Support NeoGAF

[Chasm Skulker]

The film didn't need blood and guts. There's plenty of suffering depicted that communicates the horror of war.

I mean, contrast it with Hacksaw Ridge. There's a bit in that film where someone picks up half a human torso and holds it out in front of them as a shield as they charge across the battlefield, hip firing a BAR with their free hand.

There's a point where a depiction of violence or death loses impact entirely. Sometimes less is more.

 

[ronaldthump]

This.

Spoiler

Caught in the belly of a sinking ship, in the dark, surrounded by panicked teenagers taking their last breaths.

None of that needed gore.

yeah of course, that is fine. Where would you need gore or blood for this?

 

[Arttemis]

"Dunkirk is not a war film. It's a survival story and first and foremost a suspense film. So while there is a high level of intensity to it, it does not necessarily concern itself with the bloody aspects of combat, which have been so well done in so many films."
- Nolan

The movie would not have been better if people were shrieking, missing limbs, or splattered in blood after dropped bombs. The suspense would not have been increased.

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

Nolan knows that he's getting a carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants as long as he keeps raking in the money. PG13 is a necessity to maximize those odds. Also, he's very proficient in working around the restriction, but there's always so much you can do with it. Any medium will always take a creative hit with when restrictions are in place in comparison to total creative control.

It's not a restriction when Nolan himself wants to work in those confines. To be a creative auteur, you don't need excessive violence or language.

 

[hirokazu]

I can believe that.... kind of but not really. I have this feeling PG-13 was decided long before Nolan had a hand in saying what rating he wanted. PG-13 means an extra half billion dollars lol. No way in hell they were letting that off the table.

Haha, this movie’s not making an extra half billion on a PG-13.

 

[ronaldthump]

The image of soldiers drowning to death in a tiny, pitch-black metal box put me on edge far more than any of the dismembered limbs flying around in Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge.

Edit: Ayyyy, post above of me gets it

When you watched private ryan - for me, that was a war movie. That normandy scene is harrowing for good measure and much much more affecting.

If Dunkirk came earlier, and then you watched SPR, there'd be no contest which depicted war better.

 

[Discotheque]

In Dunkirk

Spoiler

the only impact of war I register is the kid having that hole in his head and the blood and then he died but then he wasn't in the war, he got pushed down some stairs

I'm sorry but that totally just took the film the other way for me.

what a silly opinion. thats the only impact of war in the movie that registered simply because you saw a little blood involved? lol

anyways no its not necessary. I only was pulled out of it momentarily during the bombing scene but other than that I think the movie was really successful in making the Dunkirk evacuation an extremely tense situation for those involved.

the sound of the German Bombers in particular reminded me of Jaws. Great war thriller.

 

[CaviarMeths]

The film was intense and brutal without needing gore. So, Nolan's different approach worked.

I don't remember a lot of blood or gore in Heat.

Heat is a relatively soft R (rated 14-15+ in many regions), but it has quite a few f-bombs and bloody shootings. I understand why Nolan wouldn't shoot an R rated Batman movie, but for how obviously he channeled his inner Michael Mann for The Dark Knight, it could have had a bit more teeth.

But no it didn't need it, and Dunkirk probably didn't either. Could have used? Sure. But needed, no.

 

[ronaldthump]

"Dunkirk is not a war film. It's a survival story and first and foremost a suspense film. So while there is a high level of intensity to it, it does not necessarily concern itself with the bloody aspects of combat, which have been so well done in so many films."
- Nolan

The movie would not have been better if people were shrieking, missing limbs, or splattered in blood after dropped bombs. The suspense would not have been increased.

would it not be? Or are you saying that moments of blood and death won't add to dunkirk? I think it would. It's absence makes this a lesser film. There's an artificiality to its depiction of death and war.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Overt gore is the jump scare of war films. Building tension without focusing on it, and conveying a compelling story was a noble effort.

 

[Neith]

Haha, this movie's not making an extra half billion on a PG-13.

Ehhh you just wait for the Bluray and DVD receipts bud. It will bank tons off of PG-13.

There are very few top 50 films with the highest grosses and being R rated. In fact you may need to adjust for inflation to get any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

Tell me how many R rated films are on that list.

People saying you need the "truth" of war or whatever and don't feel anything if you don't see blood n guts are out of their damn minds. Yeah, gore can certainly have its place in a war movie, but Dunkirk didn't need it. The point of the film (and it is important to remember these are films and not actual wars and creative choices are always made to serve a broader storytelling prerogative) was not to show the atrocities of war to make a thematic point ala Saving Private Ryan. Dunkirk is a suspense picture about narrow survival, and suspense has never been reliant on gore. The one shot of the dude pushing the floating body away on the beach had just as much affect to it as a chunked up bloody body.

It's more from a realism standpoint for me rather than a NEED for the movie to show us blood and guts. I agree you don't need it. Kubrick's war film did not have tons of blood and guts. It was still good.

But I tend to like my war pictures rated R and a bit more adult in tone. Not saying I won't love this.

 

[StrongBelwas]

I don't think it was missed that much but how wouldn't it have fit the tone of the movie lol

Check post #53 for what I am getting at. Dunkirk is not your typical war movie Nolan describes it there as a survival and suspense film I would even say there are almost horror elements to it as well, the way the enemy is almost entirely unseen. I believe the only time you see a German soldier is very briefly at the end. Even the planes are not really focused in on. They are just this constant threat from above.

 

[hirokazu]

This film was absolutely not more intense than the bloodiest most realistic combat sequences. I will not believe that for a second. Not saying it isn't as good but come on now without blood you are missing a big part of hand to hand combat and large weaponry. Not that anyone really wants to see all that.

But it was about survival during an evacuation, not about bloody hand-to-hand combat and the graphic bombing?

Geez guys, there can be different perspectives and ways to tell a story, to make a movie.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Doesn't seem to be suffering much critically or commercially

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

For me, it captured the terror of war in a way few films have. As opposed to the horror of war.

.

Exactly this. The nerve-rattling helplessness of war is a newer statement than the horror of war, at this point.

I'm not saying it's pointless to show gore or horror in a war movie anymore. But Dunkirk didn't need it and wasn't hurt by a lack of it.

 

[Neith]

But it was about survival during an evacuation, not about bloody hand-to-hand combat and the graphic bombing?

Geez guys, there can be different perspectives and ways to tell a story, to make a movie.

It's not a big infantry combat pic I get it. That is fine.

 

[PeskyToaster]

It's better without it. Gore makes you focus on the death while to me the movie was purely focused on surviving. Not the aftermath.

 

[bosseye]

It's one of the reasons I'm loathe to go and see Dunkirk, I wonder if it will feel a bit too sanitised. I don't like ultra gore, I don't think the film needs it but I prefer films that show at least a bit if it's appropriate to the setting. Having soldiers get blown up and shot and never see any blood spilled I suspect will take me out of it. I could be wrong though.

I'm comparing it to stuff like Xmen; I'm not a fan of xmen really, for many reasons but partly because they're often felt too toned down for the subject. Wolverine stabbing and slicing and nothing of consequence shown. It's why I enjoyed Logan so much, it was a higher rating, showed more contextual gore and I felt was vastly better for it.

 

[Messofanego]

This film was absolutely not more intense than the bloodiest most realistic combat sequences. I will not believe that for a second. Not saying it isn't as good but come on now without blood you are missing a big part of hand to hand combat and large weaponry. Not that anyone really wants to see all that.

With the loud gunfire and uncertainty of where the enemy was, a lot of the scenes in Dunkirk were some of the tensest in a war film.

What "bloodiest most realistic combat sequences" in war films are you comparing Dunkirk's intensity to?

 

[BeforeU]

It's better without it. Gore makes you focus on the death while to me the movie was purely focused on surviving. Not the aftermath.

Having gore is not aftermath, surviving in that horrific situation is the point. But the situation didnt seem so bad because tthey omitted gore from a war

 

[hirokazu]

Ehhh you just wait for the Bluray and DVD receipts bud. It will bank tons off of PG-13.

There are very few top 50 films with the highest grosses and being R rated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

Tell me how many R rated films are on that list.

We usually talk about box office gross. Most of your link talks about box office gross. This film isn’t making $500 extra from being PG-13.

It's more from a realism standpoint for me rather than a NEED for the movie to show us blood and guts. I agree you don't need it. Kubrick's war film did not have tons of blood and guts. It was still good.

But I tend to like my war pictures rated R and a bit more adult in tone. Not saying I won't love this.

You... haven’t even seen it yet but are judging it solely from your opinion that war movies need to show gore for realism purposes?

 

[Neith]

It's one of the reasons I'm loathe to go and see Dunkirk, I wonder if it will feel a bit too sanitised. I don't like ultra gore, I don't think the film needs it but I prefer films that show at least a bit if it's appropriate to the setting. Having soldiers get blown up and shot and never see any blood spilled I suspect will take me out of it. I could be wrong though.

I'm comparing it to stuff like Xmen; I'm not a fan of xmen really, for many reasons but partly because they're often felt too toned down for the subject. Wolverine stabbing and slicing and nothing of consequence shown. It's why I enjoyed Logan so much, it was a higher rating, showed more contextual gore and I felt was vastly better for it.

This is my problem. I never liked how sanitized X-men anything or Marvel anything felt. It was always too teeny for me.

Is Logan the film different in this regard?

We usually talk about box office gross. Most of your link talks about box office gross. This film isn't making $500 extra from being PG-13.


You... haven't even seen it yet but are judging it solely from your opinion that war movies need to show gore for realism purposes?

Reread that last post. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that you did.

You also don't seem like you pay attention to how much an R rated pic can pull down. You are talking max 500 million vs max 1 billion easy dude. You are wrong here IMO.

With Blu and DVD they will surely make more than 500m from being PG-13 alone. You can bank that. Easy peasy. 100%.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Ehhh you just wait for the Bluray and DVD receipts bud. It will bank tons off of PG-13.

There are very few top 50 films with the highest grosses and being R rated. In fact you may need to adjust for inflation to get any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

Tell me how many R rated films are on that list.

Yes, it's common knowledge that most of the highest grossing films of all time are rated PG-13.

But I think he was saying that the audience for this particular movie wouldn't have pushed it another $500m. Some movies have a ceiling, regardless of rating. A period war drama isn't going to make a billion dollars, no matter how may teenagers are allowed to see it. The market for it just isn't that big.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

The explosions involving foot soldiers were indeed ridiculous looking, but ironically the gunshot wounds looked much more realistic without the ridiculous blood splatters.

I dont see how blood and gore are important at all to be honest. The most moving and impactful deaths I've ever seen on film have never involved blood or gore. In fact I struggle to think of many famous cinema deaths ever where blood and gore has been a large part of the death.

Murphy in Robocop is the first one that comes to mind.

 

[number11]

Not a fan of over the top gore.. but the beach being so 'clean' definitely bothered me. Blood obviously isn't needed following Tom Hardy of Mark Rylance around.. but the scale of chaos was never visible in Dunkirk itself.

 

[Plinko]

I dont see how blood and gore are important at all to be honest. The most moving and impactful deaths I've ever seen on film have never involved blood or gore. In fact I struggle to think of many famous cinema deaths ever where blood and gore has been a large part of the death.

This. It is almost always completely unnecessary. Way too many writers use it as a crutch.

 

[Neith]

Yes, it's common knowledge that most of the highest grossing films of all time are rated PG-13.

But I think he was saying that the audience for this particular movie wouldn't have pushed it another $500m. Some movies have a ceiling, regardless of rating. A period war drama isn't going to make a billion dollars, no matter how may teenagers are allowed to see it. The market for it just isn't that big.

Well international markets have pushed these films to crazy heights IDK. Like I said in my first post bluray and DVD will push it over for being PG-13 easily IMO. If not 500 then 400. Does not make much difference. It's going to be a HUGE number just because it is PG-13 and available to millions more people. I doubt Nolan had a choice.

The explosions involving foot soldiers were indeed ridiculous looking, but ironically the gunshot wounds looked much more realistic without the ridiculous blood splatters.



Murphy in Robocop is the first one that comes to mind.

I saw this at a young age. I think it single-handedly developed my morality system. Crazy. Robocop is a top 25 all-time film for me, and I am a film nut that loves film from all eras. The bluray was beautiful.

 

[bosseye]

This is my problem. I never liked how sanitized X-men anything or Marvel anything felt. It was always too teeny for me.

Is Logan the film different in this regard?

I thought so. I didn't think it strayed into gratuitous territory which is good, but it was gory enough to get a sense of consequence when a man with knives in his hands goes ham. So I enjoyed it a lot more.

 

[kmax]

So it can't be a creative choice to make it PG-13? It's always studio meddling and the director's hands are being tied?

Because he literally says explains why he wanted it to be PG-13 and it seems like a creative choice.

I think that Nolan is very comfortable operating with the restrictions that PG-13 entails.
blockbusters tend to be PG13 because of the massive investments being put into them, and Nolan is very comfortable operating within that space. However, I also think that thinking that the sole reason why virtually all his films have a PG13 rating because of creative decisions ignores the realities within the movie industry. Studios are in the business to make money and therefore seek to maximize their profits. If their investment is substantial, they expect a substantial return. PG-13 is the go to rating to maximize profits. You only have to look at the films made in the 80's / 90's and compare it to the blockbusters of today to notice the transition to the PG-13 model.

Of course, we're seeing more risks being taken, like with Fox's Deadpool and Logan. Things are changing, but I think it's going to take a while before everyone's comfortable to be on board to take more risks. Change comes with time, after all. So actually, now that I think about it, I suppose he could very well take a shot at it if he wanted to. He's proven his worth a long time ago, after all, so I think in his case, it boils down to a mix of the two. It's always more risky business, though.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

haha yes you can. blood and gore or whatever are superfluous to the feelings and emotions of dread and fright.

 

[TAD]

It's real bad when

Spoiler

they get bombed, then you see the bodies, but it just looks like a bunch of people laying on the ground.

You'd almost think nothing actually happened and they were seconds away from just getting up and brushing the sand off.

I've seen loads of people say this and well, was that not the whole point of that scene?

Spoiler

The bombs drop and everyone gets up and forms back into their queues, they don't focus on the dead because they just want to get off the beach.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

The explosions involving foot soldiers were indeed ridiculous looking, but ironically the gunshot wounds looked much more realistic without the ridiculous blood splatters.

This too. Digital blood effects all look the same now anyway.

It's real bad when

Spoiler

they get bombed, then you see the bodies, but it just looks like a bunch of people laying on the ground.

You'd almost think nothing actually happened and they were seconds away from just getting up and brushing the sand off.

This entire post is why that shot is so effective. Everyone looks exactly the same for a moment until some of them get up and you know the others will never get up again. It's terrifying, random chance. The nonchalance of the survivors is also the point.

 

[hirokazu]

Reread that last post. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that you did.

I read your last post as well as your earlier post and you've already judged the film and it's adequacy in telling its story solely because it doesn't have the violence and gore you expect for it to be realistic.

You also don't seem like you pay attention to how much an R rated pic can pull down. You are talking max 500 million vs max 1 billion easy dude. You are wrong here IMO.

With Blu and DVD they will surely make more than 500m from being PG-13 alone. You can bank that. Easy peasy. 100%.

I do pay attention and it's not gonna be a $500m difference to if it were R rated. We're not talking about home video releases here. If anything, the rating is less of an issue on home video than in theatres anyway.

 

[kswiston]

The scariest scenarios in Dunkirk involved drowning. You guys are picking at maybe 15 minutes of stuff on the beach (most of which is tense build up as we wait for something to happen), when most of the film purposely focused on scenarios that we don't see much of in war films (and are PG friendly)

 

[darkwing-buck]

I think for the type of scenes and setpieces Nolan showed, pg-13 was fine considering it focused more on leaving the beach, in air, and civilians at sea.

That said if he were to show the fighting in the city then yeah, a case for the R rating would be more apparent.

 

[Despera]

The film could be the greatest of all time, and I understand Nolan's stance in regards to what aspect of war he wants to depict and how he wants to go about doing so, but the reality of the matter remains... seeing someone get blown up on screen with no signs of injury is a bit jarring.

Nothing to lose sleep over though.

 

[Psychoward]

I think for the type of scenes and setpieces Nolan showed, pg-13 was fine considering it focused more on leaving the beach, in air, and civilians at sea.

That said if he were to show the fighting in the city then yeah, a case for the R rating would be more apparent.

But they did have fighting in the city.

 

[EGM1966]

Of course you can. TBH I'd quote many classic black and white no gore war films as being more effective than most modern war films (including Saving Private Ryan / Thin Red Line /etc).

Personally I feel Kubrick's Paths of Glory is arguably the best war film thematically.

The sheer hopelessness it conveys and the extreme horror of senior officers being quite willing to effectively murder their own men to prove a point I endlessly chilling.

Then you've got the one/two of the devestating ending for the men on trial and the closing song.

Grave of the Fireflies is also light on fire yet in focusing on civilians and in particular children is absolutely devastating. I ended my first watch of the film just emotionally drained and destroyed.

Not that gore can't play a part in terms of conveying the immediate horror of violent death but it's less effective is argue than focusing on what the outcome of combat does to those involved.

Dunkirk is about the despair of thinking you might not survive and the tension of waiting to see if "you're next". It doesn't need gore or blood to convey that.

 

[Fancy Clown]

But they did have fighting in the city.

The fighting was a like a two minute sprint to the beach as gunfire goes off around the tight perspective of the protagonist. I think you see one person get shot? And it's obviously not lingered on.

 

[hirokazu]

I think that Nolan is very comfortable operating with the restrictions that PG-13 entails.
Blockbusters tend to be PG13 because of the massive investments being put into them, and Nolan is very comfortable operating within that space. However, I also think that the sole reason why virtually all his films have a PG13 rating because of creative decisions ignores the realities within the movie industry. Studios are in the business to make money and therefore seek to maximize their profits. If their investment is substantial, they expect a substantial return. PG-13 is the go to rating to maximize profits. You only have to look at the films made in the 80's / 90's and compare it to the blockbusters of today to notice the transition to the PG-13 model.

Of course, we're seeing more risks being taken, like with Fox's Deadpool and Logan. Things are changing, but I think it's going to take a while before everyone's comfortable to be on board to take more risks. Change comes with time, after all. So actually, now that I think about it, I suppose he could very well take a shot at it if he wanted to. He's proven his worth a long time ago, after all, so I think in his case, it boils down to a mix of the two. It's always more risky business, though.

I can understand that sort of thinking but people seem to then get the idea that an R rating automatically makes the film better, that a film is being creatively hampered if it's PG-13.

You can decide to make a PG-13 movie with full knowledge of its constraints, work it to your advantage and and make a compelling film of it.

But I guess this is NeoGAF, where nuance can't exist. Where everything is a binary. It's either R and full creative control or PG-13 and creatively hamstrung. There's no halfway where it can be both PG-13 and completely creative.

 

[darkwing-buck]

But they did have fighting in the city.

hehe that was like 2 min then after that it was outside of the city

Still surprised Nolan decided not to show the fighting in the city considering that would be where a traditional war movie be set in.

But props to him making something a bit outside the norm.

 

[pelicansurf]

Dunkirk was probably one of the scariest films I've ever seen. The pure terror and just overall misery those soldiers went through is mind-boggling. People complaining about gore just don't get it, I think. In almost every major "sequence" people died. They don't need to be flailing trying to keep their entrails from falling out of their stomach for it to be realistic.

 

[darkwing-buck]

Dunkirk was probably one of the scariest films I've ever seen. The pure terror and just overall misery those soldiers went through is mind-boggling. People complaining about gore just don't get it, I think. In almost every major "sequence" people died. They don't need to be flailing trying to keep their entrails from falling out of their stomach for it to be realistic.

the sound design truly made things horrifying

 

[kmax]

But I guess this is NeoGAF, where nuance can't exist. Where everything is a binary. It's either R and full creative control or PG-13 and creatively hamstrung. There's no halfway where it can be both PG-13 and completely creative.

That assertion doesn't make sense though. You can't have complete creative control and have boundaries that is going to limit it. Now, you can operate and assert your creative control within the boundaries that satisfies whatever the rating entails, but if your creative control strays outside those boundaries, it's either going to be cut down until it's deemed to be existing within those boundaries, or it's going to be slapped with a R-rating.

Those are in fact standard procedueres within the movie industry. .

 

[Psychoward]

Dunkirk was probably one of the scariest films I've ever seen. The pure terror and just overall misery those soldiers went through is mind-boggling. People complaining about gore just don't get it, I think. In almost every major "sequence" people died. They don't need to be flailing trying to keep their entrails from falling out of their stomach for it to be realistic.

You can say it was tense (it was! Especially the water scenes) but the lack of any blood and gore definitely didn't make it realistic. We didn't need saving private ryan level of it but we see people get bombed and there's no blood or disfiguration after. That's not realism.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

hehe that was like 2 min then after that it was outside of the city

Still surprised Nolan decided not to show the fighting in the city considering that would be where a traditional war movie be set in.

But props to him making something a bit outside the norm.

I think this is the problem that some people have with the movie. It's not a traditional war film in a sense of Saving Private Ryan.

 

[biggersmaller]

What is sometimes forgotten is that Saving Private Ryan was notable at the time for having so much gore in a mainstream WWII movie.

 

[wesleyshark]

This.

Spoiler

Caught in the belly of a sinking ship, in the dark, surrounded by panicked teenagers taking their last breaths.

None of that needed gore.

The image of soldiers drowning to death in a tiny, pitch-black metal box put me on edge far more than any of the dismembered limbs flying around in Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge.

Edit: Ayyyy, post above of me gets it

^^^

 

[Neith]

I read your last post as well as your earlier post and you've already judged the film and it's adequacy in telling its story solely because it doesn't have the violence and gore you expect for it to be realistic.


I do pay attention and it's not gonna be a $500m difference to if it were R rated. We're not talking about home video releases here. If anything, the rating is less of an issue on home video than in theatres anyway.

You have a hard time extricating meaning from my posts then, because that isn't what I said at all. I said it's definitely not going to be the most harrowing, realistic portrayal of WW2 with a PG13 rating. That is about all I said. And I doubt it is false.

Has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Nolan even said he is not making a combat picture. I haven't spoiled much so I did not know anything about this pic but the title.

BTW I enjoy older war films that have no realistic violence.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Film worked perfectly the way it was.