal Dunkirk from politics or from civilian bloodshed when you can see Nolan flirting with some of those ideas! The civilian navy, always referring to the Germans as "the enemy". It's vacuum sealed until it's not. It's apolitical untilup until they "meet" a "German" soldier and suddenly must reckon with the humanity of an enemy soldier, bombing the medical ship to destroy the mole which is a war crime, etc.it's not.with Churchill's speech and the pivot to WW2 and Hardy being taken as a POW
I personally would prefer a much more explicitly political film (an absurd Beckett-ian slapstick horror of bouncing from sinking boat to sinking boat), but even as I judge it on its own terms, I'm still struggling to come to terms with Nolan's own inconsistencies within his constructed Dunkirk. I genuinely believe that an apolitical war film is no war film at all; so, if this is a largely apolitical film, then what does Nolan want it to be about?
Christopher Nolans Dunkirk is dominating the box office and heading for a surprisingly strong opening weekend of at least $50 million from 3,720 North American locations, early estimates showed Friday.
Opening day for the highly-praised Warner Bros. World War II drama is heading for more than $20 million, including $5.5 million in Thursday night previews. As of early Friday afternoon, the studio is maintaining its guidance of a Friday-Sunday total in the $35 million to $40 million range, but rivals are forecasting that the final figure will be far higher ranging from $53 million to $62 million.
1) I think that gave quite a few scenes that Hitchcockian "bomb under the table" suspense and tension. You know what was going to happen, but not when, so when the situations begin to emerge, you're suddenly waiting for that other shoe to drop.
2) I think the notion that not delving into the characters is a flaw, is a bit flawed. It's been said in reviews but this is more akin to a movie like United 93 than Saving Private Ryan. A macro view, the how and when; aside from Hardy (and that's mainly due to how narrow and focused his side was), the character we follow are essentially surrogates for the soldiers and civilians as a whole. It's not those characters' stories, it's the group's stories and we're just following a microcosm of each