-
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 |OT| You can practically see it from here...home.
- Thread starter WadiumArcadium
- Start date
That's a James Cameron-type blank check, though his production company also produces his own films too which is how directors really cash in (look at Ridley Scott) on their own films.
I lol'd. His films look so much better with HvH. They're a great partnership.
I lol'd. His films look so much better with HvH. They're a great partnership.
PanSexual_Peacock
Member
I really want Nolan to do a horror film
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.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
RBelong2Us
Member
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?
Stop blaming everything on Millennials are you a baby boomer or something?
Anton Sugar
Member
I realized that the movie could very well have had a female lead character when
That's just Nolan, for better or worse. He doesn't do women/doesn't do women well. He's very similar to Michael Mann in that regard. I mean, Murph was written as a son in the script for Interstellar, right?
I think that's *maybe* selling it short. There are some interesting things going on with perception/perspective--but I'm not sure what/if the movie is actually trying to say something about it. I think there's something to it, though. I mean, the movie ends with
I need to see it again.
Having said that, yeah, in broad strokes, "it's a movie portraying a snippet of war" is accurate. The same way that Gravity is about Murphy's law in space and little else
they showed women on the civilian boats, as well.
That's just Nolan, for better or worse. He doesn't do women/doesn't do women well. He's very similar to Michael Mann in that regard. I mean, Murph was written as a son in the script for Interstellar, right?
I think that's *maybe* selling it short. There are some interesting things going on with perception/perspective--but I'm not sure what/if the movie is actually trying to say something about it. I think there's something to it, though. I mean, the movie ends with
the two soldiers on a train, Styles worried they'll be received as cowards. Instead, they're showered with warmth, Styles celebrates/joins in, while Tommy is still...vacant? Not sure. The film consciously doesn't end on the triumphant newspaper headline, it ends on Tommy's neutral/unsmiling face.
Having said that, yeah, in broad strokes, "it's a movie portraying a snippet of war" is accurate. The same way that Gravity is about Murphy's law in space and little else
because the human drama was awful and forced.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKkCP7ovMQA&feature=youtu.be&t=295
Man, the part where the horns kick in and the speed ramps up is so great. High point of the film for me. You can probably guess the moment from the music alone.
Man, the part where the horns kick in and the speed ramps up is so great. High point of the film for me. You can probably guess the moment from the music alone.
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 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.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
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.
dealer-
Member
Yeah there's a lovely restraint to everything. It's not melodramatic or overly sentimental. The danger and violence is there but it never lingers on brutality or death or any emotion really. It nailed the stiff upper lip approach to survival perfectly.
Anton Sugar
Member
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.
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'm technically a millennial or a gen-x guy. A xennial, I think they call us now.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
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.
so about them reviews
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.
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"
up 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.
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?
Vault Dweller 111
Member
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.
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.
That's insane. Are you sure it's not $5 + IMAX surcharge? Because if not, I need to move to where you live ASAP.
I think we can both agree this discussion is dumb, going nowhere and does not to be continued.
Typical Nolan action then. It's just part of M&E for him most of the time.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
Yeah, and at Megaplex Theatres on Monday, you can get matinee pricing on all films if you pay with an American First Credit Union debit card. There's a lot of ways to get cheap movies around here.
DecoReturns
Member
After watching it in IMAX 70mm. I kinda want to watch a regular showing of Dunkirk. See how different it actually is.
So I am just going to ask this. Aren't there still anything subscriptions on movies in the USA? In Europa/The Netherlands you can pay 19 or 26 euro's a month and you can see literally unlimited amount of movies in all the cinema's from that brand in the whole country. Even if the answer is no , no wonder that Netflix is releasing movies so fast to its platform.
Anton Sugar
Member
To be fair, this is a good movie for his NolanMix because no one is explaining important exposition.
I feel you. I wasn't trying to mock your use of "nothing". I really enjoyed both Baby Driver and Dunkirk. Moreso for Wright than Nolan, they were significant departures from their usual filmmaking style. Wright's characters almost always undergo a rich arc and his films are typically apeing one genre to say something poignant, but Baby Driver was so lean, for better or worse.
You raise some interesting points and maybe key into why I'm hesitant to say I love it. It's hard to understand what Nolan was trying to communicate. Trying to stay "apolitical" often ends up de-fanging your work or leads you to create something that connects with no one and/oror is preposterous. You can see a lot of threads and ideas in Dunkirk but I'm not sure what they amount to yet.
All we're trying to say (in light of "historical accuracy" concerns) is that, if Nolan had wanted to, he very easily could have had a prominent female role/character in his movie but chose not to. Who says the woman had to lead with her *own* boat? Any screenwriter worth their salt could work with that. But again, that's Nolan's choice. In today's current film sphere, it's unfortunate, as we *do* still have problems with representation, but this is the movie he wanted to make. That doesn't mean we can't critique it.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Really liked this but I'm so mixed on the sound at my IMAX screening, on the one hand the explosions, planes, gunshots sounded insanely good, but the bass being so loud meant that the music turned into a drone in some scenes which was annoying.
Anyway, I pretty much enjoyed everything about this and I find it weird that people wanted more character development, I didn't have a problem with it because everything else builds more than enough suspense and tension to make me care about the situation.
Anyway, I pretty much enjoyed everything about this and I find it weird that people wanted more character development, I didn't have a problem with it because everything else builds more than enough suspense and tension to make me care about the situation.
Anton Sugar
Member
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.
Summer Haze
Banned
I'm IMAXing this bitch alone tomorrow. Can't wait.
broncobuster
Banned
It took me back the Mayor shooting in TDK.
More_Badass
Member
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
I feel like this is going to be a recurring complaint of the movie. We saw the same characters in the movie from start to finish. We see their motivations throughout the film. Just because the movie isn't conventional doesn't mean there wasn't a story, an emotional core or an arch.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
So curious to see how this holds up on home release. That IMAX screen and sound seemed like such important parts of the movie. Obviously the way it was meant to be seen. and I could definitely see it losing a good chunk of its appeal.
If you have a 60" 4K TV with a surround sound system, you'll be fine. But a 40" with TV quality sound system.... we'll see. I'll still be getting it either way.
If you have a 60" 4K TV with a surround sound system, you'll be fine. But a 40" with TV quality sound system.... we'll see. I'll still be getting it either way.
If anything, my criticism of the characters would be that their arcs are almost too simplistic due to their curtailed screen-time.
Sometimes I'd prefer no arc at all to a rather abrupt one. Don't really feel like
Tom Hardy
What exactly do you mean by "apolitical"?
There's nothing particularly political about
Churchill's speech, either, unless you think Britain should have surrendered. Mark Rylance's character voices the sentiments of the film plainly enough, that fascism must be confronted, a sentiment that I think is not terribly uncontroversial
The film is about Dunkirk, and the dramas faced by soldiers, sailors and airmen in the course of the evacuation.
Can someone explain the ratio changes to me? I know the IMAX cameras are big and loud so they can't be used in tight and quiet scenes.. but there's moments I was wondering why the camera switch was needed. Sometimes it would switch within the same scene. I can't wait until Nolan directs a 100% IMAX film.
Also the colour temperature between the two formats.. was I the only one who had a problem with it? How difficult is it to match the two together?
Also the colour temperature between the two formats.. was I the only one who had a problem with it? How difficult is it to match the two together?
Tom Hardy's great, and the aerial timeline is the standout. Zimmer's score crushes once again.
Not super hot on it overall though. Technically impressive but cold. Couldn't find much to engage with in the characters or the events. Almost everyone in the film is kind of a prick, actually, especially on the infantry side, which undermines the courage on display by the remaining handful in helping make the whole evacuation happen. I didn't really care whether any of the British infantry made it home, and they may as well have been the antagonists, which seemed like a strange narrative decision.
Not super hot on it overall though. Technically impressive but cold. Couldn't find much to engage with in the characters or the events. Almost everyone in the film is kind of a prick, actually, especially on the infantry side, which undermines the courage on display by the remaining handful in helping make the whole evacuation happen. I didn't really care whether any of the British infantry made it home, and they may as well have been the antagonists, which seemed like a strange narrative decision.
Very interesting movie, very different in style from Nolan.
One thing I appreciated was that Nolan didn't try to keep doing exposition to clue people in on the themes of the movie. It's not like his batman trilogy were Michael Cain pops up every 20 minutes to give us a sprout of theme exposition, so that was good.
The character writing was weak, though. But I felt like the movie was built around on Zimmer's score building up tension to pivotal moments. And that's not a bad thing.
One thing I appreciated was that Nolan didn't try to keep doing exposition to clue people in on the themes of the movie. It's not like his batman trilogy were Michael Cain pops up every 20 minutes to give us a sprout of theme exposition, so that was good.
The character writing was weak, though. But I felt like the movie was built around on Zimmer's score building up tension to pivotal moments. And that's not a bad thing.
1. I could agree with that, except you did know the when, why, and who well before. All three of the tales had to collide at the point Hardy's character set up with the 2nd dog fight. They introduced it, then set it up as the pivotal point about 10-15 minutes later. Hitchcock works in the sense that even introducing the finale earlier, you don't know the why, what, and who. You're left waiting to get back there as he builds up to it.
This film doesn't quite do it the same. The initial introduction of the climax isn't really revealed as the climax, you are left believing it's just another part skip to the next sequence when it cuts away from Hardy's character. When you figure out it's the Climax, a bit later. It's not through Hardy's eye's but Rylance's. Where that chance to build up the tension from Hardy's character already passed, when they could start to do it from Rylance's, they switch away again. It's not leaving me wondering the why, but more frustrated that rather than letting a single sequence to play out, they have to keep dragging it along. It's been a very long time since I've watched him, but I never got this feeling from Hitchcock. He knew the right amount to give, Nolan simply did not.
I'd also say, Hitchcock films being a different genre, work with it much better.
2. This leads into the 2nd point. I have to completely disagree with United 93. Unlike Dunkirk, the events in United 93 happen in order. This allows you to set in with the characters and get to know them. It never ones pulls you out of the sequence. Once they take the plane, you're stuck with them and it never lets go to the end. It does it extremely effectively since you are stuck there with every cower, pray, and fight. It does not give the viewer a single chance to shy away and because of it, it pulls you into the terror of the situation.
Dunkirk does not do that. It breaks it up into typically lulls and highs. Once a sequence reaches a high, it switches over to a lull. It never allows the viewer to just take in the sequence with that character, before having to re orientate yourself back to where the next one was. It's needless. It would have been far, far more effective to either focus on one ,or do all three in more chronological order. Of course that would require a change to the script, but the way it is now. It was ineffective. It never quite allows for the dread or despair I should be feeling to sink in. When it begins too....switch over. It simply needed at times to linger more, rather than try to force getting to this point set up.
I do think the film is worth seeing still.
Drove up to see a 70mm ( non-imax ) this morning and was really impressed. I think there is confusion with some of the non-linearity, but it clearly was for the purpose of layering the tension of similar moments. In particular,
was intense.
Sound was great. I jumped several times when suddenly shots were firing and it drives home the chaos of it all.
I'm really jealous of anyone who could actually catch a 70mm IMAX version. I hate that the nearest showing was a 5 hour drive away.
the feeling of drowning occurring at the same time between the men trapped in the trawler and the pilot stuck in his cockpit
Sound was great. I jumped several times when suddenly shots were firing and it drives home the chaos of it all.
I'm really jealous of anyone who could actually catch a 70mm IMAX version. I hate that the nearest showing was a 5 hour drive away.