Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

ludite

Tony EH wrote: »

There's probably never more than 15 minutes spent with the majority of the actors in the film.

What kind of "character development" are you expecting.

And AGAIN...'Dunkirk' is about the event, not "characters".

Exactly, if it were fiction you would need character development. It's interesting that they didn't try to make it about the characters, it's like the opposite of Titanic

FrancieBrady

ludite wrote: »

Exactly, if it were fiction you would need character development. It's interesting that they didn't try to make it about the characters, it's like the opposite of Titanic

Of course it is fiction.

Tony EH

ludite wrote: »

Exactly, if it were fiction you would need character development. It's interesting that they didn't try to make it about the characters, it's like the opposite of Titanic

We're dropped into 'Dunkirk' and observe three different scenarios taking place over three different periods. 'Dunkirk' simply can't be about "character" as it just just wouldn't work and you'd probably just get the same usual tropes that have appeared in tons of war movies, the no-nonsense sarge, the crazy one, the average Joe, the war movie coward, and so on.

People mistake this for "character" and it's not. They're simply large touchstones to trigger audience reaction.

In any case, as said, there's pretty much nothing that can be done to elaborate on a person's character in 15 minutes of screen time, unless it's some writ large and unrealistically.

'Dunkirk' is about being thrown into the mix with people you don't know.

Much like the event itself.

FrancieBrady

Tony EH wrote: »

We're dropped into 'Dunkirk' and observe three different scenarios taking place over three different periods. 'Dunkirk' simply can't be about "character" as it just just wouldn't work and you'd probably just get the same usual tropes that have appeared in tons of war movies, the no-nonsense sarge, the crazy one, the average Joe, the war movie coward, and so on.

People mistake this for "character" and it's not. They're simply large touchstones to trigger audience reaction.

In any case, as said, there's pretty much nothing that can be done to elaborate on a person's character in 15 minutes of screen time, unless it's some writ large and unrealistically.

'Dunkirk' is about being thrown into the mix with people you don't know.

Much like the event itself.

all we got were 'tropes'

The French coward, the gung ho hero pilot, the similarly gung ho dad in the small boat, the Commnader with tears in his eyes, etc etc.

Tony EH

That's all you usually get in movies.

Quazzie

Tony EH wrote: »

We're dropped into 'Dunkirk' and observe three different scenarios taking place over three different periods. 'Dunkirk' simply can't be about "character" as it just just wouldn't work and you'd probably just get the same usual tropes that have appeared in tons of war movies, the no-nonsense sarge, the crazy one, the average Joe, the war movie coward, and so on.

People mistake this for "character" and it's not. They're simply large touchstones to trigger audience reaction.

In any case, as said, there's pretty much nothing that can be done to elaborate on a person's character in 15 minutes of screen time, unless it's some writ large and unrealistically.

'Dunkirk' is about being thrown into the mix with people you don't know.

Much like the event itself.

Why do you keep mentioning 15 minutes of screen time? If there were any characters in this movie a good plot and screenplay could've given any of these characters a lot more screen time.

Tony EH

Quazzie wrote: »

Why do you keep mentioning 15 minutes of screen time? If there were any characters in this movie a good plot and screenplay could've given any of these characters a lot more screen time.

Because there's nobody on the screen for longer than that, or thereabouts. There's just too many situations and scenarios happening to focus on building a realistic character for anybody.

It makes the criticism of "bad characters" a nonsense, when the facility isn't there within the film to make it that way.

Harry Palmr

A lot of this discussion reminds of of the way people react to 2001: A space Odyssey. Some just can't find a way in because Frank Pool and Dave Bowman are as dry as HAL appears to be and the broader events are presented in a detached observational fashion.

johnny_ultimate

Dunkirk isn’t a documentary, nor does it try to be. For all its admirable nods toward authenticity, it is ultimately first and foremost an artistic representation of the event. In doing so, it clearly offers an experience that a documentary could not possibly echo. It has the intimacy and scale only (expensive) recreations can allow for.

I mean, World War 2 footage is incredibly valuable but also extremely limited in the type of imagery and stories it can offer. It cannot get ‘in there’ in the way a dramatic film can. What sticks with me about Dunkirk (the film) is not its historical accuracy, but the rich, accomplished filmmaking.

Acosta

The Spitfire was the star of this movie. Best WW2 movie since Downfall. Pure class

Quazzie

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Dunkirk isn’t a documentary, nor does it try to be. For all its admirable nods toward authenticity, it is ultimately first and foremost an artistic representation of the event. In doing so, it clearly offers an experience that a documentary could not possibly echo. It has the intimacy and scale only (expensive) recreations can allow for.

I mean, World War 2 footage is incredibly valuable but also extremely limited in the type of imagery and stories it can offer. It cannot get ‘in there’ in the way a dramatic film can. What sticks with me about Dunkirk (the film) is not its historical accuracy, but the rich, accomplished filmmaking.

I'm assuming the use of the word intimate is with your tongue firmly paressed in to your cheek.

Heckler

I've already made my dislike of Dunkirk clear. OK I'll take it that the 400,000 soldiers were not all bunched up on the beach after seeing archive photos,

After reading a bit up on the whole thing there is still a lot lacking.

The amount killed on those beaches, all we got was a few bodies looking like they were having a lie down.

The amount of materiel left behind.

The amount of air power on both sides was woefully depicted.

The amount of boats involved.

I guess I mean the whole scale of the thing did not come across to me at all here. I'm a fan of WW2 history and while I'd heard of Dunkirk never really read up about it.

From the Nolan film (and I am a fan of Nolan) it looked like a bunch of fellas stuck on a beach got bombed a couple of times and got a boat home.

For me if a film is about depicting the event as opposed to the characters at least make the telling of the event interesting. The story of the evacuation is interesting, Nolans film wasn't.

And as others have said Nolan favourites Hardy and Murphy were wasted. Could have been played by pretty much anyone. And again I'm a fan of both Hardy and Murphy.

The score was totally OTT as well.

Tony EH

Heckler wrote: »

I've already made my dislike of Dunkirk clear. OK I'll take it that the 400,000 soldiers were not all bunched up on the beach after seeing archive photos,

After reading a bit up on the whole thing there is still a lot lacking.

The amount killed on those beaches, all we got was a few bodies looking like they were having a lie down.

How many were killed on the beaches? Actual attacks on the beach front were few in number.

The amount of materiel left behind.

We don't get to see that, but it doesn't matter really.

The amount of air power on both sides was woefully depicted.

Was actually quite minimal as both sides didn't want to commit forces in any strength and the actual dogfights that did happen took place away from the beaches. However, the worst criticism of the aerial scenes are the tactics involved. They never once match up with anything in real life.

The amount of boats involved.

They didn't do too bad with that, IMO. It didn't need to focus on a huge armada crossing the Channel and, in fact, many ships went over piecemeal, so as not to draw attention.

indioblack

Does Nolan want people to learn about Dunkirk or is this a film about people in a battle and this was during the Dunkirk evacuations?
There will be plenty of people seeing this film who know little about the events of this period during WW2.
How much more will they know after watching the film?

Heckler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Casualties

Ok I know its wiki.

What I'm getting at is despite all its jingoistic, 'Murca flag waving films like Saving Private Ryan, black hawk down and lone survivor the audience actually cared about what happened about some of the characters.

Ruiz in Black Hawk Down, the pilot and the Delta fellas who died defending him.

Jackson in SPR in the tower, Wade calling for his momma.

I didn't care a jot about these Dunkirk guys.

Obi_Wan_Kenobi

^ Nolan isn't that strong on character development, his films are more of a visual and musical feast - as well as great stories.

Liamalone

Obi_Wan_Kenobi wrote: »

^ Nolan isn't that strong on character development, his films are more of a visual and musical feast - as well as great stories.

I find his films a pile of stuff.

Quazzie

Obi_Wan_Kenobi wrote: »

^ Nolan isn't that strong on character development, his films are more of a visual and musical feast - as well as great stories.

Have you ever seen his movies? Bizarre statement. Memento, Batman trilogy, Incepetion, even Instellar, are all big on character development.

indioblack

Heckler wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Casualties

Ok I know its wiki.

What I'm getting at is despite all its jingoistic, 'Murca flag waving films like Saving Private Ryan, black hawk down and lone survivor the audience actually cared about what happened about some of the characters.

Ruiz in Black Hawk Down, the pilot and the Delta fellas who died defending him.

Jackson in SPR in the tower, Wade calling for his momma.

I didn't care a jot about these Dunkirk guys.

There's a wealth of stories around the Dunkirk story - probably too much for one film.
Orderly units, disorderly units, individuals - all making their way though the perimeter.
One observer watching a British soldier being chased though the streets of Dunkirk by French soldiers - another entering a cellar full of drunken soldiers.
Radar controlled anti-aircraft guns being wrecked prior to the gunners being evacuated - only to get a call for anti-aircraft guns in another part of the perimeter.
Fields of vehicles being wrecked.
Gordon Instone, and others, trudging wearily along the beach to evade the Germans - only to find a German tank in front of them.
Soldiers coming upon a traveling circus hit by artillery - dead and wounded animals and performers in an unreal situation.
The Germans pleased to discover a cache of £2,000,000 Sterling.
On a lighter note - the Germans found a warehouse full of British uniforms.
When the German U-Boat ace, Otto Kretcshmer, returned from a successful mission, [and he and his crew were to be given medals by an admiral], Kretcshmer thought it would be amusing to dress his crew in British uniforms for the presentation.
Unfortunately, prior to evacuating, the British had sprayed the uniforms with a light acid. After donning the uniforms the submariners body heat allowed the acid to eat away the seams and the clothes started to fall off the crew - hopefully the admiral saw the funny side!

Heckler

Exactly.

Mr Rubicon Conundrum

Didnt think much of it at all, cant see the fuss really. Brought the kids to Paddington 2 and thought it was a great film, much more enjoyment derived from it than Dunkirk for me.

bodhrandude

Well I'm a fan of sinking ship movies and Dunkirk has two pretty amazing sequences of what it would be like to be trapped in a sinking destroyer, especially the last sequence where some of the lads that escape from the sinking trawler swim to a destroyer only to discover its sinking too. The way the camera catches the boat keeling on to its side is brilliant and that panic in the dark underneath of the ship with the heads treading the roof of the ship as it fills up with water. That in some ways is as graphic as gorey bullet ridden battle field sequences. I enjoyed the movie big time.

El Duda

Mr Rubicon Conundrum wrote: »

Didnt think much of it at all, cant see the fuss really. Brought the kids to Paddington 2 and thought it was a great film, much more enjoyment derived from it than Dunkirk for me.

Dunkirk and Paddington 2 are very similar films tbf.

Tipsy McSwagger

Liamalone wrote: »

I find his films a pile of stuff.

Don't watch them then.

brevity

Mr Rubicon Conundrum wrote: »

Didnt think much of it at all, cant see the fuss really. Brought the kids to Paddington 2 and thought it was a great film, much more enjoyment derived from it than Dunkirk for me.

?

One is a movie about young men trying to survive a war, other is about a talking bear.

Are you going to compare The Thin Blue Line with Alvin and The Chipmunks?

siblers

indioblack wrote: »

There's a wealth of stories around the Dunkirk story - probably too much for one film.
Orderly units, disorderly units, individuals - all making their way though the perimeter.
One observer watching a British soldier being chased though the streets of Dunkirk by French soldiers - another entering a cellar full of drunken soldiers.
Radar controlled anti-aircraft guns being wrecked prior to the gunners being evacuated - only to get a call for anti-aircraft guns in another part of the perimeter.
Fields of vehicles being wrecked.
Gordon Instone, and others, trudging wearily along the beach to evade the Germans - only to find a German tank in front of them.
Soldiers coming upon a traveling circus hit by artillery - dead and wounded animals and performers in an unreal situation.
The Germans pleased to discover a cache of £2,000,000 Sterling.
On a lighter note - the Germans found a warehouse full of British uniforms.
When the German U-Boat ace, Otto Kretcshmer, returned from a successful mission, [and he and his crew were to be given medals by an admiral], Kretcshmer thought it would be amusing to dress his crew in British uniforms for the presentation.
Unfortunately, prior to evacuating, the British had sprayed the uniforms with a light acid. After donning the uniforms the submariners body heat allowed the acid to eat away the seams and the clothes started to fall off the crew - hopefully the admiral saw the funny side!

Did you read Dunkirk by Joshua Levinge? There were some extraordinary stories that would be great for the big screen but not for the film Nolan was making

brianregan09

Went into it expecting to hate it and was pleasantly surprised , again not much story pretty simplified but it works when your following a number of different characters to keep it simple

indioblack

siblers wrote: »

Did you read Dunkirk by Joshua Levinge? There were some extraordinary stories that would be great for the big screen but not for the film Nolan was making

I'll look out for it - thanks. I've not heard of this author - and I hasten to add I'm no WW2 buff. Over the years, [decades!], I've occasionally come across a book about the evacuation and the campaign in the west in 1940.
Much of the military tactics go over my head, so I'm more inclined to read personal accounts - at the moment I'm re-reading Fighter Pilot by Paul Richey.
I read it first over three decades ago!
My reading has given me more respect and understanding for the French in this period of the war.
Thanks for your suggestion - I'll have a search now for this book.

NIMAN

Dunkirk.

Don't really know what to say.

I was warned by someone not to waste my time watching this, they said it was absolute muck.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but it was incredibly average for me. At best a 4/10.

Its probably been said by many of the folk who don't like it, but the awful scale of things in the film ruined it for me. Everything appeared so small, so few. Handfuls of soldiers on beaches, flotillas of 6 boats arriving from England to rescue what we are told in the end was 300,000 men. Was wasn't CGI used to create a sense of enormity in this film?

Why for most of the film was the Moonstone out in the channel by itself? Where were the hundreds of other civilian boats en route to Dunkirk?

I watched the film in spite of the warning simply because of Nolan's name on it. I wish I had listened to the advice now.

buried

Its well shot but for a war movie the angle of threat is very poor. Where is the enemy? The French were portrayed more as the villains than the ones we never saw. Them lads on the beach/pier looked like they were waiting for lifts after 3 days at a rainy Electric Picnic. There was a total lack of tension IMO. I suppose its difficult to portray an entire war movie near or on the sea but yeah 4/10 would be my score too