• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan)

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
Dig,

I'm a parent too and that movie rang hollow for me. And don't get me started on the ending. I've said it before and I'll say it again, his plots are like Rube Goldberg machine. There is more care in lining up everything just so than in telling an emotionally engaging story. Obviously your mileage does vary.
 

beezo

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
372
Reaction score
6
Trophy Points
28
You can tell by its MPAA rating that this war movie was made to be awesome for 13 year-olds.
 

DominicCobb

Well-known member
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
97
Trophy Points
68
beezo said:
You can tell by its MPAA rating that this war movie was made to be awesome for 13 year-olds.

Do you honestly believe that?


...

This film is simply fantastic. See it in IMAX 70mm if you can, there's nothing else like it.

As for Nolan's characters, I think he's done great in the past. Interstellar is one of the most emotional films I've ever seen and not only am I not a parent, I have no plans of being one any time soon. Opinions vary of course. Dunkirk is very different though because Nolan has very specifically forgone character development and dialogue for pure visual storytelling. You don't care about the characters in the typical sense but you empathize with them as Nolan puts you right in their shoes and makes their experiences feel real for you.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
U
DominicCobb said:
beezo said:
You can tell by its MPAA rating that this war movie was made to be awesome for 13 year-olds.

Do you honestly believe that?


...

This film is simply fantastic. See it in IMAX 70mm if you can, there's nothing else like it.

As for Nolan's characters, I think he's done great in the past. Interstellar is one of the most emotional films I've ever seen and not only am I not a parent, I have no plans of being one any time soon. Opinions vary of course. Dunkirk is very different though because Nolan has very specifically forgone character development and dialogue for pure visual storytelling. You don't care about the characters in the typical sense but you empathize with them as Nolan puts you right in their shoes Nolan makes their experiences feel real for you.
Guy with screen name Dominic Cobb defends Nolan character development? Color me shocked.  :p
 

DominicCobb

Well-known member
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
97
Trophy Points
68
His best character!


Well, maybe the Joker...
 

beezo

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
372
Reaction score
6
Trophy Points
28
DominicCobb said:
beezo said:
You can tell by its MPAA rating that this war movie was made to be awesome for 13 year-olds.

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes.

Dunkirk is extremely well made technically with a sense of tension akin to tightening a guitar string well past its breaking point.  I saw it in IMAX (the real thing, not one of those wanna-be theaters) and the camera work - particularly in the dog-fighting sequences - are such that only the IMAX could give it the justice it deserves.

To say it's a great war movie for 13 year olds, isn't exactly a condemnation of the film.  It is great...for a 13 year old.  What does this film add to the topic of war?  Does the film say anything unique about its qualities - desperation, hopelessness, futility, patriotism, shame, glory?  Does this film add to that conversation in any meaningful way?  The PG13 rating, along with the film's lack of blood and profanity, only sanitized its premise.  In fact, the characters seem peculiarly out of harms way on account of it - in direct contradiction to the perils of men stranded on a beach while being bombed from above without recourse.

The most compelling aspect of the movie, outside of its technical work, is the screenplay's labyrinthe approach to telling the three different narratives.  This complex narrative isn't new to Nolan, who used it in Memento and Inception.   But the complex narrative in Memento wasn't just a high-wire routine.  It served a purpose insofar as it created for the audience the same feeling that Guy Pearce's character felt.  Moreover, the complex narrative in Inception mirrored the dream-within-a-dream construct of its plot.  In other words, they served a narrative purpose.

The same could not be said of Dunkirk.  There is no thematic message to which it is tied.  At best, it is a perfunctory necessity in order to tell the three stories equally throughout the screenplay, rather than having only the air sequences near the end, which is what would happen should the story be told chronologically. At worst, the complex narrative obfuscates what thematic message the film is trying to portray.  Unfortunately (or forunately?), I don't think there is a thematic message at all, so the complex narrative doesn't obfuscate anything.  In fact, without a message, the narrative complexity becomes the highlight - nay, the purpose - of this movie.  

My sense is that Nolan would have been just as happy to make a movie about anything, provided he would be able to utilize the same interlacing narrative format he used here.  I could see him making a sports movie, a natural disaster movie, or a political movie instead of the story of Dunkirk.  To be harsh, Nolan took a story about stranded soldiers on a beachhead being systemmically killed by their enemies without means by which to fight back, and made a movie about himself.

Look, Dunkirk has some magnificent craft and it should be experienced in the IMAX if at all.  It challenges viewers to hold multiple narratives in place in order to understand what is going on and when.  But this is the only thing that is challenging about the movie.  And it's a challenge a 13 year old can meet and enjoy.  And, thanks to its MPAA rating, they can!
 

DominicCobb

Well-known member
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
97
Trophy Points
68
I don't think anything about the film makes war look particularly awesome, not to a 13 year old or anyone. Surely the rating is just to reach as broad an audience as possible (both so more people will learn of the story and so of course so they can make more money).

The restraints of the rating make depicting the harrowing nature of the war more challenging and interesting. Any old movie call throw in blood and gore and say "look how bad this is!" Any old movie can have the characters yelling profanities to show how scared they are. Dunkirk puts you in the place of the soldiers, waiting on the beach, not knowing if they might get bombed, in the boats, not knowing if they might get torpedoed, in the water, not knowing if they might drown or be charred to death by burning oil. The despair is there - you don't need gruesome images for that, nor swear words. The looks on the soldiers faces are often enough. 

To say that the film doesn't add anything to the topic of war is pretty strange, honestly. This is not a typical war movie (not just in structure). This isn't about a group of men on a mission - well, it is, but the mission is simply to survive. This isn't about the glories of war or about killing Nazis. Only two characters, the pilots, even get that chance and 
one gets shot down and returns home only to be heckled, and the other runs out of fuel and ends up a POW.

We never even see any enemy soldiers, save one out of focus moment
again, when they've just captured Hardy's pilot.

At the end of the film 
it's made clear that the victory was just survival. The soldiers coming back are dismayed and ashamed, thinking they've failed. But we're reminded that sometimes surviving is enough. That's a pretty mature message for a war movie to have. Is it a message that's appropriate for all ages to hear? Absolutely. But it's a very adult message that goes against the typical ideas of rah rah war movies that glorify the heroes with the highest kill counts. Maybe it's not what you meant, but when I hear "war movie for 13 year olds," that's what I think, not something as unique and in some ways quite subversive as Dunkirk.

As for the fractured timeline, the intent there seems to be much the same as in Memento. Disorientation, just of a different sort. If we were given a straightforward third person omniscient representation of the story (as in most war films of this nature), I think it'd be harder to directly identify with the different storylines and easier to take a step back and just view the event as a whole. But in viewing each storyline separate, without the exact linear events lining up, we are allowed moments of suspense that wouldn't be there otherwise.

When it comes to thematic depth, I can assure you it is there. Perhaps it's not as complex or obvious as in his past films, or perhaps it's easy to miss because of the film's breakneck pace, but this is not a wholly shallow endeavor by any means.

As for your sense that Nolan didn't give a shit about Dunkirk and just wanted to make a movie about anything as long as it was a parallel for himself, I don't really know where this harshness is coming from but it seems misplaced. I don't think he's very secretive about his movies representing himself in some ways (most movies by most filmmakers are honestly, it's not like he's some secret narcissist, "write what you know," of course), but I don't think this film was particularly strong in those analogues, compared to others. His reasons for making the story shouldn't matter to the text of the film anyway (personally I think he wanted to make an extended suspense piece and so picked a real life story so that the stakes were baked in and immediately understood by the audience right from the start), what matters is if he treated the material with respect and did it justice. Reading an article about how a veteran of Dunkirk received the film, I'd say he did just that.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/c...utm_source=GlobalEdmonton&utm_medium=Facebook
 

Zamros

Well-known member
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
43
Just got back from a screening in glorious 70mm.

I thought it was very interesting how they didn't show a single german soldier. I don't remember hearing a single instance of the word "Nazi". It was all "The Enemy".

I can't have been the only one thinking "Chronological cut" while watching it, right?
This is another film I'd adore to see in black and white.
 

MusicEd921

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
701
Trophy Points
143
Zamros said:
I can't have been the only one thinking "Chronological cut" while watching it, right?
This is another film I'd adore to see in black and white.

100% had both of those thoughts as I was watching the film!
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
Watched 'Dunkirk' yesterday in IMAX 70mm and it was a pretty overwhelming experience. Apart from the gorgeous look, it was the sound that stood out and shocked the most.

Images/scenes that will stick in the mind...


- That first shot where the camera is slowly moving forward in time with the walking soldiers, so you are instantly feel like you are there.
- Father and Son on the Moonstone exchanging a silent look of agreement, when the son lies about his friend being dead.
- The look on Branagh's face as he accepts his death and the emotion when he is saved.
- Hardy in his Spitfire gliding along the Dunkirk shore.
- The final (almost I think) burning Spitfire at the end, like a Viking funeral. That iconic plane means so much.

Looking forward to a 2nd viewing digital viewing.
 

Zamros

Well-known member
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
43
My thoughts have cooled on this film a bit. I'm not sure if this is something I'd ever want to watch on a small screen. It's like this year's Gravity or Avatar, except without the CG or 3D.

I think the plotline with the three infantrymen could be radically trimmed down. All of them are completely devoid of personality and really only serve to give you their perspective, and to literally shoe-horn in some drama so you forget how lacking the film is emotionally.

Which makes it all the more frustrating when fine English thespians Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylancce, providing absolutely stellar performances, are sidelined for these three boring kids. That facial expression the main actor is pulling in the posters is the most emotion we ever see him display when  faced with armageddon.

I hesitate to call this kid the main charater, he's barely even a character. When the kid that dropped out of One Direction is doing a better job than something you've been training to do, I think you need to reassess your career choices.
I'd be interested to see what scenes were cut from this, and if they serve to develop any of the characters. There was more character work done in a single frame of Mark Rylance's sequence than there is in the entire beach escape sequence featuring the lead.

Tom Hardy's character was another I wish they'd developed a bit more. You've got one of the finest actors of our time flying one of the finest warplanes ever built. USE HIM.

I also agree completely with Nick Hodges from History Buffs re: the neglecting of French soldiers in the film. I'd much rather have seen a plotline about a battalion of French soldiers defending Dunkirk, knowing full well they're probably going to die, than the three british infantrymen simply trying to make it off the beach. This film literally treats their sacrifice as an after thought. This movie almost ventures into revisionism given that it's continuing the "French are cowards" narrative in most every scene involving the French.

Overall, a very good spectacle. As a piece of visual cinema, it's pretty flawless. But from the character and emotional side of things, I think it's severely lacking. I think a streamlined chronological cut or a vastly extended cut would serve this best.

Spoilers:

  • I saw the "twist" coming from a mile off."Have you noticed he hasn't said anything?" Yes Harry, it was quite obvious.
  • That bit with the oil burning on top of the water and the kid trying to hold himself under... holy shit
  • Best dog fights I've seen on film since The Battle of Britain... still not better dogfights than The Battle of Britain....
  • The kid reading Churchill's speech at the end was pure flag-waving wankery and I loved every second of it... apart from the actor delivering one of the greatest speeches of all time with as much charisma as a sack of day-old turnips. 
 

MusicEd921

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
701
Trophy Points
143
Zamros said:
I'd be interested to see what scenes were cut from this, and if they serve to develop any of the characters.  

First off, great written up of this movie @"Zamros"!  You summed up a lot of my feelings. 

Per your quote, I believe Nolan never releases deleted footage as what we are seeing is his final cut.  I could be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure we never get deleted/extended scenes from his movies.
 

TMBTM

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
16
Trophy Points
83
Dunkerque was a great time in theater.
I agree with @"Zamros" when he compares it to Gravity; in the sens that it takes the audience in the middle of the action and never stops until the end.  I loved it as an experience and as a great piece of cinema. The directing and the editing are amazing.

I also agree that something is missing to make it a perfect movie, I rated it 8 on IMDB.

I liked the fact that we don't know much about the characters because it put the audience at the same level as them. They don't know about each other, they don't have the time nor the will to talk much, so it makes sens for the overall goal of the movie.
So that's not my problem.
I think it could be that even if I loved the immersive power of the movie, I needed more real emotional scenes (I mean other than suspens or quick scares, the movie is full of those), like the story with Cillian Murphy and the boy or when the civilians arrive. You don't need lots of talking to create emotion and Nolan does it well once or twice, but it was not enough for me to rate it a 9/10.

The best war movie I've seen recently is still Hawksaw Ridge. A movie that is at the same time very "by the numbers" but very brutal and emotional. Dunkerque is more immersive and more "smart" (in the sens that it tries, with success, to break some war movie rules) but it does not make it a better movie.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
I mostly liked the movie. (My old man despised it.) I do think that while Nolan might tell others, and perhaps even himself, there was a thematic point to the nonlinear storytelling as well as serving a means of constructing a maximum-tension ride, there really wasn't. As fraught as the Dunkirk evacuation was, it seems to me (and I'm no expert on it) that despite the odds, it went pretty smoothly over the course of nearly a week. This naturally lends itself to meditative tone, such as the bravura single-shot sequence of Atonement, but not so much one of Nolan's mind-screw puzzle-plots - so he cheats, somewhat, by throwing the whole thing in a blender.

Several parts did feel pretty phony. The opening scene guy's whole squad gets wasted, each cleanly and silently dying from a single hit, and he walks it off? And the PG-13 rating absolutely does stand out at times, with practically no screams of agony, multiple one-shot deaths, and aerial bombs that kill several soldiers completely dead, but leave absolutely no one wounded or (box office receipts forbid!) bloodied. And then we have Nolan's cherished eye-rollingly stupid dialogue once again: "You can almost see it from here." "See what?" He's looking straight towards Britain, dumbass; what the f*** else would he mean? Santa's f****** North Pole?!

Also sorely apparent: Nolan's fetish-level hate for CG. Apparently 30 or so boats evacuated those 300,000 troops, but it never looked like more than 3,000 to moi.

Some choice bits from David Cox, in the Guardian:

Nolan’s film chooses to ignore tales such as that of the Medway Queen, a paddle steamer that brought home 7,000 troops in seven round trips and shot down three German planes, or the Royal Daffodil, which returned 9,500 soldiers after blocking a hole below the waterline with a mattress. Instead, we encounter just one boat, skippered by a saintly Mark Rylance, comically attired in his Sunday best.

[...]

Another flaunted absence is CGI. Scale is the essence of the Dunkirk myth. There were more than 330,000 soldiers on the beach, and 933 British vessels, naval and private, plying the waves. It is for this kind of situation that computers were invented, but according to Nolan CGI counts as giving up

So, in spite of his film’s $150m budget, the Royal Air Force seems to consist of three Spitfires, although real-life pilots flew 3,500 sorties at Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe, which Hitler made solely responsible for wiping out the beached Brits, seems able to summon up little more than a couple of Messerschmitts, three Stukas and one bomber. The Royal Navy appears to comprise just two destroyers; in fact, it deployed 39 destroyers and 309 other craft.

Women are excluded from the action by being confined to stereotypical roles, such as providing tea for the homecoming menfolk. In real life, female Auxiliary Territorial Service telephonists – who received two-thirds of a male soldier’s pay – were some of the last military personnel to leave the beach. The evacuees also included female civilians, including girls, caught up in the turmoil.

Anyhow, the movie is too gripping and skillfully made for me to dismiss it, but I'd definitely like to see a more epic, comprehensive take on the matter (with fewer brain-dead morons that think a steel tugboat cares about one more or less human sitting in its hull), one that takes us from the strategy rooms to the groups of those gross, cootie-filled women that Nolan's evidently so repelled by. (Aaron Sorkin plus Ridley Scott, maybe?) And I, too, am interested as to how a chronological cut might play. Would it look comically small-scale?

B+
 

Plissken1138

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
430
Reaction score
46
Trophy Points
38
sooo..... who's gonna fanedit Dunkirk from PG-13 to R? :p
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
I thought this was even better on the second vanilla digital watch. The week/day/hour structure is intercut so well. The wide aspect ratio works nicely too (although I felt the opening and closing shots have much less impact) and the detail in the image still shines through.

The ending is so emotional for me and the final line of the film...

...quoting Churchill's speech is perfectly directed:

"...carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old"

It sums up the theme of the movie. Survival is victory. Stay alive long enough for the USA to join in the fight against the Nazis.  The low key way it was delivered underlined how important this event became in retrospect. If that army hadn't been taken off that beach, it's probable all of Europe would be living in the Reich now.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
I noticed the back cover of the US 4K/BR pack was posted on blu-ray.com (ahead of the December release):

38209537791_000ffc01bb_o.jpg


So it's confirmed that the release (on both discs) will be in a mixed AR of 2.2:1/1.78:1. If I'm not mistaken, Dunkirk was never screened in this AR, so this yet another version for home video.

I was hoping we'd get a home release of the 4K-IMAX-digital version of 1.9:1/1.43:1 somehow but sadly not. They could have done vanilla on the blu-ray and IMAX on the 4K. That might have seriously tempted me to upgrade to 4K.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
Ugh, shifting ARs are the worst. :dodgy:

And the heck with you, WB; digital copies may absolutely be resold on eBay or elsewhere! You sell 'em, you don't own 'em! :p
 

ThrowgnCpr

awol
Staff member
Messages
15,090
Reaction score
36
Trophy Points
133
Gaith said:
Ugh, shifting ARs are the worst. :dodgy:

And the heck with you, WB; digital copies may absolutely be resold on eBay or elsewhere! You sell 'em, you don't own 'em! :p

^ Full agreement with both of these points. 

I tried selling some of my digital codes in the past, and eBay threatened to close my account. It's bullshit.
 

DominicCobb

Well-known member
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
97
Trophy Points
68
TM2YC said:
I noticed the back cover of the US 4K/BR pack was posted on blu-ray.com (ahead of the December release):

So it's confirmed that the release (on both discs) will be in a mixed AR of 2.2:1/1.78:1. If I'm not mistaken, Dunkirk was never screened in this AR, so this yet another version for home video.

I was hoping we'd get a home release of the 4K-IMAX-digital version of 1.9:1/1.43:1 somehow but sadly not. They could have done vanilla on the blu-ray and IMAX on the 4K. That might have seriously tempted me to upgrade to 4K.

It's a tricky thing. On the one hand it is essentially the digital IMAX presentation with more of the image. On the other hand it's less of the image than the 70mm IMAX which is frustrating, though I get why they always go with 1.78:1 as it's the closest recreation with a 16:9 monitor, filling up the entirety of the screen (rather that shifting to pillar boxing for IMAX shots). 

They really just need to include multiple versions-
1. Consistent AR throughout (2.20:1)
2. What they usually have (shifting 2.20/1.78:1)
3. And a legit IMAX version (1.43/2.20:1)
 
Top Bottom